Jaded Times

So as we all know by now, Osama Bin Laden has been killed.  And if you’re not living in a cave, or out celebrating our catching of a geriatric on dialysis like we just cured AIDS, you’ve also come across the following quote on Facebook:

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

The above quote, posted by numerous hippies, commies, and at least one longshoreman, has been accredited to Martin Luther King, Jr.  But not so, according to The Atlantic’s Megan Mcardle, who kind-of-sort-of researched (i.e., googled) the quote and published an article stating:

A quick google search turns up lots of tweets, all of them from today.  Searching Martin Luther King Jr. quote pages for the word “enemy” does not turn up this quote, only things that probably wouldn’t go over nearly so well, like “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy to a friend.” I’m pretty sure that this quote, too, is fake.

“A quick google search” and “I’m pretty sure”–fundamental tools of journalism.  Well, ok, maybe for us, but for a distinguished publication with roots in our nation’s journalistic history?  Poor show; perhaps she should get a library card, or a Kindle, as blog The Stones Will Cry Out had no problem finding the source of at least half of the offending sentiment, the original MLK quote (from Strength To Love):

Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.  Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.  Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.

Ms. Mcardle has since been contacted by Fox News, who are interested in having her head up their newly instituted research department.

Share/Save

Likely future Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) has established himself early as an irrational braggart, which pretty much fits in line with his upcoming job.  Speaking to ABC, Boehner did distance himself from the anti-Obama statements of his Senatorial party-mate Mitch McConnell, but went on to openly admit he plans to waste the time of the House and Senate (translating into millions of tax-payer dollars in wasted salaries) combatting the recently passed medical bill, knowing full well the President will not veto it.  Nice to know the Republicans are offering “change”.

Boehner also showed that he’s truly a man of the people; or at least, of their level of intelligence and historical perspective:

Boehner, in his ABC interview, said he’s not sure the president and other Democrats fully understand the message delivered by the voters on Tuesday. “When you have the most historic election in over 60, 70 years, you would think the other party would understand that the American people have clearly repudiated the policies they’ve put forward in the last few years.”

Most historic election in over 60, 70 years?  So this minor midterm is more historic than, say, when the nation elected a minority President for the first time not just in our history, but in the history of the western world?  Or two years earlier, when the Democrats not only did EXACTLY what the Republicans have done here, but also won the Senate?  This is a stronger message than either of those?  Or how about 2004, when the re-election of our own president was questionable at best?  Or four years before, when the same man didn’t even actually win?  That’s going back only twelve years.  Gaining a slight majority in the House isn’t a revolution, it’s a slightly fickle political climate.

Seriously, Mr. Boehner, if you are going to be Speaker of the House, please get some perspective.  After four years of Pelosi, we really, really need you to have it.

Share/Save

This really should have been the headline across the print and internet news world, but instead the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” portion of the bill is what everyone is reporting on today, and how this is a huge defeat for gay rights.  This may be true, but the bigger point should be that Senate Republicans shot down a bill that would have seen increases in the salaries of our troops.  Though the argument does seem to center around some form of supposed morality, the bill included funding for campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with a 1.4% pay increase for troops, both of which were blatantly refused by Republicans, even when offered without the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell included in the bill:

Democrats argued that Republicans were unwilling to allow the debate to open, even when promised a chance to offer an amendment to strike the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy from the bill.

When combined with the fact that over 12,500 troops have been discharged from the military under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, not to mention the number of soldiers who did not sign up because of it (incalculable, but I am sure quite large), and the Republican plan for our military over the past twelve years seems to come into full view:  wage illegal wars, but underpay and understaff our forces while putting incompetents and criminals in charge of decision making. I mean, we all suspected it, but to have it spelled out so blatantly is just so refreshing.

Veteran John McCain (R) explains why keeping gays out of the military is more important than troops receiving a fair wage.

But back to the gays–I’m getting more and more disturbed by how important other people’s sex lives seem to be to congress.  Maybe it’s the fault of the press; with the paparazzi following politicians everywhere this way, they can’t get their own private gay on, so maybe they decided to take it out on people who can?  For whatever “reason”, it’s a disturbing trend, and it really needs to stop, especially in regards to the military.  I mean, it’s a job.  A job where you kill people.  Not to get too Hicksian, but how can one argue morality in reference to trained killers, demolitionists, and butchers? This is not an anti-military rant, it’s not an easy job and, in a lot of cases, it is a very necessary one, but come on…

Share/Save

Hi DC!

