Bitterness April 16, 2008
Posted by Phineas in : End Of The World, Irrelevant, Lies, Political/Editorial , add a commentOK, at the risk of participating in the echo chamber of non-issues, I’ll enter the guns/religion/bitter/elitist fray to make one small remark.
The second amendment provides the right of the people to bear arms. People who own and use guns do so thanks to this amendment. People who feel very strongly about often argue that this right is to protect them against the government among other threats. People who make such arguments generally do not think well of the government if they feel the need to defend themselves against it with weapons.
So to suggest such people are bitter about the failure of government and as a response cling to weapons is not elitist, but is perfectly in line with this very same line of reasoning that some gun owners themselves make, none of whom are ever accused of being “elitist”.
MPR: Select a Candidate 2008: President November 27, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : End Of The World, Irrelevant, Lies, Political/Editorial , add a commentMPR: Select a Candidate 2008: President
This *would* be a cool way to vote for a candidate. Turns out I’m a Kucinich man. Guess thats no surprise.
That Sure Was Horrible, but It Doesn’t Rise to the Level of Genocide November 25, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : Economics, End Of The World, Giving, Lies, Political/Editorial , add a commentWhat a phrase: “rise to the level of genocide“.
I know there’s a definition or many definitions, and because of this, some things are and other things are not genocide. But still, it strikes me as weasly, bureaucratic, dismissive. It’s almost always used in the negative. You hardly ever hear anyone say: “Well, how about that? This one *does* rise to the level of genocide. Yep. Sure does. It was just under that level, there’s the level, then it rose above that level.”
No — it’s usually, “that thing is horrible, but does it rise to the level of genocide?” (posed as a question but is really being answered in the negative). Or: “One thing is clear: it doesn’t rise to the level of genocide.” And then the argument hinges on a technicality or selective choosing of an operative definition of genocide. It’s like saying, “I’m indignant, but according to Webster’s dictionary, my indignation does not rise to the level of outrage. I’ll write one letter to my congressman, but I won’t write two, because this atrocity does not meet the two-letter criteria. I’ll send $100 to the relief of the victims, but I won’t send $200, because their suffering just does not quite rise to that level.” One’s suffering must rise to a certain level, after all.
“Ooo, so close! But it just doesn’t rise to the level of genocide. Try again next time!”
Give List 2007 November 3, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : End Of The World, Environment, Giving, Info, Wild Animals , add a commentStill working on this, but here’s my list for 2008.
African Wildlife Foundation
Washington, DC Animals: Wildlife Conservation |
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
New York, NY Public Benefit: Advocacy and Civil Rights |
American Red Cross
Washington, DC Human Services: Multipurpose Human Service Organizations |
Amnesty International USA
New York, NY International: International Peace, Security, and Affairs |
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International
Atlanta, GA Animals: Wildlife Conservation |
Doctors Without Borders, USA
New York, NY International: Development and Relief Services |
DonorsChoose
New York, NY Education: Other Education Programs and Services |
Jane Goodall Institute
Arlington, VA Animals: Wildlife Conservation |
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
White Plains, NY Health: Diseases, Disorders, and Disciplines |
Marijuana Policy Project Foundation
Washington, DC Public Benefit: Research and Public Policy Institutions |
The Sierra Club Foundation
San Francisco, CA Environment: Environmental Protection and Conservation |
Southern Poverty Law Center
Montgomery, AL Public Benefit: Advocacy and Civil Rights |
United States Fund for UNICEF
New York, NY International: International Peace, Security, and Affairs |
USA for UNHCR
Washington, DC International: International Peace, Security, and Affairs |
Yosemite Fund
San Francisco, CA Environment: Botanical Gardens, Parks, and Nature Centers |
This is what I meant to say November 2, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : End Of The World, Irrelevant, Timewaster, Wild Animals , add a comment
Would someone *please* tell those people to stop having so much soul? October 30, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : End Of The World, Lies, Music, Political/Editorial , add a commentIt’s not like we’ll be needing our humanity any time soon, seeing as World Wars 3, 4,and 5 are already being fast tracked. Better stamp it out where ever it appears.
“We were singing, lifting our voices to God. You gonna tell me that’s wrong too?” Drummer Ellis Joseph of the Free Agents Brass band, who was also in the procession, said, “They came in a swarm, like we had AK-47s. But we only had instruments.”
Band on the run in New Orleans | Salon News
An Alternative History Of Mississippi October 12, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : Art, Dreams, Drugs, End Of The World, Film, Irrelevant, Katrina, Lies, Music, Timewaster , add a commentJudicious and Effective October 8, 2007
Posted by Phineas in : End Of The World, Irrelevant, Lies, Political/Editorial , add a commentI’ll go ahead and go on record as condoning torture. My only caveats are that when used, it must be judicious and effective. Judicious meaning, you are absolutely certain that the person whom you are torturing is guilty of the crime, has the knowledge you mean to extract. Effective meaning that the reasonable expectation is that by torturing this one person, many other lives will be saved. I oppose torturing under any other conditions.
But Phineas, you ask, what about the Geneva conventions? If we torture their prisoners of war, won’t they torture ours? They well might. But if they torture our prisoners of war, it’s still OK as long as they do it judiciously and effectively. Right? It’s only wrong if it’s unjust and ineffective.
Of course, the key is how to define judicious and effective. I believe the conditions are almost never satisfied, therefore I oppose all torture.
You know that little Jack Bauer hypothetical scenario trotted out by the pro-torture mob? It asks, what if the interrogator is holding a known terrorist, who is in possession of knowledge of an immanent terrorist attack, and by torturing him, we may save the lives of thousands of Americans? Wouldn’t torture be OK then? Shouldn’t it be legal then? Shouldn’t the President authorize it then?
Here’s my turnaround to that argument: If you are an interrogator holding such a suspect, and thousands of American lives hang in the balance, wouldn’t you go ahead and torture him anyway? The heck with the law, Geneva conventions, Presidential pardons, etc? What kind of person would let thousands of innocent people die just to protect himself from prosecution? If the situation is *really* that crystal clear, what difference should a law make to a sincere person whose only wish is to save lives? Ah, but the situation is never really that crystal clear. Legalizing or authorizing such actions does little more than to provide legal cover for all those practices which are *neither* judicious *nor* effective.
