Islam a peaceful religion?

For those who occasionally stomach my crappy and sporadic blog posts, but don't have facebook, their was a brief discussion about the appropriateness of a mosque being constructed near the ruins of the World Trade Center. I urge everyone to participate in this dialogue as it is vital to our moral progress.

**DISCLAIMER** MORAL PROGRESS: It is good to give someone a hug. It is NOT good to behead someone based on your "supernaturally" derived doctrinal directives. Alliteration is good. It is NOT good to worship a violent doctrine, but call yourself a peaceful religion.

Below is a transcript of the online discussion started by the Artificial Intelligent simply known as, "Brain." But first, here is a picture that proves we can all get along:

In order of intelligence: oh shit.. um.. don't think I can categorize these guys by intelligence. From left to right: Joseph Smith, Buddha, Jebus and Muhammad. (Note how they are all getting along).

--------------------------------------------------------------

Brain:

A mosque 600 ft from Ground Zero, are you fucking kidding me?? BRB...I'm going to go erect a Hooters next to the Dome of the Rock, I'm sure the Islamic faithful will have no problem with that.

Girl:

We shouldn't punish a whole religion of people because the actions of a very small group of people. It's like the man who attacked me on the el telling me I had no right to be in America because my people bombed Pearl Harbor (ha moron, I'm Koean - but that is besides the point) and the man who attacked me on the steet yelling "you killed my uncle ... See Morein Korea!!!!!" I would hope that I there will come a time that I and everyone else in the world is no longer judged simply by their race/religion or the actions of a few crazies (example for white people: the KKK).

Brain:

I have no sympathy for the followers of a religion that preaches the destruction of everything we hold dear.

Islam is NOT a religion of peace, their prophet was a militant who killed over 3,000 people.

Just a few "peaceful" passages from the Quran below... tell me you want the followers of this religion anywhere in our country, let alone Ground Zero.

Quran 4:89: "They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

Quran 8:12: "Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;"

Quran 2:191: "... kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …"

Quran 22:19-22: "… for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."

Quran 8:12: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'"

Quran 8:7: "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'" Quran 8:59: "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."

Quran 8:60: "Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you."

Quran 9.29" "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

Quran 47:4: "Strike off the heads of the disbelievers" and, after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."

Hadith Sahih Muslim (41:6985): "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: 'The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.'"

Quran 9:5: "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Sura 3:151: "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!"

Sura 8:60: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly." Tabari IX:113: "Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran."

Tabari I:280: "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Ishaq:327: "Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion."

Girl:

Everyone knows I'm not a fan of any organized religion in general. I just believe in respecting humanity. I could paste the whole bible, any bible, here and it would be filled with all kinds of nonsense that is good for no one. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :) Have a fantastic weekend! Can't wait to see the kitties at Kims!

Me:

Anyone who says or thinks Islam is a peaceful religion is patently ignorant and so pumped with "tolerance" that they rob themselves of any and all intellectual credibility.

For those who claim they are peaceful Muslims and Islam is a peaceful religion, they 1) are bad followers of their own religion as you can tell from the aforementioned ... See Morepassages 2) need to omit those passages and print new doctrinal hardcopies, which really just voids their current religion and creates a whole new mythology and 3) need to come out and speak LOUD against the violent rhetoric and horrific murders being carried out all over the world against all "non-believers" (which they aren't doing.. and if they are.. it's not LOUD enough).

You can be a compassionate progressive, such as ourselves, without giving violent mythologies a free-pass from any type of justified critiques. Even Christianity, in terms of a doctrine, is arguably just as violent as Islam, and for those of you who disagree, in my next post I will repeat all of the lovely passages that advocate genocide, gang-rape of minors, slavery, intolerance, etc etc etc. Just because most Christians don't preach violence doesn't mean they once did not do this, as history dictates. Christianity is just an older religion and fortunately the brightness of reason has cut through and diminished that violence and ignorance over the centuries. It's tragic how people somehow derive THEIR moral authority from these writings.

Erecting a mosque next to the site where 3,000 civilians were killed in the name of Allah and preaching the same violent doctrine the 19 hijackers used to justify this genocide... well in OUR world we protect this type of behavior because that is the civilized, moral action that we concluded through millenia of trial and error through evolution... but next time I'm in the area, don't be surprised if I eat a bunch of greasy Sbarro and take a steaming hot shit on top of your new shiny mosque.

Girl:

There were millions of people killed during th Christian Crusades in the name of Christianity and millions before and after including specific events towards Jews, Heretics, Native Americans, Africans, the Vietnamese, and the list goes on and on. These actions were done by everyday Christians in the name of "god", not even close to the radical muslims involved in the twin towers tragedy. You don't see anyone attacking churches, do you? Oh wait, yeah, the KKK burns them cuz the church happens to be filled with black people. If we judged whole groups of people by the actions of a few - we would live in a pretty intolerant world with very few of the freedoms that we all enjoy - espeically this crazy freedom of speech thing.

Me:

"These actions were done by everyday Christians in the name of "god", not even close to the radical muslims involved in the twin towers tragedy."

