Every fucking year I feel compelled to have to write in a disclaimer for all the new people to read around here.

I, Joshua, reserve the right to challenge and degrade political ideology that I disagree with on my own journal. People around here need to remember that I'm not writing for you, but for me. This is my journal, and if there is something that you dislike you are more than welcome to skip right along to the next person, or feel free to address me through a comment. While in general I'm a kind and considerate person, if you do not like the fact that I say what I say - to you, dear people, feel free to go play in traffic. Grow up. I don't particularly care that you dislike what I'm saying. This is my space and not yours.

Secondly, I'd like to address that anonymous e-mailer who wrote to (e:jenks). Unless you are Heidi Klum and Mother Theresa rolled up into one package, chances are that you don't have a prayer in fucking hell of matching up to Jenks in intelligence, looks, wit or charm... and therefore you can feel free to shut the fuck up - got it? Only chickenshits who are afraid of being judged themselves write anonymous messages. Its funny to me how jealousy and spite brings this kind of thing up. Tell you what, anon user - come clean and reveal your identity and then we'll have a little contest. Who do the (straight) guys around here prefer, her or you? Seeing as Ms. Jenks has a Yale degree, an MD, her own money and a trail of success that few in America even aspire to let alone get an opportunity to take, I'm fairly confident in saying that you have a LONG way to go. Oh, anon user, you better not have an OUNCE of fat on you and no blemishes of any kind if you want to take a swipe at somebodys looks. Oh, and on the off chance that a guy actually wrote that - to you, sir, you are no man by any stretch. Period.

(e:libertad) - I can only presume that you were referring to what I said about the posters in Cuba, since you were not specific. I do believe that you've been there, so *gasp* it shouldn't be a surprise to you that Communist countries spring propaganda up like that on a continual basis. It would be naive to suggest that regular folks in Cuba, who are dirt ass poor, are organizing dollars that they don't have and are getting permission to post large and expensive anti-Bush posters on the sides of buildings throughout Cuba.

Its interesting that I'm being accused of creating a political divide on (e:strip). That is straight up BULLSHIT, LT. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has come to my defense when someone like (e:ajay) creates a post in his own journal disputing something I wrote. Apparently this "divide" is being created when the exact opposite happens and I counter what someone else wrote. What is good for Ajay is not good for me, apparently. There is no way I'm going to accept that.

I am also going to address something that you and I will simply never agree on - labels and their appropriateness. Calling someone a liberal is NOT being divisive - its quite simply a way of attaching context to political discussion. If you (the rhetorical "you," to be clear) love abortion, hate wars, etc. guess what? They might be "LT's" opinions, but you will never separate yourself from the fact that those are traditionally left-wing viewpoints. You cannot have a political opinion without being labeled left, right, center, or a mix. People are NOT the same... we have different views and preferences and the correct and appropriate and adult thing to do is acknowledge it. Anybody that understands politics knows that you cannot hold political opinions without being slotted somewhere by somebody. You may feel that its stupid, but its a fact of political life that cannot be escaped or ignored. This is also one of the reasons why people avoid politics altogether - they are uncomfortable being "called" something. If that is an uncomfortable situation for anybody out there, then my advice would be to avoid politics because its an ugly business.

The fact of the matter is that I am a center-right leaning person (yeah, I'm a moderate but unfortunately nobody asks me about social issues) and 99.99999% of the people that read and participate on this site disagree with me. If you want to acknowledge a divide its because for once someone around here isn't preaching to the choir and therefore my loud-mouthed participation ALONE somehow must constitute a political divide. See, if I just stop talking politics, everybody is going to agree again and peace is at hand! I will not be stopping my participation anytime soon, and if somebody says something that I believe is astronomically wrong I'm going to challenge that viewpoint... possibly with a tinge of cynicism. You cannot expect to live in a political bubble and not have it popped. I've never been safe around here as far as that goes, and therefore nobody else will be either. I will NOT be supressed because I'm a loud-mouthed voice of disagreement and dissent here.

This is too funny.

In order to avoid any LC-esque drama and to avoid unwittingly offending anybody (if I mean to offend someone its usually pretty obvious) I'm sending out a belated and/or pre-emptive (touchy phrasing there!) HAPPY BIRTHDAY shoutout to the peeps I used to know, the peeps I still hang with, the peeps I see once in a while and the peeps I've yet to meet. You're all great.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY EVERYBODY! And that includes (e:jason) too, since we never actually say "happy birthday" to each other. Ever. A little twin trivia there.

I'm going to take issue with several things that David Coffee is talking about in his latest post.

Ok, I need to know, Where does president Bush get off claiming that he alone knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? He has never been in Combat, neither have any of his close advisers. But now he truly believes, with all the passion he's shown in press conferences, that his way and only his way, will make us safer. With a track record like Bush's? I'd rather trust American Law, International law, and Colon Powell.

