|
| Quick Short Essay---Some ideas about what rights should be in an ideal societyRights
Rights should be as expansive as possible with the liberty, autonomy
and wellbeing of all being the general goal. Rights should be limited by the
principle that one’s rights do not extend to the point of violating another’s
rights. We should thus have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does
not violate someone else’s basic rights. People have a right not to be harmed
if it is avoidable. So I can go out into the world and do what I want providing
what I do does not harm another. At least if it is avoidable. If I could not
have done otherwise or been reasonably expected to do otherwise I am exempted
from being held responsible for rights violation. On the other hand If I attack
someone else he has the right to harm me in self-defense (if otherwise
unavoidable) because my rights to do what I want in pursuing liberty, autonomy
and wellbeing do not extend to a right to attack another person. I have a right
to pursue a business and become successful as I want with it, providing that in
doing so I do not harm others or violate their rights. If I use slave labor or
an unfair wage or no benefits or prevent my employees from unionizing I am
violating their rights. Each person should have the right to life and liberty
and to pursue their life goals and life their idea of the good life as long as
it does not interfere with those of others to the extent that it could have
been avoided. We should all have the right to free expression. As well as freedom of religion, thought and so on. As far as
government goes its purpose would be two fold, to provide enforcement against
violation of rights and to provide basic amenities for those who cannot afford
them and keep things such as roads and hospitals running smoothly. Everyone
ought to have the right to the minimum quality of life that could be considered
a decent life where life, liberty and wellbeing are provided for. That is
considering we have enough resources for all to live a decent life no one
should have to spend their time worrying about what they’re going to eat or
health care or education when they could more productively spend it
contributing to society if financial concerns were not an issue. Education should be free, subsidized by government
all through college and even graduate school, law school or medical school and
other fields of study of a comparable level. Everyone ought to have the right
to have these kinds of opportunities and should not be held back by financial
difficulties but only by their own ability and effort. Thus, while education
should be free, acceptance of applications should be granted strictly on the
basis of merit. This ought to be a general rule throughout society so that the
best person for the job or for any particular endeavor gets that job providing
the maximum efficiency. Those who do not pass the bar exam for example do not
have a right to be lawyers despite their lack of ability. They are free study
law for free (provided they are accepted into law school), to take the bar exam
as many times as they want but they cannot be a lawyer until they do. If a
person fails at a certain endeavor it should not be seen as a mark against them
but merely a cue that they should perhaps channel their abilities in a different
direction. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the idea that everyone
has some or other abilities they are best suited for and all encouragement and
assistance should be provided to them in finding what it is.
Health care should also be free and
guaranteed, subsidized by the government. Public transportation also. No one
should be prohibited from the opportunities to better themselves simply because
they couldn’t afford to travel, take care of their health or go to college.
That would be the general principle behind this. The rationale would be not
only that everyone has the right to a decent quality of life, but that were
everyone to find what occupation is best for them society as a whole would
benefit from the added efficiency. Such services would be paid for by a
progressive tax system that goes into effect after people start making more
than a certain amount of money a year. For example if you make less than a
hundred thousand dollars a year perhaps you are not taxed at all or very little,
as some have suggested. But if you make more than that, the
percent you pay of your income should be gradually higher with the idea in mind
that after a certain point no one needs all that money and it is simply wasted
sitting in a bank collecting interest or in the stock market. If you have more
money than you can ever spend you are indirectly causing harm to others through
sin of omission as that money ought to be spend in a productive way and taxing
you on it does not effect your actual lifestyle or quality of life one iota.
The other way the social services would be paid for is by cutting subsides to
businesses and by drastically reducing the money spent on the armed forces. There
would be a right against coercion as others have suggested and a right against
involuntary servitude. This would obviously include things like a military
draft. The military would be strictly a defense force. Designed not to attack
other countries but only defend ourselves from attack. Thus we would have no
bases in any foreign country and no need for them or for military alliances.
Problems would be solved and wars preempted through cultivating a careful
diplomacy and encouraging fair trade and making ourselves as a country
indispensable in an economic sense with a powerful industrial base so that no
one would have an incentive to take actions that harm us as we could deter them
economically. At the same time we should have a formidable enough defense that
any aggressive nation would simply pay too high a price by attacking us. We
should work for peace and diplomacy as a model for interaction between nations
and not interfere unduly in the activities of other nations except to promote
values of autonomy, liberty and democracy but this should be done primarily by
setting an example and always by peaceful transparent means.