So you're saying there is a false equivalency with christian and islamic violence? I'm sure quantifiably they are different, but analogously they are the exact same in terms of violence. I completely ... See Moreagree that there are a few "bad apples" in a world full of relatively peaceful muslims. When I was in Iran most people I came across were either cultural muslims or at least "public" muslims in order not to risk indefinite detainment without habeous corpus. Now these people were mostly educated, but my point is that if you look at the current islamic theocracies or pseudo-theocracies such as iran, saudi arabia, afghanistan, jordan, bahrain, etc., you will see a very concrete causatory relationship with violence (particularly against woman) and islam.

We should never judge a whole group by just a few, that is obviously the sign of an advanced, civilized species; however, when the vast majority of a peaceful group bases their life around a violent doctrine and doesn't come out and LOUDLY, publicly decry the violence of their few, they are doing a disservice to themselves and insulting the rest of us.

As a quasi-pacifist I never advocate violence or even the defacing (with feces) really anything. My comment about the sbarro-induced flaming poo was merely a facetious parallel to highlight the incongruities of constructing a mosque based on a violent doctrine next to the 9/11 site. Freedom (reasonable freedoms not unrealistic childish libertarian freedoms) is the most important aspect of our country, but a little compassion is prudent occasionally as well. Until I see these mosque leaders hold multiple press conferences, advertisements, release statements decrying violence toward anyone in the name of islam, even against satirists who draw muhammad, I will continue to view this situation as insulting and absurd.

My point was that from a doctrinal standpoint, both islam and christianity are incredibly violent religions; this is indisputable.

Boy:

This is why religion is evil

Girl:

exactly!

Brain:

I'm sure there's plenty of "peaceful" Muslims out there, cherry-picking what parts of the Quran they're going to adhere to and ignoring that part about killing the infidels, but are they even Muslim in the first place?

As Jake pointed out, when you remove certain parts of the holy text you create an entirely new mythology all together. I've ... See Morealways found it strange to refer to suicide bombers and their ilk as "radical" or "extreme." I think a much more accurate description would be PRACTICING MUSLIMS.

No matter how you try to defend these "peaceful" Muslims, the fact remains that their instruction manual for life, the Quran, basically beats you over the head with the mantra, "KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS." I'd like to believe that most humans would realize that killing someone because they don't believe in your deity is completely fucking stupid, unfortunately, this is not the case. Christianity's been around longer than Islam and, for the most part, Christians have stopped murdering non-believers (even though the Bible instructs them to do so). I can only hope that in another 700 years, Muslims will do the same.

Until then, Islam remains very dangerous and every mosque that pops up only causes their numbers to swell and unfortunately for us, there's no disclaimer in the Quran that reads: "Just ignore all that stuff about beheading infidels, spreading fear, owning slaves and degrading women."

Me:

I'm going to assume since no one else is chiming in here everyone on facebook agrees with Jakemon and Brainba. Come on... won't someone continue the debate...?!

PEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVE
PEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVEPEACEANDLOVE

Daily Thoughts

The Duggar Mom's "plumbing" has got to be absolutely destroyed. Maybe they have raised some good kids (despite being crazy jebus freaks), but seriously, save some air for the rest of us. Did you know they declared their house a freakin church and are tax exempt now? For someone who is an ardent supporter of zero-population growth and who thinks that just because you pray to "zeus" doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay taxes, watching this show is like listening to nails on a chalkboard all the while seeing our president placate conservatives and libertarians by doing shit in mitigating the worst environmental disaster the U.S. has ever experienced.

You know, libertarians, the people who rail against such institutions as the EPA until THEIR child develops brain tumors or leukemia because of some companies reckless waste disposal practices and they have to watch THEIR child die a slow tortured death. On a lighter note, our friend Javi is making a Mexican feast the likes of haven't been seen since good'ol Rob Rum's fiesta days. You can't beat ethnic food, high life and Sahartsock on a beautiful Chicago afternoon.

PS: Libertarians and Theocrats eat poop.

Exploiting fat kid... Childhood obesity is hilarious

Hey Jude

Fighting semantic misinformation with polls that make me embarrassed to share a country with these people:

CNN published the results of one of their recent polls last Friday with the conclusion that 39% of Americans favor the current health care legislation and a WHOPPING 59% of Americans oppose it. As soon as the results were released, Republicans and conservatives jumped ALL OVER this with spastic heaving from their their speak-for-exvery-American pedestal that continued to reiterate how "The vast majority of Americans despise this bill," ie: "3/5ths of America does not like where the country is headed," ie: "3/5ths of Americans believe this is a conservative country," ie: "Masturbating is wrong and will lead to sex with degenerate black voodoo hookers."

I responded to this issue on a friend's facebook page with the following retort:

"I don’t think we should underestimate the significance of the mischaracterization of this poll. As soon as CNN released the results, every Republican/conservative that was interviewed cited, “59% of American’s oppose this government/totalitarian/socialist (I even heard dystopian) takeover of our healthcare system.” A little more research and we discover that Republicans are doing what they do best: Strengthening the Pavlovian conditioning of their base through their typical semantic misinformation. If you value personal responsibility and contain a twinkle of critical thinking skills, you see that according to the CNN poll 52% of Americans favor the bill and/or oppose it because they think it’s not progressive enough and 46% flat out oppose the bill.

