I Didn't Even Know There Was a Bigotry Party

So this has been out for a while and most of you have seen it but just to refresh your memories, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA&noredirect=1

I happen to agree. There is something wrong in this country when we extend equal rights to all its citizens and doesn't allow people to force their religion on others!

The truly sad part about this is that I don't think that he thinks he is saying anything wrong! He actually seems to see equal rights for all citizens as a bad thing and forcing your religion on others as a good thing. I guess he worded it the way he did because "Fuck you, faggots and non Christians!" would be too obvious.

The idea that children in schools are not allowed to openly pray and celebrate Christmas is ridiculous at best. There is no law preventing children from praying in school. What is not allowed is taking up class time and the school itself having official prayer time. There is that whole separation of church and state thing that he seems to have forgotten about. As far as celebrating Christmas, what exactly is it he wants? Again, this seems to be him wanting to force his beliefs on everyone else. Now, at the end of the ad, he says he will end Obama's "war on religion" (there will be bitching on the whole "war on" thing later), yet he doesn't specify which religion. Does that mean he wants the same rights for all religions? He would be fine with state-sponsored prayer for Jews? Museums? Scientologists? Wickens? The practitioners of VooDoo? Satanists? Worshipers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the state-sponsored celebration of their respective holidays? If that is the case, when would their be time for actual education? Oh, wait. What was I thinking?!? He was talking about public schools! There hasn't been any actual education going on in those for many years. Never mind. Somehow, though, I have a sneaking suspicion that he had a specific religion in mind. What do you think?

Also towards the end he makes the statement that "Faith made America strong." This is just plain inaccurate. You know what made this country strong? Nukes, lots and lots of nukes. That and money, lots and lots of money.

If he meant "strong" in the more abstract sense of the word, then he is still wrong. Freedom is what made this country strong. Remember freedom? I know government and corporations (like they are actually two different things anymore) have been doing their best to turn the idea of freedom into a distant memory. We still have some but if things keep going the way they are...

The thing that really upsets me about this ad is that he will gain quite a few votes because of it.

Ok, in order to try and get the horrible taste of bigotry out of our mouths, here is Stephen Colbert:

http://gawker.com/5866582/stephen-colbert-defends-rick-perrys-anti+gay-campaign-ad


Rant Over... for now

WAR, HUH!

Now is usually the time of year when various people who seem to really like the sound of their own voices love nothing more than to spout off about the liberal media/various politician/anyone who is not Christian’s war on Christmas.

Ignoring the idiocy of “declaring war” on an abstract concept, what exactly do they mean by war on Christmas? To those of us that immediately think of Santa with a rocket launcher or Christ with a flamethrower the actual meaning is no where near as awesome. They usually mean that someone has the temerity to not believe in the same things and express them in the same way.

On example that I hear the most is that a great many people and places have started saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”. This is a move that was obviously made to express a deep seated hatred towards Christmas and Christians on general. It was in no way made to acknowledge that not everyone in the country is a Christian. As opening salvos go, it is not the most interesting.

Ok, let’s move on to an even bigger shouting point, the government! Many of these people point to the removal of nativity scenes, Christmas trees and decorations from public buildings and the withdrawal of public funds to pay for them as a huge slap in the face to Christianity. Well, last time I checked, there were provisions in the constitutions to keep the government from sponsoring any religion. Yes, even if that religion is Christianity. As of this point I have yet to hear of any law banning any individual from putting up trees or decorations and celebrating as they see fit.

Now, one might say: “There were Christmas decorations and greetings when I was a child.” And? Your point is…? When someone was a child, women didn’t have the right to vote. When someone was a child, slavery was perfectly legal. When someone was a child, Adolph Hitler was Time’s man of the year! Just because something happened a long time ago, doesn’t mean it was a good idea and just because it took a while doesn’t automatically mean it is a bad one.

The fact that someone doesn’t share your belief system or that pieced of the country are actually starting to follow the rules set down for it (countries will do that sometimes if you don’t keep a close eye on them) doesn’t constitute a war against your belief system or a particular holiday contained there in.

In short, relax. If your belief system can be destroyed by someone not sharing it then it probably wasn’t that good a belief system anyway. I mean, do I get all upset when no one wishes me a happy Loganisawesome day with the traditional orgy and gummy bear feast… Ok, I do. But that’s totally different!



