Wulf and Wolf

Concerning Opinions...

2009-06-08T13:22:00.000-07:00

"When will actors and singers realize that NOBODY cares what they think."

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are celebrities and people in general who - at times -end up sounding like arses because of what they think they believe, but my concern is whether or not we will get to a point in our society when we just haphazardly dismiss someone's opinion (researched or otherwise) because it either doesn't matter, or they're not experts.

When will this end up being applied to anyone who is not a credentialed expert or, according to person A, just "doesn't matter"? It comes eerily close to being able to be compared with, in my opinion, the ideas of some of the more notable world leaders who have claimed "Our country first." Which, in some cases led to "Our race first," then, "My chosen people first," and so on so forth. It's a cause for concern.

In a democracy where the right to speak your mind is a foundation, and the free flow of information and ideas is paramount, it is crucial to have everyone's opinion, stupid or lucid - every opinion should count.

It is comments where (and yes, they've the right to speak their mind) the above person apparently does not measure the worth and veracity of the original commentators statements and dismisses it - that causes me to worry.

Should not all opinions, educated or otherwise, matter? It is apparent that there will be those with the intellect to realize that some opinions, through use of critical thinking and so on, are of great value, while others will fade. Those thoughts would then be looked at and possibly expanded on. We're a society that has it's filters, so to speak. In time, such thoughtless ideas will fade.

To me, the thought of people's opinions not mattering is scary. Was it not an opinion that set the original thirteen colonies on its monumental course to it's present state?

So, in conclusion, yes, sometimes people just do not think things through; however, aside from that happening, is there really any precedent that means that their opinion does not matter?

Every opinion should matter, no matter what.

~E

My reaction to the Prop 8 decision

2009-06-01T16:55:00.000-07:00

Because it's virtually required of me.

The Supreme Court of California ruled 6–1 almost a week ago that Proposition 8 was a mere amendment and was ratified legally, and that it did not encroach upon the judicial authority and violate the separation of powers. But the Court also ruled unanimously that Proposition 8 did not apply retroactively and all same-sex couples who got married before Proposition 8's ratification must still be recognized by California.

Below, I summarize the disappointing opinion that Proposition 8 is only an amendment. After that, I give my take on the Court's ruling and its legal and moral implications.

The summary

The Court explains the test for finding whether an alteration to the California Constitution is an amendment or a revision:

In resolving the amendment/revision question, a court carefully must assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution. (p. 6)

The difference between an amendment and a revision does not hinge "on the relative importance of the measure but rather upon the measure's scope" (p. 94). The Court says a change to the constitution is a revision "only if [it] embodies a constitutional change that is so far reaching and extensive that the framers of the 1849 and 1879 Constitutions would have intended that the type of change could be proposed only by a constitutional convention" (p. 94).

According to the majority opinion, "Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases... Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion" (p. 7). Rather, it

carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. (p. 7)

In short, Proposition 8, according to the Court, is narrow in scope and does not significantly alter, let alone repeal entirely, the overall rights to privacy, due process, and equal protection that gay people and same-sex couples have. Its impact is very minor and limited. Thus, it is only an amendment.

The Court answered the charge that the people cannot use their initiative power to diminish anyone's rights, and only the revision process can do it. They said that while other state constitutions specifically restrict the people from amending certain sections or subjects, California's constitution does not. So logically, this means this restriction does not exist. "This court," they say, "would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power" (p. 11). Apparently, the fact that an alteration takes away someone's rights does not, in itself, make it a revision. In other words, all subjects are fair game, including minority rights.

The Court also addressed the similar charge in California Attorney General Jerry Brown's brief that the fundamental, "inalienable" rights in California's bill of rights cannot be abrogated by a simple majority vote — or else they're not inalienable. The Court, of course, decided Proposition 8 does not abrogate any rights. They also said the fact that the rights listed in the California Constitution are described as "inalienable" does not "signify that such rights are totally exempt from any limitation or restriction" (p. 123). This further establishes the people's broad power to amend the constitution.

My take

After letting my thoughts brew, my feelings about this case are sharply divided between what the law says and what the law ought to say. Of course, I still strongly believe same-sex couples have the right to marry just as opposite-sex couples do, and the law should recognize it. But it seems that the Court reached a fair conclusion that the law, under California's constitution, does not recognize it. The California Supreme Court's job is not to decide what is right, but rather what is legal, based on the California Constitution and the Court's own precedent. The Court explained this fact on page three of the majority opinion. Any opposition to any court ruling must clearly distinguish between the law and morality, because the two are not the same.

The Court says Proposition 8 did not "abrogate" — or in other words, does not totally repeal — the rights of gay people and same-sex couples, but simply "carved out a narrow exception" to those rights. The measure's only effect is to reserve the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples, without likewise reserving any of marriage's associated rights for opposite-sex couples. The Court's logic here appears to be that a minority's overall rights must be abrogated for such an alteration to be a revision.

I morally disagree with this legal situation. Whether or not someone's overall rights are repealed in full is too narrow-sighted a consideration. Even a minor exception to a right that's not backed up by a compelling state interest can be too great a violation of the principle of equal protection. Access to the term "marriage" is itself a fundamental right — and a significant right, as the Court admits throughout their opinion, such as on page eight — a right that same-sex couples have under the principle of equal protection. Exempting same-sex couples exempts them from equal protection.

On the other hand, one argument seems fair to me, if only in a strictly legal sense. California's constitution does not explicitly restrict the people's ability to alter rights like other state constitutions do. The Massachusetts Constitution, Article XLVIII, Part II, Section 2, and the Mississippi Constitution, Article 15, Section 273, Subsection 5, to name the two examples the Court named, restrict the people's power to amend the constitution. But since this kind of provision is missing in California's constitution, it must not exist, as the Court reasons. The people's amendment power is very broad.

Here, I think the Court reached a fair legal conclusion, but they have also illuminated a very grave flaw in California's constitution: It does not sufficiently protect people's fundamental rights from the whim of the transient majority. In fact, there's a gaping hole where this protection should exist. The initiative power is too broad. The idea that the people cannot take away fundamental rights through a mere amendment passed by a simple majority is, in California, not legally valid — but it is still morally valid.

I have not yet looked over the entire opinion. But I presume the Court relies on precedent when it argues that "inalienable" rights aren't necessarily exempt from being diminished by a simple majority vote. If the precedent suggests this, then the Court seems to be caught in a corner. Either way, it's appalling that "inalienable" rights under the California Constitution are not in fact inalienable. This further proves that the California Constitution has a gaping hole in its protection of the rights of California's citizens.

Moreno's dissent

Though I conclude that the Court's decision is fair legally, Justice Carlos Moreno's dissent makes me doubt myself. The dissent, which starts on page 151 of the document, makes a very reasonable point that "requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" and "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities" (p. 2). The dissent says that Proposition 8 "weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority" (p. 2).

The principle of equal protection, as Justice Moreno says, "is not so much a discrete constitutional right as it is a basic constitutional principle that guides all legislation and compels the will of the majority to be tempered by justice" (p. 4). He concludes that equal protection is, "by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect" (p. 4).

The fact that people debate whether same-sex couples should be able to marry, even in California where they already have access to many of the same rights that come with marriage, suggests to Justice Moreno that Proposition 8 is not simply a limited exception to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection (p. 5). He then argues that describing it as such

fails to acknowledge the significance of the discrimination it requires. But even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment that has pervaded the California Constitution since 1849. Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all. Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights. Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their " 'officially recognized, and protected family relationship' " [citation] a marriage, still denies them equal treatment. (pp. 6–7)

My ultimate feeling about Justice Moreno's dissent is that the California Constitution does not give his argument sufficient legal backing — but it should. I would like to see a constitutional amendment tailored to ratify the spirit of Justice Moreno's dissent into law.

Retroactivity

The ruling that Proposition 8 is not retroactive creates a strange, apparently contradictory legal situation. Same-sex marriage is illegal, but individual same-sex marriages are still valid.

It's similar to what existed in Iowa until April. There, a state lower court struck down Iowa's statutory ban on same-sex marriage in late August 2007, allowing same-sex couples to apply for a marriage license. But only one same-sex couple obtained their license before the decision was stayed pending an appeal. From August 2007 until April 2009, a single same-sex couple was legally married in Iowa, but no others could marry. Likewise, an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in California and remain married, but no more can get married.

Their very existence makes things sticky. They are legally married and have all the same rights and benefits other married couples do, so presumably they must have the right to divorce. But they will not be able to marry again unless their would-be spouse is of the opposite sex. Also, they stand as living examples. Opponents get to see what a marriage between two men or two women looks like, and they get to see that the sky is not falling. They also represent a key right gay and lesbian people used to have in California but have no longer. Their existence may start to change people's minds and make them decide to reinstate people's right to marry whomever they choose.

— Athelwulf

A Constitution wife is stalking me

2009-05-17T15:00:00.000-07:00

In case you, the lovely reader, were not aware, I'm on Twitter. It can be a fun site sometimes. If you have a Twitter account and would like to follow me — or if you like reading my blog posts so much that you want to create a Twitter account just so you can have me in periodic, bite-sized chunks — it's greatly appreciated. While you're at it, be sure to follow Elindelwolf too.

Now, I'm not posting this just to promote myself. Something funny happened on Twitter. First, a bit if a prelude:

You, dear reader, may or may not be aware of the Constitution Party. Superficially, it sounds like a nice party, right? The Constitution? Why, I support the Constitution! Here's a statement taken from their website, quoted in pieces:

The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution.

Yes! I'm tired of our moldy duopoly too.

Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Don't I know it.

Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits. . .

Alright! Sign me up!

. . . and our law to its Biblical foundations.

Wait, what?

That's right. They think the source of our government is the Bible, and they think our laws should more closely resemble what the Bible says. Never mind the idea that this God the Bible talks so much about gives humans a choice to follow him and abide by his laws. No sir, the Constitution Party wants to force the Christian religion on those who don't practice it. In other words, they "love liberty." And they have a conservative interpretation of the Bible too. Why does it seems like only conservatives want to do this? It's funny how people can bemoan tyranny — but in the conservatives' case, only left-wing tyranny, whether real or imagined — while they themselves wish to be tyrants.

Now that you are acquainted with the Constitution Party, here's the punchline: The Arizona Constitution Party chairman's wife is following me on Twitter. The chairman is Mark Hubler, as you can see on this page. His wife is Eileen Hubler.

Nothing on my Twitter profile suggests that I would sympathize with the Constitution Party. My short bio says, "Your favorite rural Oregon liberal." My tweets all betray my political viewpoints. My profile links to this blog, where I have posted at length on such "liberal" topics as the Iraq War, the conviction of war criminals, and LGBT rights.

But if she wants to subject herself to the truth, then I welcome her.

— Athelwulf

Update, May 25, 2:05 AM

A few days ago — I forget exactly when — Hubler stopped following me. I think a few of my tweets (such as this one) scared her off. Oh well.

Rest in peace, Dom DeLuise

2009-05-05T14:26:00.000-07:00

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Dom DeLuise, who spiced up such movies as "Blazing Saddles," "Silent Movie" and "The Cannonball Run" with his manic delivery and roly-poly persona, has died, his son's publicist told CNN.

Publicist Jay Schwartz did not disclose the cause of death, but DeLuise, 75, had been battling cancer for more than a year.

DeLuise was surrounded by family when he died in a Santa Monica, California, hospital Monday night, son Michael DeLuise told CNN affiliate KTLA-TV. (The article.)

Man, was he a funny and talented actor. May he rest in peace forever; I loved him in all the Mel Brooks movies. I mean, come on: "Treaaasure bath!!!" God, thats hilarious!

Rest in peace Mr. DeLuise, they need more actors/comedians like you.

~Elindelwolf

Congratulations, Vermont!

2009-04-07T15:52:00.000-07:00

Vermont has now joined Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriage. It is the second state whose legislature passed a bill to legalize it (after California in 2005 and 2007), and the first state in which such a bill has become law. Therefore, it is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without a court order. The vote in the House was 100–49, overriding the veto by only a hair! One less yea vote and the veto override would have failed. Sources inform me that this is only the seventh veto override out of 134 vetoes by a Vermont governor since the 1830s. Most excellent.

Marriage licenses can be obtained by same-sex couples starting September 1. Civil unions will be available until this date. Congratulations, Vermont!

Queer eyes on Vermont (and more)

2009-03-30T23:10:00.000-07:00

Please excuse the lame pun.

Unless you live under a rock, you have probably heard that on the 23rd, the Vermont State Senate passed S. 115, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont. Of 30 members, 26 voted yea. That is 86.6% yea to 13.3% nay. Since the party make-up is 23 Democrats to 7 Republicans, at least three Republicans voted yea.

The bill is now in the House, and it's expected to pass there too. With 150 members, the party make-up is 96 Democrats and 5 Progressives (101 together), 47 Republicans, and 2 independents.

But there's some potential trouble. On the 25th, Jim Douglas, Vermont's Republican governor, announced he would veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This means that, if same-sex marriage is to be legal in Vermont, both chambers of the Vermont General Assembly must override the veto with a two-thirds vote. The Senate far surpasses that requirement, but it remains to be seen how the House will vote. The pressure is on that chamber to muster 100 votes in favor of the bill.

California's legislature passed a bill in 2005, and another in 2007, to legalize same-sex marriage, but the Governator vetoed both. If Vermont's legislature can override Governor Douglas's veto, it will become the first US state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process. It will also join Massachusetts and Connecticut as one of the few states where same-sex couples are treated just like opposite-sex couples.

Meanwhile, the story also develops elsewhere in New England, but the story overall isn't very happy. On the 26th, the New Hampshire House passed a similar bill, HB 436. It initially failed 182–183, but a motion to reconsider — that is, disregard the vote and start over — was approved, and the bill passed 186–179 upon a second vote. Even if the Senate passes it, it looks like the New Hampshire General Court cannot muster enough votes to override a possible veto from Democratic Governor John Lynch, who opposes same-sex marriage. In February, the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S. 147 (PDF), a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. And in Maine, more than 60 legislators from both parties and both chambers, about a third of the entire legislative body, scrambled to be cosponsors of a similar bill, LD 1020. In fact, the rule in the Maine legislative process that restricts the number of cosponsors a bill can have was suspended to accommodate all the cosponsors. That doesn't happen often!

