Why Must We Always Unite in Grief?!

If one looks at America today and takes the speeches and images of the memorial in Arizona as the representative images of the entire nation, one would think we were the most united place on earth. I can think of only one other moment in my lifetime and recent memory when we acted similarly: after the events of September 11, 2001. If I think hard, then other events come to mind and, sadly for us, they are all lugubrious events.

We, as a nation, always seem to unite in the aftermath of tragedy and terror; we praise our freedoms, condemn the perpetrators who violate them, and shake hands with enemies political, ideological, or otherwise. We immediately follow these scenes with self-given praise on our ability to unite and overlook our differences, only to return to and dwell on those differences when positive superlatives we attribute to ourselves and our leaders have been exhausted. Once again, we become disrobed of our good-natured tendencies and are left in the nakedness of our seemingly irreconcilable differences. Political attacks ensue; accusations of all sorts fly about; commentators and other loudmouths pontificate and incite division, anger, and violence; and, as a nation, we once again lose our ability (or willingness) to come together in civil discourse and discuss our differences, accept one-another as free citizens of a country of which we are supposedly proud. We promptly fail to accept and allow diverging opinions or true bilateral compromise. Most deplorably, however, we fail to accept or allow to work the mechanics of our democracy. Instead, we become the hypocrites and charlatans we eagerly criticize in others.

Why must we always unite in grief?!

I look forward to being proved wrong on this ominous observation.

Racism is Alive and Well

And on that note: Haley Barbour can kiss goodbye his chances of becoming the Republican candidate for President in 2010, and of being elected to any office at the national level... thanks to Rachel Maddow.

It's the Numbers, Stupid!

The chart below highlights the amount that will be saved by each income bracket indicated under the Democratic-proposed, the Republican-proposed, and the Obama-Republican plans separately.

And you wonder why liberals are angry? This country's elected officials have gone insane, starting with Obama at the top. I mean that.

No one in Washington, save for those twelve senators who voted against this plan, has the moral right to pretend to care about deficits and debts anymore. NO ONE! But they are all hypocrites so they will anyway, at the first chance they get.

Image Source

Ugly Stuff

This is the ugliest, most repulsive thing I have seen in a while.

Here is an an American citizen—and what's more one who is risking his life so that your ass and mine and that of every member of Congress does not have to—having to hide his face and use a pseudonym out of fear of being persecuted—legitimately persecuted—by the system we have allowed to shamefully persist for seventeen years to the detriment of real human beings.

I'm borderline anti-militaristic and I am saying this.

On Mosques and Principles

I was going to let the issue of the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' go by without commenting, but Bill O'Reilly's latest tirade on The View (no, I don't actually watch the show) got me angry and here's my take on the issue, as pithily as I can put it:

Under normal circumstances, I would have ben the first to dismiss the building of a place of worship—be it a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.—as an unnecessary extravagance. I would probably have gone so far as to say that we don't need to expand whatever extent religion already has; and I would definitely have ventured to advocate, instead, the building of a more universally beneficial type of building, such as a school, hospital, or no building at all and a park or garden instead.

But given the airtime that was given to this issue, and the ink and bile that was spilled over it, I have to come out now, as a strong supporter of the 'Ground Zero Mosque.'

First of all, there was a lot of deliberately misleading information on the so-called 'mosque.' Calling it a 'mosque' was supposed to make people conjure up images of a lead-domed building with sky-piercing, imposing minarets. And they did. The building in question is, in fact, a multi-faith cultural center that will provide the Manhattan community with more 'secular' amenities such as a gym, pool, daycare center, etc..

Secondly, the debate in question should never have taken a national dimension. But it did (thanks, Palin!). The only people making a decision on it should have been local authorities responsible for issuing building permits and the like; the only laws to be observed should have been safety and zoning laws; the only additional considerations should have been on the aesthetics of the building—and that, only if NYC has any.

By overtaking the national airwaves, the debate over this cultural center reached a level of perversion that many self-righteous (read: mistaken) citizens across the nation embraced as justified. Suddenly, an organization whose whole reason-for-being is combatting bigotry discredited itself by coming out against this building; then a bigot in X or Y county felt proud to say that allowing such a building was 'insensitive' or 'un-American' (question: who died and made you a moral dictator of America?); then a zealot in Florida threatened to organize a Koran-burning event that escalated attacks and violence against our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also aggravating any existing ire of Muslims across the globe. Yes, in just a matter of weeks, a debate that never should have gone beyond the requirements of local formalities became national and eventually medieval.

