Hopelessly infantile barbarians

This whole Islamic cartoon thing is ridiculous.

To Islamofascists everywhere, and by this I mean any muslim who thinks that there is some sort of divine law which states everyone who doesn't believe your beliefs and obey your ridiculous laws deserves to be blown up, beheaded, or worse:

1. They're cartoons. Furthermore, they're pretty bland. I know some other, far more inflammatory cartoons were passed around by mullahs in Denmark just to get Muslims everywhere good and riled up about the ones that were actually published, but does the end justify the means? Here, let me answer that for the Islamofascists out there: no. Here's another free clue, Sparky: when the lynchpin of your belief system is X and his fanatically devout followers think the best solution to pretty much anything is to blow it up, then you really don't have any right to be offended if an editorial cartoon portrays X with a bomb in his hat. Dumbass.

2. You're behaving like spoiled, retarded, ignorant, juvenile delinquent barbarians. If Israel behaved like you did every time you offended their faith, threatened to wipe them off the face of the earth, or drew a derogatory picture of a jew, the entire middle east outside of Israel would likely be a post-nuclear sea of black radioactive glass.

3. Free speech is free speech. Respecting your beliefs, or not, is our choice. That's right. We don't have to respect your beliefs if we don't want to. That's free society. It all works much better when everyone has a reasonable tolerance of everyone else, that is to say, tolerance of beliefs that aren't dangerous to other people you have to share the damn planet with. But once someone's belief system starts including things like "that group needs to be completely destroyed" or "everyone but us is wrong and we can therefore do whatever we want to everyone else", it's no longer compatible with the modern, civilized world. Listen up, because this is the important part: if you continue to prove to us that our paradigms of thought are mutually exclusive, that there is no way our cultures can peacefully co-exist, then you are likely going to discover the extreme downside of "asymmetric warfare". (see: Iraq, Afghanistan. You remember...puffed-up, self-aggrandizing Holy Warriors, putting the Eeeevil Satan in his place with Allah at your back, crushing the infidels...oh, wait. That's right. Both times you got your asses kicked in less time then it takes a snowcone to melt in the desert).

4. Do you really think the free world is going to tolerate insane religious fanatics acquiring nuclear weapons? Again, for the mentally crippled: rhetorical question.

Finally, some free advice: you want to continue to share the planet, start behaving like civilized adults.

Quit it, dammit

Someone keeps trying to get under the hood of my blog here; I get emails from Blogger saying well, if you forgot your password, here's where to go to change it. If I'm feeling charitable, I might think that someone is just stupid enough to not know they didn't make this blog.

On my more curmudgeonly days, I'd say: back off asshole, there is no way in hell you can crack my password.

FBI: Politic-Free Since...well, never.

Much talk about the watercooler today about whistleblowing.

I find it most interesting that Mark "Deep Throat" Felt and President Nixon both ordered illegal breakins. Nixon ordered them on Democratic headquarters, and Felt on friends and family of the Weather Underground, a radical anti-Vietnam War group. Nixon resigned. Felt was pardoned by Ronald Reagan.

What's the difference? Nixon did it for political superiority; Felt may have done it purportedly to protect America from a dangerous and lawless group. However, I'd say the similarity is more important: both thought that the End Justifies the Means.

Perhaps there are those that feel the FBI should be held to a higher standard than your average citizen in following the law, especially since they're the ones enforcing it. Others believe, however uneasilly, that sometimes the good guys have to get a little dirt on their hands to really do their job, and that the rules may have to be bent a bit from time to time in order to circumvent their shortcomings; we just don't want to know about it.

So when does just trying to do one's job to protect and serve cross the line into the unjustifiable?

And is Felt ultimately worse than Nixon for being a hypocrite as well as a BurglarMeister? My sympathies - or rather, the lack thereof - lie along the lines laid down here.

Left-wing shrill

Irene Kahn, head of Amnesty International, decided to abuse her position for a little unfriendly America-bashing, stating that Guantanamo Bay was the modern equivalent of Stalin's gulag; sort of the prison-equivalent of the perennial favorite of comparing an individual to Hitler.

It's a shame. AI does a lot of good in the world, but Kahn's ridiculous hyperbole just lowers AI's credibility and consequently its' ability to be taken seriously. For an organization that depends upon its' prestige and the world's opinion of it to badger people into recognizing and maybe doing something about unjust imprisonment in the world, that is not a good thing. With one fell swoop, she did incredible damage to the organization.

Washington Post has a much more eloquent editorial on the matter here.

More busting

Well, the "nuclear option" was averted...for now. While I think that's a damn shame, I do applaud Sen. McCain and the rest of the 14 thumbing their nose at the hyperconservative "core" of the Republican party.

I consider myself a fiscally conservative, socially moderate leaning independent, but what the hell does that mean nowadays? Groups like Focus on the Family and other hyperconservative dogmatics who are in the minority of the Republican party nevertheless wield power far out of proportion to their numbers.

It's similar to the Catholic church in America, where 65-80% of us disagree with the Roman Curia on issues such as divorce, married clergy, female clergy, gays in the church, and even abortion. But you don't see those things making any progressive progress, do you?

It's a sign of how far gone things are in Washington that it's almost impossible to appeal to the center of the bell curve...which by definition is where most of the public support is.

Filibuster: Not a new Dairy Queen treat

The Senate is a very traditional body, and it takes its traditions almost as seriously as it takes itself. Which is pretty damn scary; if bloviation was radioactive, the entire planet would a scorched pile of ash with its epicenter at capitol hill. So it's appropos that any attempt to remove something as deeply ingrained as the filibuster rule is referred to as the "nuclear option".

So, what good is it? "Tradition" doesn't wash with me. This is America; we innovate, change faster than our competition, evolve fast than the playing field. An important hedge against monopolistic control by the majority party? Well, an effective one, certainly...too damn effective. In essence, the filibuster is a de facto veto power for the minority party (who, let's remember, wouldn't be the minority party if they represented the wishes of the majority of Americans).

Secondly, it's a huge waste of time in a forum where quite frankly, there's roughly 137 times more that needs to be done than there is time to do. Furthermore, it's use diminishes the need for compromise and encourages rancorous party-line stubborness.

Get rid of the filibuster. And chill: what goes around, comes around. No party is in the majority forever, and everyone will get there turn at the bottom of the monkey pile.

UPDATE: Some interesting stuff on how the minority can put it over on the majority here. But I take issue with including executive veto power in with the bunch, which isn't really minority rule. Those positions are invested with more power to begin with; a governor is not equivalent to a state senator, nor is a president equivalent to a U.S. senator.