New England will be very interesting to watch in the coming weeks and months. Here's hoping for the best.

— Athelwulf

Update, March 31, 10:37 PM

The Vermont House Judiciary Committee voted 8–2 in favor of the same-sex marriage bill, and the bill is scheduled for debate on the House floor Thursday and Friday. The vote would have been 9–2 if a particular Republican had not been absent. Yes, you read that right. Awesome stuff.

Update, April 2, 4:42 PM

The Vermont House is debating the bill as I write. The live stream is here, courtesy of Burlington Free Press. I also have confirmation that one Republican, Patti Komline of Dorset, did not attend the Judiciary's hearing on the bill, but would have supported the motion to approve. The vote would have been 9–2, not 8–2.

Update, April 6, 3:30 PM

The Vermont House finally passed the bill on Friday 94–52. The Senate concurred with its amendments today, and the governor "promptly vetoed" the bill, as Vermont Freedom to Marry reports. The override votes will be held in the Senate, then the House, tomorrow morning. Hopefully enough nay votes in the House can be flipped. Two yeasayers from Thursday's vote to have a third reading were absent on Friday's final vote, but one that was absent on Thursday voted yea on Friday. The subtotal is 96–52. The Burlington Free Press reports that two Democrats who voted nay on the bill plan to vote in favor of the override. The reason one gave was that she "believes Gov. Jim Douglas interfered with the legislative process by declaring last week that he would veto the bill before it went through the Legislature". This makes 98–50. House Speaker Shap Smith, who abstained from Friday's vote due to institutional custom, will vote in favor of the veto. This brings it to the tentatively predicted vote of 99–50. It's so close!

Meanwhile, on Friday, a very surprising development in the Midwest: The Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling was unanimous. The author of the court's opinion is one of two justices appointed by Iowa's last Republican governor. Yes, really.

Walden: Support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

2009-03-23T22:10:00.000-07:00

This is a letter to Oregon's only Republican congressman, Greg Walden. It might be a lost cause to try to convince him on this issue, but it's still worth it to put pressure on him.

Three of Oregon's five US House members have cosponsored HR 1283. I will also write a similar letter to the fifth.

— Athelwulf

Dear Congressman Walden:

I assume you seek to represent all your constituents. If this is true, then I am sure you will vote yea on H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, when it comes to a vote. This bill repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the discriminatory law that forces gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans to serve their country in secrecy.

The United States, considered by many the land of the free, is one of very few countries whose armed forces will give a man a medal for saving another man's life, but then turn around and discharge a man for loving another man. While this policy is not an outright ban, the United States stands out as one of very few liberal democracies whose armed forces discriminate against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Countries whose military services do not discriminate include Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, and every country in the European Union except Greece, whose military bars openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people outright. Greece shares this distinction with communist China, communist Cuba, communist North Korea, and Iran.

The practical reason for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is so the military will no longer inadvertently filter out skilled individuals. Many times, I have heard of our military discharging Arabic translators under this law. As the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has reported, more than 12,500 men and women have been discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Many of them were critical specialists with uncommon skills. It is as if our greatest enemy is not al-Qaeda, but rather gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not only impractical, but also unfair. I have many good friends and some family members who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. One man, a very dear friend, served in the army in the early Seventies while closeted. Another friend was undesirably discharged for being gay. Many people like them have bravely served America, only to face a dishonorable discharge just for their desire to spend their lives with another human being whom they love, which is not a crime in this country. And many Americans want to answer the call to service, but they are deterred by their government, which shamelessly tells them to hide who they are while others do not have to adhere to the same terms. I deplore this double standard, and I hope you do too.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act will end dishonorable discharges for a crime that does not exist, thus retaining and attracting many skilled military professionals. It will also end the double standard of forcing gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers — but not straight ones — to remain silent about their sexuality. Congressmen Blumenauer, DeFazio, and Wu, as well as 123 more of your House colleagues, support this bill. I urge you to join them.

Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of 10 U.S.C. § 654, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully yours,

[valediction withheld]

"Goodbye, Colorado" - Rocky Mountain News

2009-02-27T13:06:00.000-08:00

After nearly 150 years in business, the Rocky Mountain News published its final edition Friday, the victim of a bad economy and the Internet generation.
Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple consoles staff photographer Judy DeHaas on Thursday in the newsroom.

Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple consoles staff photographer Judy DeHaas on Thursday in the newsroom.

The final front-page headline simply says: "Goodbye, Colorado."

"It is with great sadness that we say goodbye to you today. Our time chronicling the life of Denver and Colorado, the nation and the world, is over."

It's unfortunate, but somewhat inevitable that this happened. I've been reading them (online) for a number of years and always liked their stuff. They offered integrity driven accounts by their credible journalists. I wish all of them who worked there the best, and hope that the Denver Post can pick up the slack.

~Elindelwolf

Holder, America, and Cowards

2009-02-19T13:51:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: What I'm going to say/agree with is arguably provocative; deal with it. If you don't like it, then don't bother reading it. Thanks.

***

Let's face it America, for the most part, we are a nation of cowards.

How many people can you say would stick to their guns/stand up for what they believe in, even when the norm dictates otherwise? How many people parrot other individual's beliefs - failing to actually formulate their own?

A great deal of people do just that; Look at political correctness - while its intentions are noble I'm sure, what does it serve?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for being polite and having manners and all that stuff; However, with freedom of speech comes the obligation (and one could argue requirement ) to deal with others - albeit ignorant and inflammatory - statements.

It's the like the frosting on a cake for some people - you want the cake, but don't like the frosting - still, it comes with the cake.

~E

Refreshing Candor

2009-02-03T16:18:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: My remarks may seem biased, but I assure you that I have attempted to be the furthest from it that I can be.

***

I have to say that despite my disgust over Mr. Obama not catching Daschle's and other Cabinet nominees' mistakes in his vetting - to hear an authority figure, not just the President apologize...it almost sends a shiver down my spine. We had a prior administration that rarely if ever apologized for their mistakes, and went down the same tried path.

So, thank you Mr. President - your candor is refreshing, as is your taking responsibility. I hope you truly mean it.

~Elindelwolf

We tortured

2009-01-14T20:07:00.000-08:00

It's a matter of public record and not open for interpretation. This, I think, is about as official as official can be: The very federal government official who decides if any given Guantánamo Bay detainee will be tried for what he's charged for, a current senior Bush administration official, says the United States government has tortured.

Susan Crawford is the convening authority of the Guantánamo military commissions, a Robert Gates appointee. She was formerly appointed by Bush 41 to be inspector general for the Department of Defense under Cheney's tenure as its secretary. Before that, she was appointed by Reagan to be general counsel for the Department of the Army. She's not what anyone would consider a lefty dove.

The Washington Post published today Bob Woodward's interview with Crawford. In that interview, she said, "We tortured Qahtani." This Qahtani guy, for those who don't know, is Mohamed al-Kahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker," a terrorist who might have personally participated in 9/11 had he not been denied entry into the US in August 2001 by an INS inspector at Orlando International Airport.

Notice that Crawford didn't say we "enhanced-interrogation-techniqued" Kahtani. She said we tortured him. That is the very word she used, "tortured." She elaborates, "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]." Here's more from The Washington Post (emphasis added):

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Further details about what happened to Kahtani are in The Washington Post's article.

This should end all doubt that might remain that the Bush administration has tortured detainees at Guantánamo. Since this fact is clearly established, we can now correctly state that the Bush administration has committed a war crime, perhaps many instances of this war crime. One is too many, really.

As everyone hopefully knows, evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in a court of law. This means that even if you have evidence that suggests a person is responsible for a grave, despicable act against innocent Americans, if you obtained that evidence using torture, the judge cannot consider it. Period. The reason is that torture too often gets you unreliable information. And the idea that torture is simply disgustingly wrong, of course, goes without saying.

If officials in the Bush administration are using torture to gather evidence against detainees under the pretense of preventing terrorist attacks against us and prosecuting guilty parties, and evidence obtained in such a way is not legally admissible in a court of law, then it stands to reason that the Bush administration is utterly incapable of doing what it promised it would do. And I'd say that's certainly an understatement. Any claim that the Bush administration did a good job dealing with terrorism, or any variation on that claim, ought to seem obviously flawed to anyone with a modicum of reasoning skills.

The conclusion is that we should convict someone of war crimes. Anyone who authorized or enabled this treatment of Kahtani must be convicted. The interrogators should be convicted. Whoever came up with this whole program, knowingly including torture in the program, should be convicted. I want to see people punished for blundering the job of protecting us against terrorist attacks and committing such grave offenses against other human beings on my behalf in the name of security and the "war on terrorism."

Let this soak in.

Sorry Congo: Foreign aid money used for gala and mural

2008-11-18T16:32:00.000-08:00

Don't get me wrong - I love art.

It's one of my biggest passions, but 23 Million Dollars from the United Nations foreign aid fund used for the mural?!?! What an e'fing waste. What a joke.

To use that much money, which - mind you - could have gone to Rwanda, Kenya, Congo, Liberia, Botswana, Afghanistan, to name just a few. There are over 42 countries in the world that, according to the UN World Food Program, have a population where 20% or more of the population is starving. In 2006 alone, that was 87.8 million people.

Here are a few facts from Hunger International:

~923 million people across the world are hungry.

~Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds.

The rest here .

I'm so over the UN. It's time they get scrapped and/or overhauled. Lately all I've seen from their leaders is stupidity, and that's unfortunate for those who work for them and really work hard to fight hunger and such.

~Elindelwolf

Obama Wins

2008-11-04T20:10:00.000-08:00

Congrats Mr. President, you campaigned hard and came out the winner.

Now...

"Someone will have to measure the wreckage. Someone will have to walk through the ruins. Someone will have to count the cost."[1]

Convince me; prove me wrong, sir. Show me that you're not just another politician who has promised the world, but delivers nothing.

~Elindelwolf

Sources:

1) Pierce, Charles P. "The Cynic and Obama." Esquire June 2008: 1-4. 26 Oct. 2008 .

Old topic, but: The bailout was NOT socialist.

2008-10-28T17:35:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I think socialism in the American dialect of English simply means something bad that somehow involves government. But reality isn't so simple, and I must make this clear: The US government is not socialist for the way it handled the financial crisis.

Wikipedia has this to say about socialism:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. [...]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

The concept of socialism is somewhat hazy, but I think this much is true: Socialists are interested in preventing the concentration of wealth and power in small pockets of society.

Think about this bailout. Money was taken from the government's coffers, money which was given to the government by taxpayers, most of whom are lower- and middle-class. This money was taken and then given to the banks that had a shitload of money but ran into severe difficulties. I'll repeat in simple terms: Money was taken from the poor and given to the rich.

Last time I checked, taking from the poor and giving to the rich promotes greater inequality between the two groups. It concentrates the wealth and economic power into the small, rich pockets of society. True, the bailout did not accomplish this horrid feat through free-market means, but I don't think that's the critical criterion. I think that socialists don't criticize capitalism per se, but rather the negative side effect that wealth and power becomes unfairly concentrated under capitalism. Any system with the same side effect, whether economic or governmental, is surely just as bad to socialists.

The bailout wasn't capitalist, but it wasn't socialist either. The best description is that it was anti-socialist.

— Athelwulf

"It was a misstatement," says Bachmann

2008-10-22T11:38:00.000-07:00

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she regrets using the term "anti-American" while discussing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's views, a remark that could threaten her re-election bid.

Listen Mrs. Bachmann, there's no doubt about whether you made the comments or not. You can go to Youtube and find the interview with Hardball. You said it, period; now, just own up to what you said. Don't try to weasel out of it.

Whether or not you were led into a trap or not doesn't matter in my opinion. What matters is that you should never have said that. Not only that, but there is the lack of foresight on your part. Not to mention the incredible stupidity it took.

Personally I'm not insulted with her generalization and slander. Why? Well because it's typical politics as usual; There's been tons of comments made by both sides, Republicans and Democrats as well. I grew up as a child who was insulted quite often, and so such petty insults roll right off. It's obvious that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about, and was just the proverbial idiot box. My main concern is whether or not whoever wins is able to measure the damage, and fix it.

I do think it's incredibly poetic that her comment (perhaps) led to about one million dollars in being donated to her opponent over the course of a few days. From what I've seen Bachmann had a 9 point lead in the polls, but with this best case scenario of shoving both feet into your mouth and pulling them out your arse - there's a possibility that she lost a part of her lead; I was unable to find a poll pertaining to the race that was recent however.

You made a mistake Mrs. Bachmann, now own up to it, like a responsible adult.

~Elindelwolf

Holding our collective breath

2008-10-14T14:17:00.000-07:00

With the bailout only a month old, the country and the world still holds its collective breath; some are hoping, others wishing, and a few even pray that this monetary gamble will work. At times I've likened it to a stunt pulled on some Mississippi riverboat, where the maverick gambler pushes in all his chips.

I understand, as fellow blogger Athelwulf stated, that sometimes you have to suppress the forest fire before you go through and assess the damage, further clarifying how you will be preventing the catastrophe. Still, it doesn't really fix the problem in the long term.

I'm all for finding a way to stem the blood, but the bailout is not going to truly fix the issue. In my opinion congress merely slapped a band aid on a shotgun injury and called it good.

Now though, they're talking about possibly another bail out or stimulus package. Uh, folks, where is the money going to come from? If we're going to take money (i.e. "surplus")and give it to the people, and then in turn they're going to have to pay for the bail out. Well, does it seem to any of you that they really would've pulled a fast one.

I've got this analogy of a thief giving back money to the person, but in turn taking the diamond the person has in their pocket.

Time will tell.

~Elindelwolf

Aye aye aye! (Concerning Obama and Ayers)

2008-10-09T14:52:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I don't care about Obama's association with Ayers, or Wright, or anyone else that the media, Republicans, or whoever else is freaking out about.