Rant Over....for now

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...

Well, "don't ask, don't tell" has been repealed and all those doomsayers that thought that those "damn queers" had no place in the military have been proven correct. As most of you know the ban on homosexuals in the US military was lifted as of the twentieth of September. I hope somehow, our country can survive our naive mistaken belief that homosexuals were just people like everyone else.

Since our fateful mistake, homosexuality in the military has risen an alarming five billion percent. This is largely attributable to the "gay radiation" that openly homosexual people are known to emit. There has been an alarming rise in the sale of pink camo fatigues due to now openly gay soldiers refusing to wear regular fatigues because "They are so last year. I mean, heloooo!". During combat there has been a significant rise in soldiers refusing to to fire on the more attractive members of the enemy. One soldier was quoted as saying: "I am sorry sir but I cannot fire on that man. He is gorgeous!" There has also been a dramatic rise in both turtle fucking and drive by makeovers the gay rays seep into the surrounding populous.

Despite all this, homosexuality between attractive females is still considered "hot".

Hey, wait a minute. None of that happened at all, except for maybe the lesbianism thing. Huh, go figure.

Some people have predicted that there will be a backlash against openly homosexual solders. In this I have to agree with them. I think there will be a lot of homosexual soldiers being on the receiving end of beatings. I imagine there will be an increase in the number of "friendly fire" instances. And I am almost sure we will see a good many deserving folks passed over for promotion for no apparent reason.

Despite all this, I still think lifting the band was the right thing to do. Change is difficult and there is always a price to be paid. When the change is of something that has been around for a very very long time, the price is even higher. Despite the initial cost of this particular change, I think this will, in time, make our military and country itself stronger. The people who say that the cost is too high and should not happen because of the danger to others need only set their wayback machines to when the armed forces were first integrated and the hardships involved in that. Was the cost too high then? Some people say that yes, the cost was too high and it never should have happened. Those people should not breed.

There has been some whining by Christians chaplain that now they will not be able to do their jobs as they will now have to censor themselves. Why? Because Christianity says that homosexuality is wrong? As a religion, chaplains will still be able to spout off their bigoted rhetoric as they have before. Organized religion has never had much of a problem getting across a message of intolerance.

There will be a great many growing pains but, in the end (insert joke here) history will prove that it was the right thing to do... as long as we watch out for those "gay rays"



Rant over... For now

"Decent Script, Decent Scriiiiipt!" Shamble, Shamble

So, all those out there that have read the book "World War Z" by Max Brooks raise your hands. Ok, those of you with your hand raised, take that hand and pat yourself on the back for having excellent taste in literature.

"World War Z", one of my favorite books ever is being turned into a movie!

For those of you who don't know the book (for shame) the theme of the book is a collection of interviews collected from all over the world 10 years after the end of the zombie war in which the world had been overrun with zombies (its only a matter of time, folks) and subsequently taken back by the humans that survived. Now I realize that a book that is a collection of interviews may not sound like much but Brooks manages to weave the interviews into a cohesive storyline. Go Max!

There was an "audio book" made of it that was excellent. I use quotes around audio book because that is not really a fair description. It would be more accurate to call it an audio play but good luck finding "audio play" when you head down to your local book store to pick it up. One of the things that makes this play so great is the phenomenal acting by the cast which includes voice acting great Mark Hamill. Yes, I know he was Luke Skywalker but, while I absolutely loved the original Star Wars movies, he really came into his own with voice acting. Other performers include Alan Alda, Rob Reiner, Carl Reiner, Henry Rollins, John Turturro and others all turning in top flight performances. Unfortunately all the interviews in the book don't make it into the play but it is still a great one.

Ok, so now you know the storyline of the book. Let's have a littl look at what the storyline of the movie will be. This is the official synopsis from Paramount:

"The story revolves around United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), who traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments and threatening to decimate humanity itself. Mireille Enos plays Gerry’s wife Karen Lane; Andre Kertesz is his comrade in arms, Segen."

Now, does that sound like the same story? To be fair, the two storylines to cave a couple of things in common: Um... Well... They both have people and zombies.

This isn't just a case of a fan of a book nitpicking a movie based on it. This is a case of one story having nothing to do with each other except the title! It is like licensing the movie rights to Harry Potter and making a movie about a little girl who travels around the world granting the wishes of bread mold and pulling magic joo joo bees out of her left nostril. Insistently, if there are any Hollywood big wigs out there reading this I am available to write that screenplay.