Thirdly, it should be understood that everybody has the right to voice his or her own opinion on whatever issue; but nobody has the right to pervert long-standing constitutional principles on issues of 'sensitivity,' especially when doing so means depriving others of the first freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

I'm sorry, angered Americans-at-large: it's not up to you to decide whether a church or mosque or whatever else gets built in your country. It is not up to me, either....

I'm sorry, Manhattan residents: it's not up to you to prevent the construction of a building you don't 'like.' Comply with the decisions of the people you have chosen to represent you in enacting and enforcing local building and zoning laws.

Lastly, I'm sorry families of 9/11 victims: your pain and anger, however real and 'raw' (to use a word that was thrown around by Palin & Co.), do not entitle you to abridging the rights of any group, much less those of Muslims as a whole, who—as a whole—were never against us.

We were attacked by religious zealots with radically perverted views of Islam and the world, and with a total lack of consideration and respect for human life. Perhaps an example closer to home would serve to better illustrate it: the latter are the equivalent of the many (pseudo-)Christian groups in this country whose hateful and bigoted ideas spring up every day in dark and dreary basements across America, and whose abusive rhetoric or violent actions often reach the public scene.

Above all, remember that we are a state of laws; laws that condemn harmful behavior on others, and laws that defend liberties of individuals who set foot in this country (including minorities that can easily be overwhelmed by a majority). We have those laws for a reason and, despite whatever defects our legal-judicial system may have, intolerance of this kind is not one that should be imposed on or expected of it, no matter what the angry or otherwise emotional multitudes say about it.

It's a matter of principle.

Strong Words

I hate—HATE—what McCain has become in the last two and a half years. Yes, I thought this before reading the article linked above. And no, I don't think 'hate' is too strong a word to describe the more-than-resentment I feel toward him. I hate him for having become the personification and, at times, the epitome and the sole agent of the obstructionism that has plagued our Congress since the last general elections. He went from being a true maverick and a bridge between the two parties, to campaigning on it, to soiling his campaign and reputation, to becoming an intractable old coot, and to abjuring his moderate past and even the title he campaigned on.

But most of all, I hate him for unleashing—again, I don't think I'm wording this too strongly—Sarah Palin on the national political scene, along with the bigotry, hate, ignorance, and opportunism she exemplifies. Her dreaded ubiquity, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, vitriolic language, and shallow example served to bring to the scene other ignorant, opportunistic pseudo-politicians who unscrupulously exploit hard times and people's legitimate frustrations for their own personal gain, while setting whatever civilized debate we had in this country back by decades.

Thanks a lot, McCain!

Politics and Bigotry Before Justice

An exposé of the hypocrisy plaguing our Congress and obstructing its legislative process, this time on Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell:

When Journalists Redeem Themselves

Just three days ago, I was asking myself why in the world Maureen Dowd and David Brooks are on the NYT payroll. They hadn't produced an article of worth (in my opinion, of course) for weeks and I was tired of even reading them.

Yet, these last two days, both of them redeemed themselves in my eyes with their two articles:

First, Brooks wrote about the realities facing conservative legislators today as well as their precarious position between ideological alternatives and feasible, beneficial ones for the middle class that run against traditional conservative ideology. Brooks seemed to favor the realistic approaches to mending the nation's woes.

Then, there was Dowd, who wrote about the blatant hypocrisy and racism shown by the pseudo-intellectual Newt Gingrich who recently agreed with Dinesh D'Souza's assessment of Obama's politics as a result of his father's neo-colonialist world view. According to Dowd—and here I agree with her—by equating Obama's policy and view of the world to that of his father, and by tainting the character of the latter, they also insult the former.

Gingrich's and D'Souza's logic is so perverted and twisted that only an uneducated audience or bigots will embrace. But then again, look at the crowd who's gotten the mainstream Republicans' panties in a bunch....