My concern is:

Can he do the job?

As writer Charles Pierce wrote in an article in Esquire magazine,"Someone will have to measure the wreckage. Someone will have to walk through the ruins. Someone will have to count the cost."

Can he measure the wreckage? Can he walk through the ruins? Can he count the cost?

That's my concern, not some frivolous, politically crazed association with a has-been radical.

***Sources***

Hayes, Stephen F. "McCain Goes There." The Weekly Standard. 9 Aug. 2008 .

Montonaro, Domenico. "Playing to the base ." MSNBC. Oct. 2008. 9 Oct. 2008 .

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article

Oregon's congressional delegation and the bailout bills

2008-10-04T02:36:00.000-07:00

Public record now exists for the members of Congress who support various bailout plans that the majority of the American public opposes. The results are fascinating. I have paid particular attention to the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, as well as Oregon's representatives and senators.

The first item of consideration is the tally of House Vote #674 for the failed bailout bill in the House this last Monday. A majority of Democrats supported it, and a majority of Republicans opposed it, but similar and very sizable percentages of representatives from both parties voted against their own party. First, the representatives who vied in the long term for their party's presidential nomination: Both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted nay. As for Oregon's representatives, Darlene Hooley and Greg Walden cast the only aye votes. Walden is the only Republican representative from Oregon, and is my representative.

Next is the Senate's 3-to-1 passage of their own bailout plan. Slightly more Democrats voted aye, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama. John McCain joined them. Oregon's Republican senator, Gordon Smith, who is running for re-election, voted aye. Oregon's Democrat, Ron Wyden, voted nay.

Finally, the House just recently passed the Senate's bailout bill. Democrats supported it 3 to 1. Republicans opposed it only by a slim majority. Kucinich and Paul voted nay again. Hooley and Walden voted aye again, and David Wu joined them. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio were the only Oregonian representatives to consistently vote against these bailout proposals.

To recap spring's presidential candidates' votes:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), aye;
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), aye;
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), aye;
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10), nay;
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aye;
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), aye;
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX-14), nay.

And Oregon's congressional delegation:

Sen. Gordon Smith (R), aye;
Sen. Ron Wyden (D), nay;
Rep. David Wu (D-1), nay, then aye;
Rep. Greg Walden (R-2), aye;
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3), nay;
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4), nay;
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5), aye.

Hope this is useful information.

— Athelwulf

Gays in California can marry...

2008-05-15T17:31:00.000-07:00

... in 30 days!

Today, the Supreme Court of California ruled unconstitutional the state's ban against same-sex marriage. As of June 14th, if things go without a hitch, the California Republic will be the second US state, after the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to formally guarantee marital equality. I'm so proud. If a constitution guaranteed to me a right, I would want the courts to protect that right by striking down laws that deny it.

Not much more needs to be said about this fact; the CNN article speaks for itself, and I've written about the rights of same-sex couples before. Instead, I will address a common argument that judges are "legislating from the benches". If you, dear reader, believe the Supreme Court's ruling is "judicial activism", allow me to say this: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Read this excerpt from the ruling (a PDF file):

It... is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.... Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions.

The California Supreme Court doesn't exist in a bubble. It has to interpret what the California Constitution, one of the supreme laws of the California Republic, says. They ruled that to call a marriage-like legal union something other than marriage, based on whether the couple is the same sex or not, violates the Constitution of California. It wasn't their job to say, as if they were in a bubble, whether or not gay couples ought to be allowed to marry, and this is not what they did.

Judicial activism is such a load of bullshit. Notice, dear reader, that this pet criticism of the courts is only offered when the courts give a ruling that people happen not to like. I've casually observed that these people tend to be conservatives, by the way. They, like the rest of us, want a constitution to say what they believe in. But the fact is constitutions almost never do. No matter how much I believe in maximizing liberty and allowing all committed couples to marry, including same-sex ones, and no matter how much I wish the Oregon Constitution said the same thing, I'm smart enough to recognize that, in fact, it only recognizes opposite-sex marriages. I would, thus, not be mad at the Oregon Supreme Court for striking a law down allowing gays to marry. It would be their job to interpret the Oregon Constitution, and the matter would be out of their hands. The matter was out of the hands of the Supreme Court of California, regardless of whether each justice personally believed it was morally right or wrong.

So if you are going to post a comment whining about "judicial activism", don't.

— Athelwulf

Campaign wiki?: A suggestion to Steve Novick

2008-04-16T16:32:00.000-07:00

I submitted this letter to the Steve Novick for Senate campaign. It is about a novel idea that came from Pete Ashdown's race against Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) back in 2006. Ashdown's campaign maintained a wiki as a public forum where people could collaborate on policies they thought Ashdown should adopt. As I say in the email, it exemplifies the saying "democracy in action".

— Athelwulf

Dear Mr. Novick,

Recently, one of your volunteer callers contacted me, and we talked about the campaign. I told him that a while ago I emailed the campaign an amazing idea but that I didn't get a response about it. I'm sending an email about it again. I'm interested in what you think.

Back in 2006's midterm election, Pete Ashdown, a Democrat, ran against the incumbent Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. He lost, but his campaign did something I think your campaign should do: They maintained a wiki which anyone could edit. It served as a public, ongoing forum for Ashdown's potential constituents to voice their ideas. People could collaborate on public policy which they thought Ashdown's campaign should adopt. It was a way for the people to influence his platform. At the end of this email is the URL to this wiki: Ashdown kept it up even after the election.

If anything exemplifies the saying "democracy in action", a campaign wiki as a public forum is definitely it. Of course, Mr. Novick, you would have the final say on your own platform. But if this wiki is nothing else, it's the easiest way to learn Oregon's thoughts and concerns that I can think of. I know you support net neutrality, and I'm sure you recognize that netroots organization and support are essential both specifically to your campaign and generally to the democratic process itself. I think it's a good idea to build on this theme of the Internet being a priceless asset to a campaign. I strongly believe that your campaign would greatly benefit by creating a way for your potential constituents to share their ideas and influence your platform. I ask you, as a potential constituent and a strong supporter, to create a campaign wiki which will serve the same purpose Ashdown's wiki served.

Of course, even though a lot of good would come of this, there would be some slight headaches too. You will have Smith supporters attempting to sabotage the campaign and generally running amok in this forum. However, if there are enough participants, the wiki will be self-healing. Anyone, such as supporters, neutral parties, and even opponents of the campaign, can easily volunteer their time to clean up the sludge that will make its way into the forum. A wiki is easy to vandalize, but it is also easy to moderate and clean up.

Please consider implementing this idea. And if you have the time, please tell me what you think. Here is Pete Ashdown's wiki: http://peteashdown.org/wiki/

Sincerely,

[name and city withheld]

Want a more representative democracy?

2007-12-24T23:17:00.000-08:00

If we are to have a truly representative democracy, then at least two changes must be made to our current system. There are many other important changes, but I'll only focus on two.

The first change is to have all our federal primary elections on the same date nation-wide. I took a peek at how the Democratic presidential candidates are doing, and in the few news articles I found, I noticed a stupid, although expected, pattern: During the Columbus Day holiday, Hillary Clinton was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Some time shortly before that, she was in Ames, Iowa. And on the sixth of November, she was in Amana Colonies, Iowa. Barack Obama was in Muscatine, Iowa around the Thanksgiving Day holiday. And recently, if photo captions are any indication, Hillary was campaigning in New Hampshire.

They are all campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not New York, not Oklahoma, not California, not Arizona, not my home state of Oregon. Iowa has its caucus the third of January, and New Hampshire has its primary election on the eighth. With only occasional exceptions, these two events alone pretty much decide the presidential candidate for each party, so the candidates are trying to grab whatever votes they can from Iowa and New Hampshire residents.

I doubt any of the candidates have stepped foot in Oregon to campaign. No, the votes of Iowans and New Hampshirites are more important. In the meantime, we Oregonians will just have to wait to have our say in May. May! After every other state but Montana and South Dakota has already had its say. By then it won't matter what Oregonians think. Voters in Oregon will either go along with whoever is the clear winner in the rest of the nation or defiantly vote for who they truly want (I will be doing the latter) and see nothing come of it.

I find this unacceptable and disgusting. I don't want some shmuck in Iowa to decide effectively for me who the Democrat I'll be voting for in the fall will be. I see no benefit of having a couple states decide the candidates for each party effectively for everyone else. The only argument I could imagine for the current system is that Iowan and New Hampshirite voters as a whole are representative of the entire nation's voters, but that obviously can't be true. In fact, while Clinton supposedly has an easy lead in the rest of the nation, as of early October she was struggling for a lead in Iowa. Furthermore, only a fairly small number of Iowans turn out for the caucus. A small sample of citizens of only one state can't represent the entire population of the US. There's no way.

The second key change to our so-called representative deomcracy is how we elect our president. Currently, in almost all states, we really just vote for electors for the electoral college who will pledge their vote for whoever gains the plurality of votes in the state they come from. The goal is to get at least 270 electoral votes in the college. The natural impulse in this situation is to campaign in states that either have the most electoral votes or appear to be ambivalent. This means both presidential candidates will try to woo California, New York, and Texas to get their many electoral votes, as well as work hard for the lead in the small handful of swing states, especially the more populated ones which consequently have many electoral votes. They both may at least set foot in all the states, but it's clear which voters will get most of the attention.

I have a better idea. Abolish the electoral college. Let's decide our president through direct democracy. Whoever gets the plurality of the popular vote is the winner. After all, the presidential candidates are asking for the votes of Americans, not of Californians or Ohioans or Oregonians. If they want to win, they will have to work for votes from all corners of the country.

Doesn't this sound much more representative? Everyone will get to voice their opinion at the same time, without being unduly influenced by the opinions of others, and the candidates for president will work hard to appeal to everyone. I think it's a major improvement. More ought to be done, of course, but this alone would be a great start.

— Athelwulf

Oh the joy of rabbit ears

2007-11-10T22:26:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I just cannot stand rabbit ears. You know, those metal contraptions that cost anywhere from five to twelve dollars (or more for the fancy ones), and allegedly provide you with television reception that amounts to anything from your local evangelical TV station (I.e. suffering through endless TBN “good guy” televangelists fundraising.) , to - count them - four and a half channels, as is my case.

Most of the times all they amount to is your daily dose of physical exercise. Stand up, adjust, sit down, repeat as necessary. Not to mention that not always will you get even decent reception; storms, high winds, and even smoke from forest fires can impede it. The joys of rabbit ears.

On another note, I don’t know how many of you are aware of the transition in 2009 to digital television, which means pretty much the end of rabbit ears. Although I heard (via hearsay) that there will be some electronic box that convert the signal from analog to digital. Whether our lovely government, well known promise keepers of old, will actually help those folks with acquiring the boxes, remains to be seen.

Even with my late night rant on rabbit ears, I admit that I get nostalgic sometimes. I remember being a little one watching television, and on top of our television stood our set of rabbit ears. (That is, until we got cable mid-nineties.)

Night all.

~Elindelwolf

Words on party loyalty

2007-08-22T20:47:00.000-07:00

Thoughtless and uncritical nationalism, especially that practiced by the modern Republican Party, is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of, but party loyalty is certainly up there too. Just as you shouldn't invest much loyalty into your leader, who can turn on you or abuse his or her powers much too easily, neither should you invest much loyalty into a political party. You should stay true to your values, not the party that happens to share those values for the time being.

Political parties are like shoes and loaves of bread, in that while one may be much better suited for hammering a nail, you shouldn't rely on it so much that you forget to dream of one day buying a hammer instead.

It may be argued that party loyalty ensures that a party is successful, and in a way that's true. But political parties, almost invariably, are flawed tools for accomplishing what is right, just as a shoe is a flawed tool for hammering a nail. There's nothing entirely wrong with using a shoe if you don't have a hammer, and neither is it entirely wrong that rational people use the Democratic Party to get the government to do what is right. But while you're at it, don't stay loyal to your shoe: Aspire for a hammer!

I am a registered Democrat because the Democratic Party is the people's shoe and the Republican Party is the people's loaf of bread (a moldy one these days). But the Democratic Party is a shoe, not a hammer. I'm not afraid of breaking away from my fellow Democrats if the party is no longer a good option. If this conservative, Southern, pro-slavery party easily turned into a pro-peace, pro-rights party, it can just as easily turn sour again, just as the anti-slavery party did.

I say all of this in response to this article published on the site for the Wichita Eagle.

The [Kansas] state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats.

So the party that confuses the executive branch of the government with the very country itself now demands loyalty from its public officials? I wonder how Republicans would react if the Democratic Party pulled this kind of shit.

"Dissension" of the Republican Party "has allowed Democrats to peel away disaffected moderates", so the Kansas Republican Party is "attempting to strengthen the party's state organization and the loyalty committee is a way to promote unity". But I think — hope — it will accomplish just the opposite.

Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political scientist, suggested the loyalty committee could prove a "public relations disaster."

"Ironically, it smacks most of the Communist Party," Beatty said Monday. "That's the kind of public irony that most parties try to avoid -- the party of freedom telling people they have no freedom."

A comparison between the Republican Party and the communist parties of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and other countries, is surprisingly apt. Isn't it commonly thought that communists, just like war-mongering Republicans, demand loyalty to the nation's leader? Isn't it true that communist parties demand loyalty, just like the the Kansas Republican Party seems to want of its government officials? Would the Democratic Party not be criticized as a bunch of communists if it were to do this too?

Kobach said state GOP organizations in at least 15 other states have some method for stripping party leaders of their offices for disloyalty. For example, in Arkansas the state committee appoints three-member committees to investigate complaints if someone fails to perform party duties or is "working against the interests" of the GOP.

So other state Republican Parties are doing the same thing. And I wouldn't be too surprised if Democrats are doing it too. But let's not all jump off the bridge.

But the concept of a loyalty committee still makes some Republicans nervous, even if they agree party officers should not endorse or contribute to Democrats.