The system should be a democratic
one where everyone has a right and opportunity to participate to as much of a
degree as possible. Democracy should be
as localized as possible with people able to elect those who directly govern
them and affect their immediate lives. All important decisions such as those
relating to war, and things that will directly affect a majority such as
changes in social services and so on should be put to initiative to all the
people to vote on. Every representative should be able to be recalled if
considered to be performing ineptly or contrary to the will of the people. With
these sorts of safeguards in place the goal would be to allow each individual
as much say in the laws that directly affect their lives as is actually
practical and feasible.
As many others have said I agree
that certain laws should be in place to prevent discrimination on the basis of
arbitrary criteria, race, gender, etc. However rather than having programs like
affirmative action, which while I agree with it as it is in place in America
currently I think it is justified for historical reasons as compensation to the
descendants of African slaves for the disadvantages they’ve suffered,
discrimination should be prevented by a strict adherence to a merit based
criteria for hiring practices. The goal should simply be the best person for
the position gets the position. One thus has a right to challenge one’s
rejection if one can show that one was in fact best for the position but not
simply because one happens to fall in a traditionally discriminated against
category of person. For example women should be allowed to join the military
and be fire-fighters. There should be not institutional discrimination based on
gender. However the goal should never deteriorate into trying to fill a quota
of such and such number of women fire-fighters. Certainly the standards of
qualification should not be reduced for women but they should have to pass the
same standards as everyone else including physical standards if they want a
position that calls for physical strength and endurance etc. To lower the
standards is to insult both the women who can pass them and the men who would still
have to. I have every faith that there are women who could pass the same
physical standards for firefighting and the military that men do. Those that
cannot could simply try again and again until they do or find a line of work
more suitable, with every financial assistance towards that goal from their
government or community, for example a free training program, etc.
Finally there would be an absolute
right for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies no matter how
harmful as long as they are not harming or violating another’s rights in the
process. Thus all drugs would be legal as one’s own body would be considered
one’s absolute property. All forms of consensual sex would be legal. Suicide
would also be legal as long as it was not coerced. No paternalistic law would
ever be allowed to be passed even if a majority government wished to; I agree
with Mill that they do more harm than good. Smoking would be allowed in bars
for example. It would be up to the owners of the establishment to set the rules
for things like smoking. Those who disliked smoking could find a non-smoking
bar. As long as one was not unduly subjecting another to things like smoking
such as forcing another to inhale second hand smoke, smoking would be allowed
in public places. On the other hand smoking would be banned indoors in places
like hospitals, planes, libraries and classrooms with the guiding principle
here being that people need to go to those places whereas bars, casinos and so
on are places of recreation that no one has any need to go to but goes to
merely for enjoyment. The same would apply for other drugs. As long as one was
not harming another while under the influence there would be no reason to ban
drugs that was not paternalistic. On the other hand if a person was under the
influence while getting in a car accident and harming another they would be
severely punished for such irresponsibility perhaps with their driving license
taken away presently. No one would be allowed to use the fact they were under
the influence as an excuse for any crime, in fact it would be held against them
with the understanding that everyone is responsible for their own actions. So
while a person would not be punished simply for using cocaine. If they got out
of control and beat someone up under the influence they would be punished severely
not for being on cocaine but for beating someone up and they would not be
allowed to use the fact they were under the influence as a mitigating
circumstance, rather it would be held against them as an irresponsible choice
for them as they obviously couldn’t handle it properly. This would apply to all
drugs. However only adults would be allowed to use drugs as it could be argued
that children were not old enough to make an informed rational decision on
whether to or not. Exactly when a person becomes an adult, be it 21, 18 or 16
would be up for debate and might even vary depending on the community or even
the individual. Perhaps at 16 a person is allowed to take an “adult test” and
if they pass it they are treated like an adult. This would allow for the more
quickly maturing members of society to be allowed the same rights as adults but
would not force a less mature 16 year old to be tried as an adult for a crime
since presumably he would have failed the test. Taking the test of course would
be a choice never required. Then when a person turns 18 perhaps full adulthood
is bestowed on them, unless they apply for an exemption claiming immaturity and
they would then be required to take undergo a psychological evaluation. Some
people might be permently impaired and never reach adulthood such as mentally
retarded people. They would have the protected status accorded to children.
| | |
| will someone please impeach this motherfucker already
| | |
| Today, Tookie Williams
was shot up full of lethal drugs in order to kill him so that
American Justice can be served. It did kill him. Now he's fucking dead.
