Trapped at Berkeley

Whoa. This is definitely going to stir up a lot of responses. Jill at the World Magazine Blog writes:

Nationally syndicated radio show host Dennis Prager poses five questions that non-Muslims want answered in the wake of Muslim riots in France and the bombings in Jordan. Here are two of the five: Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian? (“They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.”) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam? (The recent beheading of two young girls in Indonesia, the slaughter of hundreds of school children in Russia last year, the deaths of countless Christians in Sudan, and 9-11 just touch the surface of the terror caused by Muslim extremists in recent years). “Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is ‘Yes, we have real problems in Islam.’ Such an acknowledgement is infinitely better—for you and for the world—than dismissing us as anti-Muslim. We await your response.”

Labor and Tory, originally uploaded by zeroion.

This is the second in my series of UC Berkeley signs missing letters. Find the first here.

I think this picture is appropriately timed, considering the recent elections in Great Britain. For those that don’t get it, think about the two main British political parties.

I’m about as “fuck the status quo, change the dominant paradigm” as you can get. I think what the US did in Iraq was totally illegal, and that Bushie and his gang of international thugs should be treated just like we treated the Nazis after WWII: a perfunctory trial, then hangings all around. If I had to choose between having Bushie in the White House and Saddam Hussein in the White House, I’d pick Saddam without even thinking twice.
“As Seen On TV”, Slashdot Comment

Perhaps “As Seen on TV” hasn’t heard about Saddam’s mass graves…

(14:00:44) JTShoes101: you might even be worse than bush!!!

I don’t know whether to take that comment as an insult or compliment.

Some people may take offense at my conservative views. I don’t believe in abortion. I don’t believe in gay marriage. I do believe in moral guidance. I do believe in individual responsibility; there should be no ‘free rides’. People should earn what they get. President Bush agrees with most of my views.

Admittedly, I don’t agree perfectly with President Bush. For moral reasons, I agree with invading Iraq, but I disagree with how we did it - we should have sent more troops and prepared ourselves for an extended occupation period. Like most Americans, I also agree that we need to defend our nation against terrorism, but I don’t think that Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are the appropriate means. Where was Homeland Security during the Washington D.C. area sniper shootings? If Homeland Security can’t protect us from a couple of lunatics, how does it plan on protecting us from well-trained terrorists?

In many ways, I’d probably be a much more conservative president than President Bush.

Senator Kerry has conceded defeat to President Bush. Even though I didn’t get to vote (more on that later), I’m obviously quite pleased with the results.

Oh, and in other news, it appears that the state same-sex marriage ban propositions have been overly successful.

Things are looking good.

I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can’t pay for.
President George W. Bush

Take that Senator Kerry!

[18:14:34] < [UCB]AnimeDLNaruto+> presidential debate’s on if anyone’s interested
[18:17:15] < [UCB]Phoenix> john edwards is sexy
[18:17:35] < [UCB]i_ranaway> haha
[18:17:36] < [UCB]Phoenix> but i do like cheney’s busniess ability
[18:17:51] < [UCB]i_ranaway> he is a bit too young for Dick though
[18:17:58] < [UCB]Phoenix> yeah
[18:18:07] < [UCB]i_ranaway> I meant dick cheney

It seems that the Federal Marriage Amendment is going to die in the Senate. I would really hate to see that happen - it would be a great victory for those who support homosexual unions. Courts across the nation will take it as a signal that laws allowing homosexual unions will go unopposed. Yikes.

I just don’t understand the US Senate. They’re willing to pass the Patriot Act without reading it, but they can’t even get enough votes to pass the amendment…

UPDATE: The amendment failed to stay alive. As expected, Kerry chickened out and wasn’t there to vote. Why doesn’t he come out and give a definitive answer to where he stands on the issue?

I find it ironic that I’m writing my belated review of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on July 4, the day Americans choose to celebrate their independence and their core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The irony is that many people consider Michael Moore’s movie to be unpatriotic. They think that by attacking President Bush’s approach to foreign policy, Moore is directly attacking American interests. I believe that these people are more concerned about American pride and the economy than doing what is right - something a bunch of men were trying to do when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

That being said, I enjoyed Fahrenheit 9/11. I also plan on voting for President Bush in the upcoming election. I might not agree with all of his policies and actions, but I still think he’s the best choice. John Kerry likes to point out problems with President Bush, but I have yet to see him deliver substantial information about what HE plans on doing, if elected.

Unlike most of the capacity audience watching the movie with me, I walked into the theater planning to vote for President Bush and came out planning to vote for President Bush. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a stubborn supporter of President Bush. In fact, I’m open to and welcome criticism about him. I think he’s incompetent in many aspects, but I agree with him on many issues. Furthermore, I just think John Kerry is a horrible choice for president.

Enough about my political orientation. Purely from the aspect of entertainment, Fahrenheit 9/11 was an excellent movie. There was a balance of humor, seriousness, and reality that many ‘factual’ movies never attain. I was touched by the story of the mother who lost her son in Iraq, and I was shocked by the links between President Bush and the Saudi government. If nothing else, Fahrenheit 9/11 was well worth the $16 I paid to see it, and, if given the chance, I would watch it again.

From a factual perspective, Fahrenheit 9/11 places the spotlight upon the danger of calling any production a ‘documentary’. Everyone, including researchers and movie directors, has bias. People have attacked Moore for producing a highly biased ‘documentary’, but the last I heard, Moore himself admitted that his movie was more of an ‘op-ed’ piece than a documentary. If you want a completely fair and honest treatment of President Bush’s actions, don’t watch Fahrenheit 9/11. In fact, don’t read any newspapers, watch any TV shows, or listen to anybody. Just close your eyes, cover your ears, and be content.

One last thing. My previous post quoted Benjamin Franklin regarding the balance between safety and liberty. I completely agree with him: there is NO balance between safety and liberty. If you’re willing to give up any of your rights, you don’t deserve any at all. Give a mouse a cookie, and he’ll want a cup of milk. The fear of terrorism has allowed politicians to sign away American liberties through the Patriot Act. If the goal of the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center was to destroy the American way of life, they have certainly achieved their goal. It’s not too late to take their victory from them.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 today. If you don’t get the reference, my explanation (and review of the movie) will be forthcoming.