David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover

One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.

The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.

Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:

YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???

Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?

It isn't. It hasn't.

Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?

Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.

In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.

While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.

Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.

Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.

If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.

You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.

In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.

This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/

There will be two kinds of Deathers

At a minimum, after the death of Osama bin Laden, the conspiracy theorists will come up with at least two rants that are rooted by the same mentality.

One will be fairly straightforward. They will question whether or not Osama is really dead. Look on Twitter for the hashtag, Deathers. The conspiracy has already begun.

The second batch of Deathers simply question the motive behind the killing. They will purport that President Obama, when faced with a relatively apathetic public and opinion polls which aren't the least bit flattering, politicized the event, making him more of a political opportunist than a successful leader.

Both, sadly, hinge on the idea that President Obama is not at all trustworthy. Both rely on a general distaste for Obama that resembles not that of a partisan slant, but more of a SEC football fan. Lunacy is the only name for such assertions. From here on out, it is how I view any conspiracy theorist. No lunatic has a voice on my stage unless I am poking fun at their insanity.

Death threats against Obama should be condemned

While I must sadly preface my remarks with condemnation of the death threats made against Wisconsin lawmakers in the wake of the union busting legislation snafoo, the fact remains that, even prior to his election, Barack Obama was a target of the hate present on the Right, hate rooted in racist ideals. The vitriol within the 2008 election campaigns fed this angst and from it, we were given this new breed of Conservative called the Birther. Beyond Birthers, white supremacist groups and your run of the mill corner drug store racists have gone unpunished. When comments regarding calling for the death of a US President are made, they should be taken seriously.

Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/

So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.

I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.

Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.







The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.

If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes

Why secession no longer equates to leaving

Via a podcast download, I am currently watching Rachel Maddow from 4/12/2011. At this moment in the show, Rachel is covering secession, the Civil War, and state sovereignty. Like many liberal pundits, what Rachel fails to see is the reality behind the words being used by Conservatives. As a rational person, it makes sense to her that when Texans scream for secession, we should see it as a sign that these Texans want to leave the United States of America. What I must do in this post, however, is to introduce the idea that something else is going on that has nothing to do with the old world meaning of secession and more to do with the Confederacy which no longer resides "in the attic."

I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.

These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.

So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.

This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.

In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.

So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.

Divided we stand...Wait. What?

Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches on the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise is not a possibility anymore. One side attempts to compromise to the middle and ends up losing, while at the same time, gets framed as uncompromising and so far Left in ideology, the other side has no idea where the middle even begins or ends because they are too far Right in ideology. In the end, nothing gets done and the American people suffer for legislation that has been made ineffectual through backdoor deals and retroactive policies specifically designed to cripple such legislation. Let's face it. We are a mess.

After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.

After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.

Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.

What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.

My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.

I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.

Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.

Hitler, Fascism, Extremism, and How it All Started on the Right

The dialogue present in today's politics among the people, not our elected officials, is that of a divided finger-pointing banter aimed at advancing opinions of oneself and not of historical fact. While I admit at face value, the title of this post can be seen as unbalanced finger-pointing aimed at continuing the nonsense, I would ask readers to indulge me for just a moment out of the spirit of listening, not waiting for me to finish talking so you can interject the thoughts welling up inside of your head. Take ten deep breaths and continue reading.

When journalists these days talk about all the extremism and violent rhetoric on the Right, "true conservatives," "patriots," and the tea party ilk have one very common response that comes in a few different flavors.

The Democrats did it first.
The Democrats do it too.
The Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites.

While the second on that list might be true and violent behavior most certainly has been exhibited by groups on the Left, Democratic party leaders have not stood out in front of said groups, egging them on to elevate their own ideals. The lines on the Right between activist and politician have been blurred. Democrats have kept a clear separation between their own statements on the Hill and the protesters down below. Only media outlets and talking heads on the Right attempt to merge the two. Just because some on the Left resort to violence certainly does not excuse anyone else to do the same. I openly criticize violent actions, regardless of the cause.

However, if it were true that Obama, for instance, were a radical, I would not condone it. I know that wingnuts will cling to things like Ayers and Obama at this point, claiming close ties, but that simply isn't true. Google the terms Factcheck, Obama, and Ayers. Let's move on beyond the obvious stalemate to the real meat and potatoes. Distraction is their game, no matter how much they believe themselves to be true and those people cannot be reasoned with. They need to face that lots of misinformation has been flat out debunked. Move on to the next topic already.

