Mad Prophet's Domain

More on "They Hate Our Freedom"

2006-07-24T18:24:00.000Z

More on the fatuous notion that "they hate our freedom". A Gallup World Poll found:

"Muslims in the 10 countries polled (Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia) said what they most admired, after technology, was the west's political freedom. Overwhelming majorities in every country would support freedom of speech, religion and assembly if drafting a constitution. Majorities in virtually every country also felt women should have the same legal rights as men."

Furthermore many were critical of the lack of freedom, corruption, terrorism, and fananticism in their own countries.

Toon Heads

2006-02-11T01:26:00.000Z

Many "conservatives" are crowing over the sometimes violent protests over the Danish Mohammed cartoon, undoubtedly believing that the actions of a few thousand confirms their prejudices regarding over a billion people. I'm not going for the low hanging fruit of how a similiar inference can be drawn regarding abortion clinic bombers and the Christian faiths.

While I'm not cracked-up on the suppression of free speech aspect of this, I want to point out that at least these protesters are standing up for what they believe, even to the extent of using violence to correct what they perceive to be a great wrong. Let's contrast this to what happened when Serrano's "Piss Christ" was unveiled in 1987. Undoubtedly there was some of the obligatory complaining from "conservatives". I don't know if there was any protests as a result of this , but there certainly weren't any violent ones.

Undoubtedly some will argue that their Christian faction is more civilized than their Moslem counterparts. But how far does this hommage to civilization go? Does it demonstrate more civility to have offensive art such as the "Piss Christ" funded by the government? Or is it a testament to "conservative'ss" civility that the National Endowment for the Arts is still alive and kicking nearly 20 years later, when Republicans control the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government? Or perhaps it is the rank-and-file's disdain of tax evaders, depite the fact that tax revenues often fund immoral practices?

It is high time for conservatives to quit turning a blind eye, and take a page from the Muslim's playbook.

Ashamed of Myself

2006-01-22T06:32:00.000Z

Our Benevolent Leader® told us that the reason behind 9/11 was that terrorists hated our freedom. I kick myself for not asking this question, "Who would hate freedom?" A few people come to mind, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot... But nearly without exception, the guy working the plow is not going to be in favor of being oppressed.

So the notion of sending a bunch of guys to the US for flight training on a suicide mission to stop freedom eludes me. "Yes Osama, we are learning much in flight school--shhhh Crystal, you'll get me in trouble." It defies credibility to think that some guy suffering under the yoke of oppression is going to come to America (purportedly the freest of all nations) to go on a suicide mission. If it were me, I'd spend all the flight training money on strippers.

Sloppy Thinking

2006-01-02T20:13:00.000Z

I have read that "we need to [fill in the blank] in this time of war." Aside from the fact that is a lousy justification, how many of stopped to ponder that the United States is technically not at war? Congress has not declared war against either Iraq or Afghanistan. There is indeed a lot of killing and shooting going on over there, but the same thing occurs in inner city neighborhoods. Neither is legal or moral. Congress does not have the authority to delegate its power to declare war. The President doesn't have legal authority to declare war.

I also dislike the sloppy use of the term "we". The use of the phrase "We are at war" conjures the mental image of speaker on foot patrol in Iraq. Rarely this is the case. It is usually some self-appointed armchair warrior who has never served a day of military service.

Cornyn to the Rescue

2005-12-23T01:24:00.000Z

My fellow Texas residents should be thankful that Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is there to look out for them. Not only for Texas residents, but the entire nation should be grateful. The junior Senator is finally doing something about a grave menace to the republic. Al-Queda? Illegal Immigrants? Cancerous decay of civil liberties? Runaway federal debt? No, it's much worse.

James Bovard's blog details Cornyn's plan to protect the American people from the menance of hand jobs. If one more man get's a happy ending at a massage parlor, the terrorists will have won.

I just know everyone will sleep better at night without fearing a hand job.

Magic Shows

2005-12-18T20:35:00.000Z

Misdirection is one of a magician's favorite tricks. The success of their illusion depends on your attention not being at a crucial place. Politicians do the same thing. Instead of having you pay attention to something important, they will misdirect you to inconsequential issues. Or perhaps a problem they caused but were able to pin on someone else.

Recently there have been a lot of real interesting developments the Bush Administration would prefer that you not to pay attention to. Such as the pack of lies surrounding Mr. Bush's war of aggression. Or maybe the spying the Bush Administration has been doing on American citizens. Or maybe the looming monetary crisis.

