Wednesday, February 23, 2005

MSM Remembers That the Pope is Still Alive

Again I am forced to credit CNN with this stellar piece of reporting. Karol Wojtyla aka. that Pope guy shows he is still on the top of the game. Now I know that gay marriage is:

Part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.

Yes the great battle between human rights and mankind is sure to come. Well I guess he is entitled to that opinion. About abortion Pope John Paul II says:

There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born.

lright that's true if you consider the embryo a human being. Again I must dissent with my fellow Pole here, as with the Church's ridiculous stance against condom use particularly in AIDS infested Africa. But here comes my point, I do like the Pope to some extent in particular his anti-Communist views that helped give encouragement to the 1982 Solidarity union movement in Poland are admirable and perhaps brave if you take the position that his assassination attempt was a Communist plot okayed by Moscow. But, what I like most is his consistency.

Perhaps since his is unelected and doesn't have to be held accountable his views never have change just to piss off less people. Quite unlike any politician. So a fertilized egg is an human being that shouldn't be touched? Fine Pope Man you agree with most of the 'Christian Conservatives' that form the bedrock of Bush's base. Wait Pope aren’t you also against the killing of fully developed human beings in the gorefest that is Iraq?

When war, like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent for us to proclaim, with a firm and decisive voice, that only peace is the way of building a more just and caring society.

And apparently he:

implored for the world's deliverance from the peril of the tragic clash between cultures and religions.

And said this:

Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.

Hmmmmm Dang Pope you’re out of touch with 'real Americans' like the 'super radical' Howard and his comrades in the socialist hellhole which is today's American Democrat party. Now it sounds like the Pope is a hippie from the above the statements but I respect how consistent and honest his views are on all these societal issues.

I do find it interesting that CNN feels it needs to report these particular quotations but ignores his daily calls for peace and end to military aggression. During the Gulf War I the Pope spoke out against the war an astounding 56 times. American MainStream Media somehow forgot this little fact probably they were too busy rehashing White House and Pentagon propaganda (whoops press statements I mean) and trying to make it look like reporting. Although give credit where credit is due FOX did report the Pope immediate comments on GWII.

From what I have seen the Pope is a hellsza decent defender of Christians worldwide from persecution even if it’s from the American military. Take the case of the not especially admirable Tariq "I never killed anybody in a direct act" Aziz. (Good job Tariq after WWI I'm sure Hitler never killed anybody in a direct act just as I'm positive Bush hasn't ever killed anyone in the skies of 1970s Alabama.) But anyway the Vatican gave the Saddam era deputy Prime Minister and good Catholic boy Tariq Aziz it's 'unofficial support' in his legal defense by providing Italian lawyers free of charge.

So hang on there Pope John Paul II and don’t retire because that would break tradition. At least we'll always agree that war is inherently evil and ultimately will offer no solution in this world of ours.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Horowitz's Garbage

This site may just be largest piece right wing hate filled drivel on the information super highway. Upon first viewing the page you learn about dangerous subversives of the Left with helpful photographs. Apparently Zarqawi is morally equivalent to Kofi Annan and the page just keeps on going with widely varying characters: John Kerry, the Ayatollah, Noam Chomsky, Mohummad Atta, Dennis Kucinich, Yasser Arafat and of course Michael Moore.

The bar on the left side of the page has various categories of undesirables. Apparently conservatives now openly hate- civil rights, feminism, anti-war (peace), organized labour, the environment, immigration, a select number of terrorist groups (long dead SLA members and Weathermen but Timothy Mc Viegh or his like dont make the cut), and my personal favorite- Islam.

Upon opening of the Muslim link I was somewhat surprised that most of them weren't very left wing being conservative fundamentalist religious zealots albeit they weren't too fond of America or Israel. Even better though is that you don’t even have to be a Muslim to get into this topic. As long as you’re an Arab then Horowitz considers that close enough.
Here are some of the Christians:

1. George Habash- He features prominently although with no mention of his Greek Orthodox upbringing. Leader of the Communist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) which is most noted for its hijackings and recently assassinated Israel's tourism minister.
2. Edward Said- Noted Author and Palestinian activist who almost had his books banned by Arafat's Palestinian Authority.
3. Hanan Ashrawi- Activist and former Palestinian cabinent minister.
4. James Zogby- Maronite Christian, pollster and one of the most visible Arab American leaders.
5. Jean Abi Nader- One of the Arab American Institute’s (AAI) directors.
6. Stephen Sosebee- head of the Palestine Childern Relief Fund (PCRF).
7. Bishara A. Bahbah- on broad of the PCRF.
8. Khalil Jahshan- Vice-President of the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).
9. Elias Rashmawi- Son of a bishop and national coordinator for the National Council of Arab Americans.
10. Hisham Sharabi- Recently deceased professor at Georgetown University.
11. Joesph Massad- Professor at Columbia University

There were others I couldn't confirm with Google including Yvonne Yazbeck-Haddad, Tariq Ali, Edward Omar Moad, Riad Hamad, Sahkr Habash, and Nimer Halima.

Now Horowitz could have put these largely peaceful characters (exception of George Habash) in his 'Anti-Israel' domian but instead they were lumped together with various and sometime obscure radical Islamist terrorists simply because they were Arabs who passionately fight (or fought) for the Palestinian cause. Personally I find these stereotyping and racist to sweep anyone uttering anti-Zionist rhetoric into the violent Islamic terrorist blacklist. I wonder what Horowitz thinks of his anti-Zionists co-religionists- here and here. Not doubt those rabbis are just more Muslim terrorists who hate us for our freedom.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Bush Smoked Weed?