Greeks Are the New Albanians

I clearly remember the early-late 90s when young and old Albanians in search of a better life crossed the borders—admittedly legally or illegally—into Greece, where they were met with menial jobs, police abuse, inhumane treatment at customs or in custody, as well as with cultural and religious pressure to alter their identities.

These are all true and easily researchable, but the latter is the most heinous of them all and relevant to this rant of sorts: upon arriving in Greece, most Albanians were, indeed, under great pressure to change their religion to Greek Orthodox, or at the very least, their names to typical Greek- or Orthodox-sounding names. It did not matter whether they were Orthodox in Albania but happened to have a religiously-neutral name like 'Ilir' or 'Arben'; when they went to Greece, adult Ilirs and Arbens were quickly baptized (humiliatingly by taking a dip in large cauldrons while wearing nothing but their skivvies, might I add!) to become 'Ilia' or 'Andrea.' The pressure of conversion or name changes was, of course, greater for those of Muslim extraction who had clearly Muslim-sounding names.

Today, as Greece faces the mess in which it got itself—while making no attempt to persecute those former leaders who fattened their bank accounts... hello!—it is the young people of Greece who find themselves seeking fortune and employment elsewhere.

The New York Times tells the story of a handful of young Greeks whose primary aim is to emigrate. One of them is Alexandra Mallosi and she is going to Abu Dhabi. I wonder if, once there, she will have to change her name to 'Asalah' or 'Yasmina'....

Technically, Greece holds itself capable of greater civility than certain other nations (among which Abu Dhabi must certainly figure), yet I have a feeling Alexandra will remain Alexandra even in Abu Dhabi.

I should be gleaming with schadenfreude about this whole situation, but I ought to make it clear that I do have mixed feelings about the Greek crisis.... I did, however, feel compelled to share this bit of what some might call 'karma.' I won't call it that, not believing in it and all....

The North Star Empress

I finally got a chance to read Vanity Fair's report on Sarah Palin and there was nothing in it that shocked me. I am not claiming to be clairvoyant but she has shown her ugly and uglier sides time after time. I just wish those who follow her also knew how she really is. Unfortunately, they won't even bother to read this article because, why would they go on to question their belief in the 'North Star.'

Warm and effusive in public, indifferent or angry in private: this is the pattern of Palin’s behavior toward the people who make her life possible. A onetime gubernatorial aide to Palin says, “The people who have worked for her—they’re broken, used, stepped on, down in the dust.” On the 2008 campaign trail, one close aide recalls, it was practically impossible to persuade Palin to take a moment to thank the kitchen workers at fund-raising dinners. During the campaign, Palin lashed out at the slightest provocation, sometimes screaming at staff members and throwing objects. Witnessing such behavior, one aide asked Todd Palin if it was typical of his wife. He answered, “You just got to let her go through it… Half the stuff that comes out of her mouth she doesn’t even mean.” When a campaign aide gingerly asked Todd whether Sarah should consider taking psychiatric medication to control her moods, Todd responded that she “just needed to run and work out more.” Her anger kept boiling over, however, and eventually the fits of rage came every day. Then, just as suddenly, her temper would be gone. Palin would apologize and promise to be nicer. Within hours, she would be screaming again. At the end of one long day, when Palin was mid-tirade, a campaign aide remembers thinking, “You were an angel all night. Now you’re a devil. Where did this come from?”

The whole report is seven and a half pages, but take your time and go through it. I did. And I know quite well I wouldn't want someone like the person described above controlling our nuclear arsenal.

Addendum: More on the empress's new clothes.

'Monk Business'

Vanity Fair takes an exhaustive look at Greece's financial woes and how a handful of monks on Mount Athos helped to create it and/or benefited from it.

On a related note, I have a short-term solution for Greece: have your church bail you out. Technically, the church and state are one and the same. One hand washes the other, I say.

Loon Watch

Sooooooo... does this make her a lez? Judging by her male counterparts' rhetoric against gays and their subsequently-discovered love for the cock, I'd say she's as lesbian as poetry readings!

She does say 'I want some young women; you come stand with me' and then goes on to ask for a few women by name. I'd say she's a bitter lesbian at best....

(via BuzzFeed)

Truth Be Told...