But Hitler comparisons? Do you realize where the accusations of Fascism, Communism, and Socialism originated?

The exchange over Hitler and Fascism did not originate with Democrats. The sentiment originated on the Right and the defensive posturing explaining the absurdity was situated on the Left.

Go back to before Obama was elected. Go back to the Bush years (No, this isn't about blaming Bush). Look at some of the book titles that were circulating at the time. Several compared Liberalism to Fascism. On discussion boards, Right-leaning individuals opened up the flood gates by calling Liberals Fascists and Socialists at the same time. Astute Liberals on these forums stepped up to point out the idiocy in such a comparison.

Pick one, but they can't be both.

Followed by...

History lessons on Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism, and Socialism.

Followed by...

If you really want to see Fascism and Hitler like behavior, look at some of the Bush policies, the Religious Right, and the notion that if you don't like America, you can leave it. Nationalism. Blind patriotism. Corporate control.

These were defensive comments against an already implied statement that Fascism (read Hitler) and Socialism (read Mussolini) were all Liberally held tenets, not the other way around. I'm not denying that Liberals used the Hitler comparison. What talking heads on the Right fail to disclose is the timeline and series of events which lead to these comments. Those on the Right were directly comparing Liberals to Fascists and Socialists. You can't talk about either without understanding Hitler and Mussolini.

No. I'm afraid the stones being thrown over Hitler and Fascism came from the Right, not the Left. Only the keen eye accustomed to reading how debates arise will be able to spot it. I suspect wingnuts who go back to read the exchanges will see only what they wish to see and not the text in black and white on the page of their web browser.

And therein lies the real problem.

One group is compromising and living in reality. The other is uncompromising and living in some world of magical thinking. One side recognizes a difference between what you hope will happen and what will actually happen. Nuance is something only those on the Left seem to understand. Nuance is scoffed at by those on the Right.

We will never again see reasonable debate and that is unfortunate for this country. We are on the down and out. It was nice knowing you. The arguments used by the Left for so many years are now being incorrectly employed by those on the Right to project an unrealistic series of events leading up to what we are facing today. We can't fix our country if we botch up the story like a bad game of telephone. Sad, indeed.

I hate to say it, but as a Liberal, I fail to see any benefit from indulging ideas from those on the Right spewing vitriol, favoring those who are ready to work to get things done and casting aside those who would prefer to mangle everything in sight.

...At least for the time being. Once we get back on track, maybe we can start talking again. I welcome that day, but I do not see it happening. There is no arena of ideas when misinformation dictates half of the public opinion. When Democrats are no longer considered legitimate leaders by those on the Right, those on the Left will question the legitimacy of ideals held by those who stand on the Right.

Our best option is to put our ideas and laws into place and watch them succeed just to show the nuts that they were wrong. We cannot continue to argue over matters of reality and imagination. Put common sense back in the hands of those who actually have it and not those who toss the term around in a stump speech to win votes and support.

Welcome Back, Domestic Terrorism

Joseph A. Stack flew 25 miles to an IRS building off of I-83 this morning. He then dove straight into it, Stack, the only death so far. Investigators are still searching for more casualties. Associated with the tragedy was an approximately 3000 word manifesto expressing his thought process for such an act along with the events which lead to his decision.

He repeatedly edited and finally posted a 3000 word manifesto leading up to this morning's disaster. The letter, a rant about taxes and the government, spurred from years of hassles with the IRS. Unfortunately, the language in the document was more than your basic gripe about the IRS.

"Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Desperation and anger sums it up. That is the disturbed paranoia on the Right which has triggered some to consider behaving violently. To deny the existence of such an element is to deny the serious nature of the accusations anti-government groups have made. Those accusations are not without consequence.

The strange part in the tirade was that I could not pin down which side of the fence the guy sat on. Much of his suicide note is obviously anti-government and anti-taxes, yet at the end of the document, he invokes Communism. The letter is peppered with Tea Party style language and other phrases which hint he leans more Right than Left. Strange, indeed. But we should not attempt to rationalize the ravings of a lunatic.