I know changes are made to the original story in movies all the time due to the restrictions of film or even just to make the story new for people who are familiar with the story but there is at least something of the original story in there somewhere! One of my favorite TV shows "The Walking Dead" diverged quite a bit from the comic it is based on. The key difference is that, despite being different, it is still true to the source material.

I guess there is something that truly upsets me, as a writer, about taking the product of someone's hard work and imagination grabbing the title and tossing everything else. Why should it upset me when Max Brooks is fne with it? Well for one, we don't know what his feelings on the changes are, no statement has been issued. Even if he is ok with it I still feel it is kind of a giant "Up Yours!" to the fans who are excided to see a story that they enjoy up on the silver screen.

The movie isn't set to be released until December 21, 2012 and many things can happen between now and then so there is hope. Incidentally December 21, 2012 is the date of the end of the world according to the Mayan calender ad least according to popular belief. Cute, Paramount, glad you did something right.

The one of the truely sad things about all this is that the synopsis sounds like it might be a pretty good movie were it allowed to stand on its own. Maybe they will change the title and then make a real World War Z movie. I won't be holding my breath for that one though.



Rant Over... For now

Fabulous! Now I am Going to Miss Halloween!

The world will end on May 21 2011! Wait, wait, wait. I totally meant October, 21 2011. Sorry, my bad.

Originally the word from on high, or low, depending on your take of the whole "end of the world" thing was that the rapture would occur on May 21 and the whole Armageddon thing would last until October 21. Now, according to Harold Camping, the guy who was making the prediction in the first place, the rapture and the end of the world will occur simultaneously and bypass that whole pesky Armageddon thing.

This is either good news or bad news. It is good news for those of us who were hoping to cut out the middle man and bad news for those who were on the fence and were hopping for some time to repent should the rapture actually happen. Here again we have an example of god being gracious and loving, or a complete dick.

I am, generally speaking not a big fan of organized religion (I know, it is shocking to find that out about me, huh?)and things like this are why. It doesn't bother me that people believe god will smite the world, hell, I firmly believe that a zombie apocalypse will occur any day now (ready your ZCP!)but things like this some people take as permission to behave like an ass.

Consider this:
"My mom has told me directly that I’m not going to get into heaven,’’ said Grace Haddad, 16. “At first it was really upsetting, but it’s what she honestly believes."

Gotta love mom there, huh? Now, admittedly, I don't have kids, but isn't just a teeny bit cold to tell your kid, in all seriousness that they are going to hell?

I also find it disturbing that the kid is okay with it because "it’s what she honestly believes." If I honestly believed punching random strangers in the naughty bits would make large sacks of gummy worms appear in my kitchen, that doesn't give me permission to start swinging away. It sounds as if maybe a bit of the crazy may be starting to seep on down the bloodline. Here's hoping they find a good therapist before they become little batshit copies of their parents!

The Haddad family, I would imagine, is now in a bit of a pickle. She quit her job, they stopped working on the house and stopped saving for the kids college. Now that May has passed, they are gonna have to find a way to skate by for the next five months. I hope their savings were considerable. Now, the article doesn't say whether or not the father works, just that she quit her job to travel about with him to spread the work so, presumably, he is out of work too. Here is another little bit of trouble that the family might have now that the date has been pushed back: Travelling costs money. When I said their savings had better be considerable, I take it back, the family had better be monstrously wealthy.

Another disconcerting thing about this particular family story is that the job she quit, was being a nurse. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't any job in medicine have more to do with science rather than beating someone over the head with a bible. I can just imagine this scenario:

"Well, Mr Smith, the good news is that your heart surgery went flawlessly, a complete success! The bad news is that you will soon be burning in everlasting torment. Enjoy your jello!"

Here is another heart warming quote:

“I don’t really have any motivation to try to figure out what I want to do," said Joseph Haddad, 14, “because my main support line, my parents, don’t care."

I got all misty on that one. You can truly feel the love. If this is indicative of the kind of folks one would have to live with in heaven, save me a place by the fire. An old friend of mine, when asked if he wants to go to heaven replied brilliantly: "That depends. Are you going to be there?".

