VI Day

Apparently, the US has won the War in Iraq.

That just slipped by everyone's attention, of course, because of the liberal mainstream media. Oh, and because there was no declaration of surrender, and nobody really knows if Iraq can even govern itself without US forces there. That probably has something to do with it too.

Go to right wing blogs like this one and you'll see all kinds of pictures of ticker tape parades and post-war celebrations from... the forties. They all declared November 22nd Victory in Iraq Day. Why November 22nd? Well, I really couldn't find out why they chose that date rather than any other. It's not like the insurgents signed a peace treaty or surrendered their arms and gave in to US troops. From what I could find, they pulled that date out of their asses.

Have things improved in Iraq. Absolutely! After they finally decided to throw in enough troops to actually manage the insurgency, the number of attacks are down, and Iraq is a much safer place. But is that victory?

Victory in Iraq should be defined as having accomplished the goals that the Americans set out to accomplish. Was that goal simply getting enough troops in there to keep violence to a minimum? I doubt it.

The goal was to facilitate the establishment of a government and infrstructure in Iraq that could provide for its own security, and be friendly to the US and its interests. In order to find out whether that's been accomplished, American forces have to pull out of Iraq, or at least reduce their military presence, to see if the level of violence stays as low as it currently is. When that happens, I'll be ready to declare victory in Iraq. Not before.

Ask a righty why it is, if the War in Iraq has been won, why it is that there are still American troops there, and they'll say, "well, we still have troops in Germany and Japan!" Those, troops however, aren't holding back insurgencies. Nobody is worried that Tojo's grandson is going to bomb Pearl Harbor again if American troops leave Okinawa. That comparison is meaningless. Stop using it. It's fucking stupid.

Blagojevich and Republican Loyalty

For some reason, Blagojevich doesn’t feel like he’s done enough damage to the Democratic Party by basically selling Obama’s senate seat, and insists on staying in office and appointing someone to the senate despite the fact that even if he appointed the second incarnation of Christ, that person would have the stink of corruption on him.

However, he’s a very wiley fellow, that Blagojevich. Since, after Obama leaves the senate to become President, the place will be completely vacant of blacks, so Blago appointed a black guy. And as Rep. Bobby Rush says, “I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate, right now, want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.” So the Democrats have a tough choice to make. Allow a tainted senate appointment, or go without their token black guy. In all likelihood, they’ll be scrambling to find another black guy to take the seat after they’ve blocked out the one Blago tried to appoint.

The Republican’s, of course, are citing this as an example of how corrupt the Democratic party is, despite the fact that Obama and most other Democrats have been fighting this senate appointment tooth and nail. If the shoe were on the other foot, I highly doubt the main Republican establishment would be doing the same. Republicans like to get behind each other and march. That’s why they’ve been so successful at winning elections until now. They’re policies are all retarded, as American’s have finally come to realize, but they stand behind each other and get the proverbial trains to run on time. As Sideshow Bob said, they want their leaders to “slash taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule them like a king.” They even got behind McCain, who they despised for years with his “belief in evolution” and “imaginary black baby”.

Palestinian Expulsion

According to this poll, a "plurality" of Israelis would rather see the Palestinians be expelled from the West Bank rather than the settlements be removed.

The question that always comes to my mind when the idea of expulsion comes up is, "expel them to where?" Not only will you have to forcably move the Palestinians from where they've lived for generations, you'd also have to force the country or countries into which they are being pushed to take them. And while Arab nations may cry about the treatment of Palestinians, none of them really want to take in five million rowdy, poorly educated, unemployed refugees.

How would you even do this? Push them all across the river into Jordan? You'd have to fight the Palestinians, you'd have to fight the Jordanians, and you'd have to fight whatever other countries decided to join in to prevent the forced relocation.

