Thursday, September 22, 2005
Kicking Against...
I mentioned a site, Zaphod's Head (see link a couple posts down) and his Political and Religious Standpoints which I found amusing. The page is amusing for the liberal naivete that it exemplifies. I have repeated most of Zaphod's list here (directly lifted from his site for purely educational purposes) and added my commentary between his italicized statements. First let me admit that my tactic here is extremely unfair to Zaphod, who may be a very fine gentleman; I take issue only with his stated positions and not him personally. He has taken the time to put many of his positions and belief out to the public. He may not have had time or a reason to feel that he needed to explain his positions and some of my comments fault him for that -- completely unfair on my part -- but I'm willing to live with that. In fairness, my criticism is not unduly harsh nor particularly scathing -- it is but a few clumsy kicks at best, given off the cuff:
"I am Canadian. My interest in US politics is from an observer's standpoint and I think of the world's issues in that respect as well. My thoughts are always concerned with the world's. Not the US' or Canada's or Jamaica's. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican though my general political view leans heavily towards the Liberal left."
Zaphod's interest in US politics is as an observer --and yet he wants Bush impeached; he is obviously not a neutral observer. He is concerned with the world, not the interests of the United States of America -- in other words, this engineer from Alberta freely concedes that he doesn't care about the United States, except in the context of world good. (So why should we continue?--Because it's just fun). No doubt he is entirely qualified to eludicate upon what is required for the good of the world. How surprising that his political views should list liberally leftward--which is synonymous with opposition to the best interests of the United States.
"I oppose George W. Bush and his administration. I believe they have misled a good number of people all over our world and so far, over 100,000 people have paid the price for it. The "War on Terror" is quickly becoming an open excuse for the US to put their best interests first in other areas of the world, specifically the Middle East. If they really wanted to be the world's "Police" and "Liberator", they would spend a lot more time in Africa."
One would surmise from the impeachment banner that, as he confirms here, he is opposed to President Bush. Zaphod does not explain how the president misled a "good number" of people, nor does he give any hint as to what a "good number" means; 9 has always been a "good number" for me and 2, 8, and 12 are pretty decent as well. Zaphod neglects to mention the millions who were paying the price for the failure of the UN or the euro-don't-wreck-our-arms-and-oil-deals-peans to act. As for putting the best interests of the United States first: I'm sure glad that we finally have an "open excuse" for that; it's what every president and congress is elected to do. That is what nations do; they put their own best interests first, otherwise they cease to exist. Spending a lot of time in Africa: Zaphod's most holy of organizations, the UN, should be able to handle Africa, right? Aren't they doing a marvelous job?
"I attach myself to certain Activist groups and agendas if I see a value that is essential for either Peace or the betterment of Mankind. By no means do I believe in every aspect of these groups, or do I willingly follow the party's behind them."
It's so nice to know that Zaphod's attachment to activists groups only means that he sees in them "a" (that means 'one') value that is essential but he may not subscribe to the whole group's entire agenda. Perhaps Deon and her psychic friends can explain which value Zaphod likes so the rest of the group's agenda can be ignored for our purposes.
"I firmly believe that Religion and Politics must be separated at all costs. When a "free" society begins to impose it's religious morals on the populace, they are no longer a free society. This is proven all over the world, and now becoming evident in the US."
What is now becoming evident in the United States of America, is that the exclusion of religious liberty and morality from the public forum is not beneficial. Another George W. said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports... Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert...? (George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796.) Zaphod neither specifies how religious morals are being imposed upon the populace in the United States nor explains the evidence to which he alludes. Contrast Zaphod's desire for separation with his other statements about religion and morality. I have moved them from other locations to group them here.
"I am a Baha'i and believe in One God. Whether it is God, Allah, Vishnu, Odin or whatever you like, He is the same. If mankind cannot agree on this simple, basic thought, then they are doomed."
Sounds to me like Zaphod is imposing his religion--we are doomed if we can't agree with him. If we pair this principle with his principle on activist groups: Will he subscribe to muslim extremism which recognizes Allah because it has "a" value that is important for "Mankind?"
