Log in

No account? Create an account
TheRealPolitik [entries|friends|calendar]

[ website | www.moveon.org ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Tsunami [06 Jan 2005|10:09pm]

Let me start by saying that I am sympathetic to the victims in the Tsunami. I am not some heartless person who say the Muslims got what they deserve and let their dead rot in the street.

However, I feel as though that part of the world that was hit with a Tsunami, mainly Indonesia. On 9/11 the people of Indonesia was dancing in the streets and passing out candy. They denied aiding Al-Qeada up until 2003. Also the Island of Phuket in Thailand is the capitol of the child sex trade in Asia. Not to mention they are the home of the Tamil Tigers. In my terrorism class, this was the first group we studied. They are the grandfathers to suicide bombing. The terrorism they have inflicted on Sri Lanka makes the Palestinian/Isreali conflict look like elementary school playground recess. These people are hardcore. Should we send money to aid people who are sworn to kill us? Make no mistake about it, Indonisia is involved in the terrorism against the US and its interests. Sure, you can say we can take the high road and help to show these people we care, in hopes that they will say hey, these guys arent so bad. I don't think so. Providing cash will only fund further corruption and further hate. More terror camps and funding to the terrorists. Providing medicine and cars and stuff like that is fine, but cash is the wrong answer. I don't believe that this will be enough to change people who have been born and bred to hate us.

Why is it that the middle eastern countries aren't providing any aid? They are some of the richest countries on earth from the oil trade and they are not even trying to provide aid to the largest nation of Muslims. We have alot of issues here. Not just the deficit, but what about the 100,000+ homeless veterans? What about the soldiers whose families are on welfare? What about the the lack of equipment for soldiers? What about the veterans who lost limbs and were forced out of the military and are forced to support a family on next to nothing? What about the special forces soldiers who can't even get a headstone for their graves and their families are left with nothing?

Why is it that the networks refused to show the bodies of 9/11 victims jumping out of the burning towers or the bodies as they recovered them from the wreckage? Why did they not show the few dead from the Florida Hurricanes? Why did they insist of showing the dead bodies of soldiers? Why are they showing piles of dead bodies from the Tsunami's? Think about it and I am sure you will come to a conclusion of your own.

There were no pledges to help aid the US after 9/11 or after the Florida Hurricanes. I am not saying that we should play tit for tat, but I think we are falling into the media trap to be so called politically correct and we are sending millions of dollars to our enemies. I mean, not even a week after, sex freaks were praying on kids to sell into the sex trade.

Thats just my two cents.
1 comment|post comment

[14 May 2004|06:57pm]


i think this needs addressing.
post comment

[13 May 2004|12:36am]


May 13, 2004
Clash of Civilizations


Testifying before the Senate yesterday, General Richard Myers admitted that we're checkmated in Iraq.

"There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq," he said, describing the generals' consensus. "There is also no way to militarily win in Iraq."

Talk about the sound of one hand clapping. And they say John Kerry is on both sides of issues.

Sounding like Mr. Kerry, General Myers summed up: "This process has to be internationalized. The U.N. has to play the governance role. That's how we're, in my view, eventually going to win."

The administration's demented quest to conquer Arab hearts and minds has dissolved in a torrent of pornography denigrating other parts of the Arab anatomy. George Bush, who swept into office on a cloud of moral umbrage, now has his own sex scandal — one with far greater implications than titillating cigar jokes.

The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look un-American. Should we really be reduced to defending ourselves by saying at least we don't behead people?

Gripped in a "I can't look at them — I've got to look at them" state of mind, lawmakers grimly filed into private screening rooms on the Hill to check out the 1,800 grotesque images of sex, humiliation and torture.

"They're disgusting," Senator Dianne Feinstein told me. "If somebody wanted to plan a clash of civilizations, this is how they'd do it. These pictures play into every stereotype of America that Arabs have: America as debauched, America as hypocrites.

"Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz act like they know all the answers, almost like a divine right," she said. "They don't have a divine right, and they are wrong."

After 9/11, America had the support and sympathy of the world. Now, awash in digital evidence of uncivilized behavior, America has careered into a war of civilizations. The pictures were clearly meant to use the codebook of Muslim anxieties about nudity and sexual and gender humiliation to break down the prisoners.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell said some photographs seemed to show Iraqi women being commanded to expose their breasts — such debasement, after a war that President Bush partly based on women's rights.

