A Bit of reflection brought to you by the Rude Pundit

I like to think that most of the time, I come across as an eloquent and insightful writer, but occasionally, I read something that strikes me to the core and I understand that I don't have quite the gift that others do.  The following is taken from today's posting from the Rude Pundit.  You can find his blog at http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com  I will warn you that he is extremely cruel and profane at times, but he has a point to his madness when he is doing so.  He is a liberal pundit, so if you don't like to see conservatives bashed, it's probably not the site for you.  That said, please check out the following and let me know how you react to this.  I know it struck a chord with me!

FROM THE RUDE PUNDIT:

"6/19/2006

Two Captured American Soldiers and the Implied "What If":
Chances are, maybe even by the time you read this, the two American soldiers, captured by Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, will be dead, probably in some horrible way, probably with their bodies dumped like all the horribly murdered Iraqis in the blood and gore-strewn landscape that are the markers of Iraqi liberation. The Rude Pundit can't help thinking, though, about the implied "What if" of the capture, on the field of battle, of American soldiers, prisoners of war, if you will.

What if we get pictures of the soldiers, nude, cowering, screaming in a corner, shitting themselves on the filthy floors of a makeshift cell, as their captors hold snarling dogs on leashes just out of bite range of the soldiers?

What if we learn that their captors decide that the soldiers can offer intelligence that can be of use to al-Qaeda and, in order to get that information, the captors put the nude soldiers into rooms that are heated to hellish temperatures, followed by rooms that are impossibly cold with colder water tossed onto them? What if the soldiers are made to stand for days on end? Put into stress positions that fuck up their muscles and limbs? Denied sleep? Had loud music played into their cells? Kept in isolation and fed bread and water for days, weeks on end?

What if they strap one or both of those Americans to a board and hold them underwater until their drowning reflex forces them to panic, thrash, claw desperately for air, only to be brought up to breathe and then placed underwater again? And again? Until the captors get the answers they seek?

What if those captors take the nude, sleep-deprived, shit and piss-covered, nearly drowned and dog-frightened American soldiers and handcuff them to beds with women's panties on their heads, snapping photographs and laughing, talking about publishing the photos so that everyone can see the soldiers with their panty-sniffing heads and terror-shriveled cocks, so that all of al-Qaeda can laugh at what pussies Americans can be made to seem?

What if, and, really, does it need to be said, they are made to stand, hooded, with faux electrodes attached to their nuts and fingers, told that if they don't start answering questions, well, testicles only can take so much electroshock before they just pop like squeezed grapes?

What will our government do? What could it do? Could it condemn the actions as not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Could it call the actions "torture"? Could it demand accountability? Could it demand that the soldiers be treated as POWs? Could it simply say, "Well, we don't do that shit...anymore"?

And what about the good right-wing punditry? Would Rush Limbaugh look at the photos of the nude, cowering Americans and say it looks like fraternity hazing or some such shit? Would others dismiss it as a media fabrication? Or would they just pathetically overlook everything done in our American names to Iraqis, Afghanis, and others, calling madly for the heads of the captors, not even thinking about the irony of such a statement?

It goes without saying, but, considering the times, perhaps it needs to be said: the Rude Pundit wishes none of this on Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca. He hopes they are found or released safe and sound. But he also wishes none of this on our prisoners, whether in Iraq, at Gitmo, or in secret prisons or countries of rendition where fuck-all can happen with no law, no regulation, no hope to bespeak our putative humanity."

Currently listening: Foiled By Blue October Release date: 04 April, 2006

I hate being conscious of what is happening in the political arena!

Those of you who know me have a good idea where I lean on most things, politically speaking.  Yes, I am one of those liberal democrats that the current administration is so intent on convincing you are evil.  So it will probably come as no surprise that the revived fight about gay marriage on the senate floor is completely incensing and offending me.

 I am not a homosexual, but I do have many friends that are, and even if I did not, I support their rights much like my ancestors supported rights for blacks and women.  I believe that scientifically, homosexuality is not a choice, but a state of being that you are born with.  That's my opinion.