I am glad that at a time when most are discussing America's exit from Iraq (sort of), somebody stops and looks at the reason(s) that got us there in the first place. Those reasons were as fickle as they were false. What we didn't find there, the thousands of Iraqi victims, and the current state of political and social instability also go to show us that the war was in vain. Those dead did die in vain; they died in the hands of leaders who, led by their own reasons, sent thousands of them to fight a useless, unnecessary, unpopular, destructive war.

Revisionism is a Republican philosophy of life. Sadly, many Americans buy into it time after time. Good thing Rachel Maddow is around to shed some light where light is due, and give credit where credit is due.

Bonus clip:

'Little Terrorists'

Aaaaaaaah! This Texas representative seems to suggest that children born to illegal immigrants in the United States leave the country, become terrorists, and then come back and are a threat to our security. Yes.... Because only U.S. citizens can (re)enter the country, right?

This woman is an idiot. She cites dubious sources devoid of proof and, what's more, pushes down our throats the image of illegal immigration as a direct threat to our security. Security! It's one thing to say it's a fiscal problem, but to make any suggestion that they are 'little terrorists' serves only the purpose of eliciting images of brown babies with dynamite strapped to their bodies. And that is certainly the image that the fear-mongering Republicans want people to have in mind when voting this year.

Election years are depressing but also a good test for the sanity of our representatives. This woman has failed it.

A Good Season for Xenophobia

With few things left to criticize and with much promise for appeal to ball-suckers (today's epithet for teabaggers), the GOP has turned its attention to the document it touts as 'perfect' and 'immutable,' but also as 'flawed' when it so pleases its members. Their calls to repeal or amend the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment are just a desperate effort to garner votes before elections take place. Frustrations with illegal immigrants are legitimate and certainly worth addressing, but man, do they know how to amplify and inflate facts only to portray illegal immigrants as our biggest threat or thorn in our eye.

The New York Times is on it.

The NYT is equally—and justifiably—critical of Sarkozy's latest series of xenophobic measures. They are the latest in his attempts to secure a few votes from the extreme right, or to distract public opinion from his failures as Monsieur le Président.

Bring in the Straitjacket

Sharron Angle has outdone her loony self!

Not only does she say that Democrats will 'make government our God,' but also goes on to suggest that the First Amendment does NOT guarantee the separation of church and state, but rather protects the church from the state.

However 'in touch' she may be with mainstream America, people like Sharron Angle are dangerous to a secular democracy, which ours is, try as anybody might to convince us otherwise. Secularism ensures freedom of religion for large and small religious groups equally. Religious freedom is already strained today from many large Christian groups claiming more or less a stance similar to Angle's with regard to the First Amendment. Harming the Republic's secularism will only lead to theocracy and restrictions of freedom brought on by a majority's view of morality. If people like her get elected, it wouldn't be strange, in one generation, to see the United States transformed—if not de jure then de facto—into a theocracy of thugs that present-day Iran would envy.

Talk About Activist Judges!

Conservatives will throw around the phrase 'activist judges' quite liberally anytime there is a judicial nomination to be made on the Federal level, or anytime there is a recognition of the constitutional or human rights of a disenfranchised or targeted minority.

Little do they know (or do they know very well...?) that conservative judges are the most staunchly activist of all. As this report from The New York Times shows, the Roberts Court has been the most conservative in the history of the judicial body and the trend to more conservative decisions shows no signs of weakening, despite a second addition by president Obama.

Perhaps liberals and progressives ought to adopt an equally charged language when referring to judges in the Supreme Court and elsewhere in Federal courts across the nation. After all, what is more activist than a judge who adopts an intractably conservative position and whose decisions can be predicted with almost 100% certainty, as in the case of Antonin Scalia or, the loonier loon, Clarence Thomas? No, Samuel Alito, you were not forgotten; you are sure to give both these justices a run for their money if they want to remain on the extreme right of the Supreme Court.

Fox News's Witch Hunt

Fox News is an expert propaganda machine and, as such, is also good at demonizing people and forcing qualified, decent individuals to resign from their positions of power.

Their latest victim is Shirley Sharrod, an official in the Department of Agriculture under Obama, who has been accused by right-wind groups of racism. That message was reiterated ad nauseam by their cronies at Fox News and, as a result, she had to resign her post.