But unlike the magician's illusion, you many not want to be clapping after the politicians perform their tricks.

Immigration Woes

2005-12-17T17:26:00.000Z

Along with the "war on Christmas", illegal immigrantion seems to be the other thing that's getting "conservatives" into a tizzy these days. I'd agree that people coming to this country to receive welfare isn't a good thing. But I fail to see the problem with people coming to America looking for a job. Many of them are paying taxes and propping up the social security system, and not receiving any benefit from it. As evidenced by the political bowing and scraping that "conservative" leaders do to the social security system, they ought to be viewing the "contributions" by illegal aliens to be a good thing. Furthermore, many illegal immigrants are sending US dollars south of the border. Students of economics will recognize that if those dollars never return, it is a counter-inflationary. Which is also a good thing.

Immigration isn't a problem in regards to private property. Private property owners can exclude anyone they like from their property (or at least they ought to be). If someone doesn't want Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Catholics, or Homosexuals on their property, then so be it. On the other hand, if someone wants these groups on their property, then by the same token, they ought to have the opportunity to extend them an invitation. There is a group of private citizens who have banded together in the Southwest to keep trespassing illegal aliens off their property. Ironically, conservative darling Sean Hannity sandbagged the leader of this organization on his syndicated talk show in November 2002.

Given that people ought to have freedom of association and a right to use one's property as one sees fit, it would follow that immigration is a problem of "public" resources. In other words it is a problem that is a result of the government having control of far too much land and resources.

War on Christmas II

2005-12-16T01:43:00.000Z

The "No Spin Zone" crowd believes that "Happy Holidays" is another offensive in the "War on Christmas". If they believe it to be a war, it's one they've already lost. Christmas is more shopping and office parties than a holy day. This year the stores brought out the Christmas decorations in September. Christmas has been almost completely secularized. It's a federal holiday, along with Columbus Day and Labor Day. No other religous holidays have the "distinction" of being a US federal holiday.

Ever give a thought as to what Christmas actually is? It is supposed to be Jesus's birthday? So why isn't this being celebrated with a birthday cake and presents for Jesus? Since he won't be stopping by the party, it would probably make sense to do what Jesus would have wanted. Perhaps something like getting gifts for the less fortunate.

Biblican historians believe that Jesus was born in the spring, not in late Decemeber. The date wasn't recorded, and the early Christians downplayed Jesus's mortal birth. The December date was chosen by Constantine in the 4th Century, so Christians and Pagans could have a common religious festival.

So what is it we're supposed to be celebrating again?

War On Christmas

2005-12-15T01:27:00.000Z

Bill O'Reilly is the most prominent of the blatherskites insisting that there is a "War on Christmas". As usual the problem is something different that what O'Reilly claims it to be. In this case the problem is that he doesn't agree with the way some observe December holidays. But a mere personal preference won't get his audience whipped into suffient fervor.

For there to be a "War on Christmas", I'd expect for there to be some real shooting going on. Or at least some churches being closed by government agents like they were behind the Iron Curtain. Is this what is really happening? No. It's just that some are using the term "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Get a grip people. No one is preventing you from observing Christmas.

Democracy is Overrated

2005-11-24T13:18:00.000Z

Sitting on a sofa
On a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it, you lose.
Paul Simon, "Mrs. Robinson"

I don't vote. I'm commonly told that "if you don't vote, you can't complain." Nonsense. By voting, you have consented to the Hobson's Choice system we now have. If you play the game, you can't complain about the outcome. That's why some nations make voting mandatory.

Many confuse the word democracy with freedom. It is entirely possible to have a totalitarian government result from or even have a "democratic" form of government. The current administration line is that the war in Iraq is to bring "democracy to the Middle East." What is forgotten is that Saddam Hussein was actually elected. Of course it was a sham election, with only one disagreeable choice. We are so much more free, since we have a choice between TWO disagreeable candidates.

Pundits and Whores

2005-11-06T16:55:00.000Z

I was a big fan of talk radio during the Clinton Administration. The criticisms they made of the Clinton administration were for the most part valid. Now that a "conservative" is in power, they sound utterly ridiculous. Every one of them has prostituted themselves to the current administration. I was watching an interview with Ann Coulter, who made the assertion that all George Bush's problems will go away once the Harriet Miers nomination goes away. Are they really that blind? Do they really think we're that stupid?