And another thing! Why is it genocidal to talk about pushing Israel into the sea, but perfectly acceptable to talk about pushing Palestinians across the Jordan river? And don't give me any of that Palestinians-aren't-really-a-people crap, 'cause whether or not they've been a nation historically, the conditions under which they've lived for the last 41 years have made them culturally distinct from any other Arab population, as any Jordanian will tell you. Even if Jordan had the option of recapturing the West Bank and making it part of their country again, I really doubt they would jump at the opportunity.

Wow!

I haven't posted a thing here all semester!

Well, I'm glad Obama won, that was pretty cool.

I have a few videos on YouTube now, so anyone who still reads this can check them out.

Right now I'm saving money for a decent camera instead of the shite one I have to use now.

The computer I used to use to record music is all fucked up now for some reason, so I'll have to get something running on my laptop. It won't run Pro Audio 9, but it will run Sonar, which I barely know how to use. I guess I have to upgrade sometime.

Biden

While I was hoping for Clinton to get the VP nomination, I always considered biden the next best choice. In retrospect, now that I've seen him in action a little more, I think he's an even better choice than Clinton.

Biden, like Obama, has the ability to speak and be interesting. This is a quality that is going to be essential if the American left is to get anywhere. They need to weed out the Kerrys and Gores, and get someone on the ballot who can make a case for the Democratic party's platform.

She's Got Balls, and You Gotta Respect That

It looked like a free ride for quite a while, but after taking beating after beating in primary after primary, Hillary Clinton quickly became the underdog. This is not a position she's used to.

I must say, however, that despite the fact that I prefer Obama, and that by continuing to attack Obama, she's doing McCain's work for him, we all knew that she would fight until the bloody end, and that's impressive. She's stubborn, but stubbornness is a very endearing quality.

The reason I don't prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama is because, unlike her fans, I realize that Hillary is not Bill. No matter what the Republicans would try to pin Bill Clinton, nothing could make the bulk of American citizens hate him. He was just too cool. In that respect, Obama is more like Bill Clinton than Hillary is. If Bill could run again, he would win in a landslide.

Why is coolness important? It's not, in and of itself. I really don't think Hillary or Bill or Obama really have that many differences between them. I just think that they will fuck things up far less than McCain or any other Republican. But The Republicans know how to piss, moan, scream, shriek and otherwise bore their way into people's collective crania until their bullshit reaches enough people to put a road block in front of any good anybody who tries to do something they don't like. That's how they keep winning. In order to stop that, you need someone made of teflon. Or adamantium coated with teflon.

When the Pugs throw shit at Hillary, it sticks. That doesn't happen with Obama. That's why she won't win, and why, even if she did win, that she would not be a very successful president.

But maybe she still has something up her sleeve.

Stupid Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Since California oficially became the second state to allow gay marriage, there have been a shitstorm of crazies spreading their fundy craziness all over the place.

Here's one of the best (and by the best, I mean the most hilariously retarded) arguments against gay marriage.

From www.drumwaster.com

Yesterday, a judicial panel of seven judges voted 4-3 to ignore the definition of marriage given in existing black-letter law by finding a “fundamental right” that has gone hitherto unnoticed for a century and a half. The last time this issue came up was Proposition 22, which passed by more than 20 points (61-39), yet those unelected judges ignore that to create a “compelling state interest” in gay marriage. (Which neatly sidesteps the utter lack of legal precedent, as well as the need to actually have any written laws supporting the judges as they attempt to arrive at their various decisions.)

Funny… wouldn’t there be a “compelling state interest” in one man-one woman marriages? After all, that is proven to be the most stable form of family, as well as being self-sufficient in creating future generations (something same-sex couples simply cannot do).

First of all, having a compelling state interest in gay marriage does not proclude having a compelling state interest in heterosexual marriage. And allowing gay marriage does not undermine heterosexual marriage. To assume that is to assume that gays who can't marry are thinking, "Gee, if I can't marry a man, I guess I'll turn straight and marry some chick!" Or that straights are thinking, "Aw, geez, now that gays are marrying, I don't wanna anymore. Nothing is worth the effort unless it is something that gays are specifically banned from doing."