The problem, of course, is that the war in Iraq started with lies — that Saddam's W.M.D. were endangering our security and that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

In a public relations move that cheapens the heroism of soldiers, the Pentagon merged the medals for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, giving the G.W.O.T. medal, for Global War on Terrorism, in both wars to reinforce the idea that we had to invade Iraq to quell terrorism. The truth is that our invasion of Iraq spurred terrorism there and around the world.

That initial deception — and headlong rush to throw off international conventions and old alliances, and namby-pamby institutions like the U.N. and the Red Cross — led straight to the abuse of Abu Ghraib. Now the question is whether the C.I.A. tortured Al Qaeda operatives.

Officials blurred the lines to justify ideological decisions, calling every Iraqi who opposed us a "terrorist"; conducting rough interrogations, perhaps to find the nonexistent W.M.D. so they would not look foolish; rolling all opposition into one scary terrorist ball that did not require sensitivity to the Geneva Conventions or "humanitarian do-gooders," to use the phrase of Senator James Inhofe, a Republican.

Senator Fritz Hollings made it clear yesterday that Rummy has left us undermanned and undertrained in Iraq — another factor in the torture scandal. "Now, in a country of 25 million, you're trying to secure it with 135,000," he scolded Mr. Rumsfeld, adding: "We're trying to win the hearts and minds as we're killing them and torturing them." At least, he said sarcastically, Gen. William Westmoreland never asked a Vietcong general to take the town, "like we have for Falluja. We've asked the enemy general to take the town."

The hawks, who promised us garlands in Iraq, should have recalled the words of the historian Daniel Boorstin, who warned that planning for the future without a sense of history is like planting cut flowers.


i love this woman.
1 comment|post comment

*grrr* [12 May 2004|10:56pm]

[ mood | bitchy ]


3 comments|post comment

[10 May 2004|12:47am]


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote a new article in The New Yorker magazine this week that includes a photograph that shows American guards apparently setting dogs on a naked prisoner at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

In his latest article, Hersh writes that Abu Ghraib's problems stemmed from a Defense Department thick with patterns of secrecy, disdain for the Geneva Conventions and indifference to the possibility that plans could be wrong.

"It's not because it's a cover. It's because they don't listen to what they don't want to hear," Hersh told CNN.
post comment

[06 May 2004|09:19pm]


finally, some justice.
post comment

Cannabis. [06 May 2004|09:16pm]

Cannabis. Marijuana. Weed. Reefer. Whacky Tobaccy.

we all know what it is... the question i want to ask is what people think about it.

keep it illegalized?

stiffer penalties for possession/sale?

softer penalties?


totally legalize?

what do people here want to do with marijuana as a campaign issue?

i know that most people in my age group who i know think that it should be decriminalized; some want it all-out legalized. is this true amongst everyone though? what justification can people give for legalizing/illegalizing?

as far as my opinion goes: i dont believe weed is a worse narcotic than tobacco, so as long as tobacco is out there so should weed. weed doesnt get you any more disoriented than alcohol does; and the restrictions on the latter are lax as it is.

however, i know if weed is legalized, the industry for it in this country will make big tobacco look like a mom and pop business. there will be those out there who will exploit it, manipulate it to make it addictive, and eventually make it into a product that would give the former reasons for illegalizing it validation.

so, not as much for the health aspects of it as much as how it'll be exploited is why i dont think restrictions should be lifted; in the same measure i believe the US government's tactics in trying to prevent its use are brutal and futile.
post comment

[06 May 2004|07:21pm]

i wonder what bush's own daughters think of their father.

it'd be hilarious to see if jenna or barb came out against him saying he represented the values THEY didn't emobody...

and given their escapades with nude parties and such, it doesnt look like their really 'uptight'
post comment

Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' [06 May 2004|02:44pm]

Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On'

WASHINGTON, DC—In an internationally televised statement Monday, President Bush modified a July 2003 challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces. "Terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and anti-American insurgents: Please stop bringing it on now," Bush said at a Monday press conference. "Nine months and 500 U.S. casualties ago, I may have invited y'all to bring it on, but as of today, I formally rescind that statement. I would officially like for you to step back." The president added that the "it" Iraqis should stop bringing includes gunfire, bombings, grenade attacks, and suicide missions of all types.
post comment