Moments after his name surfaced, Tea Party enthusiasts jumped at the opportunity to use the attack on the IRS to elevate their own anti-government position. The real question to ask then is, will Tea Partyers mistakenly take this act of violence as a green light to take action against the government in a violent manner themselves?

What troubles me even more is how Tea Party supporters and Limbaugh/Beck listeners will sympathize with this man. These same people call critics of the war terrorist sympathizers. I'm sure they feel that this man's violent response represents a legitimate message being sent to the Obama administration. They will defend is insane suicide note as something that represents a growing source of frustration in this country. The problem is, there is no IRS squeeze being put on Joe Taxpayer. The notion has been manufactured and perpetuated via ideology and fear. The Obama administration cut taxes for people in this group.

What they won't say, however, is that the manifesto has clues which suggest Stack may have not been all that kosher when it came to his taxes. I'll get to that in a minute. First, let me focus on the Tea Party reaction to this act.

Search Twitter for Stack sympathizers. These are just some of the gems you'll find.

Mixed feelings? Main stream media misinformation? Well written and poignant manifesto? Tea Party martyr?

Some folks on the Right are even claiming Stack was a wacko from the Left. They claim to have read his manifesto, yet aside from a jab at George W. Bush and a small tirade about health care being a crisis, nothing about his manifesto stinks of straight Liberalism, only Tea Party anti-government angst. Those on the Right consider anyone who criticizes Dubya or our "wonderful" health care system a Leftist. Part of his manifesto actually hinted that he was possibly weaseling around tax laws in order to evade paying. See the part where he talks about tax law readings with neighbors and lawyers and the section where he had undocumented income. He made himself out to be a patriot of all things. Draping oneself in a flag definitely belongs in the Right corner, not the Left. He also made it relatively clear he had a negative impression of unions and of a Democratic politician, Patrick Moynihan. I would personally love to get my hands on some of the letters he claimed to have written to politicians in the past. Perhaps they might shed some light on his thought process and how this dreadful day came into fruition.

So let's give these sympathizers the benefit of the doubt and say Stack wasn't a member of the Tea Party movement. Take all his angst and make a list. All of it resembles things said at speeches during the Tea Party convention. Someone with anti-government angst focused against the IRS does not fit a Leftist profile at all. On the contrary, self proclaimed "true Conservatives" post this kind of nonsense on the net minute by minute. "No taxation without representation" is a tag line of the Tea Party movement, a quote elevated with some importance in the Stack manifesto. Tea Party jargon inadvertently justifies his state of psychosis.

What Tea Party folks need to realize is that their choice of words resonates with more than their own protesters. Talk of revolution and oppression by way of taxes speaks to these lone wolves with psychotic tendencies. It speaks to those carrying signs with swastikas on them and those who play the Socialism card far too often than is necessary. All of those signs we see at Tea Party protests are not the least bit light hearted. They have a clear message directed at a clear target. The Tea Party marks the target. The crazy ones use a scope and fire away. Then the Tea Party gets to act as though they aren't to blame.

Speaking out against the entire US government with vague complaints leaves the uninformed to come to their own ridiculous conclusions. You've fired up the wrong people and now we've suffered as a result. Time to tame your own followers. Time to keep your volatile language in check.

What is ironic is how things are looking to become a self fulfilling prophecy. What do I mean by that? The Tea Party movement and several wingnuts claim the US government will turn into a police state, the likes of which we haven't seen since Communist Russia. I don't think they realize that by advocating revolution and trigging men and women to wage attacks on US soil, they will actually justify actions which would police our freedom.

Some additional points:
He became a Texan, although it would appear he has roots in Pennsylvania. Texas does strange things to people. It's why I really try to avoid driving into Texas altogether. I do give him credit, however, for noticing the over-inflated ego present in Texans.

He complained about all this money lost, yet he had a small plane. Doesn't seem to be hurting that bad. Although it appears that in his younger years, hard times were upon him, real poverty and hard times, he knew not. Who among you owns a plane? Who among you facing hard times owns a web site? That also means he owns a computer and has a decent internet connection. If money is an issue, I certainly wouldn't be throwing it away on a plane and a hosted domain.