"By nature, I am a very scientific-minded person. I believe that religion and science must agree though I find my thoughts often conflicting when science takes over. There are some issues of great importance to today's society. Many of these are of a very highly contentious nature, and usually are accompanied by a mixing of religious and political beliefs (see above)."
Yes, see above as only Deon and her psychic friends can make sense of this.
"I hold the International Courts and Organizations authorities above any single nation's. When one nation goes against the Will of the International community, the rest of the nations should and must stand up against them."
Like Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Why does Zaphod assert the superiorty of international organizations? How have they been elected? What is the source of their authority? Is it logical to believe that the appointees of unelected tyrants and madmen, unaccountable to their own countrymen, will promote the best interests of the world? (See Zaphod's drug policy below for more insight).
"Abortion is a subject that should ultimately be handled by the mother of the baby and her doctor. I believe all parties involved should be encouraged to discuss the situation (as each is always different) but again, the final choices must be made by the mother with the aid and councel of her doctor."
All parties involved should discuss the situation? So the baby gets to discuss? I think maybe the baby would opt not to have her head punctured and her brains suctioned out. Perhaps Zaphod impliedly makes the distinction between involved and committed, only advocating the concerns of those who are involved but not the concerns of those who are committed: As with the ham and egg breakfast, the chicken and the cook (like the woman and the doctor) are involved, however the pig (like the baby) is committed.
"Drugs are quickly becoming a huge problem in most parts of the world. I am an advocate for the legalization of Marijuana both for medical and private use, though the substance should and must be controlled by the government in a way almost exactly like alcohol. Drugs of a more refined nature, specifically chemicals and very highly processed drugs such as Ecstacy, Cocaine, Heroin and many others are a terrible plague and should be dealt with quickly. I do not believe marijuana use leads to abuse of harder drugs at all."
I guess we know Zaphod's drug of choice. Is marijuana even regulated in Canada? Oh, this is probably just more good of the world advice-- and good of the world always means that it is the United States that must change by adopting moribund europe's vices while jettisoning our own values.
"Nuclear Weapons are another major issue in the International community at present. With many Third World nations on the verge of developign these, the Superpowers begin to get very edgy. When a nation develops "The Bomb", all other nations must suddenly deal with them in a different light than before. I believe NO nations should possess nukes, and though it terrifies me to think of countries like Iran, Libya, Syria, or North Korea developing these devastating weapons, I believe a country with such a massive stockpile like the US should NOT be the one to demand smaller nations ceasing production or refinement."
Zaphod thinks that no nation should have nukes, but if the Unites States is going to have them, then the despots, murderers and madmen with voices at the UN should have them as well. Actually, that is consistent with his anti-United States position but one must question whether it is consistent with his stated position of seeking the good of the world.
"Finally, the current biggest issue at present is the War in Iraq. I stood behind the Coalition after 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan but when it became increasingly apparent that the US had no reason to invade Iraq other than deposing Saddam Hussein to install their own sympathetic system in order to get Oil contracts (Haliburton etc.) I began to oppose the War and the Lies of the Bush administration. At present, I understand there is no way to pull out of Iraq without dire results, but the US should be trying their level best to do so, and should definately NOT be thinking of invading another country based on either Lies of "faulty" intelligence."
I was hoping for more than the stillborn lies-for- oil claim. I suggest that for the next invasion we rely entirely on lies and faulty intelligence, just to keep everything simple (and we may as well pay Halliburton and Dick Cheney their royalties pre-invasion). I think, however, that only Zaphod and Deon can make claims about what is actually being planned for the next invasion.
"Generally, I take the side of the underdog or the unjustly treated. My favorite Folk Hero is Robin Hood."
Because the UN like Locksley, takes from the rich, but, in the words of James T. Kirk, gives or says it will give to the poor "... later." (I actually read the Kirk quote via a link I got from Zaphod's site).
"I oppose Fascism and the elimination of human rights and freedoms."
I must have misunderstood; I thought Zaphod supported the UN.
"All men and women are equal. No one person is better than any other and rarely does a single person actually deserve the special attention and or respect they so eagerly demand."