[05 May 2004|04:24pm]


this is based on voting records.

see what i mean?
post comment

Question me this [04 May 2004|01:10am]

"Suppose we could get Saddam Hussein to conquer North Korea. Would you be in favor of it?"
Noam Chomsky
1 comment|post comment

to be an elitist [03 May 2004|11:00am]

are liberals elitists?

i keep getting branded an elitist by those who do not agree with my views;

the questions are however

1. am i REALLY an elitist, and does wanting something in a greater good sense make me an elitist and
2. is it WRONG to be an elitist?

i give the floor to the politik.
1 comment|post comment

To prove, that WE aren't blind... [02 May 2004|02:52pm]

I'd just like to put this question out there to the community...

It's my theory that most republicans are single issue voters. By 'most republicans' i mean most mainstream republicans... whether it be taxes, gun rights, abortion, foreign policy, education, or immigration policy, or an intercorrelation of any two, those who vote republican usually vote for one single issue they're ardent about.

for example, the Pink Pistols, a gay republican lobbyist group whose sole motivation for being republicans is gun rights, despite the fact that the president they'll vote for despises them.

it seems republicans really are blind to the real issues, or only want to see it their way.

but... in conversations recently with people i know who are ardent liberals (more like ardent democrats; there's a real difference sometimes), i've found an uncomfortable amount of "blindness" or ignorance of facts prevalent in their opinions. They bash bush and conservatives simply for being bush or being conservative. while i appreciate the fact that they're chomping at the bit to get at bush, i still want to know that my 'side' is the smarter side, and that we're the ones who are voting based not only on principle, but based on justification through fact. as much as bush is easy to beat down, as pretty much anything he does turns into a flaming wreck, i'd like the attacks made on him be based on fact rather than simply opinion; and i'd like people like me who are progressive and liberal to admit to themselves that
a. not all democrats are necessarily 'good' or know whats right for the country
b. not all policies democrats and liberals want to push are right(e.g. COMPLETELY pulling out of iraq would probably be a disaster in itself; now that we're in the mess we have no choice but to stay there until we can clean it up, as sad is it is)
c. not all republicans necessarily are idiots (John McCain, for example, would be the perfect running mate for Kerry if he decided to turn against his own party, but will not based on a few principles which he holds dear).
and d. which would be the hardest one of them all to admit, that even us liberals are a bit conservative. some people would have a really difficult time trying to believe that... for example my friend lashed out at me for 'assuming' that he wasn't a complete liberal (the guy is on the fence about abortion, i dont understand why he'd think that way) and had a little conservative in him.

dont believe me? go to www.politicalcompass.org and take the quiz they give you; it'll show you exactly where you lie in the political spectrum. American policy as it is is pretty moderate compared to classical liberalism and conservatism. for example, if you're looking for the best personification for a total liberal (in the governmental aspect) look no farther than adolph hitler.

i dont know if i'm the only one thinking like this. but i just want to try and prove to myself that my side of the aisle is smarter, wiser, and 'better' than the other 'side', so that i never have a conflict and become disillusioned like nader voters.
1 comment|post comment

12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriages Will "Ruin" Society: [28 Apr 2004|01:25pm]

[ mood | amused ]

enjoy the snickers from this oneCollapse )

post comment

before bedtime questions... [27 Apr 2004|12:42pm]

[ mood | amused ]

and it goes like this...Collapse )

funny how things look when it is put in simpler terms...
post comment

[13 Dec 2003|10:35pm]
I have a few questions.

In your opinion, why do you think Dean is the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination? And do you think Wesley Clark has a good chance? (The man, to me, seems sincere and endearing and I kind of like that in a president!)
2 comments|post comment

help meeee. [10 Dec 2003|08:49pm]

[ mood | rushed ]

Need some help- doesn't have to be indepth answers, just something to guide me because I have no idea where to start with any of these questions.

1) How has US foreign policy changed since 1990?

2) Explain judicial restraint and judicial activism (in english please!)

3) How has the Presidency changed since first envisioned in Article 2?

