Saturday, December 10, 2005

2005 YEAR IN REVIEW:
War, Peace, Worthless Celebrity Worship, and Natural Disasters

Ahh...2005. A year of marked by wars, natural and man-made disasters, and numerous other nails added to humanity's coffin. My hope is 2006 brings something better.

That bitch Katrina wrecked havoc on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast - what floodwaters didn't destroy, human stupidity managed to almost obliterate. Winter's arrived in Pakistan and India, so the bodies of thousands will probably rot underneath earthquake rubble before either country gives a damn about the necessity of peace.

Western civilization, in the self-appointed seats of cultural superiority, continue to produce more Marie Antoinettes than Marie Curies. While Paris burned, the media continued to pay attention to some dumbass named Paris Hilton. Tom Cruise went insane, knocked up his baby mama, and starred in a movie about an alien threat; while he got the press, Iran continued its nuclear insanity, played baby-daddy to some processed uranium.

So Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, and other celebrities want to starve to death to fit some bullshit standard of death-camp chic? Fine, let them waste away into nothing. Just make sure their foodstuff ends up in Darfur and other regions faced with unwanted starvation.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority? They'll keep bickering and killing each other, and I'm tired of pretending like any of it matters. Its a stupid family feud and neither side gets my sympathy. Go ahead, keep killing each other. With every suicide bombing in Tel Aviv and with every IDF bullet that takes out some Palestinian teenager, the Holy Land moves a little closer towards its own destruction.

No military aid, no trade, and no economic support until there's a lasting peace accord that includes the creation of two separate, independent democracies and the conditions of United Nations Resolution 181 (II) [1947] are met.

Iraq? I'm embarrassed, as an American, that the initial invasion of Iraq promised to liberate the Iraqi people yet has led to only to the creation of another Banana Republic. Complete and sudden withdrawl at this point would just cause more senseless bloodshed. Its high time the American government quit treating Iraq like it did South Vietnam, quit focusing on propping up an Iraqi government and started focusing on building up the Iraqi people.

Want to get Americans out of Iraq? Then let's pressure our elected officials to sit down and give us a true comprehensive plan for finishing what we started. Too many people seem to believe politicians and militaries create democracies. The truth is everyday people create nations - farmers, educators, carpenters, craftsmen, poets, architects, engineers, artists, theologians, athiests, accountants, and shopkeepers. The U.S. was built by its Whitmans, its Emersons, its Frederick Douglasses, its Susan B. Anthonys, its Babe Ruths - not by its Nixons, Kennedys, or Bushes.

To Old Man 2005, good luck and good riddance. See ya in hell.

I, for one, am glad to see your wrinkled ass hit the highway.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Israel has a right to defend itself always. It has earned that right. It is antisemitic hate speech like this that is the real problem.

The ZenFo Pro said...

You know, I'm not sure how not taking sides and wanting a long-overdue resolution to a conflict between Semitic peoples makes me ANTI-semitic...but, uh, okay. Everybody's got a right to their opinion.

As for hate speech, well, sorry you hated the post.

renee said...

Interesting post. I've always kind of felt that no matter when the troops leave there will be chaos. That's what happens when countries are occupied. And this projected bloodshed shouldn't mean that the U.S stays any longer. It just strange logic to use the whole "we'll save them from each other" excuse. It didn't work at any other point in history (India, Ireland, Vietname..etc etc etc until the end of time)

I guess the point is that the troops should have been out yesterday. And there's no reason they can't get out tomorrow.

The ZenFo Pro said...

Good points. Occupation alone rarely works. But then there's postwar Japan and Germany - they were able to flourish at the end of WWII thanks to the Marshall Plan. Japan and Germany required complete occupation, but there was also a focus on massive social reconstruction to help stablize their societies. Teach a man to fish has always worked better than giving him a fish ... or simply guarding his pond.

I don't think its possible at this point to simply up and leave Iraq; that would probably cause more of a mess (like it ended up causing in the first Gulf War). Add the Iranian nuke problem into the mix...

At the end of WWII, George MArshall was smart enough to develop a long-term redevelopment and reconstruction plan that negated long-term occupation. Unfortunately, the Bush Admin. doesn't have that kind of genius.

Katherine said...

I dont realy have much to say other than I totally agree about celebs with eating disorders. Hey and thanks for the other day and the help. Paper's done...yay for me! Saw your interview in the Student Friday.

Ayaya a punk rock chick!!! said...

i've read your site for a few weeks now and i am Jewish I do not think your site ins against israel. i want peace and no war anymore. i do not like comments because my english is okay reading not great writing but the anonimous poster does not speak for everyone back home i love the too ramones and i like tom waits very mush. sorry for spelling problem ~:)

The ZenFo Pro said...

Katherine:
No problem, chica. Glad to help you out. As for the article, well...not blog related...work related :(

Ayaya:
Hey, thanks for the support and for reading! Your English is just fine and feel free to post whenever you want. And gabba gabba hey translates into any language :)

Reginleif said...

You know, I'm not sure how not taking sides and wanting a long-overdue resolution to a conflict between Semitic peoples makes me ANTI-semitic...

Your initial commenter is correct. And I'm tired of hearing "oh, but Arabs are Semites tooooo!!!"

The term "antisemitism" was coined in the late 19th century by a German who wanted to give his Judenhass a more "respectable" name. It was never meant to refer to Arabs.

As for "every IDF bullet that takes out some Palestinian teenager," what the anti-Israel mainstream media, and its leftist readers, never mention is that those "innocent Palestinian children" are quite often throwing rocks and otherwise attempting to injure or kill IDF solders. Maybe if their elders would stop teaching them that Jews are "pigs and monkeys," these "innocent children" could actually have decent lives. And they'd have a greater chance of living those lives in Israel, where Arab politicians do get elected to the Knesset, than they would in majority-Muslim countries.

Meanwhile, Israel has displayed extreme restraint in dealing with the Arabs, if only because it gives too much of a damn about the world's opinion of it. Screw what the world, and especially the EUnuchs who attempted to wipe out European Jewry, think.

The ZenFo Pro said...

I'm normally polite with responses, but you know what? It doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot where the term Semite came from; it only matters in the context its been used for more than a century by athropologists, social geographers, and sociologists to describe the people who originated in a particular region of the world.

Don't like it? I'm sorry. Take it up with the world's social scientists.

As for Israel's restraint, well, that's for history to judge. But why would restraint be necessary if it had to finally accept international law? Israel's restraint is nothing compared to the restraint displayed by the international community.