Now, there are those out there that would defend marriage as the oldest religious institution that we have, dating back to the Garden of Eden.  In my honest opinion, there are SO many things wrong with that idea. 

First and MOST important, if marriage is a religious institution, then the government should not be debating it in any public arena, let alone the US Senate floor.  It goes back to that whole church/state separation set down many years ago.  Also, I happen to be a Christian, and was married in a church, but what about people who don't get married in a church?  My wife's sister married her husband on a mountain top, and it was presided over by a Justice of the Peace...does that mean their marriage is not legit? 

Some would also say that gay marriage is going to have a negative effect on the meaning and significance of marriage in our country.  To that I say, how can it realistically get any worse?  The percentage of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce is astronomical.  What is wrong with a few more marriages that might actually succeed.  Gay marriage does nothing to destabilize the institution.  Marriage can easily be defined as a life commitment between two people who love each other and want to spend their entire lives together.

Monogamy is monogamy.  There is no slippery slope that the Conservatives are spewing about.  The number of people who wish to practice polygamy or other CHOICES are few and far between. 

I think the most heinous part of the whole debate is using the biblical excuse.  The old testament god, who routinely destroyed cities and the entire world and used a whole fire and brimstone approach toward mankind.  Some think that god is still in charge, but those same people also read the new testament and believe in the forgiveness of sins that Jesus provided. Did Jesus preach hatemongering and discrimination?  No, he was all about inclusion, and love thy neighbor, no matter their differences.  This debate is not, and will probably never be, over.  Hell, there are still many people out there who are racist and sexist, even though women, blacks and minorities are all equal in the law's eyes. 

Thankfully, there are still a few senators who have not lost total control of their faculties.  The democrats, and a few brave republicans are opposing the amendment to impose a ban on gay marriage.  It's not a federal issue.  Get back to important things, like getting our troops out of Iraq.

Currently listening: Ganging Up on the Sun By Guster Release date: 20 June, 2006

one step forward and two steps back!

I'm sick and tired of president Bush's need to screw two things up for every one that he does properly.  Earlier this week, I regaled you with the good and bad #1.  Bush had put a suspension on deposits into the reserves, which would provide more fuel to be refined, hopefully causing a downturn in the oil futures market.  Then an hour later, he lowered environmental regulations on refineries, which may also speed up the refining process, but would serve to also further his plans of KILLING OUR PLANET!

Today, Bush gave a speech rejecting Congress' plan to review and tax the profits of the big oil conglomerates, as a stop-gap measure to try to lower fuel prices further, and also get some much-needed tax revenue.  Now there are 2 sides to this...there is (1) why he actually did it, and (2) his plans for the money that would otherwise go to the federal government..

(1) His interests and the interests of his friends in high places in the oil industry prevent him from doing anything adverse to the exorbitant profits that companies like Chevron and Exxon are taking.  Exxon just reported an 8 BILLION DOLLAR profit just in the first quarter of 2006...that's 89 million dollars that they made A DAY!!!  Just imagine getting 3.7 million dollars an hour in wages, and then you can comprehend that.

and

(2) His idea is that, instead of taking the money in tax revenue, he suggests that the large conglomerates use the profits to develop some type of alternate fuel source.  UHH...yeah right!  They're going to use their profits to create something to compete with themselves?  I don't care how much it will be worth at the time that it's perfected, they're not going to burn money on alternate fuels when they can just continue to make more money on the fuel that they're selling now.

The man has no brain in his head whatsoever.

Currently listening: Phantoms By Acceptance Release date: 26 April, 2005

Student’s Novel Faces Plagiarism Controversy

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512948

THIS PISSES ME OFF!!!