Republicans are great at aversion-therapy: Democrats=don’t care about your safety. Democrats=Socialists=Soviet Russia. Obama=soft on terror. Healthcare Bill (HB)=govn’t takeover. HB=death panel. HB=loss of civil liberty. HB=YOU WILL DIE. Progressive=piss on the constitution while wiping your ass with the American flag. It’s no wonder that once pragmatic conservatives are now speaking about revolution and independent minded liberals are second-guessing themselves. Logical fallacy-based arguments laced with fear, that’s their platform.

PS: I think it’s hilariously tragic how every Republican thinks they speak for all Americans and even funnier, God (or their god rather). ... "

[Update: Hell even I disagree with the current legislation. I don't think we can have comprehensive reform of both health-care coverage and in terms of longterm economics without a single payer system. I still think this is better than nothing though]

And now, Harris has just released these poll results indicating that Republicans believe that Obama:

-Is a socialist (67%) Response: Yeah he's a socialist all right.. a reverse socialist. Usually socialists give money to the people, not corrupt financial institutions. If anything, he's a corporatist.

-Wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (61%) Response: Not only has Obama not done anything to take away guns, he's fucking loosened gun laws: We can now take guns into national parks and on Amtrak. He also hasn't publicly said anything about the brilliant idea of some states to allow guns in bars. I mean that only makes sense.

-Is a Muslim (57%) Response: Why is being a Muslim any worse than being a Christian. They both believe millenia old writings with well documented and clear contradictions, hypocrisies and paradoxes, violent and reprehensible (by our current definitions of morality) devine interventions and delcarations, not to mention many revisions, and at the crux of both is a belief in something with little or no evidence. Makes sense to me.

-Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%) Response: Even if this were the case it's not in any REALM OF POSSIBILITY. This is less plausible than my budding porn career. I think the Law of Conservation of Mass says that "I must be THIS ----------> LARGE to enter the ride"

-Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%). Response: Um.. you only have arguably the most conservative (majority) (and corporatist) supreme court of all time. Stop fucking complaining and bring your cases...

-Resents America’s heritage (47%) Response: Sorry to break it to a lot of you a-empathetic whites, but the people we stole from Africa, the families we split up, the young woman we raped and the people we tortured, killed and treated like a commodity, yeah those were black people and the we who did that was America. Even those "Founding Fathers" - that many of you think you (inaccurately) speak for and guiltily masturbate to followed by ashamed self-flagellation - had black slaves. I guarantee Obama is not 100% proud of America's heritage. I'm not 100% proud of America's heritage. That's the difference between us and you. You are nationalists. You believe no matter what your country does, it is correct and morally relevant. We are patriots. We recognize past mistakes and question the norm to make the country better for everyone.

-Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%) Response: Yup exactly. Even though Obama's proposed "Bank Tax" which would have given the tax payers some of their money back with interest was struck down by Republicans.

-Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%) Response: Ugh...

-Is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (45%) Response: Ugh.. and the anti-christ.. getting tired...

-Is a racist (42%) Response: Against whom?! Obama is half black and half white. If he's a racist he's a self-hating black man.. no.. I mean he's a self-hating white man.. no black... ugh.. so tired.

-Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%) Response: Hmm.. 9/11:Iraq:the suspensions of habeus corpus with the patriot act:the most civil rights divesting legislation ever... That WAS Obama who did that.. right?

-Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%). Response: Like breathes in a mixture of 78% Nitrogen/21% Oxygen/1% other gasses to stay alive? Like take shits? Like gets from point A to point B using an upright bipedal movement?

---------------------------------------

Here's an even more clarifying follow-up by Harris that separates differences between those with no college education and those with a post-graduate degree:

-He is a socialist (45% and 20%)
-He wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (45% and 19%)
-He is a Muslim (43% and 9%)
-He was not born in the United States so is not eligible to be president (32% and 7%)
-He is a racist (28% and 9%)
-He is anti-American (27% and 9%)
-He is doing many of the things Hitler did (24% and 10%).

Disagree on philosophy all you want.. but start believing in bullshit with no evidence.. sounds like Christian or Muslim thinking. FUCK, people.. read an objective scientific or law book written in the last hundred years. Learn some critical thinking skills... ANY critical thinking skills. I'm embarrassed for you people and embarrassed for myself by national and geographic proxy.

This is the same old shit: "Protesters rail against "socialistic government takeover of healthcare" while holding near and dear their medicare and social security cards.

I'm a Farmer, I Like to Grow Meat and Beans.. and Potatoes Too

Anyone remember the song Informer by some GAWD-awful white geek rapper? Well if not, here is the video, followed by a great Jim Carrey parody from way back in the In Living Color days.. you know.. before he was an anti-vaccination douche.(For those of you who are seeing this on facebook..videos are at disparatethought.blogspot.com).

The Intellectual Elite Paradox

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Stewart v O'Reilly

I guarantee if this were scored as an Oxford Style Debate, John Stewart would have won in a landslide of epic proportions. Oh, but I'm sure dissenters would revert to their default argument and claim a lack of credibility with liberal, elitist universities (ie. the oxymoron that is liberal fascism). Frankly though, I don't understand why O'Reilly would agree to give a platform to one of the most prolific social satirists of our time.

At one point - I'm paraphrasing - Stewart makes the claim that O'Reilly has become the most reasonable voice at Fox News, which is like being the skinniest kid at fat-camp. In many ways this is very true. If you get rid of Hannity and Beck, two theoctrat anti-government capitalist hypocrites, Fox News becomes much closer to the conservative equivalent of MSNBC.

