It’s been a wile, I know, since I’ve written anything. And in my absence, a lot’s been going on. I feel somewhat bothered by the fact that I didn’t say a word about Pelosi becoming House Speaker if only because it seems like the kind of thing I would ordinarily comment on. But I’m going to let that one slide.
I’m going to let it slide in favor of some other things pressing on the old brain this afternoon. First up is this:
â€œMatter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if itâ€™s carried out,â€ said [Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska], who was seriously wounded in Vietnam. â€œI will resist it.â€
He’s referring, of course, to Mr. Bush’s plan to tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. There’s a lot in the press about this of course. I could comment from any of a dozen angles. There’s the “how will the newly elected Democratic majority react?” angle. There’s the “will this really ensure ‘victory’ in Iraq?” angle. There’s the “what the hell does ‘victory’ even look like anymore?” angle. But I think I’ll talk about the angle nearest and dearest my heart.
That angle is this: Bush came up with a plan to invade a sovereign nation with pretty flimsy justifications. As a result, more than 3000 U.S. service men and women have lost their lives as well as untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (civilians, women, and children included). Whether or not Mr. Bush lied to create this atrocity matters little to the stark moral truth that causing this much death is just simply wrong regardless of his justifications and I use the word wrong here with the full force of its moral and ethical connotations. There is no justification for killing people or cause others to be kills. Especially for a self-described Christian.
But while I’m on the subject, let’s face it. He lied. Or, at the very least, he “indulged” certain half-truths and played to our fears of terrorism to justify this war which is now, with each passing day, proving more and more unwinable (if there is such a word). And last I checked, that’s grounds for impeachment.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, won’t someone give this guy a blow job.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you’re a woman, you’re flooding your system with a substance it can’t handle in surplus. If you’re a man, you’re suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your “female side,” physically and mentally.
Now, look. Here’s the deal. I can fully appreciate the serious argument that conservative Christians have with evolutionary biologists and their dueling claims between “creationism” and “evolution.” There’s a couple of pretty substantial cosmologies at play there, and I’m a sucker for well-reasoned and articulate arguments on both side of the aisle (though guess where I stand). And, at the end of the day, one doesn’t have to reject all science wholesale to believe in creationism just one part of science.
But here I draw the line. Just like this guy. (Read #11 closely.) Look. Science is little more than a methodology to enable human beings to explain their world through repetitive observations and measurable experiments to arrive at objective facts. One of those facts is that an overabundance of estrogen does not make someone gay. I refuse to allow anyone to use scientific jargon to promote a political agenda simply because when someone uses scientific jargon, well, hey, they must know what they’re talkin’ ’bout. But they don’t. And this guys doesn’t. So let’s ignore him and he’ll go away.
And another thing: this whole science versus religion thing. Get over it. Science and religion can coexist. As a matter of fact, they did quite happily for centuries because at the end of the day, they’re dealing with fundamentally different things. Let’s move on, shall we.
Lastly, and I’m almost done here, it’s gonna be freakin’ cold up here this weekend! But like that guy (and this time, look at #8), it doesn’t give us the right to say “so much for global warming.” We need to deal with global warming before my swanky Oakland apartment is underwater.
Which reminds me (I know I know, I said “one more thing.” This is it, I swear.). How can Schwarzenegger claim to be an advocate to reversing the effects of global warming on the one hand while reducing the amount of money that public transit districts get? A major contributor to global warming are all these people driving around in cars and in most places in this state, they don’t have a choice because there’s no infrastructure for public transportation alternatives to driving.
I’m just sayin’ is all.
Okay. That’s really it. Look at me! I’m back! And I’m ranting like a mad-man! Woohoo!