See you on the flip side Tookie. Keep it real. Yeah Arnold had him
snuffed. And a lot of fucking good it's done too. So very productive,
the death penalty. Such an efficient expenditure of energy and money.
Such a waste of human life and potential. Honestly, what's the point?
What good did it serve besides making a few people feel better,
imagining their own dead loved ones can finally sleep in peace and
allow a few smug, self-rightous smegheads to pat themselves on the
back. I'm
not even going to bother going into why I think the death penalty is
wrong. Why I think the State should not have the authority to kill its
own citizens. Why no human has the right to take another's life unless
in self-defense or defense of another. Why human and societal
imperfection considered, a trial by jury can never be expected to be
100% fail safe at the best of times. Not that I'm knocking trial by
jury, on the contrary I think its a vital right too often waived in this
decaying system. All I'm
saying is even the best legal system can make a mistake. And just so
you know there is some debate about whether ours is the best. But
that's irrelevent. You can never give back a life if you make a
mistake, once you've taken it. At least if
you have a guy in prison for life and new DNA evidence comes up that
aquits him, while you can't give him back his missing years, he at least
has his remaining ones. If someday it's proved Tookie was innocent...well, all
they will be able to say is "OOOPS!!!" But that...that isn't even the
fucking point right now.
All I can really say and the first thought that hits me is:
What a waste.
This guy was doing some good with his life, goddamit. Trying to make
amends as best he could for the mistakes he'd made. Frankly that's more
than a lot of us, maybe most of us, do, let alone convicted murderers.
You don't see Charles Manson talking to troubled teenagers. Timothy
McVeigh didn't give a fuck. Whether he did the deed they say he did or
not it's painfully obvious that Tookie Williams was trying to do his best
to fix his own fucked up karma and pick up what he could of his own mess in the time he had left.
Today Arnold and the State of California snuffed out his life.
Yeah Arnold. It's a mystery how this guy is even in this posiiton. It's
beyond ludicrous, and it's beyond the looking glass. Arnold in
Wonderland. It blew my mind that Californians voted for what is
essentially a cartoon
character. I wasn't around when Reagan was making movies so i dont know
if it felt the same way when he switched to politics. But Arnold will
always just be a big dumb musclebound fool to me. I actually kinda
liked him
when he was just doing sometimes entertaining action movies. He seemed
like he had a sense of humor. Could laugh at himself unlike Stalone or
the rest of those goons. But it was probably all just a big P.R.
prelude to this, the absolute absurd main act. Arnold the Guvenator.
Yeah I could write a separate essay on that whole bizzaro phenemonon. I
quickly decided I didnt like Arnold when I saw what he was like behind his onscreen persona. And this feeling was only
reinforced when i learned more about
him then I really ever wanted to in the run up to the california recall
election. The last action hero was in fact nothing but a
misogynist, groupie-groping hitler admirer! Then I saw what he did as
govenor, a
sharp turn to the hard right. Not even really holding up the
pretense of
being the supposed moderate Republican (practically an oxymoron these
days) he'd advertised himself as. But when it
comes down to it, all one really sees when one looks at Arnold is a
narcissistic bodybuilder who spent way too much time looking
at himself in the mirror at a formative part of his life and has never
quite
been able to get over himself. This pathetic dipshit probably really
does see
himself as some sort of great man and not the punchline most of the
rest of us have come to despise. I imagine that his self-conception is
of a kind of American demagogue
imported from the ashes of old German fascism and the father figure
adoration of Freud's worst wetdreams. You could take Hitler seriously
though. Charlie Chaplin moustache or no. Even Chaplin's own portrayal
of the great dictator in its scathing satire has done nothing to
lessen the sheer horrific majesty
of Hitler's seemingly unadulterated
evil as it exists now in the collective consciousness of our culture.
How many people automatically and almost unthinkingly reach for Hitler
as a source of analogy when seeking to convey unimpeacable evil?
