Thursday, September 30, 2004
"So We Don't Have to Face Them At Home"
I keep hearing this same line from President Bush over and over again. The line goes something like, "We are taking the battle to the enemy overseas, so we don't have to face them on our own soil" or "we have to defeat them on foreign lands, so we don't have to face them at home." This is probably taken by many people as meaning that the best defense is a good offense. They might even consider the fact that we have not been hit with another catastrophic attack at home as proof that Bush's "plan" is working.
My problem is the way he delivers this line and the fact that he has been throwing this line around for the last month nearly every day. Increasingly he uses it when he is painted into a corner as the final justification and logic for the ongoing fight in Iraq. When questioned why Iraq should be considered part of the war on terror this is his favorite response. He used it in this manner in tonight's debate.
Think I am over reacting? Copy "face them at home" to your clipboard, with the quotes, paste it into Google and see how many hits you get, the vast majority being quotes from Bush's various speeches.
A good friend and colleague of my wife has a son in Iraq who we are very concerned about. After hearing Bush's new mantra delivered in increasingly desperate tones it has gotten to the point that I think he is saying that the role our troops, and this young man, are actually playing in Iraq is that of fly paper to flies. The flies being every disgruntled Islamacist bent on attacking America.
There is a certain dark logic to what Bush seems to be saying. If one is hell bent on attacking the US why go to the expense and risk of traveling all the way there when you can cross an unprotected border and blow yourself up along with a few marines and be welcomed by adoring virgins in paradise. With this logic you start to understand what Bush means when he responds with optimism when attacks on Americans increase in Iraq. His answer has consistently been along the lines of, "that's good, that just shows they are getting desperate." It's as if he sees the enemy as the Scottish kamikazes in the old Monty Python skit that were so eager to kill themselves that they could never actually reach their targets on the front!
What Bush increasingly seems to be saying is that he does not expect our troops to "win" in the sense of freeing Iraq from bloodshed and tyranny, rather, in the words of Doctor Evil, he expects them to die!
Rumsfeld seems to agree. A while back he reminded a journalist who pointed out the rising casualties in Iraq, around 800 at the time, that America lost 900,000 guys in WWII. He said it in his now classic, "stop whining!" voice.
I guess when you take into account Bush's total disregard for military service when it was his time to serve maybe he just has trouble relating to the soldier in the field. Maybe this is why every WWII veteran I have spoken to so far this Summer as I went door to door told me, without exception, they were voting for Kerry. Greatest generation indeed.
It troubles me deeply that I have these thoughts and I am sure that many people, convinced of Bush's devotion to Christ, will think I have lost my marbles. But I promise you, the next time you hear him deliver this line, which will probably be tomorrow, you will see what I mean.
Our friend's son has two young children, the youngest of whom was born during this war. He recently was granted a two week leave to go to Germany where he could be briefly reunited with his wife and young family. He was very reluctant to take the leave, though he misses his family very much, because it is believed by many troops that this is how they will get killed. They fear being shot down as they helicopter out. He told his mom that many guys have been killed in this way. They only leave at night for this reason.
Does this sound like we are taking the fight to the enemy or that the enemy is in control and our brave young men and women are sitting ducks surrounded by enemies that they cannot see or openly confront? This is the very situation "on the ground" that led Daniel Ellsburg, a former hawk on the Vietnam war, to conclude that we could not "win" in Indochina. He found many experts at the Pentagon and State Department who admitted in 1967 to him that he was absolutely right. The war dragged on for 7 more years anyway because our leaders could not muster the courage to admit the truth out loud. Tonight at the debate Bush told Kerry that the commander in chief should never upset the troops by telling them that their country made a mistake sending them into combat. I am sure our friend's son would prefer to be told this and then brought home then to be left to die or be severely wounded for a mistake. It is Bush who lacks courage not our troops.
We need a new president. January 20th cannot come soon enough. We need to stop this senseless madness. Does anyone even know what the hell we are even doing and what it means to "win"?