Stewart's most accurate example of Fox News's misinformation politicization campaign was, ironically enough, edited out of the original aired interview. Here is what they left out:

Stewart: "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money. With people." [F]ox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."
--------------------------------
Stewart: But let's go into this. Because all I hear on your network is, this guy is -- it's tyranny, and socialism.

O'Reilly: That's what he believes.

Stewart: So, how is Barack Obama a socialist? As far as I can see, the majority of the billions of dollars he's given, he's given to banks. So if he is a socialist, he's dyslexic! Because when you redistribute the wealth, it's supposed to be going to --

O'Reilly: But he does believe in redistribution of income.

Stewart: Well, he's redistributed it to the banks.

O'Reilly: And that is a socialist tenet -- no, he's redistributing it --

Stewart: He's going up. He's dyslexic! It's supposed to be coming down!

O'Reilly: He -- Look. If you don't know that the Obama administration is redistributing income, then I'm gonna have to haul your program away from you. Get you off the air.

Stewart: Let me ask you: What is different about his redistribution of income and all other presidents -- he wants to raise the marginal tax rate back to where it was during the Clinton era. Was Clinton a socialist?

O'Reilly: He has promoted a variety of programs, OK, that --

Stewart: We already have Medicare, right? We have Medicaid. We have Social Security. Are we a socialist country? Do you want to get rid of those three?

O'Reilly: No.

Stewart: So are we a socialist country?

O'Reilly: But I want to moderate them so we don't go bankrupt.

Stewart: OK, but that's different. Now you're talking about fiscal responsibility.

O'Reilly: In a socialist country, the government pays for all of these entitlements -- the Obama administration is down that path.

Stewart: Who pays for Medicare? Who pays for Medicaid?

O'Reilly: The government pays for it.

Stewart: So now we're socialist.

O'Reilly: But now we're on Medicaid and Medicare with steroids, with the new health care bill. That's steroids!

Stewart: Once again, this is like the old joke. "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?" "No." "Would you sleep with me for a million?" "OK." So now we know what you are, you're just negotiating price. For you guys to stand up --

O'Reilly: Of course, that's the degree of anybody when you describe socialism. There are little socialistic programs and giant socialist programs. OK? And some people believe that Obama is on the huge government creation -- the government dominance. And you yourself said it! You yourself said it! He wants more regulation, he wants to create things, he wants big government.

Stewart: But he's given back so much executive power!

O'Reilly: What?

Stewart: Executive power!

O'Reilly: He hasn't given back anything. He just hasn't handled the Congress. He doesn't know how to handle them yet. That's inexperience. Now --

Stewart: So he's not a tyrant. Because if he's a tyrant, then he's pretty lame for a tyrant.

O'Reilly: I don't object --

Stewart: How many tyrants do you know that really suffer because they can't get cloture? Very few.


Unedited Video Interview:

Greenspan/Waxman video for previous post

When an economist admits he is wrong and no one is around to hear it...

...or understand it.

Remember near the end of 2008 when the economy began to tank and the US was experiencing the worst deficits ever, coincidentally under George W. Bush?

If not, here are two graphical representations of deficit by president. The first chart, created by the Congressional Budget Office, is from 1961 to 2005 with projections into 2006 from Republican v. Democratic budgets. Notice the difference here: Republican budget proposals projected to -$337 Billion vs Democratic proposal projected to -$428 Billion into fiscal year 2006.

Now take a look at a more recent chart created from data taken from the US Treasury Dept.

Notice how at the end of 2006, the Republican deficit in reality is -$574 Billion, before Democrats took back majority of congress. In Bush's defense, when Clinton took office, the growth, or perhaps more accurately the decreases in debt, were steadily decreasing over time. Even Clinton, had he been able to stay in office, probably would have been facing some of the same issues. Also in G. Dub's defense, the 2008 bailout worth some $700 Billion proposed by Bush and signed into office with bipartisan support, added to the annual deficit (but spread over the course of years). This in defense of Bush because any economist would agree that during a massive recession the most effective means to stimulate growth or create increased "demand" is to inject a shit ton of money into the economy.

Remember the Great Depression? Well the reason it turned into a great depression and not a relatively short-lived recession is that instead of injecting capital into the economy (ie. printing more money), everything was liquidated or sold off. We have learned from our mistakes which is why the Bush Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, however unfair to the average citizen, was necessary in order to stave off a horrible economic depression. Do you guys remember when all of the Republicans and Tea-Baggers were accusing Bush of socialism? I don't either because it didn't fucking happen: hypocrites.

Even with the $700 Billion Bush bailout, annual and projected deficits would not have been nearly that large had there been a Democratic congress between 2000 - 2006. Hypothetical yes, but Dems did not have cut taxes for the wealthy, Republicans did (Republicans will counter this citing that it helped the middle-class and the economy through the ever wonderful theory of trickle-down economics). Dems did not create the projected $724 Billion (through 2015) Medicare Part D with no way to pay for it, Republicans did. Dems did not create other unfunded mandates such as the irresponsibly operated No Child Left Behind, Republicans did (Props to Arne Duncan for initiating changes). Dems did not invade Iraq costing the US as of yet more than $3/4 Trillion, a Republican President with a Republican Majority did (amongst other Dem votes. Props to Obama for not voting for it). This also took the eye off the prize in Afghanistan which will end up costing us $billions, perhaps $trillions more, not to mention the loss of life.