Vice and Advice

2005-08-05T01:26:00.000Z

I think those who support government prohibition on consensual activities should be the ones entirely responsible for paying for it. If someone thinks prostitutes and their clients should be thrown in jail , then they ought to be prepared to write a check to pay for cost of incarcerating these people. If even the supporters aren't willing to do this, then it stands to reason that these "crimes" shouldn't be prosecuted in the first place.

Furthermore, they also ought to be doing more than just paying for it. It's a misallocation of resources to have police working on arresting junkies or having our military performing drug interdictions. Instead, supporters of the "war on (some) drugs" ought to be the ones performing these interdictions and "no knock" raids.

There are numerous benefits to this approach. First of all, police could actually be working on catching murderers, theives, rapists, etc., instead of hassling some junkies. Another benefit would be the savings to tax payers. Here's a golden opportunity for politicians who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" to actually cut spending. But an even greater benefit would be dispensing with the notion of "sovereign immunity." Currently, if the police raid the wrong house, and kill innocent people, the individuals responsible are not held accountable for their negligence. While the governmental agency may be sued, the cost of any renumeration is borne by the taxpayers. But if private citizens are conducting these raids, they'll make damn sure they're hitting the right house . Otherwise they might have an appointment with the lethal injection gurney.

Four Flushers and the Fourth Amendment

2005-08-03T01:28:00.000Z

Recently the government has gone into overdrive on flushing the Bill of Rights down the toilet. In June there was the Kelo case and last month it was decided to conduct random searches on NYC mass transit. Can't wait to see what August has in store for us.

These searches are being presented as a necessary measure to prevent terrorist bombings. Those that aren't orgasmic over the idea are thought to be naive boobs.

Lets talk about naiveté. The populace of London is among the world's most heavily scrutinized, and have no legal protection from arbitrary searches. Despite elevated security levels following the bombing on July 7th, four more bombs managed to make into the London mass transit system.

Do you still think that arbitrary searches are going to make you more safe? If so, here's another question. How are the searches being conducted? Some of these terrorists have been known to be suicide bombers. What's to stop them from detonating the bomb the instant they are confronted by transit police, killing the officer and any bystanders?

Public safety isn't the real goal of these searches. At best they are a feel good measure. Consider the following quote from NYPD spokesman Paul J. Browne, "The protocol would be to pick the fifth backpack in each group of 10. If a Middle Eastern man is number four, he would not get checked." New York City Mayor Bloomberg said, "Clearly, we'll do it for a little while. It's partially designed to make people feel comfortable...". My belief is that it is to test how much essential liberty people are willing to surrender for some temporary safety. Those being searched are not being selected on the likelihood of belonging to an Islamic terrorist group--they are purportedly being randomly selected, without probably cause.

Then there are the issues that haven't been addressed. What if someone turns tail at a checkpoint? Is that probable cause for an arrest?

What happens if something illegal, other than a bomb is discovered? While such evidence may get thrown out of court, just wait until the next Jeffrey Dahmer is stopped with a backpack full of human heads. Do you think he's going to get a "No bombs. Good day, Sir"? Yeah, it'll be good to get a heinous criminal off the street, but guess what? It will likely become a precedent for evidence found by random searches becoming admissible in criminal proceedings. Next thing you know, they'll be slapping the cuff on 90 year old women over picayune infractions.

Land of the Free

2005-05-19T23:51:00.000Z

Earlier this week, a debate about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy erupted on our company's email server. There is nothing really remarkable about this, as it is a handy topic for debate. A lot of the rhetoric was nothing new, down to claim that America is the land of the free.

The "land of the free" and its companion "America is the freest nation" are some powerful boasts. I challenge those who make such statements to be prepared to furnish evidence. Is this really the land of the free, and indeed the freest nation? How do those who make this statement know this? Because some authority figure told them that this is true? "Everybody knows this to be true," or cherry picking some totalitarian hell hole doesn't prove the assertion that America is the land of the free or the freest nation.

Before I go any farther, I suppose I should ask what is freedom? If you think it's just a word for nothing left to lose, then please contact me for a philosophical discussion. If you think freedom is the ability to have a house, two cars, and a wide screen teevee, then stop reading and give little passing thought to the Visigoths sacking the city.