I keep hearing this same line from President Bush over and over again. The line goes something like, "We are taking the battle to the enemy overseas, so we don't have to face them on our own soil" or "we have to defeat them on foreign lands, so we don't have to face them at home." This is probably taken by many people as meaning that the best defense is a good offense. They might even consider the fact that we have not been hit with another catastrophic attack at home as proof that Bush's "plan" is working.
My problem is the way he delivers this line and the fact that he has been throwing this line around for the last month nearly every day. Increasingly he uses it when he is painted into a corner as the final justification and logic for the ongoing fight in Iraq. When questioned why Iraq should be considered part of the war on terror this is his favorite response. He used it in this manner in tonight's debate.
Think I am over reacting? Copy "face them at home" to your clipboard, with the quotes, paste it into Google and see how many hits you get, the vast majority being quotes from Bush's various speeches.
A good friend and colleague of my wife has a son in Iraq who we are very concerned about. After hearing Bush's new mantra delivered in increasingly desperate tones it has gotten to the point that I think he is saying that the role our troops, and this young man, are actually playing in Iraq is that of fly paper to flies. The flies being every disgruntled Islamacist bent on attacking America.
There is a certain dark logic to what Bush seems to be saying. If one is hell bent on attacking the US why go to the expense and risk of traveling all the way there when you can cross an unprotected border and blow yourself up along with a few marines and be welcomed by adoring virgins in paradise. With this logic you start to understand what Bush means when he responds with optimism when attacks on Americans increase in Iraq. His answer has consistently been along the lines of, "that's good, that just shows they are getting desperate." It's as if he sees the enemy as the Scottish kamikazes in the old Monty Python skit that were so eager to kill themselves that they could never actually reach their targets on the front!
What Bush increasingly seems to be saying is that he does not expect our troops to "win" in the sense of freeing Iraq from bloodshed and tyranny, rather, in the words of Doctor Evil, he expects them to die!
Rumsfeld seems to agree. A while back he reminded a journalist who pointed out the rising casualties in Iraq, around 800 at the time, that America lost 900,000 guys in WWII. He said it in his now classic, "stop whining!" voice.
I guess when you take into account Bush's total disregard for military service when it was his time to serve maybe he just has trouble relating to the soldier in the field. Maybe this is why every WWII veteran I have spoken to so far this Summer as I went door to door told me, without exception, they were voting for Kerry. Greatest generation indeed.
It troubles me deeply that I have these thoughts and I am sure that many people, convinced of Bush's devotion to Christ, will think I have lost my marbles. But I promise you, the next time you hear him deliver this line, which will probably be tomorrow, you will see what I mean.
Our friend's son has two young children, the youngest of whom was born during this war. He recently was granted a two week leave to go to Germany where he could be briefly reunited with his wife and young family. He was very reluctant to take the leave, though he misses his family very much, because it is believed by many troops that this is how they will get killed. They fear being shot down as they helicopter out. He told his mom that many guys have been killed in this way. They only leave at night for this reason.
Does this sound like we are taking the fight to the enemy or that the enemy is in control and our brave young men and women are sitting ducks surrounded by enemies that they cannot see or openly confront? This is the very situation "on the ground" that led Daniel Ellsburg, a former hawk on the Vietnam war, to conclude that we could not "win" in Indochina. He found many experts at the Pentagon and State Department who admitted in 1967 to him that he was absolutely right. The war dragged on for 7 more years anyway because our leaders could not muster the courage to admit the truth out loud. Tonight at the debate Bush told Kerry that the commander in chief should never upset the troops by telling them that their country made a mistake sending them into combat. I am sure our friend's son would prefer to be told this and then brought home then to be left to die or be severely wounded for a mistake. It is Bush who lacks courage not our troops.
We need a new president. January 20th cannot come soon enough. We need to stop this senseless madness. Does anyone even know what the hell we are even doing and what it means to "win"?
WE WIN
To me it was pretty clear that John Kerry "won" the debate this evening. Apparently I am not alone in this judgement:
The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration’s new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met.
What always worries me is how the media spins the debate for people who did not see the whole thing. In an hour and a half debate anyone with the strong desire to smear the other side can grab a sound bite here, a sneer there, taken out of context and show it over and over to the masses who will not watch the whole thing and paint the good guy as a nutcase (think Howard Dean's scream).