"It gives me pause for thought anytime someone requires a loyalty oath of anyone from any organization," said Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a group sitting in judgment of other members."

I'd like to see more people like Thornburgh. I would love it if Republicans regained their conscience.

Andy Wollen, president of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, a moderate group, mused about the GOP creating a "grand high inquisitor."

"When you hear the term loyalty committee, what runs through your mind?" he said. "Joseph McCarthy. George Orwell."

Josef Stalin and the Communist Party of China too, I'm sure.

This is all for now. Expect an in-depth blog entry about how Republicans are like communists in the future.

— Athelwulf

I am me.

2007-06-11T01:16:00.000-07:00

Inspired by a fellow blogger and their article, I decided to write one of my own, and propmtly began writing the following, enjoy.

***

I am me, what party I am matters little because I feel that all parties in-the-end are corrupt and power hungry, pointless; the only reason I am registered with a party is so that I can vote.

I am of no religion, but I do believe in a supreme being.

I don’t believe that we should be the world police as I believe that we should we should take care of ourselves (U.S.) first. The world police gig has only hurt us globally, more so than it has helped.

I believe that true tolerance is a rarity, and what is often called tolerance is merely convenient ignorance. When faced with a chance to show tolerance, most fail.

I believe in:

“Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.” ~Ben Franklin

I believe that the people know best. The government is just an extension, albeit a corrupted and seemingly chaotic one. It should be a government by the people, for the people, not lobbyists or special interest. It’s time we take our government back.

I believe the government owes its people a safety net, welfare, to help them in times of crises. I believe it should be used as an aid, and benchmarks established to get the individual(s) back on their feet so as they do not require the aid.

I believe in hard work and that opportunity should be grasped, but not at the expense of others or nature. I advocate moral corporate practices that emphasize growth, but not greed and corruption.

I support our troops, and am proud of those in my family who have served; I pray that ALL troops come home safely. I believe in treating them better, and giving them what they need to assimilate back into non-combat/civilian life. We owe it to them.

I believe that peace is the answer; I choose peace over war, and I do not agree with the war in Iraq; we have only made things worse for the most part. However, I do admit that there have been good things, and that there has been success, but the level of success is not equal or surpassing (in my opinion) the level of disarray.

I believe that terror, in any form, by any entity (government sanctioned/carried out, independent group, or such.), is wrong. However, realistically, the war on terror will never end. Terrorism is like the Hydra of mythology, when you cut off one head, another head replaces it; as long as there are multiple ideologies, and as long as hate is an existing/sufferable emotion, terror will exist.

I believe that we should grant amnesty for all illegal immigrants in the US. It is unrealistic to deport all of them. We should close our borders until such time as we are able to successfully handle its security, etc… Our immigration laws should be tough. My ancestors came to the US legally, so can they, and so should they.

I believe in a right for a woman (and man) to choose; I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe that the father should have say as well, unless it is in the case of rape, incest, or if the mothers health is in jeopardy; above all, I advocate alternatives such as adoption, condoms, abstinence, etc…

I believe that schools should be given a minimum amount of funding; just enough to run smoothly. An increase in funding should only be given if the schools meet satisfactory goals. Student achievement should be factored into whether they get funding or not.

I believe that law abiding citizens have the right to own a weapon/gun. However, as the law goes, if they commit a serious crime, they forfeit the right. I believe that better education and training is the key.

I believe in the funding of research into artificial stem cells, but not funding of the research with normal stem cells.

I believe in the equality for every individual including gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Marriage is a right,

I believe in being eco-friendly, and eco-smart; growth, progress, and advancement with keeping in mind our influence on the environment/the future; being mindful of the consequences of our actions.

I believe we owe it to our older generations to help them with retirement, especially those who have little or no retirement. Lest they end up like my mother who had saved up, but then lost everything to corruption.

I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and that it should be abolished. The notion of taking a life for having taken a life is wrong; we lower ourselves to the criminals standard, barbaric individuals. I believe in:

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

I believe that torture is a form of terrorism, and is wrong. I do not believe that the US government has condoned it, but I do believe that they should make it a hell of a lot harder for certain individuals to torture.

I believe in health care for all, or at least a better system than what we have available.

I believe that politics has lost its way; that our forefathers roll in their graves as I write this. I believe in questioning our government, in being critical of it, even if that means being against the masses. I believe in the question:

How/What will those in the future, our descendants, think of us? Great leaders, thinkers, motivators? The hurtling train of progress for our nation, for humanity?

I believe that the majority of us will be viewed as lumps; repetitive, politically-naïve, and who elect leaders who show themselves as one-trick ponies; and expect a difference.

We let ourselves be blinded by ideologies, hatred, and a myriad of other things; we are nothing more than pawns in a game. As a line in the movie Man of the Year states: “Madam…its been a mockery long before I got here.”

I believe in a government by the people, and for the people - not lobbyists or special interest groups.

I believe in competence over cronyism.

I believe in a direct-vote democracy.

I believe in what I believe in, and though I may not agree with our current president, I respect him, and even admire some of his qualities.

I love America,
I love my state,
I love my town,
I love my family and friends,
I would hate to see our country go to hell.

Act up, think; do something constructive, and save ourselves from ourselves.

Clarifying the abortion debate

2007-06-05T21:14:00.000-07:00

I recently talked to a guy who goes to my college. He was talking about the "pro-abortion crowd". I explained to him the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", but I'm not sure I got through to him.

To be pro-choice is to believe that pregnant women should be allowed to choose to abort a pregnancy without penalty if she so wishes. "Pro-abortion", a relatively common term among conservatives and other folk who are against abortion, as well as among pro-choicers who don't know better, does not mean the same thing. The term implies the belief not only that abortion should be legal, but also that it's a good thing and women should choose abortion. I don't know of one person who believes such a thing. Quite the contrary, most pro-choice people I know don't even like abortion; remember Bill Clinton's advice that abortions ought to be legal, safe, and rare.

The term "pro-abortion" is either a sly trick from the anti-abortion crowd who wishes to cloud up the debate over abortion to their advantage, or simply a result of the cloudy thinking of neoconservatives in general. I couldn't tell you which. Either way, it doesn't take into account what pro-choicers truly believe, and anyone who wishes to talk about the issue in a clear, truthful, and sensible manner should refer to the pro-choice side of the issue by its proper term.

Notice that I used the term "anti-abortion" in the last paragraph. Many people who are against abortion label themselves as "pro-life", and others accept the language. This is also either a sly trick or a result of cloudy thinking.

People who call themselves "pro-life" usually aren't. Most in the "pro-life" crowd are also in favor of capital punishment, tend to hold beliefs antithetical to social and economic justice, are against quality pre- and post-natal health care in principle, and approve of the occupation of Iraq which is killing both Iraqis and Americans every day. You cannot be pro-life when you approve of things which result in poor health, injustice, despair, and death. The proper term for these people is "anti-abortion", not "pro-life".

There are a few people who can properly call themselves pro-life, however. These people believe in the consistent life ethic. They are against abortion for most of the same reasons anti-abortion people are, and they are against euthanasia. They also happen to be against capital punishment and any warfare which results in death (and nowadays, when doesn't it result in death?). They think of life as a seamless garment. I might argue with them on a few things, but I really respect sane and consistent ethics such as theirs. People who are pro-life deserve a lot more respect than the anti-abortion crowd, for sure.

I guess to that guy at my college, I was arguing that there's a difference between the belief that people should be allowed to choose to kill without penalty and the belief that people ought to kill. Honestly, there is a difference, but certainly not one that redeems the former belief, and indeed, I would agree that the difference seems quite frivolous from this angle. However, it's an important distinction for the anti-abortion and pro-life crowds to keep in mind in the abortion debate, the debate of whether or not talk of murder is even appropriate to begin with.

Because he was being told a distinction that was frivolous to him was actually very important, he probably assumed I was telling him that the difference is redemptive. Of course, it's not. He probably also assumed that to acknowledge the difference meant he would agree that abortion is not murder. It doesn't mean that at all. Although the difference between the hypothetical right to choose to kill and the hypothetical assertion that killing ought to be done seems horribly frivolous, there is a difference — and you don't have to give up the belief that abortion is murder in order to accept that.

— Athelwulf

Did you know?

2007-06-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Did you know, that from 1908 to 1931, there was a girl who, many said, "laughed with her eyes."

An excerpt from a local newspaper states:

"According to a police communiqué, a twenty-three-year-old student fired a pistol aimed at her heart in a room of her apartment in the Bogenhausen district. The unfortunate young woman, Angela Raubel….lived on the same floor of an apartment house on Princzregentenplatz, with her uncle. Friday afternoon the owners of the apartment heard a cry, but it did not occur to them that it came from their tenant’s room. When there was no sign of life from this room in the course of the evening, the door was forced open. Angela Raubel was found lying face down on the floor, dead. Near her on the sofa was a small caliber Walter pistol. The motives for this action are not yet clear.” ~ Munchner Neueste Nachrichten (1931)

Her uncle loved her dearly, and undeniably. He sheletered her, albeit almost despot like, and made sure she had everything she needed or wanted - because he loved her.

Accounts of the uncle after the death of his half niece have said that it (her death) affected him so much, he often talked about committing suicide. He secluded himself totally, moved from the apartment, and was extremely close to quitting his career in politics, and ending what he called, "his mission."

This single event, catapulted the uncled into, many thought, a new direction. Over time, he grew distant and cold. Eventually her rose higher and higher in the party he belonged to, ultimately being the supreme leader of it, changing history, and millions of lives.

You know who the uncle was?

It was none other, than Adolf Heidler, also known as Adolf Hitler.

Mr. President

2007-05-31T20:53:00.000-07:00

House Resolution 2207, it’s purpose was: “[to make) …supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.” Source

Essentially, it would provide financial assistance to agricultural and other areas that need emergency assistance (financially), including education/libraries.

Fifteen (rural) Oregon counties have relied on federal funding to compensate them for the last six years because of the lack of income in taxes (think: rural); Firefighting, j$ails, schools, libraries will all be, or have already, closed unless something changes soon.

These counties are rural, with vast amounts of forest and lack enough money from property taxes to pay for local services. They used to get their funding from the sales of timber on federal lands, then that nearly stopped because of environmental concern, not human concern.

The president, when he vetoed it, stated: “…the funding is not offset and does not meet any reasonable definition of emergency.”

It doesn’t meet any definition of emergency?

Pardon my language, but WTF!?

Let me state this again: Schools, Jails, Libraries, etc…Closing. Not an emergency?

I admit, there is blame to be placed on the counties for possible/probable fiscal mismanagement, but, that does not mean that the government should leave these counties high and dry.

Mr. President, you are an idiot.

Rates going postal

2007-05-20T21:52:00.000-07:00

Want to send a letter?

It had better not be too bulky, or else you could get charged more.

From CNN.com:

The postal rate increase that kicks in Monday is shaping up to be a big headache for many businesses.

Many companies say they are confused and frustrated as they try to adjust to the new rules, and some say mailings could be severely curtailed due to higher postage costs.

The new regulations mean larger envelopes and packages will automatically cost more than smaller mail. Currently, postage is determined by weight, unless it's an especially large or odd-shaped package that warrants special handling.

Will we see price hikes in the future?

Perhaps, but while I was discussing this with a friend, he offered a few possible alternatives to what he called 'terminal overpricing.'

--> A network of volunteer men and women who transport the letters, and/or packages via bicycles or other means. (Example: Pony Express)

--> Utilize FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc... for your needs.

--> Instead of writing letters, write emails.

Also, here is an interesting table showing US postal rates and increases.

This, along with gas prices going up just might make more than a few folks go postal.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Rant: Our Congress Sucks

2007-05-11T08:13:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers,

I'm sitting here, in Indianapolis, visiting a fellow blogger (neverendingcalamity), and listening to CSPAN and our dear ol' U.S Senate.

You know what i see?

I see six (6) individuals inside the senate, no more.

Why is it that we hear all sorts of (so called) good news about our elected leaders on the news, but yet they fall short.

Is it money? The power? The benefits?

Who knows...

I really believe that the (nearly) empty senate epitomizes our elected leaders: Full of promise when they're campaigning, but all fluff and little or no work when it comes down to the problems our nation has. Frankly, the almost zombie like attention on Iraq disgusts me.

What about:

Social security, Education, Lack of funding to cities/counties, Money for libraries being short (can we say: possible birth of an ignorant society?), national debt, human rights (Sudan, China, etc...), Health Care, Katrina/New Orleans, unemployment, the continuing erosion of the middle class?

Ring a bell?

Guess not.

How about mismanagement? Incompetance? Cronism? Libraries closing?

Like horses with blinders on, our politicians have one thing in sight it seems, reelection.

"If we cannot trust our elected leaders to take care of our interests, and preserve our nation, then we must do it." ~Unknown

~Elindelwolf

Letter from Greg Walden, annotated

2007-04-27T20:13:00.001-07:00

I finally got a response to the letter I wrote to Greg Walden in January after a local protest against the troop escalation in Iraq. I basically told him that he should support a withdrawal date instead of a troop escalation. It's quite timely that he would respond to me right now, while Congress is talking about withdrawal.

Below, chunk by chunk, I have typed out the letter, verbatim, and my annotations:

Dear Patrick:

First, let me apologize for my late response and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the Iraq War with me. Every week I receive hundreds of letters, faxes, e-mails, and calls, and while sometimes I can't respond to them immediately, I want you to know that I value your comments and those of other Oregonians.

This much is understandable. Members of Congress are busy people.

Like most Americans, I look forward to the day when our brave men and women in uniform can return home.

Well, you say you do...

However, that return cannot occur without regard for the situation on the ground in Iraq or the needs of our commanders in the field. It is clear, however, that the Iraqis must be held accountable to do their part to secure their country and help stem the violence. We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves.

We can't secure the country for the Iraqis unless they want to do it for themselves, you say. So why are we there in the first place? Are we shooting them until they feel compelled to sing Kumbaya?

It is also important to encourage more regional diplomatic efforts to help stop the flow of insurgents, weapons and explosive devices which fuel much of the violence in Iraq.