The basis for the "land of the free" is the fact that the origin of these united States (check the capitalization here folks, and it isn't some dumb hick saying) was originated during the Enlightenment and based on Lockean ideals, as alluded to in Francis Key's anthem. Sadly, however, the United States has turned its back on the Enlightenment and Lockean ideals. I offer as proof this nation's founding document. Many of the grievances of the founders, which were an enumeration of tyranny of George III, are once again inflicting our fair country, currently executed by George W. Bush.

The basis for the "freest nation" is more elusive. Perhaps it is the address of John Quincy Adams, that many have chosen to ignore. Perhaps it is mere parotting of what someone on the government payroll once said in a government school. I have several objections to this claim, which I shall regard to be false until my objections are assuaged. The first being the issue of ignorance. Quick--how many countries are there? Do you know? If you don't have even a rough idea as to how many*, how can you lay claim to America being the freest? And how many of these countries have you actually visited, as to gauge the realitive freedom?

My second objection is the actual practice of freedom. Do you understand the difference between de jure and de facto? Some countries have a lovely Constitution, but aren't really inclined to follow it**. Conversely, some tin horn banana republics have some fairly draconian laws, but thanks to corruption and shoddy enforcement, many are free to live their lives as they see fit. Then there's the little matter of the Heritage Foundation's survey on economic freedom: the US ranked twelfth

Don't get me wrong. I'd love nothing more than to see these united States become the paragon of freedom. But it won't happen by unquestioningly accepting propaganda and parotting politician's talking points. Maybe it will require a kick in crotch like the emergence of visibly more free nation. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. After all, wasn't Sputnik a kick in the crotch for the space program?

* There are about 265, depending on who is doing the counting.
** Such as these united States. Take a look at the US Constitiution, paying particular attenion to Article I, Secion 8, and Amendments IX and X.

Terrorist Gun Ban

2005-03-18T23:07:00.000Z

On Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller proposed to Congress that terrorist suspects be barred from purchasing firearms. Conventional wisdom is "Duh...of course terrorist suspects shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. It's a no-brainer"

Or is it? How's this supposed to work? Someone tries to buy a gun and they are told they may not because they're a suspected terrorist according to the FBI? Wouldn't this be compromising the FBI's investigation?

Another problem with this "no-brainer" proposal is that it relies on the doctrine of prior restraint. It is a restriction of one's rights and liberties without the due process of law. The people on the FBI's list are suspected terrorists, which is quite different than being a convicted felon. Some editorialists are apoplectic that anyone would have the temerity to suggest this idea being flawed. Would they be equally supportive of prior restraint on their right to freedom of speech? After all, some nations stifle free speech, because they understand how threatening it can be to the health of the state. Some oppressive regimes have been started based upon certain writings, such as The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The followers of these doctrines have killed far more people than all the privately owned guns in history.

Another detail that hasn't been considered is the accuracy of this list. Outspoken anti-freedom activist and U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg justifies prior restraint on the basis that it is done for "no-fly" lists. Let us take a look at the track record of the crackerjack agents of Homeland Security in the air travel arena. Senator Ted Kennedy was flagged on the no-fly list, and it took over three weeks to get his name removed. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) was stripped searched at National airport while attempting to return to Michigan. If the government can't get it right with two of their prominent law makers, what can an average citizen expect?

DoubleSpeak

2005-03-13T17:44:00.000Z

Doublespeak is a technique used in Orwell's 1984 to control thought through the use of contradictory euphemistic langauge. For example, the protagonist worked at falsifying history at the "Ministry of Truth."
Despite the pervasiveness of this charade, the characters in this cautionary tale appeared not to be fooled by these euphemisms.

Too bad the same thing cannot be said about modern day America. We are surrounded by doublespeak.

Consider:

Voluntary compliance - From the IRS website: "A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time."
Mandatory volunteering - High school students in some districts are required to "volunteer" for community service in order to receive a diploma. Given compulsory attendance requirements and the unpaid nature of "volunteering," how does this not violate the constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude, a.k.a slavery.
Department of Education - This agency was set up during the Carter Administration, and its existance coincides with the decline of nation-wide scholastic performance.
Department of Commerce - Ironically enough, this agency actually impedes commerce.
Department of Agriculture - How can an agency that pays farmers not to grow things be called the "Department of Agriculture?"
Department of Justice - A perpetrator of countless injustices: Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzales, Jose Padilla. Note that not a single member of this agency has spent a day in jail or has been discharged from government service for these miscarriages of justice.
Department of Defense - Prior to 1949 it was known as the War Department. The name change may be appropriate, as the United States has not engaged in a declared war since the name change. However, it has been ordered to engage in "police actions" and attacks that do little to defend the people of the United States.
Conservative Repubican - During the Clinton Administration, Rush Limbaugh and his imitators steadfastly maintained that the Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. The last budget submitted by the Republican controlled Congress and signed by the Republican president, was for 2.5 trillion dollars--dwarfing any of the "tax and spend" Democrat budgets.
Pro-Life - Many of Bush's supporters are Pro-Life, meaning they are opposed to the death of unborn American children. They apparently don't care the deaths about Iraqi or Afghan children, or adults for that matter.
"Christians" - I am not referring to those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus. I am referring to the hypocrits that support the Bush administration and the lie-based undeclare war in Iraq. I don't remember mendacity and killing being favorably portrayed in the New Testament.

We already have pervasive surveillance. We have the doublespeak. How much further is America willing to go towards implementing Orwell's dystopia?

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Humanitarian Invasions

2005-02-20T16:02:00.000Z

You've probably seen letters to the editor asserting that the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq was still justified even though Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction". The writer defends the unprovoked attack on the basis of humanitarian reasons. Fair enough. Saddam Hussein's regime certainly wasn't a scrupulous observer of human rights. However, I don't think these writers have in mind expending American lives and capital every time some government doesn't honor our Bill of Rights. Iran would be pretty far down on the hitlist using this criteria. A case can be made that Iran is less tyrannical now than it was under the US client of Pahvli and the SAVAK.

Pax Americana, if implemented on the basis of human rights would mean a military occupation of the entire African continent. It would mean occupying half of Latin America. One needs to ask why the Castro regime has been allowed to stand. Cuba is 90 miles away from the United States and has made a thorough nuisance of itself since Castro seized power. Pax Americana would also mean invading and occupying a good portion of Asia, to include China. China has weapons of mass destruction, delivery mechanisms, and a poor human rights record. It has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles if the US interfered in China's Taiwanese ambitions. Don't forget that China also supplies arms to unfriendly nations. How about it neo-cons? Ready to throw down with China?

And what about our government? It certainly does not follow the Bill of Rights, despite every officeholder swearing a solemn oath on the Bible to do this very thing.

Confused Young Republicans

2005-02-13T17:07:00.000Z

Marquette University has shut down a fund-raiser organized by campus Republicans for a group called "Adopt A Sniper." The young republicans were selling bracelets bearing the motto "1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide". A university spokeswoman said that this activity was not in keeping with Marquette's Jesuit Mission. A spokesman for the republican group critized the university admistration for being "ultra-liberal."

It sounds to me that these fledgling neo-cons ought to pick a school more in choosing with their views, like West Point.

America: Love it or Leave it

2005-02-06T19:48:00.000Z

This little piece of intellectual laziness was popularized during the Vietnam War. I suppose it was what Samuel Johnson meant when he quipped "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Today, "love it or leave it" has been replaced by "If you don't like America, why don't you move to [fill in the blank]?". If you've been asked this particular question, you surely know that any rational discourse has ended.

What is ironic is that I've been asked this rhetorical question by both the supporters of Clinton and GWB. Does this make me an authentic American hater? I was a commissioned officer in the United States Army, which is more than I can say about a lot of neo-conservatives. I also took time to read the Constitution, since I had taken a vow to uphold and defend it. The question was almost always in response to my criticism of an unconstitutional law or policy of the Clinton or Bush administrations. I can understand democrat types for their criticism, as they believe the Constitution to be mostly a "living document" that can be twisted or ignored in order to further their agenda. What is more perplexing is that the "law-and-order" republicans now exhibit such contempt (or possibly ignorance) of the Constitution.

Let's take this rhetorical question seriously for a moment. The underlying assertion is that if you don't like something, you ought to cut and run. Don't like school? Drop out! Don't like your job? Quit! Family's a drag? Get a divorce or run-away from home. In some cases, this is a good idea. But it is a poor idea if there's a likelihood of changing the situation. Assuming that I were to choose leaving the US, where should I go? Most countries have fairly stringent immigrant policies, and in some I would likely be suspected of being a spy. Another thing is that you just aren't free to leave. The US is in the process of enacting an "exit tax" to be levied upon those emigrating. I suppose secession is another option, but there are too many idolizers of Lincoln in this country for it to be a realistic option.