I am sure there will be many many stories like this one between now and October, and probably after. Let's hope they are few and far between.

One last thing from the Haddad family:

The children, however, have found something to giggle over.

“She’ll say, ‘You need to clean up your room,’ " Grace said. “And I’ll say, ‘Mom, it doesn’t matter, if the world’s going to end!'"

You gotta love that!

The original article can be found here:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-20/news/29565433_1_prophecy-judgment-day-nonbelievers




Rant Over...for now

It's The End of the World as We... Wait, What?

Well it is now Saturday 5/21/11 1:28pm. Do you know where your apocalypse is? If you are still reading this from an earthly computer that is because god thinks you are a dick and were not lifted up to heaven during the rapture. Welcome to my world.

Looking around outside I am not at all surprised that hell on Earth looks a lot like Vegas.

As of this point, the content of the "The End Is Nigh!" pages have not changed. Maybe they are waiting until midnight just to be sure.

This is just a quickie (was it good for you?) but you can bet that I will be posting more on this topic in very short order. I will be posting, that is, of course, assuming that I have not been wrong and the entire world bursts into flame at midnight.

In the mean time, feel free to point and laugh at all those who whole-heartedly believed that they were going to be drawn up in the rapture but made no effort to donate everything they had to the poor unfortunates who would be left behind. Isn't giving to those less fortunate the "Christian" thing to do? Apparently not.

I'll Be Back... You Have Been Warned!

Hey! Nice Underwear!

Sagging pants that expose the underwear, this has got to be one of the stupider fashion trends in recent memory. Not as bad as bell bottoms but it is certainly within kissing distance. I mean, past a certain point you are no longer wearing pants, you are wearing thigh-highs. While I am a big fan of thigh-highs, they really don't do it for me when worn by underage boys with a perma-scowl etched on their faces. If you are gonna wear your pants down around your knees, just loose the pants. You don't look tough, you look ridiculous.

Now, as bad as normal jeans down around the knees are, there is an even more insidious fashion cancer growing in the world. For quite some time there has been a trend of adolescent boys wearing jeans so tight that just looking at them makes my balls hurt. This was bad enough but they have also added the sagging thing. If you are wearing pants so tight I can tell what religion you are from across the room, I don't need you dropping your drawers to confirm the point.

I am a big supporter of the concept of a clothing optional society but this isn't really the way to go about it. If you don't want to wear pants, don't. As long as you are still wearing underwear you are still not considered "indecently exposed", quite possibly one of the stupidest laws ever composed by mankind.

The thing that really bothers me about this is not the exposure, its the whole attitude that seems to go with it. There is an incredible amount of hostility that seems to come along with this "fashion". I find it interesting that a guy who has to hold his pants up with one hand to even walk glares at me like I just question the legitimacy of his parentage. You shouldn't be pissed at me, you should be pissed that you can't find a working belt.

Now, one might suggest that the glare is due to the fact that I am staring at them. Let's say, for the sake of argument that I am staring. I am not, but lets just say that I am. So what if I am? Staring is the natural response when seeing something unusual. If a guy rolls out on a unicycle wearing fishnet stockings, juggling flaming hamsters and sporting a three foot day-glow orange mohawk, I am going to look. Hell, if that happened I might even toss a few buck in the hat for him. The point is, if you don't want people to look, wear something that blends in. Granted, if this trend continues those of us who know how to work a belt will be the ones being stared at.

As I said, the attitude that goes with this fashion is what really irritates me. Sorry, chuckles, showing me your underpants doesn't make you tough. Not even a little bit.

There are two stories I have heard to explain the origin of this look, both of which say it originates in prison.

The first, is the one I am really hoping is true because if it is, it really puts a bit of a hilarious spin on the whole tough-guy attitude thing. In this story, the look was one used by guys in prison advertising that they wanted to be someone's bitch. The hilarity jumps up a few more notches when you consider the homophobia that is so prevalent in the intercity black culture where this look seemed to first gain a foot hold.

The second one is a bit more likely but much less funny. The story goes that the inmate uniforms in the LA county prison system were usually too large due to there not being the funding to give every inmate one that actually fit. All the belts, shoelaces and what have you were confiscated to prevent suicide and to prevent them from being used as a weapon. As a result, the inmates had to hold their too-large pants up with one hand for fear of the first story becoming swiftly and violently true.