The way to head this off is to have a big party and show an unedited tape of the whole debate to as many people as you can. At the end of the party invite all to help fashion a likeness of the president to be taunted and humiliated in effigy. What fun!
To me it was pretty clear that John Kerry "won" the debate this evening. Apparently I am not alone in this judgement:
REVIEWS KEEP COMING IN:
CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37
CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30
ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17
The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration’s new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met.
What always worries me is how the media spins the debate for people who did not see the whole thing. In an hour and a half debate anyone with the strong desire to smear the other side can grab a sound bite here, a sneer there, taken out of context and show it over and over to the masses who will not watch the whole thing and paint the good guy as a nutcase (think Howard Dean's scream).
The way to head this off is to have a big party and show an unedited tape of the whole debate to as many people as you can. At the end of the party invite all to help fashion a likeness of the president to be taunted and humiliated in effigy. What fun!
Ohio
Everyone is obsessed with Ohio this year and for good reason. No Republican has ever reached the White House without winning it and only two Democrats, FDR and Kennedy, have done so in the last century. Ohio being such a key swing state has attracted throngs of volunteers who have devoted much of their Summer to getting out the vote. Republicans are running scared now because it seems that Democrats have managed to register over 90,000 new voters (a nearly 10 to 1 margin over Republican efforts). The race in 2000 was so close that it appears that these new voters will, in all probability, swing the election to Kerry.
What is the Republican response? Well, the Republican Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, has sent a memo to local election officials advising them to strictly enforce the 10 year old rule, enacted while the current Republican governor Bob Taft was Secretary of State for Ohio, that all voter registration forms be on thick 80# white paper. According to the Secretary of State's office this rule was enacted to prevent mail sorting equipment from shredding or otherwise damaging thin paper forms. The Secretary's instructions to election officials are to send the proper form back to any voter who has used the wrong form. The deadline to register in this November's election is this coming Monday and election offices are still swamped with a deluge of voter registrations.
So this is what it has come to. A rule designed to minimize the accidental disenfranchisement of citizens is being used by the Republican party to purposely disenfranchise voters. As someone who has spent a great deal of time canvassing door to door and helping voters register to vote over the last month in Oregon I take this kind of thing very personally. Just the fact that such a thing is being attempted is anti-American, anti-democratic and sleazy as hell. This attempted theft of an election should be front page news, not just in Ohio but all over the country. Due to angry calls and letters from across the country Blackwell seems to be backing down, but enough damage may already have been done to effect the election results. There remains a great deal of confusion over the matter and clearly Blackwell's spokesman Carlo LoParo hasn't helped clarify things very well.
But LoParo disputed suggestions that Blackwell was reversing his Sept. 7 directive, which states that "any Ohio form not printed on this minimum paperweight is considered to be an application for a registration form. Your board should mail this appropriate form to the person listed on the application."
Are we really expected to believe that thugs like this really invaded Iraq to bring about the dream of a true functioning democracy in the middle east? Give me a break.
Everyone is obsessed with Ohio this year and for good reason. No Republican has ever reached the White House without winning it and only two Democrats, FDR and Kennedy, have done so in the last century. Ohio being such a key swing state has attracted throngs of volunteers who have devoted much of their Summer to getting out the vote. Republicans are running scared now because it seems that Democrats have managed to register over 90,000 new voters (a nearly 10 to 1 margin over Republican efforts). The race in 2000 was so close that it appears that these new voters will, in all probability, swing the election to Kerry.
What is the Republican response? Well, the Republican Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, has sent a memo to local election officials advising them to strictly enforce the 10 year old rule, enacted while the current Republican governor Bob Taft was Secretary of State for Ohio, that all voter registration forms be on thick 80# white paper. According to the Secretary of State's office this rule was enacted to prevent mail sorting equipment from shredding or otherwise damaging thin paper forms. The Secretary's instructions to election officials are to send the proper form back to any voter who has used the wrong form. The deadline to register in this November's election is this coming Monday and election offices are still swamped with a deluge of voter registrations.