Was any of this what Arnold had in mind when he said he admired Hitler
for his "strength"? God only knows. But my point is that Hitler could
be taken
seriously almost to the point of embodying the concept of evil itself
in the modern world. He's practically usurped Satan's own dark throne
in his solidification of this role as the
premere villain of the twentieth century, much as a cartoon Sadamn
Hussein did in the South Park movie. But Arnold's not even three
dimensional
outside his movies. Still got
the same damn one-liner quips while running for
"govenator". For the last four years half of my brain has simply wished
to deny
that many of the events that did took place. "No Bush didnt win (read:
steal) the elections". "No. No. No. That didnt happen. No. They didn't
use that as excuse to invade Iraq. No, goddamn it, this shouldn't be so easy for them. Why is
it unfolding like a fucking action movie script. Why??". But of course all these horrible things, they did happen. And now the perpetrators of demonic imagined destiny are writing
history as fast as they can and re-writing it even faster.
But this whole
Arnold shit. Jesus. Why didn't he just literally run as the
character "the Terminator" from the 2nd movie. Cos that's who people were
fucking voting for. I goddamn guarantee it.
Anyway...I
won't ever understand how you fuckwits in California who voted for him
think...maybe you just dont...that would explain a lot of things
actually. Well, the long and short of it is I'm actually toying with
the idea of throwing away all my Arnold movies. At the very fucking
least I hope
that heartless fuck loses his re-election campaign. God, if ever there
were a silver lining to come from this let it be that. Please Lord
terminate this flop of a sequel before it gets produced. So what
do you think? Should I get rid of The Terminator, The Terminator 2 and
Total Recall? They're pretty decent movies. Maybe I won't throw them
away. I understand
how melodramatic that would be. Equally absurd wouldnt it be? Do I
really want to give in to that rather lame impulse? Or is it the
principle of the thing? And what principle is that?
Maybe I should send them to him with a note that says "from a
former fan" like a friend suggested. I was never that much of fan
though. The Terminators are good movies. and Total Recall. Maybe Last
Action Hero. That's about
it. Predator pretty much blows. And Conan the Barbarian might be the
worst movie I've ever seen in my life, bar none. But even though the
explanation of time travel is ludicrous and
nonsensical and contradictory in those terminator movies (it was way
more coherent in the Back to the Future series) they are damn
entertainting. I just bought "The Terminator" part one from a thrift
store for a
dollar and believe it or not I watched it for the first time a couple
weeks ago. Yeah I may hate
fucking fascist Arnold as a person. And in fact I do. I may think
he is just overall a bad person,
frankly. And well, yes that's also true. But I believe we ought to be
able to separate a person's art
from the personality and actions of the artist. Just cos you don't like
the artist or disagree with him on this or that or even your most
cherished values, it doesn't mean the art automatically sucks
too or that you should force yourself to stop enjoying it. Salvador
Dali may have supported Franco and even been a bit of a fascist himself
but that doesnt stop him
from being my favorite painter. Axl Rose may be a fucking douche bag
and always was but theres at least three or four rocking songs on the
first Guns N' Roses album. Hmm maybe that's not the greatest example.
Charles Manson may have been....but....look at your game
girl...hmm..never mind. I think you get my point.
It really is a shame that we can't just send a Terminator back in time
to prevent Arnie ever coming to power in the first place or maybe just
melt him down after the terminator movies. I'm not advocating his death
of course, just the death of his career and ability to cause the deaths
of others as he's done today. What gets me is that this shmuck took a
week to decide the life of the
man. Making a great show of his wise deliberations. His careful
considerations. His quiet determinations. And then? After rasing hope
to an apropriately unrealstic level...he
fucking kills him anyway. And the result of all this pondering? What
did the "great man" conclude in the end. What was the basis for his
decision? His
explanation amounts to "Tookie didnt say he was sorry so I had to whack
him". Here is a a closer paraphrase of what Arnold actually said:
"One thing he hasn't done is the one thing he needs to do, show
remorse."
Yeah, except Tookie claims he's innocent. How the fuck are you
supposed to apologize and show remorse for murders you say you didn't
do? Huh? Huh? Answer that you musclebound ignoramous!!!! Just assuming that it's at least possible that
Tookie is indeed innocent of
these crimes like he claimed, then this fucking kindergarten cop-out is
asking
an impossible burden of the man. What does he want him to do? Fucking
lie and just say he did it even though he didnt???? Fucking hell! What
is
this? Theater? Should we have Bertolt Brecht write some melodramatic
yet strangly moving music for it? Is this just a show? Yeah it is cos
he's
supposed to show
remorse. Don't have to feel it. Just show it. One more time you fucking
Austrian anthropoid ape-man, lets run through this puzzle once more time you meatheaded moron and see if
you can piece it together. Here it is again:
So, just hypothetically for the sake of argument
just saying he was
innocent, should he have apologized for the murders anyway
and shown remorse even though he didn't do them? That's absurd. That's
a Tom Stoppard play!!! No, it's Samuel Becket!!!!!!!!You made us wait
for Godot for a week Arnold. Why make absurd theater of this whole thing?