Perhaps the world would be a better place if this were true. However, as with all liberal drivel, saying it does not make it so. All men are created equal (and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...) but they don't remain equal and many are better than many others. Is Adolf Hitler the equal of Mother Theresa? Or, perhaps this is more meaningful to Zaphod: Is George W. Bush the equal of Buddha? I think that the last sentence of Zaphod's assertion could also be construed to demonstrate a bias for married people -- which, oddly enough, would support his position of seeking what is best for the world.
"I am Canadian. My interest in US politics is from an observer's standpoint and I think of the world's issues in that respect as well. My thoughts are always concerned with the world's. Not the US' or Canada's or Jamaica's. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican though my general political view leans heavily towards the Liberal left."
Zaphod's interest in US politics is as an observer --and yet he wants Bush impeached; he is obviously not a neutral observer. He is concerned with the world, not the interests of the United States of America -- in other words, this engineer from Alberta freely concedes that he doesn't care about the United States, except in the context of world good. (So why should we continue?--Because it's just fun). No doubt he is entirely qualified to eludicate upon what is required for the good of the world. How surprising that his political views should list liberally leftward--which is synonymous with opposition to the best interests of the United States.
"I oppose George W. Bush and his administration. I believe they have misled a good number of people all over our world and so far, over 100,000 people have paid the price for it. The "War on Terror" is quickly becoming an open excuse for the US to put their best interests first in other areas of the world, specifically the Middle East. If they really wanted to be the world's "Police" and "Liberator", they would spend a lot more time in Africa."
One would surmise from the impeachment banner that, as he confirms here, he is opposed to President Bush. Zaphod does not explain how the president misled a "good number" of people, nor does he give any hint as to what a "good number" means; 9 has always been a "good number" for me and 2, 8, and 12 are pretty decent as well. Zaphod neglects to mention the millions who were paying the price for the failure of the UN or the euro-don't-wreck-our-arms-and-oil-deals-peans to act. As for putting the best interests of the United States first: I'm sure glad that we finally have an "open excuse" for that; it's what every president and congress is elected to do. That is what nations do; they put their own best interests first, otherwise they cease to exist. Spending a lot of time in Africa: Zaphod's most holy of organizations, the UN, should be able to handle Africa, right? Aren't they doing a marvelous job?
"I attach myself to certain Activist groups and agendas if I see a value that is essential for either Peace or the betterment of Mankind. By no means do I believe in every aspect of these groups, or do I willingly follow the party's behind them."
It's so nice to know that Zaphod's attachment to activists groups only means that he sees in them "a" (that means 'one') value that is essential but he may not subscribe to the whole group's entire agenda. Perhaps Deon and her psychic friends can explain which value Zaphod likes so the rest of the group's agenda can be ignored for our purposes.
"I firmly believe that Religion and Politics must be separated at all costs. When a "free" society begins to impose it's religious morals on the populace, they are no longer a free society. This is proven all over the world, and now becoming evident in the US."
What is now becoming evident in the United States of America, is that the exclusion of religious liberty and morality from the public forum is not beneficial. Another George W. said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports... Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert...? (George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796.) Zaphod neither specifies how religious morals are being imposed upon the populace in the United States nor explains the evidence to which he alludes. Contrast Zaphod's desire for separation with his other statements about religion and morality. I have moved them from other locations to group them here.
"I am a Baha'i and believe in One God. Whether it is God, Allah, Vishnu, Odin or whatever you like, He is the same. If mankind cannot agree on this simple, basic thought, then they are doomed."
Sounds to me like Zaphod is imposing his religion--we are doomed if we can't agree with him. If we pair this principle with his principle on activist groups: Will he subscribe to muslim extremism which recognizes Allah because it has "a" value that is important for "Mankind?"
"By nature, I am a very scientific-minded person. I believe that religion and science must agree though I find my thoughts often conflicting when science takes over. There are some issues of great importance to today's society. Many of these are of a very highly contentious nature, and usually are accompanied by a mixing of religious and political beliefs (see above)."
Yes, see above as only Deon and her psychic friends can make sense of this.
"I hold the International Courts and Organizations authorities above any single nation's. When one nation goes against the Will of the International community, the rest of the nations should and must stand up against them."