4) What would you describe as the "typical" US approach to social welfare policy?

Any help would be awesome!

Thanks in advance.


3 comments|post comment

newbie. [08 Dec 2003|12:07am]

[ mood | dorky ]

hello i am new (oddly enough i found this community through a community for ED support, and after reading your bio page and a few entries i was very inspired to join this one).

anyway, even though i'm not a college student, most people seem to think i am one, both physically and intellectually, and as far as i've read i think i'll like it here.

as for me, i'm 16, liberal, anti war, pro-gay rights (really pulling for Dean [too bad i can't vote yet :( ]), universal health care, pro-choice.

i'm sure there's more for me to say but it's 12:18 in the morning and can't really think straight. blah.

post comment

Changing Tactics? [24 Nov 2003|12:13pm]

[ mood | infuriated ]

International human rights groups are raising new questions about U.S. counter-insurgency tactics in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a letter sent to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld late last week, London-based Amnesty International asked whether the U.S. military has adopted a policy of demolishing houses of the families of suspected insurgents in Iraq.

At the same time, New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR) dispatched a letter to the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, regarding the status of military investigations announced over the past 11 months into the deaths of three suspected Taliban members while they were in U.S. custody.

Both inquiries come amid indications that the U.S. forces in both countries are stepping up counter-insurgency operations, particularly in the so-called Sunni Triangle of central Iraq and the predominantly Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan, where some 10,000 U.S. troops are trying to repel Taliban forces returning from Pakistan two years after being ousted from power in a brief U.S.-led military campaign.

And the part of the article that makes it clear who we are modeling our new tactics on:

A U.S. military official with the 82nd Airborne Division, Maj. Lou Zeisman, was quoted in media reports as saying: If you shot at an American or Coalition force member, you are going to be killed or you are going to be captured, and if we trace somebody back to a specific safe house, we are going to destroy that facility. We didnt destroy a house just because we were angry that someone was killed; we did it because the people there were linked to the attack, and we are not going to tolerate it anymore.

House demolition has evoked considerable controversy over the years due to its use by Israeli occupation forces against the homes of suspected Palestinian insurgents. Israeli officials are reported to have briefed U.S. officers at length on the tactics they have used against the Palestinian resistance.

Iraqis themselves appear to be aware that the Pentagon may be applying the same tactics. The Americans want to follow the Israeli plan, one elderly resident in a village near Tikrit told the Washington Post. It doesnt work there. Why will it work here?

So now we are modeling our occupation tactics on those of the Isrealis? Whose bright idea was that? The tactics have been proven a failure in Palestine/Isreal where the forces using them are there to stay and willing to make huge sacrifices to gain their objectives. So does anyone believe we will be in Iraq and Afghanistan to stay? In Palestine/Isreal, the biggest result of the Isreali tactics we are adopting is to strengthen resistance and create a large pool of willing suicide bombers. Is that the path we want to follow in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems to me that this type of tactical policy makes events like 9/11 more likely and only strengthens support for groups like Al Queda. I thought we were supposed to be in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent terrorism, not create and justifications for even more of it.
post comment

Cool article. [21 Nov 2003|05:59pm]
[ mood | Amused. ]

Holy Matrimony
What's really undermining the sanctity of marriage?

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003, at 3:29 PM PT

Within nanoseconds of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's declaration that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution came predictions of the end of life as we know it: The president, speaking from London, warned "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."

"The time is now. If you don't do something about this, then you cannot in 20 years-when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will-you remember that you did nothing," said Sandy Rios, president of the Concerned Women for America, to her 1 million radio listeners.

"We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," Focus on the Family urged in a statement on Tuesday.

Extinction, no less. The institution of marriage-the one that survived Henry VIII, Lorena Bobbitt, Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson-is suddenly going to become extinct?

Do you want to know what's destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we'd get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: "Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room-honey what room is this-oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."

It just doesn't get much more sacred than that.

Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage-if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole-here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.

1. Divorce

Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available-from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions-should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.

2. Circus Circus

In general, if there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.

3. Birth Control

The dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who (like myself) are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.

4. Misc.

Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles <>, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

Here's why marriage will likely survive this week's crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state-if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices. Good for Massachusetts for recognizing that truth.

1 comment|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]