My final word:
If his message resonates with you, I am scared of you. I wonder if you will be the next to take your own life and possibly many innocent others. I worry that members of our military will act out in a similar fashion. B52's fly training exercises above the city I live in. Imagine what kind of disaster could ensue should one of our own who swore to defend this country drove a plane like that into the ground. I wonder if I will become a victim of your angst. A body count is nothing to be proud of. You really do terrify the rest of us. Whether you post at FreeRepublic, NewsMax, InfoWars, or any of the many other "Conservative" leaning sites, comments which endorse violence and sympathize with revolution need to be weeded out. Freedom of speech only gets you so far before you become a threat to the rest of society.

I should not fear for my own life on this scale. That is terrorism. Are you a threat? If your answer is yes, you deserve to be on the FBI watch list and no-fly list. It's not oppression or police state when we come after you. You seek to cause physical harm to fellow Americans. Nothing excuses that kind of behavior. Nothing.

This is your "revolution"? You've made Americans afraid again. The language you choose to use to speak to your audience has consequences. They are preparing to take desperate measures. Time to rein in your fringe and send a clear message that this is not the way to solve problems.

Thoughts On Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

The infamous terror plot which lead to the horrific events of 9/11 will finally face justice after years of sitting in limbo. The debate as to whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a federal court or a military tribunal is an interesting one. I can see reasons for supporting either method. It's a strange feeling I'm having, but for once, I'm actually agreeing with what some Republicans have to say. Certainly not everything they're saying appeals to me. I still think they're a bunch of cutthroat assholes.

In my opinion, the standard has been to try these kinds of cases in a military tribunal and not as a federal case. I am siding with those who prefer we try this terrorist via military tribunal. I'm not 100 percent on this idea. I do have questions. What makes this especially interesting is Khalid's status in this country. It's my understanding that he had visa status and went to school in North Carolina. In light of trials over home grown terrorism, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh for example, it's no stretch of the imagination to suggest that perhaps someone with visa status should be tried in federal court. To suggest otherwise reveals your arrogant inflexibility, a behavior I find unacceptable.

Many have said that to try this man in federal court serves as an example to the world of just how solid and fair our judicial system is. We are, after all, a nation of laws. By trying this man with standards equal to our own, we are saying to the world that we treat people as innocent until proven guilty. As Americans, we need to stand by that belief or lose everything that makes us who we are. We can't be the symbol of democracy for other nations when we treat people from those nations in a less than democratic fashion.

However, would it really matter?

We could try him in federal court. We could try him in a military tribunal. In either case, it appears he will be convicted. To the radical Muslim world, no matter which way we go, we will still be viewed as the infidel out to rid the world of Muslims. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. No matter how fair of a trial this guy gets, in the minds of Islamic extremists, Americans are incapable of being fair. Putting this man to death will irritate an already volatile group of folks. Imprisoning him will produce a similar reaction. It doesn't matter what we do. So we have to ask what we want. We have to ask what the world wants. After all, the attack on the World Trade Center killed people from countries other than our own. Shouldn't they have a voice in this?

In many respects, Republicans are no different than the extremists. Had Obama sent this guy to a military tribunal, it still wouldn't have been enough for Republicans. They'd still find something to bitch about. Why should we appease a bunch of assholes? We shouldn't.

International law is a funny thing. Perhaps we could hand the case over to the United Nations. Of course, in doing so, Democrats would face anger and severe criticism from Republicans because, if I'm not mistaken, those silly Republicans don't give two shits about the UN. Another interesting point to make in international terms is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a solider. He is not an enemy combatant fighting under the command of any one nation. He is a terrorist and in legal terms, that's something different. They have no place in a military tribunal. To blatantly disregard this definition is to appeal to an irrational paranoia and the growing trend of intentional misinformation.

One could also argue that by bringing these individuals to New York, the city will have its chance to seek revenge for what was done. It could be our way of symbolically allowing New York some additional closure. I suspect Texans would feel the same way. Nothing screams Texas justice like getting your hands around the throat of the bastard that attacked your home city. If Texans like it, chances are, it's the Republican way too. Revenge is always their prerogative.

Whatever we end up doing, we ought to push for a little solidarity. Instead, I fear we will continue down this divisive path. Republicans would rather divide us than say anything worth listening to. While I may agree with their opinion that we should try this case in a military tribunal, these jerks have been taking it one step further by trying to evoke fear from the American public.