Where was this diplomacy before the insurgents, weapons, and explosive devices, and before the violence? Where was this diplomacy before we occupied Iraq? If you really cared about diplomacy, you would've spoken up earlier, when the time was prime for diplomacy.

Recently, Congress considered legislation that would provide the support and equipment that our troops need to continue their efforts. Both the House and Senate bills also contained language which set arbitrary withdrawal dates.

It's so terribly easy to say these withdrawal dates are "arbitrary." But one must wonder if you really believe that.

While our goal should be to finish the job so the troops can come home, I could not support setting an arbitrary date that ignores whatever the realities on the ground may be at the time.

Well gee, those "realities on the ground" wouldn't be so if we didn't go into Iraq in the first place.

I would note that even major newspapers, including the USA Today and the Washington Post, have strongly editorialized against the language. The Oregonian also dismissed the mandatory, but arbitrary, troop-withdrawal deadline, calling it "a great favor to the insurgents, terrorists and political opponents in Iraq to announce precisely when American troops would leave."

Your party's favorite rhetoric: We'd be aiding the terrorists if we withdrew.

Sadly for you, Iraq and the terrorists that attacked us in 2001 had nothing to do with each other. And if they do now, it's only because the president, you, and the rest of the Republican members of the Congresses in session since 2001 have been giving the Iraqis a reason to sympathize with the terrorists' cause, have effectively been giving the terrorists a support base in Iraq.

Sadly, sir, it is your party, not the Democratic Party, that is doing a favor for the miscellaneous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The Washington Post editorial board stated the "House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates."

Funny. I was under the impression that the experts of the Iraq Study Group recommended a phased withdrawal. That silly bipartisan study group! Right?

Also, I thought the media was liberal. However could that damn liberal media have let conservative editorials slip by their grimy hands?

It would be nice if you gave me more information, such as in which issues these papers published these remarks, and whether they came from letters to the editors or from the editors themselves like you said about the Washington Post. That makes a huge difference. But maybe you didn't think I wanted to be overwhelmed with such irrelevant details. Or something.

While we work to help the Iraq [sic] government separate the fighting factions in Iraq and resolve other domestic political issues, America must listen more carefully to what the leaders of the Arab world are telling us will work.

Yes, we must. Why are we not doing that already?

We've never needed thoughtful and effective diplomacy more than now, [...]

Is that why our government never bothered to even try diplomacy before?

[...] and I will continue to advocate for that.

You advocated for diplomacy in the first place?

Meanwhile, I hear your concerns and appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. Thank you again for contacting me.

No problem.

It's an honor to represent you in the U.S. Congress.

The feeling is not mutual.

Best regards,
[signature]
GREG WALDEN
Member of Congress

I will write a response letter soon, which will cover the points I made above. Until then.

— Athelwulf

Did you know?

2007-04-17T21:47:00.000-07:00

Did you know?

Yes, the Virginia Tech tragedy was/is undeniably tragic, however, did you know that it was not, as some news agencies may tell you, the worst school tragedy/massacre in U.S. history?

Indeed, on May 18th, 1927, a Mr. Andrew Kehoe carried out the deadliest school tragedy in U.S. history.

…killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, and killing and injuring several others.

Why did Mr. Kehoe do this?

It is believed that he committed this act because he blamed a tax levy for his family’s financial misfortune, when it could have been caused by:

~His wife, Nellie Kehoe’s numerous hospital visits due to tuberculosis.

~His lack of aptitude in farming, which his neighbors attest to:

"He never farmed it as other farmers do and he tried to do everything with his tractor. He was in the height of his glory when fixing machinery or tinkering. He was always trying new methods in his work, for instance, hitching two mowers behind his tractor. This method at different times did not work and he would just leave the hay standing. He also put four sections of drag and two rollers at once behind his tractor. He spent so much time tinkering that he didn't prosper."

~In the end, forty-five people (mostly children) died because of this man’s act.

~Now you know the facts.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Virginia Tech tragedy: We are all Hokies

2007-04-17T21:35:00.000-07:00

As many now know, a lone gunman, now identified as, Cho Seung-Hui, went on a rampage on the Virginia Tech campus, in Blacksburg, Virginia. He shot and killed 32 people, and injuring many others; as one student stated:

“He just stepped within five feet of the door and just started firing."

I offer my thoughts and prayers to all of the friends and family of those lost, injured, and those who attend the school as well as to the family and friends of the shooter, as they will indeed have a long and rocky road ahead; Also, while what he did was very, very wrong, I send him my prayers. According to what i have read from various sources (News, and other), this student was deeply troubled, and was in need of serious psychiatric help. I hope, and pray that he's found some peace.

Secondly, while I do not own a firearm of any type, I was raised around them; I was trained in how to handle them, use them, and as well as being educated concerning them. I hope that all realize that this incident does not mean that every individual that owns a firearm will be going on a shooting rampage; that firearms, in the right hands, are not bad.

Finally, I hope and pray that this incident encourages each and every one of you to spend more time with your family and friends, for each second could be your last; I hope that each of you reach out and help those around you; your neighbor, paper boy, teacher, or friends, times like these emphasize the need for more people to help others.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you all.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Rest in peace, Kurt

2007-04-11T23:00:00.000-07:00

American literary idol Kurt Vonnegut, best known for such classic novels as "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "Cat's Cradle," died on Tuesday night in Manhattan at age 84, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
(Source: Reuters.)

I noticed this article by chance while looking at articles on Reuters just as it was posted. I gasped when I saw it. I couldn't believe it.

Kurt Vonnegut was a great writer, and a very smart man. I only read one book of his, The Sirens of Titan, but I just loved it. I whole-heartedly think he was one of the greats. I've also looked at quotes of his, and I really appreciate and value his view of people, government, and the universe.

With most other famous people, I briefly acknowledge their death, and almost immediately move on. I think this man's death will linger with me for a bit. It really hit me. Plain and simple. I feel a genuine loss. The world has lost a smart man and a great mind. We still have his works, thankfully, but it just won't be the same without him.

I'm not sure what to say, except: Rest in peace, Kurt. We'll miss you.

I'm an anti-anti-intellectualist

2007-03-24T21:11:00.000-07:00

Anti-intellectualism is very pervasive in American politics, much more so than I had previously thought.

I recently checked out from the library The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, a journalist who specializes in the relation of science and politics. In this book, Mooney tells the history of the Republican ideologues' attempt to win support for their ideologies by distorting science and misrepresenting facts — substituting sound science with junk science — and then accusing other people of doing this, usually liberals and Democrats. While political groups on the left have distorted science for their own causes before, and while it is healthy to suspect that most politicians distort the facts to some minor extent, the left is almost never as guilty as the right.

This flagrant disregard for science is extremely worrying to me as a man who greatly values the scientific method for its ability to refine our understanding of the universe. The fact that they're succeeding is terrifying to me as a man who values knowledge, intelligence, and critical thinking.

The fronts in the war on science are manifold: There are those who want to confuse the public on whether or not cigarettes and second-hand smoke are harmful, even though many, many habitual smokers die of cancer in the respiratory system. There are many who wish to disparage environmentalism, the movement to literally save the world, by claiming that environmentalists are overreacting over trivial things, even though the facts show they're anything but trivial. And there are many who, for ideological reasons, wish to convince people that evolution has little or no supporting evidence, even though it has mountains of it.

I wish it were more obvious to people that anti-intellectualism is irrational to its core. Think about the common claims made by these people: Universities, well-respected institutions of learning, are propagating left-wing ideology; scientists, largely impartial in their quest for knowledge, are a bunch of liberals with an agenda to brainwash the public; intellectuals, who exercise their mind and think critically, are prone to ideologue.

It all rests on the ideas that smart people are stupid, ignorant people are smart, and that people who aren't experts, are experts. The scientists who have dispassionately discovered and studied the facts don't know what they're talking about, while the common taxi driver or barber with only a high-school diploma — if even that — is perfectly qualified to say exactly what's fact and what's speculation. A person with a Ph.D. makes too many mistakes to count, but the average Joe off the street is practically infallible.

I hope that you, the reader, see how irrational this way of thinking is. And I wish it were more obvious to more people. But sadly, it's not. And this is very troubling.

It's one thing to promote a policy when the facts indicate the policy is unwise. It's another thing entirely to deliberately win support for your side by distorting the facts. It is intellectually dishonest and morally deplorable to do this.

As far as science is concerned, there is no shame in acknowledging our negative impact on the environment but declaring we should do nothing for economic reasons; this much is for economists and politicians to debate. It is very shameful to magnify uncertainty, and to declare that the facts are wrong and that any impact we have is negligible, in order to make your side look better.

Science is not politics. Facts and evidence are not matters of opinion. Scientific consensus does not indicate a political agenda. Scientists may make mistakes — they are human — but the scientific method is a remarkably effective safeguard against the spread of mistaken knowledge among the scientific community. There is room for honest criticism in the scientific community, but no room for Lysenkoism.

I do realize there are people who have simply been misinformed and are not aware of what the facts really are. One cannot blame them; when science is politicized, it often confuses people. It does annoy me to see people confuse fact with speculation and conclude that evolution is "only a theory", or that global warming is "junk science". And I'm sure it annoys many other people too. But we should try to recognize who's deliberately distorting science and who's been victimized by such.

I seriously hope that, in the end, science and intellect will triumph, and that no politician will ever again represent scientific facts as political conjecture.

Further reading:

Wikipedia: Evidence of evolution.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.

Wikipedia: Causes of global warming.

Wikipedia: External links concerning global warming.

Rest in peace, miserable failure

2007-02-23T02:25:00.000-08:00

Source.

Up until late last month, you could search for "miserable failure" on Google and turn up the White House's official page on Bush as the first result. This is thanks to a practice called Google bombing.

But now the bomb's a dud.

The New York Times reported on the 29th of last month:

Now a favored online tactic to mock the president — altering the Google search engine so the words “miserable failure” lead to President Bush’s home page at the White House — has been neutralized.

Google announced on Thursday on its official blog that “by improving our analysis of the link structure of the Web” such mischief would instead “typically return commentary, discussions, and articles” about the tactic itself.

Indeed, a search on Saturday of “miserable failure” on Google leads to a now-outdated BBC News article from 2003 about the “miserable failure” search, rather than the previous first result, President Bush’s portal at whitehouse.gov/president.

Well, it was fun while it lasted, I suppose.

But one thing I don't understand is what Matt Cutts, the head of Google's Webspam team, said about the matter:

Over time, we’ve seen more people assume that they are Google’s opinion, or that Google has hand-coded the results for these Google-bombed queries. That’s not true, and it seemed like it was worth trying to correct that misperception.

What? Why would people think such a thing? That makes as much sense as claiming that the media has an overt liberal bias. But then, a lot of people seem to believe it does, so who knows.

Another thing I don't understand is this:

Despite the changes by Google, some other Google bombs are still operative. A search for “French military victories” still produces a first result that says, “Your search — French military victories — did not match any documents.” Click there and your find a mockup of a Google search page asking the question “Did you mean: French military defeats.”

So not only did they accommodate themselves for people who don't take the time to think things through, but they also were inconsistent in neutralizing Google bombs?

George Johnston, the organizer of the "miserable failure" bomb, said that he:

considered Google’s decision politically motivated, even if was not done by hand, and noted that the company had agreed to censor results in China. “I believe them that they tweaked the algorithm, but it is such weasel words,” he said. “The fact that some Google bombs still work makes me think they have a blacklist essentially of ways of tweaking results.”

He hasn’t given up the fight, he said, and remains unhappy with Google’s tweak. “They say they fixed it. I think they broke it,” he said.

I can see his point of view. However, I think I'll personally be able to live without this particular Google bomb. Google's efforts may have been at best annoyingly haphazard, but right now there are more important things to worry about.

New Jersey gays can now civil unionate

2007-02-19T13:33:00.000-08:00

As of today, New Jersey is the third US state to permit same-sex civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All civil unions and marriages between homosexual couples obtained in other states or nations are now eligible for recognition as civil unions, and civil union licenses are granted to them automatically. New Jersey state Senator Loretta Weinberg, a prime sponsor of the law, calls this a "big, giant step forward".

I call it a punch in the face.

Wanna know why?

It reinforces some negative ideas concerning same-sex couples and marriage. It reinforces the idea that gay people are somehow different from straight people, that the love between two men or two women is somehow different, that the union between them is somehow undeserving of being called a marriage. They have the same rights and responsibilities, but it's not called a marriage; it's called a civil union. They can't get married, but they can get civil unioned-- united, unionized, whatever the fuck the word might be.

It's precisely the sort of injustice we did away with for blacks and other minorities about forty years ago, which we called "separate but equal". We did away with it because we had realized — but have since forgotten, apparently — that separate is not equal.

Imagine a woman wants to go to a university and earn a diploma, but they refuse her one after she goes through all the required coursework and earns the necessary marks. The reason? Diplomas are for men. Why? Because traditionally, only men are educated.

Understandably, women would fight to have their education recognized as being the same as men's.

Now imagine that a man and a woman both go to a university and enroll in the same course program. They take the same courses, they get the same grades, and in the end the man receives a diploma for his hard work, while the woman receives a certificate, which is now equivalent to a diploma and which women can now receive. Both the diploma and the certificate mean the same thing and have the same benefits, but the woman cannot receive a diploma because it's only for men. Instead she's given a certificate.

Why? If they both mean the same thing, then why does the woman only deserve a certificate? What's so different about her? What's so inferior about her? Why should you have a penis and testicles to get a diploma? What about the fact that she has breasts and a vagina makes her unworthy of a diploma?

If both civil unions and marriages mean the same thing, why do gays only get to civil unionate, unionize, unionify? Why should the fact that both people in the couple have a penis, or both have a vagina, have any bearing on whether or not they receive a marriage license, on whether or not they are worthy of one?

Some supporters of same-sex civil unions mean well. They see it as one step closer to marital equality. They're happy that New Jersey homosexuals can now have their love recognized by the government in some way. And I can see and understand their train of thought.