Admit it fucker! You were always gonna kill him and you were never
gonna spare him.
Now, you might think perhaps I'm being too harsh on this Hitlerphiliac
hulk who fancies himself worthy to dish out death to the deserving. I
admit I've sometimes been guilty of this vice in the past. So let me
attempt to adopt a more
reasonable, a more fair and balanced, a less emotional, a less cynical
attitude. Let us attempt to crawl inside the mind (such as it is) of
the Blonde Beast himself. Just what was Arnold thinking. What was his
thought process.
Perhaps it went something like this: Perhaps Arnold just thought "well
the facts show the Big Black Man did it and the
facts can't be wrong so if he says otherwise he's lying and he's
unrepentent, and so it is right that he should die". Maybe you
are pursuaded by the line of reasoning that goes "he can't be pardoned
for what he won't admit to". Maybe that is a convincing and rational
argument worthy indeed of our consideration. Yeah maybe. Maybe Twins
was a good
movie. In some alternate universe. Maybe in some weird bizzaro Arnold
world, a movie that revolves around a pregnant male body builder
sounded
like a good premise for a plot, was a critical smash and a blockbuster
success...maybe or maybe it just sounded like a good idea at the time.
Maybe. And Maybe I'm running out of lame Arnold references and
should just get to the point already. Well all this may very well be
true.
But the thing is...everyone who follows this line of reasoing is presupposing Tookie's guilt. And the
facts of the case just aren't that clear. Are they ever really crystcal
clear
when human life is at stake? When race is a factor? When...yes, yes but
in this case it really is a little murky. So think about this:
From what I've read two of the star witnesses for the prosecution were
convicted felons who were promised benefits in exchange for testifying
which one would think might compromise their testimony just a little.
Sure, sure, sure. I know. That's how it always goes. That's how the
system
works. No big deal. No big aberration. Just business as usual. Yeah????
And ??? AND??? The point isn't whether this shit happens or even
whether it happens a lot. The point is if and when it happens, is it
right and doesn't it comprimise the furtherance of justice? And do I have
to even ask this last question? Do we care about justice? Do we care
about truth or do we just care
about guilty verdicts and finding scapegoats? I'm not saying he's
innocent. Who really is
these days afterall? Throw a rock. Tookie was very fucking far from
being a saint. The guy founded the Crips. Hardly a spotless little
lamb.
Sacrificial goat maybe. But not a blameless lamb. Okay. But he wasn't
convicted for starting a street gang and whatever shit he presumably
did that he didn't
get cought for. And, at least in theory, he wasn't killed by lethal
injection because he started the Crips. He was convicted for specific
murders. That and that
alone is what comes into play here in a consideration of his guilt. The
other shit is neither here nor there. But on a side note, if remorse and
redemption is what Arnold got his panties in a bunch about, don't you
think devoting the last 20 years of your life to try to undo some of the ill you've
done, writing children's books against gangs, warning kids agaisnt gangs.
Arranging a truce between the Bloods and the Crips? From what I
understand this
guy had credibility with gangs. Maybe the cynical LA cops who like to run
their mouths to the papers about this case are right.
Maybe today's Crips, Snoop Dogg aside, don't know who Tookie was and
don't give a
fuck. Yeah lots of maybes. Well, so what? The real point is the guy was
obviously trying to make a difference and make amends as best he could
for what he did
do. And the murders? Well he's always maintained he didn't do those.
Maybe he's just lying. Maybe he's just a lying rat-bastard murderer
who deserved to die. Look, I'm not even suggesting that he wasn't. I'm
not even saying he was innocent of those murders. That's not what I'm
saying. Cos I don't know. I don't know who knows. I don't know the
truth. All I'm saying is that it's at least possible that he didn't do
it. All I'm suggesting is that this was not a clear cut case. That's
all. But with that comes the inescapable conclusion that there was a window of possibility that the govenor was about to
kill a wrongly convicted man. And this isn't that far-fetched. This shit does happen. Far too often. Maybe it didnt
happen here. Maybe they got their man. But It could
have. That's all.
