Saturday, November 26, 2005

Til Gabriel Blows His Horn

Why do I care about the Texas Longhorn (American) football team? I'm not sure, but part of the reason is that I think Vince Young is incredibly talented. It's too bad that there has to be so much gross culture associated with college football. It is so sexist with the heavily made up, scantily clad, always smiling cheerleaders contrasted with the frat boys and various cowboy-hat wearing, cannon-firing militia groups oozing with misdirected and often foolish machismo. Then there's the over-paid Coach Brown and over-funded athletics in general.

Still, the game is fun to watch - full of suspense and athletic eye candy. And I do feel connected to my alma mater (I am still paying someone who bought my debt from someone else who paid for my education there). So I was glad to see us beat the backwards, George Bush library scum-bucket Aggies. And it's pretty exciting that we have a shot at a national championship this year. Any Longhorns in SF wanna watch the game?

Sunday, November 20, 2005


Texas may have executed an innocent man. It's no surprise to me. I have no doubts that Texas has executed several innocent people. The criminal justice system in Texas is a joke - judges don't care about getting it right, prosecutors just care about reelection, or they may simply be evil. As for the truly guilty, it is one thing to be powerless and kill someone, quite another to have a life of privilege and be a powerful elected official and kill. Some of the greatest crimes in Texas were committed by Richards, Bush and Perry.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005


I can barely keep my head up. Why? Is it that I'm lamenting the state of politics in the world? The gradual warming of the globe that will kill off the human race in my lifetime? The exploitation of millions? My allergies?

No. I spent 3 hours this early evening trying to figure out why my Norton Firewall won't let my Microsoft Outlook download or send emails. I still don't know. I didn't change a single setting. It took me long enough to figure out it was my firewall. When I turn it off I can do email. When it is on, I cannot. Now I have messed with the settings with no luck. I restart my computer. Restart it again. The internet works. I can check my email using the webmail option. The server is fine!

It makes me so tired. Help me.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Creating Terrorists

I'm sure some on the right (and even in the middle) will claim this is another blame America first rant, but in my mind this is proof that our war on Iraq, war on terror, and all the torture and barbarism associated with it is creating terrorists not fighting them. The headline reads U.S. may have once detained Jordan bomber. I've already seen some saying this was a missed opportunity. Maybe some will claim this is the reason we should give our "soldiers" in the war on terror (that includes a lot of civilians) more free reign to do what they will with detainees. This proves, they might argue, that we shouldn't be listening to the whiny, Geneva Convention, anti-war, human rights weirdos. We let one slip through the cracks after all.

I see this differently. The most obvious reaction for me is that this is an example of how American policies in Iraq are doing a great deal of damage to the region; that we are pushing people from resentment to suicidal anger; and that the only thing we are accomplishing is greater destabilization, greater violence, and greater suffering. There is mounting evidence that the soldiers and officials who are in charge of handling terror suspects and enemy combatants are committing acts designed to inflict pain, humiliation and sometimes even death. It is no surprise that someone who spent time as a victim of this madness would committ an equally horrific act.

U.S. out now! Why? Because we're the bad guys now.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Friday, November 11, 2005

Bill O'Reilly: You're Either With Us Or ...

Bill O'Reilly was so angry that San Francisco voters decided this week that military recruiters ought not be allowed in our public schools. Here's what he said on his radio show:
And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.
This is a fantastic example of how ideologically driven the right-wing "war on terror" is. The neocons and right-wing nuts, like O'Reilly, don't care about keeping Americans safe or supporting democracy (if not in San Francisco, certainly not in Baghdad). The "war on terror" is about American power and supremacy over the world. Not only will the right-wing turn against foreign nations who refuse to accept our military, political, and economic supremacy, the right-wing will also easily turn against Americans. If they have to lock themselves up in the Pentagon or the Fox Broadcasting headquarters and wage war on the rest of the country as well as the rest of the world, they will.

It's kind of like that scene in Spies Like Us when the U.S. General discovers that the missile fired was not intercepted by the laser. He and others will remain safe in an underground bunker as this missile will undoubtedly spark a nuclear war, but he is prepared to accept this consequence and live in the bunker for years "to preserve the American way of life." Down with San Francisco and any other liberal/progressive American cities. Let them all burn if it will preserve Bill O'Reilly's view of the American way of life.

The crazy thing is that after O'Reilly's statements, I think Coit tower is more at risk from right-wing, homegrown terrorists than Al Qaeda.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Washington Makes It Hard To Take A Stand

Here is what the San Francisco Chronicle says about Proposition I:
Military recruiting ban. NO. We share the authors' disdain for the military's discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- as well as their disagreement with the war in Iraq. This policy statement is nonbinding, but if its call for restrictions on military recruiting in public schools were carried out, it could cost city schools $40 million in federal funds, a sacrifice that no one who cares about education would advocate. In our view, if you're going to make a "policy statement" on principle -- you must be willing to accept the consequences of the stand ... or it's not really a statement of principle at all.
So should people vote against the proposition because it could cost city schools millions or because it doesn't have the guts to risk the money? This doesn't make any sense. In fact the statement of principle that we are trying to put forward is that military recruiters should not be in our public schools, but as an obvious extension of that we believe that no schools should lose money for taking such a stand. Backers of Prop I didn't create the policy that could strip funding from public schools, so why should our statement of principle have to accept those consequences.

While a local ballot measure doesn't have the power to change federal law, it can be a powerful statement against federal laws and policies. If the Chronicle Editors aren't opposed to using a ballot measure to simply take a stand, and they're opposed to the war, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the Solomon Amendment, then it is baffling that they have chosen to endorse a No vote on Prop I.