But I wonder if they realize what this implies to the American people. To them, seeing gay couples being told they can have all the benefits of marriage but can't have their union called a marriage reinforces the widespread meme that gay people are inferior to straight people. Of course, because it's so subtle, the American people don't realize this, nor do they realize that this is effectively a step backwards, not forwards.

I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize what this means to the people who don't support marital equality. To them, simply having the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy should be good enough for gays. To them, if gays keep asking for the ability to marry, then they're being ungrateful pricks. Just like they would consider the women who continue to push for diplomas for both sexes a bunch of ungrateful broads.

I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize this is a punch in the faces of homosexuals everywhere, plain and simple.

— Athelwulf

The ongoing erosion of the freedom of speech

2007-02-15T21:05:00.000-08:00

Now, I am not homophobic; I have a few friends, several of them very close and dear to me, who are gay or lesbian, and I get along with them just fine. I am writing about this bit, because the freedom of opinion (freedom as a whole) is very near to my heart. I am a strong advocate to it. (Hence, this and my personal blog.)

***

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. ~Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

It seems that NBA star Tim Hardaway , is wrong in his opinion.

He said (In response to a question concerning 'what if' there was a fellow player who was gay),

"First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team...And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that is right. I don't think he should be in the locker room while we are in the locker room."

Now, don't get me wrong, I disagree with Mr. Hardaway's comments.

However, are we to live in a society where we (the people of this society) cannot stand/tolerate opinions that are not "politically correct," and differ from mainstream opinion?

Okay, So he doesn't like gays, so what? It's his opinion, and he has the right to express it. (See: 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights. )

These same people who bash mr. Hardaway for being intolerant, are themselves being intolerant - of mr. Hardaway's opinion/belief.

I can bet you that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States of America, who share his sentiments, albeit most are forced into silence by our societal/national set of "right and wrong."

For years, we as a society have drifted further and further into the grasps of the monster called Political Correctness.

What next, we rid our nation of the freedom of thought, and shackle ourselves to a collective mind? Will we bind ourselves to what is inoffensive?(Said with absolute sarcasm, albeit being serious.) Is there no room for dissention?

Wait, lets not stop there, why not

Again I state the following: Are we to live in a PC "police state," held together by fear of being labelled as hateful, intolerant, etc...?

"To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive. " ~Rober Louis Stevenson

Personally, I say no, and while I respect all opinions, as Voltaire said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Time and tide will tell whether we drift towards true, strong freedom of opinion/expression, or an egg shell.

MLK, Jr. and the right

2007-01-22T01:54:00.001-08:00

There are people who are attempting to lay claim to the King legacy, saying it's an integral thread in the neoconservative fabric.

Dr. King must be rolling over in his grave.

David Neiwert, a freelance writer in Seattle, wrote on his blog an interesting entry concerning the right-as-in-wing wing's attempt to claim Dr. King as one of their own, and how it's just utter bullshit. These neocons are taking a good man and his good legacy and defacing them by trying to glue them to their own radical ideology in order to make it look better than it really is. It's a prime example of the sort of dirty tricks these revisionist historians will use.

This is a necessary trick if you want people to buy your faulty goods: Make it seem much better than it actually is. Salespeople do this expertly. To get you to buy their shit, they will either supplement their efforts with such Orwellian language as "previously owned", or just outright lie to you, or both. It's necessary to bend, revise, rewrite, or ignore reality to be neoconservative and have no qualms about it, which is one reason I dislike it so.

Dr. King was not among the people of faith who made enemies out of love and companionship; rather, he was among the people of faith who loved their fellow human beings. These people took the good aspects of their respective religions to heart in their quest to make sure that liberty, equality, and justice reigned. These people weren't stone-hearted (re)visionaries. They didn't portray people who were different from them as friends of the Devil and bedevil their pursuit of happiness. Rather, they embraced and accepted them as the human beings they were.

Sorry neocons, but Dr. King was a member of the Religious Left, not the Right.

— Athelwulf

Rosie vs. Donald

2007-01-20T15:31:00.000-08:00

Child 1: I don't like what you did, and you're fat!
Child 2: You're ugly!
Child 1: Am not!
Child 2: Are too! And you stink! (Giggles in enjoyment)
Child 1: I'm telling the teacher!
Child 3 (to Child 1): You're mean!

***

I'm sure that by now you dear readers have been subject to the seemingly relentless debacle known as the Rosie-Donald war, care of our very own much loved mainstream media. Like rabid dogs foaming at the mouth, they attacked the scuffle of egos, and lit the kindling that became the wildfire.

Some believe it all started with Rosie O'Donnell's now infamous criticism of the news conference that Donald Trump gave concerning estranged Miss USA, Tara Conner, and his decision that she would keep her title; O'Donnell called it "a publicity stunt."

Then came the storm — the volleys of bitter words back and forth.

Now they have forced dear ol' Barbara Walters into having to choose sides. Notwithstanding the immature actions by both individuals, Walters has joined O'Donnell's side, and called Trump a "poor, pathetic man." Will there be a Walters-Trump debacle now? (God I hope not.)

Do any others wish to choose sides?

Is it just me, or has the entire feud become pointless? The continuous ego inflation by one, followed by the needle from the other.

I find both to be at fault: Both have fanned the flames with insults, have let their egos take control, didn't know when to shut up, and seemingly were enjoying it all. Seriously, in my opinion, if these two individuals had any ounce of maturity, they would have ceased, and there would have been a good chance that this farce would have ended before it even started.

O'Donnell, Trump, please, for the sake of sanity and the American people as a whole, would you please stop and take a second to do one tiny, miniscule thing that just might (hopefully) solve this fiasco?

Grow up, you two.

Have a good day.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Our blogging resolutions

2006-12-31T21:30:00.000-08:00

We have two resolutions:

We resolve to make at least seven blog entries per month, as we have done successfully in October, and almost successfully in November. It is essential to the blog's survival that there be new blog entries for readers to read.

We also resolve to try to diversify our subjects. Lately they've mostly been about politics, and while politics may be very interesting to people, other subjects are too.

We will work to meet these resolutions. In the meantime, enjoy the year 2007!

— Athelwulf and Elindelwolf

Dingell's Holiday Jingle

2006-12-26T00:45:00.000-08:00

(Source.)

I was planning on posting this before the end of Christmas, but I forgot it. Oh well, it's still Christmas in Alaska and Hawaii right now! Enjoy the poem John Dingell read on the House floor on Wednesday, the 15^th of December, 2005, concerning the "war on Christmas". And Happy Holidays!

— Athelwulf

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House
No bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse;
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon would be near;
Katrina kids were nestled all snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads;
In Iraq our soldiers needed supplies and a plan,
Plus nuclear weapons were being built in Iran;
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell;
Americans feared we were on a fast track to... well...
Wait--- we need a distraction--- something divisive and wily;
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly
We can pretend that Christmas is under attack
Hold a vote to save it--- then pat ourselves on the back;
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger!
This time of year we see Christmas every where we go,
From churches, to homes, to schools, and yes... even Costco;
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy,
When this is the season to unite us with joy
At Christmas time we're taught to unite,
We don't need a made-up reason to fight
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter, and those right wing blogs;
You should just sit back, relax... have a few egg nogs!
'Tis the holiday season: enjoy it a pinch
With all our real problems, do we honestly need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues I say with delight,
A merry Christmas to all,
and to Bill O'Reilly... Happy Holidays.

Global warming: Science politicized

2006-12-09T21:46:00.000-08:00

It's scary to think about the war on science, one of the many wars the radical right wing is waging.

Over a month ago, I was visiting my aunt, who lives in the Portland metro area. She had recently bought a copy of An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. I had heard about the book and the movie, and when I saw it sitting on her coffee table, I decided to look through it. It's a very accessible book; it's filled with graphs, pictures, and data that greatly help the reader understand the message. One can learn a lot just by looking through it casually.

I must admit that in the past I hadn't really understood global warming. I knew the basic premise that certain gases, called greenhouse gases, are being pumped into the atmosphere by humans, and as a consequence the world was warming up. But up until recently, I hadn't thought about it much, and when I did, I usually thought about it skeptically. I knew that some argued that the world is not getting any warmer than it has been in recent geological history, and that this warming trend was completely natural and normal. I favored this view because I thought global warming wasn't a certainty among the scientific community.

Browsing through An Inconvenient Truth changed this. To quote page 261:

There is a misconception that the scientific community is in a state of disagreement about whether global warming is real, whether human beings are the principal cause, and whether its consequences are so dangerous as to warrant immediate action. In fact, there is virtually no serious disagreement remaining on any of these central points that make up the consensus view of the world scientific community.

According to Jim Baker, when he was head of NOAA, the scientific agency responsible for most of the measurements related to global warming, "There is a better scientific consensus on this issue than any other...with the possible exception of Newton's Law of Dynamics." Donald Kennedy [editor in chief of Science magazine] summarized this point when he said of the consensus on global warming, "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science."

I've bolded the last quote, which appears in big, all-capital print across pages 260 and 261, and which best gets the point across that we are as sure of global warming as we are of death and taxes.

Today, while I was thinking about what books I'd like to check out from the library, I thought of An Inconvenient Truth and quickly found the library's only copy. I've been looking through it today, like I had over a month ago. It really makes you think.

The book continues the discussion on the scientific consensus and the popular confusion onto page 262:

A University of California at San Diego scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published in Science magazine a massive study of every peer-reviewed science journal article on global warming from the previous 10 years. She and her team selected a large random sample of 928 articles representing almost 10% of the total, and carefully analyzed how many of the articles agreed or disagreed with the prevailing consensus view. About a quarter of the articles in the sample dealt with aspects of global warming that did not involve any discussion of the central elements of the consensus. Of the three-quarters that did address these main points, the percentage that disagreed with the consensus? Zero.

Has the disinformation campaign on global warming succeeded?

Well, alongside the study of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that showed 0% in disagreement with the consensus on global warming, another large study was conducted of all the articles on global warming during the previous 14 years in the four newspapers considered by the authors of the study to be the most influential in America: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

They selected a large random sample of almost 18% of the articles. Astonishingly, they found that more than one-half gave equal weight to the consensus view on the one hand, and the scientifically discredited view that human beings play no role in global warming on the other. The authors concluded that American news media had been falsely "giving the impression that the scientific community was embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans were contributing to global warming."

No wonder people are confused.

Zero percent of the peer-reviewed articles about global warming published in science journals, and 53 percent of the articles in the popular press, were in doubt as to the cause of global warming. No wonder, indeed.

I highly recommend this book, or the movie of the same title, to anyone who wants to understand global warming and what they can do about it. And I highly encourage you, the reader, to consider the potential consequences of the right-as-in-wing's war on science, which ranges from evolution to global warming. Also keep in mind this quote from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Accepting global warming as fact does not make me a liberal, or a Democrat. It makes me right.

— Athelwulf

Iraq and Vietnam: The parallels in opinions

2006-11-30T15:33:00.000-08:00

I just finished looking through microfilm images of the Herald and News, a local newspaper, at the library. On page 5A of the issue published on Halloween 1965, there was printed a story with the headline "Sidewalk Interview In KF Finds No Support For Anti-Viet Nam Demonstrators". While you read this story, keep in mind the "war on terror" and the Iraq War.

— Athelwulf

Sidewalk Interview In KF Finds No Support
For Anti-Viet Nam Demonstrators
A sampling of opinions in downtown Klamath Falls last week revealed no support for and little patience with students who are demonstrating against U.S. involvement in Viet Nam.

A Herald and News reporter asked 10 people how they felt about the wave of demonstrations currently being carried out on campuses across the nation.

Unpatriotic, shameful and stupid were some of the words used by those interviewed as they expressed themselves on the demonstrations.

Following are their answers:

George DuPont, 224 Pacific Terrace, co-owner of camera shop — "Demonstrations are stupid, particularly when it comes to interfering with troop trains, although I don't think it is necessarily Communist inspired."

Huston Davis, 3644 Agate, barber — "We should get those students over there and let them get a first hand view of what it is all about."

Harry Beer, London, England, World War I and II British Army veteran, tourist — "My opinion, and I believe the majority of the English, is that the demonstrations are all wrong and if the United States did pull out of Viet Nam, it would be another victory for the Communists."

John Stroop, downtown mailman and World War II vet, 2204 Green Springs — "I think it is very unpatriotic on the part of the students."

Frank Nesbitt, 1208 Martin, radio advertiser — "Students are not educated on the situation over there and I feel they are being snowed by subversive attitudes."

Mrs. Lola Fowler, 3322 Homedale Road, cashier — "I think the demonstrations are lousy but it is no more than a fad. Something like follow-the-leader."

Mrs. John Williams, service wife, 716B Wright — "I think the demonstrations are ridiculous when we are fighting for freedom and it also destroys the morale of our fighting men on the front."

Mrs. C. E. Barnes, 721A Wright Ave., clerk — "I am sure there is more to the demonstrations than meets the eye, we are all supposed to be fighting for freedom, not supporting communism."

Virginia Longhofer, Rte. 2, Box 7917, clerk — "Those students should spend more time doing something constructive and keep their little minds occupied."

Kevin O'Donough, Banff, Canada, artist on way to San Francisco art exhibit — "Those youngsters should be ashamed of themselves. These are supposed to be future leaders of America. If communism is not stopped over there, it will have to be stopped on the shores of the U.S."

This just doesn't fly...

2006-11-20T11:17:00.000-08:00

A commentary from Ruben Navarrette Jr., a special to CNN:

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This is where we've arrived in this country: You have the constitutional right to burn an American flag, but you can get into trouble for simply flying a foreign one.

At least you can in the 30,000-person town of Pahrump, Nevada, which is close to Las Vegas and even closer to stepping over the line with an idiotic, intolerant and insulting ban on foreign (read: Mexican) flags. The town council voted last week, 3-2, to approve an ordinance that makes it illegal to display a foreign flag -- unless an American flag is flown above it. Scofflaws face a $50 fine and 30 hours of community service.

(Another article from USA Today.)

