So recently Bush, while in the Oval office standing next to the Chinese prime minister, declared his support of Taiwanese non-action and fence-sitting. Taiwan is, of course, ruled by China (I'm not sure what the official nomencalture is, maybe protectorate or something) though it operates somewhat autonomously on domestic affairs. Recently the new president of Taiwan was popularly elected, running largley on a platform of Chinese independence. Well, now he's started to act, starting the process of calling for a national referendum on the subject of Chinese ballistic missiles targeted at the island, as well as generally moving towards ultimate independence.
In his statement bush says, "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose." Of course this is a democracy chilling pronouncement from the supposed leader of the free world, but this is to be expected. What is more surprising and ironic is his focus on Taiwan's president's decision to act "unilaterally to change the status quo". Hello? Maybe he's forgotten when he stood opposed to popular world opinion and its head body, the UN, on the issue of Iraq. Oh, and that little ole Kyoto Protocol, the ICBM treaties... In fact when it comes to leaders acting unilaterally, without the support of world opinion, often without even domestic popular opinion, our President has to top the pack. I guess when it comes down to it, none of this is surprising, our foreign policy is always aimed at supporting those who make business good, regardless of their oppresive regimes (when not because of their oppressive regimes). Bush is just doing that, caring about America's (at least the top 1%'s) interests, so why can't he see that Taiwan's president has the same responsibility (probably with more equitable aim)?

So anyways today at work this 70 year old woman is complaining about a bill that she has to pay because she paid late and there is interest due now. The broad makes like a million dollars a year (no joke) and actually says to me, "okay, i'll pay. I'll just have to eat canned corn beef and hash, but I'll be brave." Can we say unmitigated gall?! To a worker that has made like 1/20th of her annual income in his entire life. Sheesh, reaffirms my belief in the rich elite conspiracy theories and why it's okay to hate and/or eat them, though who wants gout anyways.

The Washington Post, and Democracy Now!, report on 37 military linguists, fluent in Arabic, discharged for being gay. It seems ironic that at this time of terror anyone who speaks Arabic (the language of terror) would be let go. Of course we know what happens to all those good ole boys in the army once gays are around. Yup, they get gay themselves. And who wants more gays? Apparently the supposed gay pheromone is responsible for the quick grasp these gay soldiers have taken on Arabic. Military scientists at DARPA have begun tests to analyze, sparate, and reengineer this miracle language enhancing trait, which apparently is only secreted from those who refrain from telling when they aren't asked, but can't get those damn wrists straight.

Apparently we raised about $7,000. Whoopie! Huge success for democracy and freedom of the press right here in B-lo.

Just read Shawn's latest piece and have to agree that atheists (maybe more correctly non-christians) are on a day-to-day basis discriminated in society. A personal example involves my workplace, where we are encouraged to decorate our workspace for the holidays. Recently I had a discussion with the "lunch crowd" about this issue, and was, well not really surprised, but still amazed at the staunchess of held opinions. We were talking about decorations and how everyone has a right to decorate their area how they want it, according to their beliefs. Their was a Jewish woman at the table who started by saying it was somewhat daunting to come into the office and be confronted by row after row of Christmas decorations, and some rather graphic representations of Jesus, Mary and the rest. Most of the table did not agree with her, a few even snorted disdainfully. I came in next that on the same token if I was a Satan worshipper and decided to display upside down crosses and bloody die Jesus stickers they would all soon feel very offended as well. I believe at this point I was told that there was a difference between that kind of belief or something like that. In other words there wasn't a problem with Christmas decor becuase almost all of them were Christian. It's the problem with the majority, maybe even with democracy. The majority wins and their views are respected to the exclusion of other beliefs. To me it was just astonishing that no one could even see the point I was trying to make, even in an academic kind of way, to them it was a no-brainer: Christmas is good, good people like Christmas. Truly a case of atheist (more correctly non-Christian) discrimination.