If you actually listened to the press conference you would have realized that what the president is asking for is clarification of the law, which I completely agree with. We can debate about how we can interpret Article 3, but we HAVE to interpret it and put it into law. As it stands, it is possible down the line that American troops could possibly be subject to international interpretations of Article 3... which NO Americans are comfortable with, except for you liberals. Which is yet another reason to top on the heaping pile of reasons why (if you love polls anyway) despite the presidents approval rating and the troubles Republicans are having, Americans still trust the Republicans over the Democrats by a wide margin when it comes to protecting the country. Its absurd and unbelievable that someone would actually go along with having Americans be subject to European law. Have you actually read how the EU courts interpret Article 3? Its absolutely ridiculous and no American in his or her right mind would accept it. By the way, what kind of idiot actually believes that the president believes that only he knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? Do you actually believe that the president drafted this law by himself?

I won't even get into Article 6, which makes terrorists EXEMPT from protection through the Geneva Conventions. And I'm definitely not getting into the absurd idea that because members of cabinet haven't been in combat that they shouldn't have input into how these programs are run. Most if not all cabinet positions have historically been filled by civilians with no prior military experience. The entire suggestion is beyond idiotic because (according to liberals, anway) that basically makes all administrations before and after unqualified to lead the CIA and the armed forces, including good old Billy boy. What you are really saying, David, is that you hate GWB and the current cabinet. Skip past your discombobulated rhetoric and please just get to the heart of the matter. Should we be listening to people who are getting advice from intelligence and military professionals, or should we be listening to crunchy granola hippies who sit at their computers and bitch about the president all day in their blogs and editorials? The choice is obvious.

If our troops are tortured we will have no basis to demand their torturers be punished. We will be breaking the verry law that protects our soldiers.

This is possibly, with all due respect David, the dumbest thing I've read in a while that relates to the torture subject. IF our troops are tortured? IF?!?!?!?! David do you not realize that throughout history our soldiers have been tortured? And how the fuck are you going to expect that anyone that tortures American soldiers, PARTICULARLY TERRORISTS, are going to be punished? We can go beyond soldiers - ever heard of Nick Berg? These people cut heads off, tape it and post it on the internet. Are liberals really naive enough to believe that we should be demanding that the terrorists and those who harbor them to punish their terrorists for torturing Americans? The heart of the problem with liberal logic regarding this topic is that we should be treating terrorists like we would treat soldiers from a foreign country, which in Article 6 makes it very clear that they should NOT be. Regardless of the obvious and clear position on where terrorists stand in the Geneva Conventions, the idea that terrorist organizations have the same moral authority that we do is pure bullshit. This is another reason why, despite the problems the R's are having, the people will never give the keys to the military to the Democrats.

Offering our own interpretations of the laws of war. That sounds like a terrible thing for any country to do, offer their own interpretation of the laws of war. Especially during a time of war. Isn't that the whole point of laws in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? This is not a nation ruled by the passions of men, we are ruled by time tested Laws. That's the whole point of the constitution. And it's what makes a democracy last.

David, this is a case where I believe that you simply don't know enough about how international law is handled by individual countries. Its very, very common for countries to pass legislation in their own country to interpret international law within the framework of their own law. Clarification of the law is essential, which is why the EU has already done it with Article 3 and beyond. You can read about how Article 3 has been interpreted by other countries, and a reasonable discussion as to why countries do this here ->

That's torture, the United States does not stand for such things, these are evil and sinister acts. just because Bush happens to be president for 6 years doesn't mean he can soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.

Rhetoric.

Every single one of the clowns in and out of media who blamed Karl Rove outrightly for the CIA leak case were wrong, as usual.

The worst part of this all is that Fitzgerald KNEW who leaked the identity for a very long time, and that Valerie Plame's identity was actually in a State Department memo at the time (so much for her "supposed" covert status behind that desk at Langley). Hey, but whats to stop the facts from a GREAT fairy tale and the ensuing hatchet job that unscrupulous liberals everywhere laughably attempted on Rove, on Cheney, on the President himself. I could have told you that this was going to be the case, but hey... when you are a liberal and you like what you hear regardless of its validity (Rathergate is another prime example) its really interesting to me how all of the sudden the ENDLESS QUEST FOR "TRUTH" is cast away and the demolition equipment gets brought instead. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

My favorite Democrat, Bill Clinton, apparently has a legacy so wafer thin that when a movie that *doesn't* make Clinton look like Rambo with a 14" gold plated dick gets released, all of his shameful and self-serving cabinet members (thanks for North Korea, assholes!) have to come out of the woodwork and attempt what is known in Washington circles as "damage control" and ask for the series to be withdrawn. You know, these same people who are actively proposing outright censorship of a TV series never seemed to mind when that series about Reagan came out. This is what happens when you don't actually try to achieve anything during your presidency but instead choose to base whether your terms were successful or not depending on whether or not the press likes you. In any case, I doubt ABC will lift a finger to appease these extremely narcissistic former public servants. Hey assholes, the feature ISN'T ABOUT YOU. Its not called "The Path To Clinton And Friends Fucking The Terrorism Thing Up in The 1990's" although admittedly this wouldn't be completely false.

UPDATE: Well well... the Democrats in '03 slammed CBS and were critical because they pulled the Reagan docudrama. I just love a fresh, hot cup of hypocrisy in the morning, particulary from this group of pathological losers and ne'er-do-wells.