So it seems that in the community of Pahrump, Nevada, it's illegal for someone to display a foreign flag, unless, of course, an American flag is flown above it.

Right.

Well, according to a certain document called the United States Constitution, what they did is wrong because it violates the basic right and principle of this nation.

Do you know what the Constitution says? It states, in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*Sighs*

The man who proposed the ban, Michael Miraglia, said he was upset by the sight of immigration activists marching through US cities waving Mexican flags last May in protest to a crack-down on illegal immigration. He also "told USA Today that he was especially miffed that 'we had Mexican restaurants closed that day.' "

So, Mr. Miraglia, you're going to ban flying foreign flags, just because some Mexican restaurants were closed one day? It seems to me like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.

Mr. Miraglia, do you value your freedoms? Especially your freedom to propose this ban per freedom of expression? If so, remember what Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Instead of thinking of yourself, think of others, especially in your community, who just might want to exercise their First-Amendment right and fly a foreign flag.

Also, I must say this is a waste of resources. Why not do something else, like raise standards of living in your area, or increasing the water supply? Focusing on anything other than important issues such as these is very silly.

Not only that, but as my fellow blogger Athelwulf has alerted me, this ordinance breaks flag etiquette concerning both international flags and American ones:

2) When the flags of two or more nations are flown together, each flag should be displayed from a separate pole of the same height, and each flag should be the same size. In time of peace, international custom forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation.

[...]

4) Within the United States, when the U.S.A. flag is flown with flags of other nations, the poles should be the same height and in a straight line.

One last thing, Mr. Miraglia. I hope you like this present from me:

(Source: 3DFlags.com.)

If you wish to express your disagreement (kindly) towards Mr. Miraglia, here is his contact information (thanks to the Pahrump Town Board website):

Michael Miraglia
(775) 727-5107
m.m@netscape.com

NOTE: His term does end on December 31^st, so be quick.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Memorializing his legacy

2006-11-13T13:47:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Presidents, civil rights icons, celebrities and ordinary citizens gathered Monday on the National Mall, where construction is getting under way for a monument honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

The monument will be built on a four-acre site near the Lincoln Memorial, where King delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech during the March on Washington for civil rights in August 1963.

President Bush said that he was proud to dedicate the memorial to "the lasting memory of a great man."

"Dr. King showed us that a life of conscience and purpose can lift up many souls, and on this ground a monument will rise that preserves his legacy for the ages," Bush said. (The article.)

Today, countless individuals witnessed the groundbreaking for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial, over 38 years after his death. Although I personally wish the memorial was made much earlier, at least it has been done.

While Dr. King, Jr.'s activism was the core of the black Civil Rights Movement, his heart lay with the natural, God-given rights of all people of all races. This monument is a nice symbol of who he was and what he did. Bravo to those in charge of getting it built, as well as those who pushed for its making and supported it along the way, and so on.

As he said in his famous speech delivered on August 28th, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

God rest his soul, and may his legacy continue, reminding those of us alive today, and our children yet to be born, of his struggle and his death.

~Elindelwolf

P.S. For those who are interested, here are Google results regarding Martin Luther King, Jr.

The future doesn't seem so glum anymore

2006-11-09T13:44:00.000-08:00

Democrats win House, promise new direction
Democrats win control of Senate, AP reports
Bush takes blame for GOP election losses

For the first time, I feel I can give Bush kudos for something: He has gotten a wake-up call, and it appears he is accepting it gracefully.

"I'm obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election," he said during an East Room news conference at the White House, "and, as the head of the Republican Party, I share a large part of the responsibility."

It is said that he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will work together to conduct the nation's politics in a bipartisan manner.

"The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation."

The strong grip the Republican Party has on Washington is coming to a close. Hopefully, with a Republican executive and a Democratic legislature, everyone can breathe a little easier now. Hopefully, the balance of power is on the way to being restored. Hopefully, no longer will the Republicans divide the nation with me-me-me-ism, and no longer will they demonize the Democrats. Hopefully, it'll become us-ism, where Republicans will now seek common ground with the Democrats, as Bush and Pelosi state.

The sweet smell of cooperation is in the air. I sure hope this smell doesn't turn sour.

It's still possible that Washington's Republicans, especially the Bush administration, will continue along the same path that has brought them to this defeat in the legislature, and I still wouldn't put it past them — but for the first time, I sense some good, refreshing vibrations. I'm looking forward to this promised bipartisan cooperation.

I still extremely dislike Bush and the radical, fundamentalist-Christian Right that has reigned over America for what seems like forever now, but I'm preparing to be pleasantly surprised by Bush in the last two years of his reign.

Let's hope there's a union in America beween the two parties — not like after 9/11, where we united on the right-as-in-wing side, but better, where we unite at the center.

I am glad that the Democrats are soon the majority party in Congress, and it makes me smile that Bush and Pelosi are accepting this gracefully.

The future doesn't seem so glum anymore, and I'm glad.

— Athelwulf

A little something

2006-11-08T12:46:00.000-08:00

I wanted to share this article I found on Democratic Underground. I find it admirable, even if it does come off a tad like "In your face!" or "Haha!" in a way.

Enjoy,

~Elindelwolf

Dear dismayed conservatives:

I hereby make these promises to you.

We will protect your lives and livelihoods.

We will listen to and respect your beliefs.

We will never try to force you to change your religion, sexual orientation, or first language.

We will do our best to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

We will have no tolerance for corruption and cronyism, even in our own party.

ESPECIALLY in our own party.

We will never tell you that you are unpatriotic.

We will never tell you that your opinion doesn't count.

We will never waste your lives for power.

We will hold our leaders to a high ethical standard and when they succumb to lust for power, WE WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

If we forget this, please, please, please, remind us.

We need you to do this. You are America as much as we are.

Let's go.

Liberalism (Pt.1)

2006-11-07T01:18:00.000-08:00

You know.

I get tired of some things.

Yes, I believe that every human being has the right to believe, or say, what he or she wants no matter what it is.

However,

I get sick and tired of hearing such things as:

“Your kind are going to bring down this nation.”

“Liberalism is an excuse for having no brain.”

“You liberals are all the same, future democrats”

So on, and so forth.

***

At the moment, I deal with several individuals in my life - family members, and others who are this way. It is as if I am destined for hell, and there is no chance to be saved.

Why is it that liberalism is viewed as a plague?

Great and admirable people have been liberal.

John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, etc…

[I]“The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed.”[/I]

Yes, yes, I know folks are going to say - “but they are not the modern definition of liberal.”

The point is, they were. They too, were looked down at because of them being liberal.

There is often the argument that being liberal equates to being idealistic, and not having a plan - or the like.

Folks, not everyone is built off the same blueprint. There are liberals out there, who do have plans. They have ways to do things, and some of them are good plans (in my opinion).

I think that it is the surge of extreme liberalism, those individuals who seemingly do not consider the consequences/the outcomes, that leads to some individuals to assume.

It is being used as the template, so to speak. Some folks are assuming that all liberals are extreme, and therefore…pointless, wild, willy-nilly, etc…

Also, left wing politics doesn’t represent all liberals.

Wrong folks.

That is called generalizing.

One size does not fit all.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao all generalized.

***

Being liberal is not a bad thing.

Free speech.

The right to vote.

Equality.

Tolerance.

Are these things bad?

I wouldn’t think they would be, but you know the catch is for some folks?

They’re the basis of liberalism. Suddenly, they’re wrong. The liberal process is wrong.

Liberties; individual rights of thought, and belief. Limitations on power (I.e. no dictatorships/theologies), law/justice, education for every citizen, free exchange of thoughts.

It is liberalism, that allowed you and I to blog on this very site.

It was liberalism, thinking outside of the status quo - that obtained women’s rights to vote, blacks the right to vote, and so on and so forth.

So, is liberalism bad? Is it really?

I for one do not feel it is.

What I do find bad, is intolerance, and generalization.

~Elindelwolf

Criticism of the Bush administration is assault

2006-10-18T06:51:00.000-07:00

I kid you not.

Steve Howards says he used to fantasize about what he’d say to President Bush or Vice President Cheney if he ever got the chance.

That opportunity arrived on June 16, the same day he says he read about U.S. fatalities in Iraq reaching 2,500.

If only we could all be so lucky.

Howards says he was taking two of his kids to their Suzuki piano camp in Beaver Creek, Colorado. They were walking across the outdoor public mall area when all of a sudden he saw Cheney there.

"I didn't even know he was in town," Howards says. "He was walking through the area shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, 'I can't in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.' So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' And then I walked away."

Short, sweet, and to the point.

But that's when things turned sour.

"About ten minutes later, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow," Howards recalls, "and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exact words were, 'Did you assault the Vice President?' "

But wait! It gets worse.

Here's how Howards says he responded: "No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rights to free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me."

Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.

Again: I kid you not!

So my take on this is, we live in a country where the SS will likely arrest you if you criticize the Bush administration. We live in a country whose head honchos are undermining the very foundations upon which the country was founded. But of course, the story speaks for itself; one can come to this conclusion on their own if they actually think.

I should note that this happened in a mall, where there surely had to be dozens of people who could bear witness to this. If Howards had truly assaulted the Vice President of the United States of America, the Secret Service would've pounced on him immediately, and there would be news of the incident everywhere you looked.

But again, this speaks for itself to the people who actually think.

— Athelwulf

A few bits concerning long distance relationships

2006-10-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Long-distance relationships, or LDRs, are not for the so called "weak." Now, I'm not saying that those who are "weak" cannot or should not partake in an LDR — just that it would be hard. Not being determined or loyal enough tends to seal the fate of the relationship from the start. It takes a strong will, commitment, and several other qualities which will be discussed in this article, to make the relationship successful for both persons.

LDRs, like any relationship, are like homes built on sand: They can either succeed or fail. They are the hardest to handle, but can flourish and blossom like any other relationship.

The following list is comprised of some things I have learned from being in an LDR. More specifically, it is a list of essential qualities and traits required in LDRs, just as in "regular" relationships.

They include:

Communication — If you and your significant other (SO) are not able to communicate, then there is no point in having the LDR. No communication means there is no relationship.

Commitment — Let's face it folks: You want your SO to be committed. Most serious relationships work towards a common goal: a union, such as a marriage. If one mate, or "teammate," is not dedicated to the relationship, it could, and just might, open up a whole other can of worms.

Loyalty — This falls in line with commitment, and with the following quality, affection. You want to be able to know that your SO is loyal to you. Otherwise, you could have what it takes to be on Jerry Springer. Not being committed not only show a lack of trustworthiness, but also shows your SO that they are not the one, that they are worth less than nothing.

Affection — All relationships, including LDRs, needs affection. Lack of it can lead to feelings of not being needed. That, your significant other means nothing. I mean, if you have no affection for your significant other, then what are you doing in the relationship?

Humor — When in an LDR, the ability to laugh when you can is vital. The strain put on both individuals in the relationship can cause great stress, and the ability to let it out through humor is valuable.

Patience — If your significant other has had a grueling day, or is late to show up online, be supportive, and don't jump to conclusions. If you jump to conclusions, they could lead to accusations, or feelings of being accused, which affects trust.

Understanding — When chatting or emailing, double check meanings every so often. Without the tone of voice or body language, things could be misunderstood, and dire consequences may follow.

Contact — Contact is what makes the relationship go round. Whether by instant message, letter, or email, keeping contact is the lifeline in a relationship.

Creativity — Be creative. Stretch your mind, and find new ways to show your love. You could make it romantic, sexy, or whatever. It could be back massages, or breakfast in bed, or whatever your imagination comes up with. Variety and creativity are key, because the same old "flowers and candy" (unless that is what your SO fancies) is trite. I'm not just talking about the guys doing this for the gals — love is a two-way street.

Openness/Honesty — In my opinion, there is a "clause," or something to note, in this aspect. Yes, be honest and open, but not so open that you "dump" on them. What I mean is, if you've had a bad day, and your SO has as well, be emotionally durable. Don't let your emotions use your SO as a crutch.

Positive Attitude/Hope/Faith — If there is one thing that I have learned, it is to keep a positive attitude in the relationship. For someone like myself, who battles with chronic depression, it can be tough, but anything is possible with the right attitude. I've also learned the concept of saying, "When we live together," instead of "If we..." It may sound strange, but it is very helpful as it constantly reminds you both of your unifying goal.

Trust — Key! Key! Key! I cannot stress how important this is. Without trust, there is no relationship. If you know you're going to wonder constantly whether you can trust your SO, then don't bother.

Support — When your SO has a bad day, be there for them. When they are undertaking a certain task, do what you can to help them.

More things that are good to have are a webcam and/or a microphone for your computer. These things are not mandatory; however, with all the scams, sexual predators, and overall nastiness on the Internet, you can never be completely sure the person you're falling for is who they say they are.

Now, I don't consider myself a "Dr. Phil," or such. I'm just a guy who has learned some things about relationships and wants to share those things with others. I hope you take this piece and think about it. I also hope that this piece will help you in your relationship with your SO.

Best wishes,

— Elindelwolf

~Note: When I used the term "weak," it was not intended to insult. It was a loosly used term.~

They only tell you half the story and other Foley updates

2006-10-09T21:09:00.000-07:00

In the interest of keeping the Foley scandal as clear in people's minds as possible, I'm posting a new entry with information recently discovered by me while surfing the "tubes" of the Internet.

Is the GOP revising history?
If you've been paying attention, you've noticed that the Foley scandal is causing a ruckus, what with the Fox News fuck-up and Republicans trying to save face — poorly, I might add. Democrats are calling them out for this scandal. (Just think: a homosexual sex offender from the party of "morals" and "family values!") But in response, Republicans are trying to remind Democrats not only of the Lewinsky scandal (as if an affair between consenting adults is worse than lewd conduct involving a minor legally unable to consent), but also of a certain Massachusetts representative, Gerry Studds, as if to say "You're one to talk!"

