why does spain hate america?

a spanish judge has issued an international warrant for the arrest of three american soldiers involved in the shelling of a hotel in baghdad in 2003. US officials say the tank crew believed they were under fire; the video of the event shows no evidence of fire from the hotel. earlier that day a journalist for al-jazeera was killed when US missiles hit their network office in baghdad.

friendly fire is a common occurence in war. this is not to say its acceptable; just that it is inevitable. consider pat tillman for a minute.

however, this is a war of aggression against a former US client state. a war of choice, costing tens of thousands of human lives and hundreds of thousands of casulaties, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars. however, the criminals are not shawn gibson, philip wolford and philip de camp (odd 2 of the 3 are named philip?); the true criminals are bush, cheney, rumsfeld, the neocons, and an american congress that allowed the executive branch to horribly misuse our troops and resources.

what a terrible shame - my condolences to the families of every person that has suffered due to our war crimes. not just in this one, but in cambodia, laos, panama, nicaragua and cuba, as well as all of the rest. what a terribly history we have to overcome.

update: here's a comment from a redstate thread about the incident

the yahoo news article linked in the diary mentions that there have been constant protests since the killing, and I'm guessing this is just Spain's way of appeasing them.

appeasing them? isnt spain a democracy? isnt the government held accountable to the will of the public in a democracy? when did the rules change and spain's government become accountable to our executive branch as opposed to their own people? deflect and spin, no matter how patently obvious the falsehoods are.

ill have the mugshot when its on the web...

but for now, let us all rejoice: a texas court has issued an arrest warrant for one Tom Delay. looks like there's going to be booking and a mugshot after all. score one for the good guys, folks. bond stands at 10,000 and will be posted immediately, im sure. this warms my heart, although schadenfreude isnt the most enlightened of emotions, itll do for now.

santorum vs casey

here are the latest poll numbers from Strategic Vision, a republican polling outfit:

Santorum (R) 36 (38)
Casey (D) 52 (52)

man on dog is going down, down, down. parens, as always, represent the former poll numbers.

why do i call him man on dog you ask? this is why:

That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

another crazy republican (i cant remember offhand) came out with the same kind of assertion several weeks ago. even one of my winger family members brought it up. the argument goes something like this - if we legalize marriage between homosexuals, then we enter the slippery slope terrain where we will have to endorse marriage between 3 or more people, between humans and animals, etc etc.

allow me to kick the legs out from under that fallacious argument right here and now. marriage/civil unions are contracts formed between two adults (occasionally, minors with their parent's permission). as such, the whole concept of a man marrying a dog or a mule or a monkey is asinine - said animal clearly cannot consent. they lack language as well as legal standing to enter into a contract. its as simple as that.

im not a terribly big fan of dems in general, but at least santorum looks like he's going to lose power here in PA. there's another year before elections and a 16 pt lead can evaporate overnight, but man on dog is too tightly tied to the bush administration to weasel out, methinks.

abortion

this one's gonna be a quickie, in three parts.

numero uno: men are not allowed to legislate anything regarding abortion. as we lack the proper plumbing to conceive and carry a child, there is no way we can make an objective informed decision about abortion. this issue should be left to women.

dos: people that support repealing roe v wade and other subsequent laws are not pro-lifers. this is political spin. they are pro-birth. remember that the large majority of people who think abortion should be illegal support the death penalty. calling them pro life grants them a framing victory which cannot be allowed.

tres: let us grant the basic premise their argument is based on - life starts at conception (if anything, life starts when the blastocyst takes up its parasitic relationship with the uterine wall). so this week old fetus is a baby. the argument goes that the state is allowed to compel the mother to carry the child to term for the sake of the unborn child. it then follows that the state is allowed to compel any of its citizens to carry burdens for the sake of supporting other life.

consider the case of someone who desperately requires a transplant. if my dna matches theirs, it stands to reason that the state can compel me to surrender a kidney, or part of my liver, or a lung. this is a natural and logical conclusion to the pro birth argument. it grants totalitarian power to the state in order to compel the sacrifice of my privacy and body for the sake of others. who will compensate me for time lost from work? what of future medical costs or other consequences from the transplant? people even die from shock, albeit only rarely.

it boils down to this - both sides of the fence would like to see a decrease in the number of abortions. cons and libs alike would prefer a country where every child had a loving home. they just think they can get it different ways. the pro-birth people think its supply/demand and by reducing supply, they can lower demand. pro-choice people think that by encouraging alternatives (multiple forms of birth control and family planning) and educating the public will reduce abortions. ill let you decide which one is more effective.

its off to bed for me, for now.

ill be posting more often, hopefully.