Even if the second story is the true one, those that choose this look are still emulating failure! Everyone who has ever been or ever will be in prison, rightly or wrongly, is there because they failed in some way. Now they may have simply failed to prove their innocence in a corrupt court system that gives only lip service to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" or they got caught committing a crime, it is still failure. There is just no way around that.

Here's hoping this stupid trend will die off soon. Hey, bell bottoms and the leisure suit died off too, so there is always hope.

Well, that is my grumpy old man post for the day.

And stay the hell off my damn lawn!


Rant Over... for now

Its a Party! Who Brought the Chips?

The end of the world will apparently occur on May 21, 2011. This according to a site called familyradio.com. For those of you keeping count, you have five days to hug your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.

How do they know this? Well:

"That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment. The Bible tells us in Amos 3:7:


Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets."

Wait. Did I miss a date or something in that passage? To be fair, later in the page they do present an equation that proves, PROVES I say, that the world will end on 5/21/11. That is to say, it proves it if you interpret the bible in a certain way.

I love this one:

"In its original languages (mostly Hebrew and Greek) it has never been changed, and each and every word in the original languages is from the mouth of God."

Paging King James!

Now that we know that the bible has never been changed and is 100% accurate, we have to wonder why it refers to the messiah as Jesus Christ. "Jesus" we know is a corruption of the Greek which is a corruption of the Hebrew name "Joshua" pronounced "Yeshua". That's an awful lot of corruption for a book that has never been changed and is completely accurate!

"The people of the earth, which we call mankind, were created to rule over this earth. God gave laws by which we can live as happily and wisely as possible. He warns, however, that the breaking of those laws is sin, and sin will bring punishment from God. The Bible declares in Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death…."

Can't you just feel the love?

"By careful study of the Bible we learn that in the year 4990 B.C. (Before Christ) God brought a flood of water and destroyed the entire earth except for eight people and the animals that were with them."

Again with the love. Now maybe its just me but isn't 8 just a little small for a viable gene pool? If somehow a pool of 8 people end up producing a world population of roughly 6 billion people there must have been some serious inbreeding going on. Now that I think about it, that much inbreeding would kind of explain a lot of bonehead moves humans tend to make. Moving on.

"The ark that Noah had built was the only place of safety from the destruction of the Flood."

Apparently there was a rash of termites that ate holes in all the other boats.


"We learn from the Bible that Holy God plans to rescue about 200 million people (that is about 3% of today’s population)."

Ok, if you are one of the 200 million that are taken up to heaven, I call dibs on your stuff!

For those of you who want to see where all these quotes come from, you can find them at: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/judgment/judgment.html

I am really anxious to see what their website will say on May 22nd. Unless, of course, they are right and the world has ended the day before. If it does, the Mayans are gonna be super pissed!



Rant Over... for now

In the Army Now...

The other day I was having a discussion with a few friends. Stop laughing, I have friends! The topic of discussion was gays in the military. Two of these individuals were former military themselves. One of them said that while he would have no problems serving in an open military there were certain positions that he would have a problem having homosexuals serve in. I asked him to elaborate and he mentioned a "flamer" in a command position. In this point I agreed with him but that was more a case of a personality ill-suited to a particular job. A flamer would indeed, in my estimation, be a poor choice for command but not all gays set off sprinkler systems. Personality is a different issue entirely than who one finds physically attractive.

A point brought up was by another gentleman was the practical concern of the hetero soldier on the ground's reaction to an openly gay soldier. He said that there would many possible instances of personal backlash against the gay soldier up to and including instances of "friendly fire". While I acknowledge that in many instances that could very well be the case, is that a reason to keep gays out of the military? There are many bigots in every part of society. Many people would like nothing more that to see their own personal prejudices reinforced by official policy. Is the fact that a bigoted individual will behave in a violent way when confronted with the object of his bigotry a good reason to condone the behavior? I submit to you that it is not. There was negative and often violent reaction to the integration of black soldiers into the military. Does that mean it should never have happened? Radical changes made to any social system are always messy and often bloody. That does not mean it should happen. There are military statutes that protect military personnel from being attacked by one another just like there is in the civilian world. A soldier attacking a soldier, in most cases, is a crime and is punished as one. The point was made that these statutes would be "selectively" enforced. I can not argue with that. How many black soldiers were brutally attacked with impunity during integration? Does that mean it shouldn't have happen? Sadly, a great deal of the "old guard" had to "die out" for the change to take root. And the same would most likely have to take place in this instance.