Democrat Studds was the first openly gay national politican in the US, and served in the House from 1973 to 1997. In the same year he started his first term in Congress, he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male Congressional page. While a minor, the page was of consenting age at the time it happened, and had in fact consented. Studds's actions were discovered by the House Ethics Committee, and the House nearly unanimously voted in favor of censuring Studds in 1983, nearly ten years after the relationship happened.

So you see, the Democrats have no right to hold Republicans accountable for Foley. Right?

But there's a problem here. They only tell you half the story.

Studds was only one half of the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal. The other half was Representative Dan Crane, a Republican from Illinois.

Crane served in Congress from 1978 to 1984. In 1980, he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female Congressional page, which was also consensual. Both his and Studds's relationships were discovered in the same time period, and Crane was censured alongside Studds. Crane ran for re-election in 1984 and was defeated, while Studds continued as a member of the House, re-elected five times, until 1997.

In reaction to the Foley scandal, Republicans such as Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes are reminding us that Democrats have had their fair share of sex scandals, citing the scandal surrounding former Representative Studds. While you can't deny the Democratic party's scandals, it is highly suspicious that they are focusing on Gerry Studds, who you have to admit is a horribly convenient double-whammy for Republicans — a Democrat and a homosexual! — while making little mention of Dan Crane.

So Republicans, whose party is known for its homophobic sentiments, are reminding us of a homosexual Democrat's actions while too conveniently forgetting a heterosexual Republican's actions? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on this.

One more aspect of the Foley scandal is clarified.

First his party — and now his name!
I'm not sure whose fault this is. Most likely no one's. Maybe lots of people mix up names very easily. But as if getting a party change from Fox News wasn't enough, Mark Foley gets a name change too.

A small percentage of bloggers talking about the Foley scandal are referring to a Tom Foley.

Tom Foley was a member of the House, a Democrat from Washington, from 1965 to 1995. He was the Speaker of the House beginning in 1989 until he was defeated in the 1994 election, the one in which Republicans gained conrol of Congress. He was the second representative in US history not to be re-elected while sitting as Speaker.

Let me clarify for people: First of all, Mark Foley is a Republican! Second of all, it's Mark Foley, not Tom.

Homosexuals are evil boogy-men hiding in your closet!
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post has a point, of course (as does Ron Beasley, on whose blog I found a link to Robinson's article):

Let's deal with the circumstance that dares not speak its name: How much of the Mark Foley scandal's impact is due to the fact that he's a gay man who preyed on young boys?

We must ask ourselves: Could the Republican party try to milk this scandal in an attempt to regain support for their homophobic opinions? We must be vigil in case they do, and be ready to call them out for their obvious bias against homosexuals.

I hope my post was plenty informative.

Until my next entry, folks!

— Athelwulf

Mark Foley is a REPUBLICAN!

2006-10-05T21:46:00.000-07:00

If Fox News had any credibility before, they have now lost it all.

On the third of October, Fox's O'Reilly Factor ran two segments covering the recent news concerning former US representative Mark Foley of Florida. These segments included three cutaways to footage of Foley. In each cutaway, at the bottom, was the label "Former Congressman Mark Foley (D-FL)."

That's D as in Democrat.

But Mark Foley is a Republican.

In the late-night reruns of O'Reilly Factor (which have a smaller audience than the initial broadcast), they reran this footage of Foley, but with the label at the bottom entirely missing. Fox News didn't correct the label, nor did they acknowledge and apologize for the mistake. They simply removed it.

The following day, the fourth of October, the Associated Press put out an article which also mislabeled Foley as a Democrat. However, a few hours later they made the necessary corrections and released a correction notice, as did several of the outlets who ran AP's original version of the article. But who knows how many times the original article ended up printed in physical newspapers across the nation. And somewhere in the fray, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has also been mislabeled as a Democrat.

Now nearly everyone seems to have noticed the Faux News scandal and has commented on it — of course, except for Fox News, which, to my knowledge, continues to pretend it never happened.

Imagine the uproar that would've ensued among neoconservatives had this guy actually been Democrat and had some news source referenced him as a Republican without correcting themselves or apologizing.

I'm tempted to say that I miss the liberal bias in the media, but then I wonder if one can miss that which never was.

As for the Foley scandal itself, they're now apparently going around making a big deal that Foley is gay and that he was molested by a Roman Catholic clergyman when he was a teenager. As if to imply that all people who molest children are gay, and that they are gay because they were molested when they were children.

First of all, the apparent importance that it was a Roman Catholic clergyman rubs of the classic struggle to disassociate Protestant Christianity from Catholic Christianity by claiming that Catholics aren't Christians. One is reminded of when it was found that some Catholic clergymen were molesting some of the adolescents who went to their church. And we all know that this is why Catholicism isn't at all Christian, even though they believe in Christ, just like Protestants do. Right?

And second of all, and more importantly, I have the sneaking suspicion that the GOP is now going to try to use the Foley scandal as fodder to claim, again, that gay people are just monsters who prey on children and who converted to their abominable ways when they themselves were molested during childhood. The Faux News scandal just adds the cherry on top: After all, only Democrats are gay, and so only Democrats would think of molesting a child. Right?

Don't think people would really buy into this? Think again.

I feel I must clear up some disinformation about this whole thing (you can look here too):

Foley is a Republican.
The legal age of consent to sexual activity is 16 in the District of Columbia. We must keep this in mind, although Foley's abuse of his office, the worst aspect of the scandal, must also be taken into account. It remains to be found whether he committed these same acts outside DC, where it would actually be illegal. (Edit: I have just learned that Foley's acts were indeed illegal. In DC, 16 is the earliest you can consent with someone no more than four years older than you. This applies until you reach the age of majority — 18 in DC, just like everywhere else.)
The Lewinsky scandal was not worse than the Foley scandal. Monica Lewinsky was 22, and she consented. Remember, it was an affair.

In closing, allow me to share a pertinent clip from the Daily Show, because laughter is the best medicine.

— Athelwulf

My letter to Carol Voisin

2006-10-05T00:03:00.000-07:00

This is a letter I recently mailed to Carol Voisin, the Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent Greg Walden, the US representative for the second congressional district of Oregon. Soon I will be writing a letter for Walden as well.

Update Wednesday, October 18^th: I should've made this update sooner. I had the opportunity to learn a bit more about Carol at the fundraiser dinner for the Klamath County Democrats on the 12^th. I feel that my questions were answered, and that my wish to replace the man in Congress who does not stand for my voice is well placed. I'm voting for my voice in Congress, Carol Voisin.

— Athelwulf

Dear Carol Voisin,

I must say that I am glad that you are challenging Greg Walden for his seat in the House, and that you are aiming to do what needs to be done about the most important issue facing America these days. It is my hope, whether you win or not, that this country will withdraw from Iraq and the rest of the Middle East as soon as reasonably possible and start handling the problem of terrorism in a just and moral manner, a manner whereby America will finally and truly become safer.

It is because you will do your part in what's in America's and, indeed, the world's best interest that I am certain my vote will go to you. It's because of this also that I hope, once election day passes, I can proudly declare, "The Honorable Carol Voisin represents me in the United States House of Representatives."

Since I know you will be handling issues other than the war while in Congress, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you several questions, which will give me a much better idea of whether or not you will represent my voice on those other issues as well.

The war is very important, but civil rights are also important. The rights that are of utmost concern to me are the rights that the Bush administration is trying to take away and the rights it has already taken away. First, I want to focus on what has already been taken from me and the rest of the American public, as well as non-citizens.

I am worried by the usa patriot Act. Its vague, broad definition of "domestic terrorism" can be interpreted too loosely. My Constitutional rights have been violated by the post-9/11 policies that fall in line with the usa patriot Act. No right should be alienated by a government for any reason other than due process of law; once they are, the question arises as to whether or not they'll ever be given back.

Will you do your part to take out the aspects of the usa patriot Act which threaten my rights, as well as to block new legislation which further curtails them, and to pass reforms and legislation which will secure my rights for good? Will you try to stop any efforts to extend or eliminate any of the Sunset provisions of the usa patriot Act?

You can be certain that I'm not only interested in the issues directly tied to the war. For example, it also greatly troubles me that it's still widely acceptable in this country for the government to dictate which rights a person can't have, simply because of which sex they wish to have a life-long romantic and sexual relationship with. This is a manifestation of sexism, even though it doesn't appear so on the surface to most. It is sexism because it is discrimination based on the sex of a person relative to that of who they are attracted to.

I want a representative who believes that homosexuals are not yet equal to heterosexuals in the Land of the Free. I want a representative who will block the Bush administration's efforts to amend the United States Constitution to make discrimination the supreme law of the land. And I want a representative who will guarantee homosexuals the right to marry — the right to make a life-long, loving commitment to their partner and to have the government recognize it — which heterosexuals have enjoyed for ages. Will you be that representative?

Other rights which Bush and his Republican party wish to infringe upon are the rights to free speech, expression, and protest — in particular, the right to burn an American flag in protest. I'm well aware of the ill feelings associated with such an act, and I sympathize with them. Their reasons to ban flag-burning are understandable, and indeed, for related reasons, I believe I would not exercise the right myself. For me and for lots of Americans, the American flag is a symbol for our Founding Fathers, the country they founded, and the values upon which they founded it. In my mind, to burn the flag says nothing to Bush and his administration's actions; rather, it says to the Founding Fathers that the country they founded and its values are a heap of bullshit. That's not the message I would wish to convey if I'm participating in a protest.

But the symbol is just that: a mere symbol. When it comes to freedom of speech and our other related rights, mere symbols are not and should not be held sacred or untouchable. (An analogy can be found in the Christian religion: Idol worship is forbidden.) It is ironic, but nonetheless the case, that our rights should include the right to burn the symbol of the country which aimed to guarantee those rights. I want the rights to free speech, expression, and protest guaranteed in their entirety to me and the rest of America, even though I wouldn't burn a flag myself. It is my hope that you agree with me and want this too. Will you block any attempts to infringe upon these rights, including new legislation or another proposed amendment banning flag-burning?

I hope that my expectations in a representative are in line with what can be expected of you while in the House. I know that the incumbent Greg Walden certainly isn't, and for that I support you instead.

In closing, I would like to recommend to you a book I ordered from Amazon.com a month ago, which may be of great interest to you. Its short title is Talking Right. (The full title is a bit long.) It is written by Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist who teaches at the School of Information of the University of California at Berkeley. Talking Right explains how the conservative right wing has captured and dominated the language of political discourse over the past forty years with impressive results, and how Democrats as a whole unfortunately do not yet realize the great power that language possesses. Nunberg doesn't cite many of the statistics in his book, which is unfortunate; however, I think it's a very enlightening read, and I also think the subject matter will be a tremendous help in Congress. The book's isbn is 1-58648-386-2. I'm sure you won't find it a disappointing read.

I look forward to your timely response to the questions in my letter. Good luck in November.

Sincerely,

[name and city withheld]

Welcome

2006-10-01T00:33:00.000-07:00

You see before you a new collaborative project of two individuals who go by the screen names Athelwulf and Elindelwolf. They are two men who share common interests — writing, music, politics, etc. — and who agreed one day to start a blog for anyone and everyone to read. They named their blog Wulf and Wolf.

Athelwulf is greatly interested in politics. He identifies as a pragmatic liberal, one who exhibits small sprinklings of ideas associated with conservatism. He rejects all religions on the basis that the belief in anything without evidence is unscientific. He likes to listen to all sorts of music, and he doesn't understand why so many people loathe country. His near-future plans include getting a job and starting college.

Elindelwolf is reluctant in accepting any label — whether it be 'liberal' or 'conservate' — because his beliefs are diverse. He was born and raised in a strict, Christian conservative household, but began to explore as a young teen, eventually settling on Spiritism. He attends community college and desires to transfer to a four-year university within a year. He endeavors to become a filmmaker.

Both Wulf and Wolf plan on writing blog entries about anything that people may be interested in reading. This includes politics, books, current events, pop culture, travel, music, and so on. Every so often, in the interest of variety, a guest blogger will be invited to contribute a blog entry.

You're invited to stop by any chance you get and see what Wulf and Wolf have to say. You won't be disappointed.

— Athelwulf and Elindelwolf

Wulf and Wolf

Concerning Opinions...

My reaction to the Prop 8 decision

The summary

My take

Moreno's dissent

Retroactivity

A Constitution wife is stalking me

Update, May 25, 2:05 AM

Rest in peace, Dom DeLuise

Congratulations, Vermont!

Queer eyes on Vermont (and more)

Update, March 31, 10:37 PM

Update, April 2, 4:42 PM

Update, April 6, 3:30 PM

Walden: Support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

"Goodbye, Colorado" - Rocky Mountain News

Holder, America, and Cowards

Refreshing Candor

We tortured

Sorry Congo: Foreign aid money used for gala and mural

Obama Wins

Old topic, but: The bailout was NOT socialist.

"It was a misstatement," says Bachmann

Holding our collective breath

Aye aye aye! (Concerning Obama and Ayers)

Oregon's congressional delegation and the bailout bills

Gays in California can marry...

Campaign wiki?: A suggestion to Steve Novick

Want a more representative democracy?

Oh the joy of rabbit ears

Words on party loyalty

I am me.

Clarifying the abortion debate

Did you know?

Mr. President

Rates going postal

Rant: Our Congress Sucks

Letter from Greg Walden, annotated

Did you know?

Virginia Tech tragedy: We are all Hokies

Rest in peace, Kurt

I'm an anti-anti-intellectualist

Rest in peace, miserable failure

New Jersey gays can now civil unionate

The ongoing erosion of the freedom of speech

MLK, Jr. and the right

Rosie vs. Donald

Our blogging resolutions

Dingell's Holiday Jingle

Global warming: Science politicized

Iraq and Vietnam: The parallels in opinions

This just doesn't fly...

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Memorializing his legacy

The future doesn't seem so glum anymore

A little something

Liberalism (Pt.1)

Criticism of the Bush administration is assault

A few bits concerning long distance relationships

They only tell you half the story  and other Foley updates

Mark Foley is a REPUBLICAN!

My letter to Carol Voisin

Welcome

They only tell you half the story and other Foley updates