Like Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Why does Zaphod assert the superiorty of international organizations? How have they been elected? What is the source of their authority? Is it logical to believe that the appointees of unelected tyrants and madmen, unaccountable to their own countrymen, will promote the best interests of the world? (See Zaphod's drug policy below for more insight).
"Abortion is a subject that should ultimately be handled by the mother of the baby and her doctor. I believe all parties involved should be encouraged to discuss the situation (as each is always different) but again, the final choices must be made by the mother with the aid and councel of her doctor."
All parties involved should discuss the situation? So the baby gets to discuss? I think maybe the baby would opt not to have her head punctured and her brains suctioned out. Perhaps Zaphod impliedly makes the distinction between involved and committed, only advocating the concerns of those who are involved but not the concerns of those who are committed: As with the ham and egg breakfast, the chicken and the cook (like the woman and the doctor) are involved, however the pig (like the baby) is committed.
"Drugs are quickly becoming a huge problem in most parts of the world. I am an advocate for the legalization of Marijuana both for medical and private use, though the substance should and must be controlled by the government in a way almost exactly like alcohol. Drugs of a more refined nature, specifically chemicals and very highly processed drugs such as Ecstacy, Cocaine, Heroin and many others are a terrible plague and should be dealt with quickly. I do not believe marijuana use leads to abuse of harder drugs at all."
I guess we know Zaphod's drug of choice. Is marijuana even regulated in Canada? Oh, this is probably just more good of the world advice-- and good of the world always means that it is the United States that must change by adopting moribund europe's vices while jettisoning our own values.
"Nuclear Weapons are another major issue in the International community at present. With many Third World nations on the verge of developign these, the Superpowers begin to get very edgy. When a nation develops "The Bomb", all other nations must suddenly deal with them in a different light than before. I believe NO nations should possess nukes, and though it terrifies me to think of countries like Iran, Libya, Syria, or North Korea developing these devastating weapons, I believe a country with such a massive stockpile like the US should NOT be the one to demand smaller nations ceasing production or refinement."
Zaphod thinks that no nation should have nukes, but if the Unites States is going to have them, then the despots, murderers and madmen with voices at the UN should have them as well. Actually, that is consistent with his anti-United States position but one must question whether it is consistent with his stated position of seeking the good of the world.
"Finally, the current biggest issue at present is the War in Iraq. I stood behind the Coalition after 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan but when it became increasingly apparent that the US had no reason to invade Iraq other than deposing Saddam Hussein to install their own sympathetic system in order to get Oil contracts (Haliburton etc.) I began to oppose the War and the Lies of the Bush administration. At present, I understand there is no way to pull out of Iraq without dire results, but the US should be trying their level best to do so, and should definately NOT be thinking of invading another country based on either Lies of "faulty" intelligence."
I was hoping for more than the stillborn lies-for- oil claim. I suggest that for the next invasion we rely entirely on lies and faulty intelligence, just to keep everything simple (and we may as well pay Halliburton and Dick Cheney their royalties pre-invasion). I think, however, that only Zaphod and Deon can make claims about what is actually being planned for the next invasion.
"Generally, I take the side of the underdog or the unjustly treated. My favorite Folk Hero is Robin Hood."
Because the UN like Locksley, takes from the rich, but, in the words of James T. Kirk, gives or says it will give to the poor "... later." (I actually read the Kirk quote via a link I got from Zaphod's site).
"I oppose Fascism and the elimination of human rights and freedoms."
I must have misunderstood; I thought Zaphod supported the UN.
"All men and women are equal. No one person is better than any other and rarely does a single person actually deserve the special attention and or respect they so eagerly demand."
Perhaps the world would be a better place if this were true. However, as with all liberal drivel, saying it does not make it so. All men are created equal (and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...) but they don't remain equal and many are better than many others. Is Adolf Hitler the equal of Mother Theresa? Or, perhaps this is more meaningful to Zaphod: Is George W. Bush the equal of Buddha? I think that the last sentence of Zaphod's assertion could also be construed to demonstrate a bias for married people -- which, oddly enough, would support his position of seeking what is best for the world.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 9:43 AM 