The truth of the matter is that the speech that led to accusations of racism is nothing more than a well-edited attack on her person. This is not the first time the right wing machine or Fox News have done something of the sort. On the contrary, many organizations and individuals have fallen prey to their smear tactics and have had to eventually resign or, in the case of ACORN, cease to exist.

Yet, we must admit that there is racism in this situation; only, it is not the racism of which they accuse Sharrod: It is a more concentrated and vitriolic form of the 0ld-fashioned whites-are-better-than-blacks racist stance. More concentrated because it is not the sole example in the last year and a half; more vitriolic because we allow it to happen and 'news' organizations such as Fox News propagate it without the slightest modicum of shame in this day and age. I guess I could call it shameful, too, because it feeds whatever latent traces of racism there are in American society, leading them to amplify and reach the public sphere where they are widely tolerated and touted as manifestations of our democracy.

Of course, this is nothing of the sort. I have said it before and I will say it again: a large chunk of the animosity against President Obama and his policies is a direct consequence of racism in this country. It is unlikely anybody can convince me otherwise. The rhetoric, the actions taken, the condescension with which they refer to the President on many media outlets is nothing more than a return to our shameless past when calling blacks 'uppity' and wanting to 'put (or keep) them in their place' was defended as 'American.'

Aren't we in the same crossroads as 40, 50, 140 years ago? And shouldn't we think before we take our next step into the road of peaceful existence, or into the abyss of hatred and bigotry...?

For more info, watch Rachel Maddow's segment on the issue, as well as the Sharrod's full allegedly 'racist' speech.

Loon Watch

Here is the Republican alternative to Harry Reid of the Democrats in Nevada. Now, I'm no big fan of Harry Reid—I think he could have been a tougher majority leader—but this woman has just guaranteed his reelection with her senseless, unrealistic view of the situation in her state and in the nation.

Have the Republicans stopped trying?

Greek Tragedy Exposes Greek Mendacity

It seems as though Greeks will soon get the loan/bailout they've been looking to get from the IMF and the EU. Although few in the European Union are happy about this, it is worthwhile to note that this tragedy has also served to highlight the mendacity of the Greek government throughout the years. If you ask me, it all stems from a delusion of grandeur that modern Greek governments and the Greek Orthodox Church (and, to an extent, the people) have had about themselves. They still fancy themselves the same as their ancient forebears and demand the respect and regard worthy of the latter. As a result, the Greek machine has felt undeservingly entitled to the same advancements that the rest of Europe has achieved and has disingenuously portrayed itself as the economic and political equal to its European peers in order to obtain, first, EU membership and, secondly, the Euro.

At the same time, while touting once again their glorious past, and while exploiting their position in the EU they have become nothing short of a bully in Balkanic relations. They have set conditions (read, obstacles) for Albania's and Macedonia's membership in the EU and other European/North-Atlantic alliances, quoting as reason, in the case of Macedonia, a name, and complicating relations with Albania because of a Greek minority there of less than 3%, which has enjoyed special rights more than Albanians have ever dreamt of enjoying in Greece. It is of importance to note here that Greece is the only country in Europe (and perhaps in the world) that does not recognize religious or ethnic minorities within its territory.

Similarly, Greek governments have continuously been clutching to what they call The Great Idea, which consists of territorial pretensions in southern Albania. Greece has thus become a country with overt pretensions over another territory (and today, the Albanian nation) since its inception in 1829, and has recently become an insurmountable, unreasonable obstacle over a question of simple toponymy/onomastics, bringing the etymology of the word 'hypocrisy' closer to its meaning. At the same time, Greece has yet to invalidate its declaration of war on Albania since the latter was used as a platform by Mussolini to launch his attack on Greece. In other words, Greece is still at war with Albania and refuses to act to change that status.

I don't know if I am happy to see Greece where it is today. Behind a government's machinations lie the common people and I do not wish them any ills. I do, however, hope—for Greece's best and for the best of Balkanic and European relations—that this crisis, however tragic and taxing, will serve to set the current and future Greek governments along the path of better neighborly relations and more earnestness with themselves and their European counterparts.

[Yes, this is a rant.]