Let me briefly touch on the subprime mortgage crisis. Conservatives will always jump the gun and blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which they say led to banks being forced to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers who would eventually default on loan payments. This is a complicated subject with multiple factors including predatory lending, repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, etc. Regardless, let me give conservatives two statements to meditate on:

1) Randall Krosner, former economic adviser to G. Dub and Federal Reserve Governor, has stated that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.

2) Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said, "...the CRE bubble is highly significant; it gives the lie both to those who blame Fannie/Freddie/Community Reinvestment for the housing bubble, and those who blame predatory lending. This was a broad-based bubble."

Or for the layperson, bubbles in both markets graphically illustrated here, developed even though only the residential market was affected by the proposed causes. However, this is somewhat tangential to the point of my post.

Being confined to a dogma, whether in science, religion, politics or economics and resisting ideological alterations in order to fulfill an egotistical place in the universe, is dangerous. And arrogant. And ignorant. I'm not saying dogma as in following the scientific method, but dogma as in saying the single universe theory is correct no matter what even though the Large Hadron Collidor in Cern just revealed the Higgs-Boson particle that led to an understanding of dark matter that led to an understanding of dark energy that pointed to the validity of the multi-verse theory (did not happen). And I'm not talking dogma as in that saying all historical evidence points to capitalism as the most sustainable and prosperity-inducing economic system, but dogma as in Ayn Rand or Milton Freemon and FORMERLY Alan Greenspan's theory of Masturbate to Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Capitalism with investment banks regulating themselves.

It's important to note that in modern economies there are ebbs and flows of recessions and expansions. When a recession occurs, which is more often than not the result of too much supply and not enough demand (maybe people are scared to spend because there are no jobs out there so they put all their money in an account or under their bed all while supply is still up), the way to prevent a serious depression is to inject money into the economy, which stimulates spending. The problem is, if you inject too much money, inflation will occur. This is kind of what the Federal Reserve wrestles with on a daily basis.

Most economists today believe that Obama's stimulus package in 2009 was far too weak to spur the type of recovery that is needed for a recession of this magnitude. Unfortunately, due to the irrational hatred for our President and ever-increasing politicization, this is what we got. Ok so what were the reasons for the recessions. Too many to list. However, if you watch the video I have posted below, you can hear for yourself. You can hear Alan Greenspan, a truly brilliant mind with a formerly dogmatic view of capitalism, say how he was wrong. I give him credit for this admission, but he has not done enough (or anything) to educate the public on the benefits of government control within certain aspects of the economy.

I highly encourage you to watch and have translated the entire video, but here is the gist:

Mr. Greenspan: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."

So basically he's saying that he's surprised that profiteers took advantage of the system for financial gain.

------------------------------------

Rep. Henry Waxman: "It sounds to me like you are saying that those who trusted the market to regulate itself, yourself (Greenspan) included, made a serious mistake."

Greenspan: "Well I think that's true of some products, but not all."

Waxman: "Where do you think you made a mistake then."

Greenspan: "I made a mistake in presuming the self-interest or organization, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders."

HA. Let me repeat. So basically he's saying that he's surprised that profiteers took advantage of the system for financial gain.

----------------------------------------------

THE KICKER (and quite funny):

Waxman: "The question I have for you. You had an ideology. You had a belief that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Greenspan: "Well remember that what an ideology is is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality." HA! "Everyone has one. You have to.. to exist you need an ideology. The question is is it accurate or not? And what I'm saying to you is yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

THE LESSON:

Greenspan: "I still do not fully understand why it happened and obviously to the extent that I figure it out where it happened and why, I will change my views. The facts change, I will change."

The damage has been done (It is Obama's fault). Alan Greenspan, per his parlanced retorts, did not do his job as Federal Reserve Chairman and was responsible for this economic recession that had international ramifications. The positive point to be made, however, is that he will (claims) to change his ideology based on new data that he has received.... unlike so many others.

Ah fuck it. It was Obama.

via Disclose TV

postS.. this was semi-stream of conscious so if it is a bit disjointed or full of non sequiturs, go jerk off to the Wall Street Journal op/ed section.

MUST SEE!!!!

**Facebook still cannot embed videos from imported sources so you will not be able to watch unless you go to youtube or my blog**

Republican House leadership invited President Obama to one of their annual "retreats" in Baltimore yesterday for a dialogue that proved to be some of the most intriguing political television I have ever seen. I literally could not take my eyes off the tv for the over 60 minutes of the impromptu Q&A. Whatever Obama lacks in tangible leadership ability, he more than made up for with this rare show of confident, intelligently precise evisceration of Republican questioning, each preluded by a talking-points, bumper sticker-esque attack on the President.

The entire time I'm watching this unbelievable political spectacle, I can't help but think how G. Dub. would have responded to such reciprocal questioning. It probably would have looked something like this:



During the 2008 presidential campaign, I had a Republican family member firmly state that he would rather have a relatively ignorant soccer mom in the White House over a Harvard-educated lawyer \any day. He would rather have had someone who had graduated from a state college with average grades after transferring three times due to academic probations, who had never travelled outside of the United States or had nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of economics and foreign policy and literally... LITERALLY zero understanding of science and the importance of research in societal progression and quality of life. (I'm of course talking about Sarah Palin as McCain probably would have died shortly after had he been elected in the ultimate finale of apocalyptic irony). Whereas Obama graduated top of his class in the number one law school in the world. (Law school rankings fluctuate annually.. or something). Someone please explain to me how this makes sense.