By the way, there are people who really believe that allowing gay marriage will endanger heterosexual marriage because heteros will see it as "something gays do."

Case in point, "Crazy Larry" Auster,

Well, it has the effect of devaluing marriage. Men often don't want to get married, the social incentives, the prestige of marriage, need to be there if marriage is to happen. If you turn marriage in a soulless union of two "partners," no longer focused on the forming of a family and the raising of children, but on the convenience of the two "partners," you've stripped marriage of its specialness, the sense of joining something larger than yourself. Also, you've turned marriage into something which is based on a homosexual paradigm, which is not exactly going to increase its attraction to heterosexual men. So in that sense it would tend to make marriage less appealing.

Permanence and Perfection

Traditionally, the idea of perfection implied permanence, especially in the case of God. To be perfect, one must have permanence. Permanence itself has been long sought as something desirable. This is, however, a strange pursuit because of the impermanence of the human soul. The soul is always changing, and even things deemed “good” are regarded as less so if they go unchanged while those observing it do change. Even if someone does not change their tastes, things they once found desirable become less so if they don't go through some form of improvement.

It is for this reason that permanence should not be considered a desirable quality in things for which people strive. Plato saw the impermanence of material or worldly things as a symptom of their imperfection, and Buddhists see the impermanence of material things as a reason why desire brings suffering. It's based on the assumption that everything that we desire inevitably dies, degrades or somehow lets us down. However, even if they stay the same, our desires are less and less satisfied with it over time. One reason for this is that having things is not as satisfying as attaining them. Getting a PhD or a gold medal is always more exhilirating than any time afterword when you look at that degree in its frame or that medal in your trophy case.

The greatest good, given human psychology, is therefore a constant, but unpredictable series of improvements. No matter how good you have it, you will not stay happy in stasis. Constant attainment is truly the greatest good for a human being, not some static state of “perfection” that allows no improvement.

The improvement one undergoes must also give one the feeling that it is a result of ones own efforts most of the time. That's not to say that the occasional event of accidentally falling into some wonderful circumstance won't be satisfying, but if one never has the feeling of personal accomplishment, no amount of dumb luck will bring you fulfillment.

Volitional Mortality

A common criticism of extropianism and transhumanism is that its goal is immortality. Even if this were possible, who'd want to live forever, right?

I don't think anybody who's alive today knows whether they will want to continue living after they'reseveral hundred years old. That's not the point. We seek life extension not so we can live forever, necessarily, but rather so we can live as long as we see fit.

Knee-Jerk Anti-Cloning Rhetoric

Opposition to human cloning is nearly ubiquitous wherever cloning is discussed. Oddly enough, there are few reasons given for the opposition. Perhaps there are valid reasons to oppose human cloning, but if there are, you don’t hear those reasons discussed. The only discussion one hears is the statement that human cloning must be banned followed by nodding and applause.
Am I the only one asking why? What is the problem with cloning someone? Essentially your just making that person an identical twin sibling. Why is that so objectionable? Is there a fear that the clone will be regarded as inferior to the person from whom they are cloned? If so, why? If the two are genetically identical, why would a person and his clone be thought of as any different from a person and his twin? Why would anyone even think of granting the clone fewer right or liberties?

Are people worried about having their identity stolen? Clones, like any other child would have to be issued birth certificates with their own identification numbers and so forth, and they would likely be a great deal younger than the person from whom they were cloned, so there would be little chance of mistaken identity. Even if there were a chance of that, there is a far greater chance of it occurring between twins, but you don’t hear about twins separated by adoption stealing each others’ identities.

What other possible objection could there be? Are people worried about deformities or other medical issues? In that case cloning should be restricted until it meets the necessary standard of any medical or reproductive technology about to undergo human trials, but that’s not a reason to ban it outright.