I have some HUGE issues with this story.  I saw this young girl on the Today Show this morning, apologizing for the gaffe of having similar passages in her book as established writer Megan McCafferty.  I've read the passages that were compared, and, yes, they are indeed similar.  The girl, 19 year old Kaavya Viswanathan, admits to having read the McCafferty books in high school, but that they had no conscious influence on her word choices.  Now, as much as I understand miss McCafferty's unhappiness at this seeming lack of originality, but Viswanathan has insisted that she didn't intentionally copy anything, but, unless you're James Joyce or Anthony Burgess, there are only a finite number of words in the English language, and they can only be combined in certain ways.  It is only natural that certain styles of writing that one is most familiar with will stick in the subconscious.

It has been said that if you put infinite monkeys in a room with infinite typewriters for long enough that they will eventually, through finite extraction, type Hamlet.  Now, this is much more specific than that, but Viswanathan states that she didn't even use the McCafferty novels as a reference when writing, instead, they sat on her shelf at home while she sat at Harvard, typing away.

This unfortunate incident also harbors the distinct possibility of hurting this girl's college career.  While the Harvard honor code applies in its penalties only to academic work, a certain degree of moral conduct is expected of all Harvard students.  Now, it's not my decision what happens to Kaavya Viswanathan, but it seems to me that she did nothing wrong, she's already apologized, and stated that she will make changes to the novel to remedy the similarities.

Here come the thought police, because I thought something that someone else thought during the Crusades!

Currently watching: Crash (Widescreen Edition) Release date: 06 September, 2005

See...I told you it wouldn't last long...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_15

Just when I was finished sending that last entry, I see this note come over the AP wire.  C'mon, this is pure politics.  I'm going to do something REALLY good over here, so you're going to watch this, and then over here where you're not looking I'm going to do something else that masks itself as something to complement what I just did, but in reality, it's self serving and morally wrong. 

Bush has just lowered environmental restrictions on gasoline producers, which albeit makes them able to faster produce fuel for our rabid consumerism, but also takes a big shovel and smacks the environment over the head.

Make no mistake, if Bush had his way, the beautiful arctic landscape of alaska would be plowed under to make way for Oil fields and the LARGEST Walmart the world has ever seen...seriously...it would have condos.

You take the good, you take the bad
More bad than good, and then you have
The facts of Bush!

Currently listening: Opaline By Dishwalla Release date: 23 April, 2002

Bush suspends oil reserve deposits

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_12

For the past month, gas prices have been rising at a more than steady pace, and Bush has decided that enough is enough, so, for the time being, he is suspending our deposits into the national oil reserve.  This will make more petroleum available for refinement, and should help to ease the burden that these prices have been creating on the collective American wallet.

For the record, those who know me, or who read my ramblings, will tell you that I am not a huge fan of the Bush administration, having found little that they have done properly in the past 6 years, but every once in a while, he does something that shows that he's not totally oblivious to the plight of the average american.  This is one of those moments, and I want to give him credit for it...it doesn't happen often, so I figure I have a small window of opportunity before he goes and does something else that will infuriate me.

So, before I can't say it anymore, good job, Dubya!

Currently listening: The Everglow By Mae Release date: 29 March, 2005

OH F$%.!!!!! Bush competes on penis size with Irani President

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_15

We are SO SCREWED!!! 

That being said, I don't know that there is a GOOD way to respond to Iran's president's boasting regarding his military prowess.  I guess we can assume that he just has a tiny penis.  That is, of course, unless he's reading this, in which case, I would have to say...All our infidels are hiding in Mexico...

Before I incense anymore entire countries, let me just point out that Bush is being hypocritical here...not ruling out the possibility of a nuclear strike against iran flies right in the face of his claims last week that this crisis will only solved if done diplomatically....now, Bush has the diplomacy of a steak knife, so I took that report with a grain of salt, but this newly reaffirmed belief in Nuke-You-Ler weapons as a possible course of action scares the shit out of me.  What would stop him from having one "go off course" into Iraq if he was actually given the launch codes.  We all know that Cheney gave him madlibs instead.

Ok, I'm gonna go back to my vintage cold war bunker and pray that I don't have to kiss my ass goodbye.