My opinion of gay marriage mirrors Bill Hicks’s opinion on gays in the military:  anyone DUMB ENOUGH to want to be married should be allowed to be married.  I’m still working on somehow adopting the “trained killers” portion of that bit into my philosophy as well, but it’s not quite there yet…

Share/Save

Entertainment Weekly has published the first video advertisement inside a print magazine this week, proving once again that useless excess is, indeed, fashionable.  The ad, a four page thick cardboard spread with a digital viewing area consisting of tiny speakers and a cell phone sized LCD, can apparently hold up to 40 minutes of video, which is 40 more minutes than the pages that surround it.

“This is an extraordinary way to refresh how we interact with consumers,” said Pepsi-Cola’s chief marketing officer, Frank Cooper.

Extraordinary.  Indeed.

Thus far the responses seem to range from “who cares” to “really? That’s retarded”.  I personally wonder where CBS and Pepsi get off thinking it’s wise to spend that kind of money and waste the resources involved at such a critical economic and environmental time.

Share/Save

$1.92 Million?  That’s a lot for some Rihanna and a coupl’a Britneys, but that’s the judgment that has been handed down to Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first guilty verdict in a case against a user of file-sharing services to go to court.  Excessive?  Yeah, maybe a little.  But whatever, filesharing is filesharing, loving it and claiming how it “should” be doesn’t make it any more or less legal.

The part that concerns me:

The Obama administration told a federal judge Friday the $1.92 million jury verdict against a Minnesota woman for sharing 24 music tracks on Kazaa was constitutionally sound, despite defense claims it was unconstitutionally excessive.

Now I’m no constitutional lawyer or anything, but I’m pretty sure the process of law works in the exact opposite direction.

Share/Save

The below video may appeal to me more because of my (oh so useful!) degree in folklore, but it’s still Jon Stewart, still funny, and still a great representation of what Congressmen do to earn their six figure salaries and lifetime pensions…

Chuck Grassley’s Sir Taxalot

Unfortunately, Senor W. T. Fayta saw his shadow, so we have eight more weeks of ridiculous partisan bitchery to deal with.

Share/Save

Earlier today California’s supreme court upheld the results of the vote on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriages. As I haven’t really broached this subject directly before, let me try to sum this one up as best as possible:

1) Based on what I’ve seen of marriage, you’re an idiot to want to be married.

2) BUT, either all of us or none of us should have that right. Basic “equal rights” logic. So you’re a much, much bigger idiot for preventing anyone from getting married.

3) In a state that has been in severe financial crisis for several years, it’s a bit gross that so much money was spent trying to make same sex marriage illegal.

4) You don’t need a piece of paper to tell you that you love someone. But if that paper is offered to some, it should be offered to all. Again, basic “equal rights” logic.

5) For all of you out there who feel this even fucking matters, feel free to write in to explain why you voted for Prop 8 and why you feel it’s any of your business what other people do in their private lives. I’d seriously like to know.

6) And for all of you bashing the right wing over this, the best resolution I have heard to the issue came from an ultra-conservative relative of mine (though I have read similar ideas elsewhere since), who suggested:

SOLUTION–change the legal definition of marriage: make the legal end of marriage a “civil union”, and let religious groups ONLY perform marriages. What this means is that anyone can be together with anyone and have their union be recognized/receive all the same rights as current “marriages”, and let churches and synagogues and temples and mosques decide who should be married in the eyes of their god.

For the gay among us about to complain, keep in mind many churches were already performing gay marriages and it really should be up to them, not the state, as to what is acceptable in the eyes of their god. For the bigoted among us about to cheer, keep in mind that if you were not married by a priest or rabbi or the like, you have a civil union, not a marriage.

There. Done. Now can we move on to this whole “collapsed economy/people starving in the streets” thing, California?

Share/Save

You’d think someone at the BBC would have caught on to the problem with this headline.  The article is interesting too, until you find out that the experiment was conducted at a college, which leads me to believe that it was nothing more than an elaborarte scheme to get undergrad twins in bed.  Which, of course, is genius.

Share/Save

A man in Norway was arrested for driving while under the influence of, um, er, hmm.  Can we say multi-tasking?  Maybe coming and going?  Or how about fucking his girlfriend while driving 20mph over the speed limit?

After filming the exploit for evidence, they [police] pulled them over at a rest area.

Yeah.  For evidence.  Right.

Share/Save