CNN was hot on this story. Doesn't really surprise me, in fact who gives a shit? Of all things to get excited at Bush for smoking the ganja is not one of them. Hell if anything he should start toking B.C. Bud in the Oval Office he might chill out on his aggressive military fantasy who laid out with all the sprit of Wilson in his inaugural address.

Considering the fact that some Canadians voted alcoholics Ralph Klein and Gordon Campbell who are currently premiers of Alberta and British Columbia respectively. Klein being the one who verbally assaults homeless people while plastered and Campbell being the one who was so wasted he couldn't barely stand after being pulled over by an Hawaiian police patrol. Even though Bush might have been an alcoholic till 1985 and he did drunkenly drive his car into a bush; it seems he found God and all that good stuff so let’s not make a big deal about that one. (hee hee Bush drove into a bush)

There are more serious things to worry about his past would be: insider trading, desertion from duty while defending the skies of Alabama from the Viet Cong in an obsolete jet, his record as the American governor that ordered the largest number of executions in American history, and of course cocaine use rumors but at least he didn't succumb to the charms of hillbilly heroin like Rush. And let’s not forget his administration is littered with neocons that control the civilian broad of the Pentagon and his administration very cozy ties to the energy, defense and other noble war profiteering industries.

So in conclusion there has to be a campaign to get Bush to start smoking the stickiest of icky again. I mean the future of the free world depends on it eh? I'm sure Mark Emery is up to the challenge.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Rafik Hariri Assassination- Whodunit?

First off I strongly doubt that Syria or their Hizbollah buddies had any part in the killing of Hariri. They have both issued stern condemnations of the attack which they denounced as terrorism. Not that verbal denial should much weight at all in international politics. The real thing that gets me is that this attack is so clearly detrimental to Syrian interests. Syria does not want an unstable Lebanon and more over Syria wants to continue its occupation of Lebanon.

In the aftermath there have been hundreds of thousands people protesting against Syria in Beirut and Washington has recalled their Ambassador. They only reason it seems for Syria to have ordered the assassination of Hariri would have been to silence a voice against Syrian troops in Lebanon. But there are many other more vocal voices against Syria, notably Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and ex-president Amin Gemayel. Hariri was hardly unique in this regard. Although might not be the head of an ancient family like Jumblatt or Gemayel it can be seen from the funeral that he had quite a strong following.

I also don’t buy the argument that Syria is ultimately at fault because it occupies Lebanon. It's not occupying any major Lebanese cites and Hizbollah MP Mohammed Fneish will tell you, "If you go today from North to South, you won't find any Syrian checkpoints in Lebanon." Apparently that's somewhat true as well. But let’s say Syria occupies or is fighting to occupy every city in Lebanon and say they have 130,000 troops there and then the same thing assassination occurs, Syria would still not be entirely to blame. Because it can be tricky to stop these things just ask any foreign occupier in Iraq and Palestine. Although Syria should in fairness removes its presence from Lebanon if most people are opposed, it is just self-serving hypocrisy for the United States to demand Syria must leave while citing UN resolutions. Far more resolutions can be cited in Israel bloody occupation and their coming annexation of part of the West Bank and the American occupation has far more opposition.

So if it's not Syria who then is responsible. It's all speculation now but I’m not too convinced about the group that claimed responsibility. I mean they did it because of his sizable connections to Saudi Arabia? I don’t know about that one if they were that nationalistic wouldn't be more concerned of the current President Emile Lahoud's backing of Syria- the country with the most visible presence in Lebanon. I'm sure the conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this one. Most of them are likely drawing connections Mossad and Bush administration connections. The Bushies may be taken full advantage of this to bolster the pressure on Syria but they probably didn't have anything to do with it. Mossad motto is after all- By way of deception, thou shalt do war, but that aside there involvement is entirely possible but it is much harder to prove then to speculate.

In short it wasn't Syria but at this point is not all together to important who is responsible. The consequences and aftermath will be very interesting to follow in the coming weeks. I would look for greater American aggression towards Syria and even greater polarization of Lebanese society into pro-Syria and anti-Syria factions.

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Right Wing Democracy Hypocrisy

The ever vigilant Newsmax has produced this article extolling how reform is just sweeping the Arab world. Bush even gave the Saudis as an example of Arab reform in his State of the Union Address. The fact that this is the first election ever of any sort in Saudi Arabia is not discussed too much. Although they do acknowledge that these are only local council elections with only half the member being elected. And also mentioned obvious fact that women cannot vote but that is really no surprise among the Gulf States.

But then Bush tells Iranian reformers that he stands with them for liberty. Now that's all well but he ignoring the fact that Iran is the most democratic country in the Middle East. As women are granted equal political rights in the constitution. Women hold seats in Parliament and numerous local councils. One of Iran's Vice-Presidents is a woman with a very interesting history. Minorities such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians have guaranteed seats similar to New Zealand with their First Nations.

Now Iran is far from perfect but still their 1997 elections were certainly freer and fairer then the recent Bush PR victory. As everyone could vote and they weren't under occupation and the reformists won big time. In the recent 2003 election the same 1997 conditions applied but the Council of Guardians disqualified over 2500 reformist candidates. They were help by a passive youth population and the ever growing American threat.

This once again shows that the Bush administration is more than willing to cuddle up to dictatorships (Two billion dollars a year in Egypt's case) while condemn other dictatorships that may or may not be any better. This leads directly to a lost of American credibility in the Middle East. And one could go on with comparisons forever i.e. if Libyan relations could be fulfilled with diplomacy then why is Iraq different, if Syria is bad then what about Egypt (defiantly harder for Christians in Cairo then Damascus), and dictators in Central Asia, Pakistan, North Africa, and the Gulf States are fine but not Cuba.

Sort of makes the right wing blogosphere mindless cheerleading of Bush's 'freedom is on the march' foreign policy look just the slightest bit naive.