Where does this distrust, not only for intellect, but for experience come from? The simple and correct answer is that it stems from selecting and being confined to a role and more germanely, taking every piece of information at face-value that permeates from the respective politically philosophical collective. The worst part of all, momentum is built that terminally narrows perspective and creates an ideology where, for example, any aspect of socialism will inevitably lead to the disintegration of the United States and ultimately space-time as we know it, and where any aspect of capitalism is inherently corrupt and middle-class killing.

I read an article today from CrooksandLiars touching on this same idea.


"No matter what the topic, from health care reform to Wall Street, and no matter how many points we agreed on or how many facts I laid at their feet, someone would invariably turn to me and dismissively say "Yes, but you're so left wing that you..." or "This is a center-right country, and you're so far left that..." In each case I asked them to explain -- please give examples of what makes me, or anyone, "left wing." The only thing they could come up with was deficits! Pelosi and Reid! Beyond that, it was because I didn't hate people like Al Gore and Howard Dean and I watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, and EVERYBODY knows they are really "far left."

Head. Smash. Desk.

The irony of it all is that in the end, we agreed on about 90% of everything we talked about. Old habits die hard and they couldn't let go of the old targets they were trained to hate by the right wing media. In their minds, any policy or legislation that comes from Democrats with no support from the right is just far left and that can't be good. We ended up agreeing to disagree ... on all the issues we agreed on! I'm sure I'm not the only one who has suffered through these kinds of skull-numbing experiences so if you've found yourself in the same position, please feel free to use this post to vent. "


In the following video, President Obama eloquently touches on this transparent idea of Republican obstructionism and hypocrisy for the sake of politicization. Obviously this happens on both sides as it doesn't take a genius to identify when a liberal radio host attacks a conservative for 'X', but wouldn't touch a fellow liberal who did or said 'X' as well. However, there is nothing more relevantly disgusting as the current politicization against Obama, which he coherently destroyed at the Republican's expense (and at their invitation). Say what you will after you watch it, but when conservative news sources don't cover a historically epic event such as this, it is because the more people see it the more it hurts their agenda.


There were two points that Obama made which are unequivocally corroborated by non-partisan organizations and every objective observer that has an ounce of grey matter:


1) "Now, look, let's talk about the budget once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. -- $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the -- a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true.

And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade -- had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for.

You had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed without it being paid for. You had two wars that were done through supplementals. And then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That's $8 trillion.

Now, we increased it by a trillion dollars because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus. I am happy to have any independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said."


Republicans ALWAYS assert that all progressives want to do is create a larger more obtrusive (fascist) government which is run through perpetually irresponsible spending. Again, say what you will about Obama always blaming Bush, but the fact of the matter is what would you do if someone was trying to take the above truths and turning it against you? My question is, why the fuck should we allow the Republicans to govern again after the last 8 years, who not only took a budget surplus to a budget deficit, but took the budget deficit to a projected $8 Trillion over the next decade and pawned it off as a result of Obama's policy? Again, for the bazillionth time, between the Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, irresponsible defense spending ( ie F-22), and two police actions that were not paid for... holy shit people.. come on.. AND YOU ARE GIVING OBAMA SHIT?!?! THE HYPOCRISY IS PAINTED ON YOUR FUCKING SKULLS!!!!!!!!!!!!


2) "And so I'm thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist -- no, look, I mean, I'm just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."


Now, I hope you can identify my assertions at the beginning of the post and tie it in with what Obama was saying and ultimately why our current political system is ineffective in fixing any problems. Congressional Republicans tacitly understand that Obama's policies are not ideologically oppressive, socialist or fascist and are actually far more conservative than the policy that spewed out during the last 8 years of Republican control, but politically they have tried to and have successfully villainized him to their constituents for the purpose of politicization. Now, the absent-minded citizen will pick up on these hypocritical talking points, which perpetuates this intellectual tunnel vision. Now no matter what, Republicans cannot be seen compromising on anything or they run the very real danger of being seen as a socialist-fascist-babyeating-sociopath-ideologue by the monster they created.

Republican leadership had almost a decade of control and look what happened. Now progressives have been in power for one year and they are already bitching and refuse to participate.


FUCKING BABIES

Rebecca Sheets Ohhh Jacob!! HA!! I do love you more and more each day!! :) This absolutely made my day!!!

I now have 10 questions for you...

1. Are you going to Haiti?... See More

2. Do you really miss Bush?

3. What would you do, or wouldn't you do right now to be inside drinking HOT tea with my mom while ABBY AND I do all the work outside in the COLD?

4. Why did you shave?

5. Did you come up with the saying twenty-dime?...

6. Or...did Obama say that tonight and I am the only American that didn't watch the State of the Union because I was watching my DVR of Oprah about where my food "comes from"?

7. I hate Groundhogs Day!!!!!! You don't really like that movie, DO YOU?

8. Doesn't the Beast become a dashing young prince at the end? Or was that the Becca Sheets version?

9. What is your New Years resolution?

10. Do you miss me??

Hope to see you soon and get some answers young man!!!!