I am not now nor have I ever been in the military. This is a fact that is usually used by current and former members of the military to discount my opinion as being completely invalid. This is arrogance on a rather impressive level and is completely ridiculous. It would be on par with my pointing out that I am a writer and since someone else isn't his or her opinions on literature are completely invalid. This would be viewed, quite correctly, as a ridiculous idea. It is quite possible for a non-writer to studies literature and the various aspects of its creation and possess well thought out and valid opinions on the subject. Guess what, the same thing is true for the military and any other subject. We all have minds that allow us to logically form opinions on any subject. The out of hand rejection of another point of view simply because it comes from a different set of experiences than yours is false logic at best. Sometime a fresh pair of eyes can be a very helpful thing.

Another excellent point that was made was that was made was that when one enlists in the military they sign a contract that includes the wording banning homosexuality and so breaking the contract by declaring one's homosexuality they should rightly be incarcerated for this breach. I would agree with this statement if it were not federal law that a contract that requires one to commit an illegal act is non-binding. The sanctioned discrimination against a citizen of the United States clearly violates the fourteenth amendment and is, therefore, illegal. Don't forget, military personnel also pledge to defend the constitution. There is a reason "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. If you signed a contract with me to kill my wife and then did not fulfill the contract, I could not then sue you for breech of contract. Despite the ridiculousness of that example, the principle holds true.

The practical result of all this is, as correctly pointed out by the gentleman, is that one would find themselves sitting in federal prison until the supreme court agree to hear the case. Given the stacked deck that is our current Supreme Court and our government's love affair with ignoring civil rights and locking people away without even the pretense of due process, the prospects of policy being changed in this way are dim indeed.

When you strip away pandering to the bigotry of others, I still have yet to hear even one logical reason why homosexuals are unfit for military service.



Rant Over...for now

And We All Know Who Should Get the Credit for this One, Right,,,, um, Right?

Well as we all know Bin Laden is no longer using up our valuable oxygen. Now, as when most things of note happen it is time to play the blame/credit game. I have heard from some that: "Obama got Bin Laden" and from others: "they wouldn't have gotten him if it wasn't for Bush". Both of these statements are stupid and prove that terrorists are not the only ones who waste our oxygen. The one who should get the credit for the kill is the one who took the shot and those in his/her immediate support ring, you know the ones who were directly involved, not some politicians thousands of miles away who haven't been involved in in even one operation in this clusterfuck we call a war and the closest they have gotten to the desert was knocking their ball into a sand trap on a golf course more expensive than the average American could afford in ten years of saving.

So, now he is dead. Now what? In all likelihood, now nothing. Hunting Bin Laden has not been an even remotely plausible excuse for the war for a very long time. In the intervening years we have come up with many others, all equally ridiculous, that we can lean on now. The only reason the war will end any time soon is if there is suddenly no more money in it. I would say that it wont stand up until the American people stand up and demand it. However, considering how easily the government has gotten us to roll over and hand over any freedom they ask for I think it is more likely that it will cease to be profitable long before we as a people stand up and demand that it end.

In the intervening years since Bin Laden made it to the top of the charts we have: Attacked a sovereign nation without provocation using a flimsy and ultimately proven false connection to the September 11th attacks, we have passed and renewed the Patriot Act, a document that severely curtails the civil liberties of American citizens, We have kept prisoners locked up without due process (in fact, distroying some aspects of due process. Anyone else miss habeas corpus?) and without charge, we have legitimized the use of torture in interrogations as well as just for shits and giggles (Abu Ghraib, anyone), Misused our service men and women and ignored them when they returned, given millions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts to political cronies, covered up crimes committed by said political cronies, Made it more difficult to board a plane than to buy a gun and allowed Michael Bay to make three craptacular Transformers films. That last one has nothing to do with the war, it just pisses me off.

So all those things have transpired and we finally killed one skinny, repressed, angry little goat herder. Looks like we one this one!

Don't get me wrong, Bin Laden was scum but when it comes down to whose goals were achieved most effectively, I think he was one or two up on us.

I truly hope that this help end war and bring our troops home, but I wouldn't count on it.


Rant Over... for now