That's all I'm saying. And I
guess the fact that it was an all white jury is irrelevent too. I would
never dare to suggest that this country might be just a little
prejudiced. Oh no. Like John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia said,
"we
are not a racist country". Of course we arn't. Countires can't be
racist. A Nation state is an abstract concept that cannot have
attidudes or attributes such as "racist". It is a void that we project
our own
attidutes and attributes onto. A canvass we spurt our Jackson Pollack
jism on to create the
final masterpiece we lovingly call our own and pretend it has always
existed and always had to look this way. Well doesn't it always look
that way after the fact? But the actual attitudes come from
individuals. Still, the
thing is, some of those individuals, do have predujdices. And a white
person is simply more likely to be prejudiced against a black man than
a black person is against another black person. For whatever reason.
And well,
there's something to be said for the concept of the jury of one's
peers. Was the all white jury, made up of Tookie's peers? I don't mean that in a moralistic
sense but in an experiential sense and in terms of class, and of
course, in terms of race.
Could any of those jururs really empathize for a minute with the kind
of life a black man
who started a violent gang has led, and the circumstances that led to
his actions? I don't know. You decide. Make up your own mind on this
and all things. I don't know the answers to these
questions. I think they're worth asking though. But in the
end...it doesn't bring anyone back to life. Not the original murder
victims that Tookie may or may not have killed. And certainly not
Tookie. I predict that much of Holywood will arbitrarily deify him of course, even more than
when he was alive, as they ignore other individual death
penalty cases and the death penalty as an issue in and of itself. The insidious idea will be pushed forth that while
Tookie should have been spared, special saintlike Tookie, Joe Blow on
Death Row deserves what he gets. And it will keep on like that as long
as we feel the need to make human sacrficies to some imagined Gods of
Eye-for-Eye Justice in this blind, blind world. And it stay that
way until America finally
decideds to join the civilzed world and outlaw the death penalty
altogether. But until that day. Life goes on, for the rest of us. Oh
well. Who cares right? Do I really care? Do I really
give a fuck? Do you, if you're still politely reading along at this
point in this overblown tirade? It's not like I actually knew this guy I'm writing about. Chances are you
didn't either. Just another black guy on death row to most of us. And
now he's
dead. It's all so banal and so pointless and so predictable.
But...nevertheless...
You know i was kinda surprised I have to admit. I didnt actually think
Arnold had
much of a heart but I thought he would look at this from a shrewd
polititian's point of view and seeing how his approval polls are about
as low as Bush's right now, maybe he'd think "hey here's a chance
to show
I'm not quite such a right-wing prick as I've made myself out to be".
(Cutting nurses benefits should be too shameless for anyone to
contemplate but Arnie has no shame aparantly). Well turns out I
was wrong. But then again maybe I'm not wrong about
my theory of Arnold's motives but just wrong about a few
background facts. I just found out
that, as well as the majority of Californians supporting the death
penalty, (real fucking liberal oasis isn't it, the sunshine state?),
aparantly the majority supported killing Tookie in particular. So
I suppose the
people have spoken. And the people crave ritual killing. Its like a
gladitorial event, in a way.
The fucking emperor looks out at the people imperiously (as emperors
are wont to do), and, benevolently (as many like to see themselves),
gazes down and
gauges accurately the reaction of the roaring crowd. The great man
gives a majestic, stately, princely, sagely...thumbs down! His penalty is death. And that penalty must be paid. Who cares if
this guy was actually doing some good in the world from his prison
cell? Who gives a fuck that we are one of the last western countries
that still uses the death penalty? Who really gives a shit that we exceute
minors for fuck's sake! Puting
us in an elite group, as has been said by others
before, with Iran and Saudi Arabia! Incidentally, the other thing those
two countries have in common with us, besides despotic rulers, is a
highly religious overall
population, along with a powerful and influential religious
fundamentalist subsection of that population. Make of that what you
will. I didn't say
shit. Just reporting the facts. Just the facts, ma'am. But I've just
gotta say, man, it sure feels good to be
living in the greatest country in the world! Wow, I sure am glad I was
lucky enough to be born white and middle class, Christian, and
American, that's
all I know. I don't
know why more people don't apperciate the wonderful "freedom"
we have to offer the rest of the world. Those Iraqis, for instance,
what
a a buncha
ungreatful assholes. Can you say sour grapes?
| | |
| well at least someone in the mainstream media has some fucking balls:
http://media.putfile.com/olbermannswings
| | |
|