Hello to Sahar!!!!!

lol.. "oh jacob".. . becca when am i going to move to sb?!

1. It has come to my attention that there is a possibility.

2. I miss Bush's leadership skillz in the context of Obama's pussyfoot bob-and-weave. I kinda wish Obama had the ability to make a decision and push it down people's throats and truly believe it was the right thing to do no matter how many people dissented and how many innocent people died and how many constitutional amendments it broke (partly kidding).

3. OMG that would be awesome. I miss your parents. I could talk with pat, drink jack with your dad and play with your cats (ohhhh..) :S do you remember that pic of me trying to force feed a treat to one of them with my mouth?

4. I was using this cheap ass beard trimmer and it was going fine until I did my chin and it went all the way to my fucking skin and ruined my wonderful face full of pubic-like coarseness.

5. I did not come up with Twenty-Dime. I like it though. It brings me back to my Bloods and Crips days.

6. I should just stop talking to you right now.

7. Are you kidding?! Groundhog day is an excellent piece of cinematographic art. It's also a 96% on the TOMATOMETER. Duh.

8. Not in the Sahar version. She wants me to get chest and back hair extensions and wear a wig. I really think she has an unhealthy fetish.

9. I don't need an arbitrary holiday based on a calendar that was created and introduced by the most corrupt institution ever during the arguably most corrupt era ever in which scientists, objectivists and rationalist were persecuted, tortured and murdered for their free-thinking, amongst many many others.

10. Rebecca I miss you so much. I'm really hoping you move to Chicago to be close to your friends and family. Fix is also moving to Chicago.

postS. Sahar gives her painfully cheery, "oh tell her HI! and when do we get to see her again?!" I'm almost certain what she's really thinking is, "Look at my man the wrong way fish pants and I'll cut you..."

In Other News While I was spell-checking, I came across the word-of-the-day: DESCENT
A surgical procedure to remove the anal sacs, which are musk-producing glands on either side of the anal opening.

Can you use it in a sentence?

If Brain was descented *draumatic pause* our lives would be much happier.

God This Sucks

Things aren't great right now, relatively speaking of course. I mean things are far better than getting punched in the crotch or living in Haiti, but in my reality.... ho. hum. (Just as a quick aside, I found out there is an opportunity for me to go to Haiti and do some environmental work. More to come.) Here is a list of why things suck right now:

1) Coldest week of 2010.
2) Working outside during the coldest week of 2010.
3) Haven't worked out since Sunday since I have no energy due to working outside during the coldest week of 2010.
4) Feeling guilty that I use the coldest week of 2010 as an excuse to not get to the gym.
5) Suffering from PTSD. Post Traumatic Shave Disorder... I miss my beard and it misses me.
6) Ever since Sahar became an ENT Surgical PA, there has been a q-tip holocaust in our apartment. The other day it came to my attention that she used some q-tips and never told me. I don't even know who to trust anymore.
7) My 12-consecutive clean-sweeps ended yesterday. I was going to save the world with my paperless-poo's.
8) Obama continues to disappoint.. he's no worse than any other president that talked a big talk and didn't come through, except his talk was a giant talk and I believed him. Fool me once...



God I miss Bush.
Actually, in terms of PolitiFact's Obameter, which keeps track of the status of all of Obama's "hope-filled" campaign promises, we should reserve judgement. Regardless, there is something missing in Obama's persona. I want the fucking bold progressive leader we were promised, not a pussy-footing Ghandi. I hate to say this, but I wish he would adopt the Bush W. style of leadership and not care what anyone thinks, especially the minority party, regardless of how much of a stupid fucking moron he really is, which Obama is not. And frankly, I don't give a shit what he has to SAY at the State of the Union, we'll see what he DOES in Twenty-Dime.

9) Sahar saw one of those bookstore rolling ladders and said, "I wish I had one of those so I could be like Beauty and the Beast." Deductive reasoning: I'm the fucking beast.

10) I feel like I'm living with Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day. Not only is every day the same, but Sahar is just like Stu Price's wife in The Hangover. "Don't forget your fucking Rogaine!" she'll scream, "I can tell when you don't use it you bald shit dick." Or, "I'm not giving you another blow job until we get married." Which we all know is a trick because once a guy gets married fellatio relates inversely proportional to the amount of shows he has to watch on Lifetime or Bravo.

**Update*** Diver Bar COMPLETE!!

Come one come all and join us consumptionists in overcoming the existential vacuum.

High Life is on the house!

postS to last post

fix you are one of my best friends and i love you and i am anxiously awaiting your hopefully impending arrival to the greater chicago area this summer and remember the time we got drunk and you did the thing with the easy cheese?

Rebuttal to Illogic..

