Friday, July 27, 2007
odd things i've found on craigslist
This is the first entry:
I'm quoting now:
Will barter or trade stuff for car, like a Geo Metro, Suzuki Swift, or any car that can get 40 miles per gallon or better, like a VW Diesel (Jetta, Beetle or Passat). I have my head/heart set on breaking the 40mpg barrier. (I plan to install a bed in it, so I can have an affordable bedroom.)
What I have as of this posting date: Magnepan MG-I speakers ($300). Vulcan Wood lathe ($100). Fire Safe ($20). Heads, Intake Manifold, Carb, Water Pump, for a GMC/Chevy 305 ($99). "Hot VWs" magazines ($20). Antique dresser ($150). Engine stand ($40). Electric 50ft sewer snake ($350). "Rocky Boppers" ($15). Honda 250cc road bike, (Scout?). UPS Batteries ($10). Guardian Ware. Benchtop Drill Press. Collectibles? Other stuff. Cleaning out storage unit.
(in Australian accent) How ta speak San Franciscan: ^ = normal business proposal
Here’s a link to it.
The language, of course, is highly convoluted. But here’s what it boils down to. The Executive branch has now created and claimed the power to sieze the property of anyone who:
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order...
So, if anyone speaks out against our occupation of Iraq, or even threatens to speak out against it, can have their land seized.
Does anyone believe me yet that we now live in a fascist state?
Back on June 4, I wrote a post under the title of Speaking Of Politics. The point I was making there was that, when a number of people are asked why they support President Bush invariably more than half answer with some form of "he's a man of God". You want to support and vote for Godly politicians? Awesome, go for it, more power to you. My problem is that i could find no evidence to support Bush's numerous assertions that he is indeed a "man of God".
So, I asked around. Friends, family, anyone I knew that supported Bush, at least in part, because he is a "Godly man", were asked to give me an example, one example to back up their belief.
I recieved zero responses.
(before I get into this, I would like to state, for the record, that I don’t really have a strong stance either for or against abortion. i don’t have a dog in this fight, as they say.)
Why does it seem that most of those who believe that life begins at conception don’t really seem to care about that life after its birth?
Let’s look at this for a moment, shall we?
The anti-abortion industry is a booming behemoth. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours are put into ad campaigns, sit-ins at clinics, chaining clinic doors shut, organizing marches, organizing and putting on conferences, etc.
There is enormous effort thrown behind the anti-abortion/pro-life movement by churches and individual religious people. All this money and time is spent to try to make abortions illegal. Or, in a more localized way, the effort goes to trying to drastically reduce the number and availability of abortions. Ultimately, then, the goal is to have the maximum number of children born at all times. But what about after they’re born?
I’m generalizing here, I know. But, as generalizations, they’re true.
• The PL’s don’t care about WIC
• They either don’t care or are against welfare, even for single moms
• They don’t care about the conditions of schools anywhere except the ones their kids are in.
• They don’t care about college loan rates going up and government grants going down.
• They don’t care about the many kids growing up in bad situations, with a mom who might’ve wanted an abortion.
• They don’t care that that kid exponentially more likely to:
o Do drugs
o Get pregnant
o Join a gang
o End up in jail
I know that what I just said isn't true for all pro-lifers. Many would probably chime in now and say that they really do care about the above issues. Fine, maybe they do. I can't know. But I can know that whether or not they care about the issues or not, they're not doing a thing about them. Better to buy more chain for the clinic doors I guess.
Just my 3 cents.
When you're being pragmatic, don't let anyone tell you you're cynical.
When you're being realistic, don't let anyone tell you you're jaded.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
tonight i've been thinking a lot about the current situation in Iraq; about my friends who are, or have been, deployed over there for multiple tours; about the American mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends deployed there who are performing (and being deployed) far above and beyond the call of duty, and are being mentally and physically destroyed; the Iraqi men, women and children who are also being mentally and physically destroyed; and, at a far, far less important level, the billions upon billions of dollars that our country is shelling out month after month, week after week, day after day.
i can grasp all of the arguments for and against "staying the course". most all of them have at least one or two valid point. i always become a little bit emotional when i'm sitting around reading, watching, and/or writing on the subject of Iraq. it's usually a smorgasbooard of many emotions. but for the past 36 hours or so, that has changed.
now i am just angry. not at anyone, just angry. and i don't have any answers on what to do. there are a million options, and it seems that, no matter which one is picked, it will simply be the lesser of the million evils.
i said all that, to get to this point and a very simple question that i want anyone who can, to answer.
the administration, over the years, has repeated the mantra that they are for "victory in Iraq" and the Democrats want defeat (which is, of course, nonsense. nobody in America wants to see more Americans wounded or injured, that's what a true "defeat" would be: a slaughter of Americans.
so, the Iraq thing is over when we 'win'. we'll withdraw troops when we achieve 'victory'.
therefore, i have a simple question. let me preface this by saying that i am asking this honestly, in hopes of getting a real answer. there is no sarcasm, no toungue-in-cheek, it's not a rhetorical question. and i don't want a general answer, a dictionary answer. i'm asking this in terms of right now in Iraq...
...What Is Victory?
i hope i get some responses.
thank you for your time...sweet dreams, all.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Prediction: Fred Thompson will be officially announcing his candidacy within 2 hrs.
posted 5:45pm CST