(no subject)

[dragonlady7]

I don't do much politicking in here, but I would like to post this, seen as part of a meme on debg's blog.

“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

-- President Bush, April 2004, nearly three years after he authorized secret domestic surveillance by the NSA without court orders or warrants.

Quote courtesy the transcript of Bush’s speech, taken off the official White House site

Because I'm just wondering: Where is the line? When does a person actually get in trouble for lying? Because an awful lot of people seem to be able to lie about whatever they fucking well please, and yet, never get in any trouble. And then other people do get in trouble for lying about utterly trivial matters. And I'm just wondering-- where is my Constitution at? Because I sort of like the Constitution.

Ah well.

And, on the side, about Intelligent Design-- one day, when I am not so busy, I will read the apparently brilliantly-written decision on the Dover School Board thing, but meanwhile:

The judge also said: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

That's what bugs me. The very people, over and over again, who claim to be the most moral, are the ones being weasels and lying. Stoppit. I mean really: either be up-front and proud about what you're fighting for, and say right out: I want the public schools to cram MY version of Jesus down everyone's kids' throat. Or, leave it the fuck alone, and keep your religion to yourself. Don't try to lie and say you're interested in science, if you really, truly aren't. Perhaps if you are honest, and take a good hard look at what you honestly want, you might actually come up with something more constructive and, even, palatable.

Interestingly, not long ago, Z read something where a reporter asked the head of an influential New York State Catholic lobbying group why on earth they weren't involved in the Intelligent Design controversy.
And the lobbyist answered, quite calmly and succinctly, that they didn't feel that Darwin's theories contradicted the Bible in any way, and so they were perfectly happy to leave currucula alone.
And Z went to Catholic school for his entire education before college. They learned evolution quite happily.

Muh. But I wasn't going to be political. I've been busy today, finally getting Xmas cards sent out, and taking care of various errands, but it's motherfucking snowy out there. By now it's just nasty. I don't really want to leave the house again.

And oh, courtesy of Z: a record set in his ancestral nation of Latvia. Man Had Blood Alcohol Level Twice The Lethal Amount. Way to go, Latvia!

Comments

[mother2012.livejournal.com]

Lying - Bush is allowed to do it. Because he's, y'know, Bush.

Fanatical Christians are also allowed to do it. As long as the ultimate purpose is to save souls. It's okay to lie, cheat, steal, murder, control other people's lives, be sadistic torturers, imprison people, etc., as long as the basic purpose is to save their soul. (Defined as, get them to say that Jesus is the son of god.) It's also okay to do that to anyone who is not Christian even if you're not out to save their soul because, y'know, they don't count - they aren't Christian.

[spacellama.livejournal.com]

I look at the president as an employee. A direct report, if you will. I elected him (er, sometimes), therefore he is answerable to me just like somebody I hire to perform a job here at work. Now, if one of my direct reports lied to me -- I don't care if it was a big fib or a little one -- they'd better have a damn good explanation and reason.

Still waiting for Bush's explanation. And Clinton's. And Reagan's...