Too often in politics, partisan bias on both ends of the spectrum cloud judgement and completely destroys any attempt at objective analysis:

Jake:
*refer to previous blog post*

Fix:
Jake you should be happy...now all of your union friends will have even more say in getting their buddies elected than they did in the 2008 elections


Jake:
Fix.. you should be just as disillusioned as i am but instead you resort to a double logical fallacy with your sarcastic implications. it doesn't take a genius to identify this as a guised ad hominem attack, in which you attempt to tarnish my standing in our societal caste system, as well as my intellectual credibility and general character, with your veiled and factually inaccurate attempt to portray my so-called affinity toward unions which, are I guess, intrinsically evil. every time some type of progressive initiative is introduced, far too often do cons. bypass rational thought and introduce the slippery-slope argument to the painfully boring and redundant conclusion of fascism. you know hitler was never a fascist. he was the nihilist leader of a death cult. mussolini, now he was a fascist, augmenting his brutal ruling with a corporatist economic system. i don't give a fuck if it's ge, local pipe fitters #138 or news corp., no corporation should be allowed to thrust influence of a collective treasury to influence the body politic and drawn out the voice of the individual (even more so than they all already do). i get so much sand in my vagina every time i am the lone identifier of the terminal hypocrisy of conservatives with their default fascist argument with these now two, tragically overlooked FACTS:

1) it was a conservative republican administration who created the most AUTHORITARIAN and civil-rights divesting initiative ever with the aptly-named patriot act, which true conservatives recognize isn't really conservative at all. Yet, beacuase of partisan bias, they (you) refused to speak out about it (and still do). And since i am of higher intellectual enlightenment than most, i can see the hypocrisy of the current so-called progressive admin. continuing this horrific law.

2) it was a conservative supreme court that ignored centuries of precedent and allowed for the creation of the most CORPORATIST economy in the history of the u.s. conservatives are dead silent about this now because they know it is grotesquely wrong and/or know it might favor a republican agenda at the present time. i assure you this is not a victory for anyone.

do me a favor do some research on how AUTHORITARIAN and CORPORATIST relate to fascism.

Supreme Court decision strips the people of any remaining voice...

While I'm politically engaged, I rarely get a bunch of sand in my vagina over legislation or rulings; this is one of those rarities (I could have a beach party in my vestibule).

If this doesn't bother you - regardless of political affiliation - you are either an apathetic nihilist (redundant, I know, but trying to get my point across) or Ignorant.

From Crooks and Liars: "Here's the bottom line to today's 5-4 ruling: giant corporations can spend as much as they please on elections to advance their agendas. The right-wing Roberts court ruled that Exxon has the same free speech rights as you and me. In other words, Exxon is a person too."

Dive Bar: Day 5 and Beyond...

It seems facebook has updated their blog import capabilities to accept jpg's, unbeknownst to me, so I'm re-importing Disparate Thought.

I know it's been a few days since I've updated our dive bar construction, but I have been busy being arguably the best uncle in the world to a nephew trying to overcome a faux-macroglossia disorder:

And putting in 10-hr days in 0-degree F weather:

The bar has been going pretty well when we've had a chance to work on it and one of the main issues has been reaching that critical level of blood-alcohol concentration where productivity is no longer a function of intoxication. The last pic is where we left off tonight.



Next Steps:
1) Measure and cut trim.
2) Paint and apply trim.
3) Install glass blocks.
4) Sand bar top.
5) Figure out how the hell to use a router and make a decorative edge for the bar top.
6) Install bar top.
7) Touch up paint.
8) Install bar prep covering (laminate, tile, sheet metal)
9) Install bar top covering (laminate, tile, sheet metal??)
10) Install interior shelving/wracks
11) Paint cabinet area/Install shelving/wracks
12) Install bar and cabinet lighting (rope lights?)
13) Buy new bar stools
14) Stock bar with all sorts of expensive wines and scotches
15) Site at The Dive bar and drink copious amounts of High Life

PostS: The premise of The Dive Bar is actually a crappy piece of modern art that did not cost shit to construct. Here is the current and projected breakdown of costs for what actually went into the bar:

Dresser: $12
Lumber: $40
Trim: $12
Paint: $30
Glass Blocks: Free
Bar Stools: Free (Indirect Christmas Gifts)
Lights: $25
High Life 24-pack bottles: $12
---------------------------
Total: $ 131

It's not done yet, but I promise when it is: PARRRRRRRRTTTYYYYY

Dive Bar: Day 3 and 4

Who knew using an orbital sander would produce an inordinate amount of respirable particulate matter. The result:

Only thing, when you live with a beautiful wonderfly hygienic young woman, said woman typically frowns upon performing aforementioned videographic actions. The result:

So after Sahar got done waterboarding me, we were finally ready to begin Day 3: Construction Of A Dive Bar To Facilitate The Consumption Of At Least Fifteen Ice-Cold Golden High-Lives In One Sitting In What Is Now A Bar Room As Dusty As John Steinbeck's Imagination.

Day 3 did not start very Jamba Juicish. My circular hand saw jammed and it took me three hours to take it a part and go in from behind (Sahar seriously, get your mind out of the gutter) and fix it. Without this boost in my ingenuitous confidence, I probably would have quit after I had to figure out why all of my screw-heads were stripping. Who the fuck knew I had to pre-drill "pilot holes" to screw? Since I wasn't using the correct pilot-hole bit and just a regular drill bit, I really had to apply aggressive pressure when I was screwing because the hole was pretty small.

First things first: Frame

Did I mention I'm not using any plans other than what my savant mind contains?

Hmmm... ok.. I guess I can start to see how this is going to work.

Day 4: Come To Find Out, It's Just As Easy To Drink At An Incomplete Homemade Bar...

Back side...

So it's coming along slightly better than I thought. There's probably going to be excessive use of trim to cover some small gaps due to shitty sawing, uneven edges, an uneven floor and an ancient uneven dresser. Still, I assure you your beer will NOT fall off the bar top once it's done!

Night