So this is what it has come to. A rule designed to minimize the accidental disenfranchisement of citizens is being used by the Republican party to purposely disenfranchise voters. As someone who has spent a great deal of time canvassing door to door and helping voters register to vote over the last month in Oregon I take this kind of thing very personally. Just the fact that such a thing is being attempted is anti-American, anti-democratic and sleazy as hell. This attempted theft of an election should be front page news, not just in Ohio but all over the country. Due to angry calls and letters from across the country Blackwell seems to be backing down, but enough damage may already have been done to effect the election results. There remains a great deal of confusion over the matter and clearly Blackwell's spokesman Carlo LoParo hasn't helped clarify things very well.
But LoParo disputed suggestions that Blackwell was reversing his Sept. 7 directive, which states that "any Ohio form not printed on this minimum paperweight is considered to be an application for a registration form. Your board should mail this appropriate form to the person listed on the application."
Are we really expected to believe that thugs like this really invaded Iraq to bring about the dream of a true functioning democracy in the middle east? Give me a break.
Imagine
My apologies to John Lennon and Lou Reed but this is priceless. Give it a listen - Real Player format.
My apologies to John Lennon and Lou Reed but this is priceless. Give it a listen - Real Player format.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Protect Us From the Gay Menace!
Remember this cute little story from a little while back?
Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay. The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
Now it seems we have a little problem at the FBI.
Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, more than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings have not yet been translated by linguists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and computer problems may have led the bureau to systematically erase some Qaeda recordings, according to a declassified summary of a Justice Department investigation that was released on Monday.
Remember this cute little story from a little while back?
Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay. The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
Now it seems we have a little problem at the FBI.
Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, more than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings have not yet been translated by linguists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and computer problems may have led the bureau to systematically erase some Qaeda recordings, according to a declassified summary of a Justice Department investigation that was released on Monday.
The report, released in edited form by Glenn A. Fine, the department's inspector general, found that the F.B.I. still lacked the capacity to translate all the terrorism-related material from wiretaps and other intelligence sources and that the influx of new material has outpaced the bureau's resources.
Well, we may not be safe from Al Qaeda but at least we got the pink menace on the run.
How lame is our government anyway? A billion dollars a day to defend us and they can't find anyone to translate Arabic?
This lack of Arabic translators reminds me of the mysterious crash of Egypt Air flight 990 (2 years before 9/11). A jumbo jet takes off from NY bound for Cairo with a bunch of high ranking Egyptian military on it when suddenly, we are told, the co-pilot decides to commit suicide by crashing the plane into the Atlantic, killing all on board.
An airplane crash is serious business so everyone was eager to find the cockpit voice recorder since there was no warning of trouble prior to the plane disappearing from radar. When it is found the world waits, and waits and waits for an indication of what happened. Our government asks for patience and explains to us that this is going to take some time because the voices on the recorder are "speaking Arabic". The government official saying this at the press conference informs us of this shocking development as if he were talking about a dead language spoken only by long deceased aboriginal people deep in the heart of the Amazon rain forest that has never had contact with the civilized world. My first thought was that in the time it took for this guy's underling to write this lame speech they could have found 10 cabbies to help them out with the translation without breaking a sweat. "Either we suck big time, or this is a coverup." I said to the dog.
The amazing thing about this whole story is it doesn't seem like anyone in the mainstream media (or the government) has ever thought to revisit this little airplane terror killing in light of 9/11. Weird, huh?
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Our Enemies Want Kerry to Win?
Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, is the latest to weigh in on who our enemies want to win in November. Apparently it is not just Osama who is a Kerry supporter, the Iraqi insurgents want Kerry to win also. This explains why 200 Iraqi's have been killed since last weekend.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage alleged Friday that insurgents have stepped up their deadly assaults in Iraq because they want to "influence the election against President Bush," a statement that drew a sharp condemnation from the campaign of Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.
First of all the charge by Armitage is bogus on its face. Yes the insurgency hates George Bush, but their main goal appears to be the removal of US influence from Iraq not to effect US elections.
But lets play devils advocate for a moment. Suppose Armitage is right. Suppose that the Iraqi insurgency, by now clearly more than a few "dead-enders" loyal to Saddam Hussein or other former Baathists, is determined to never make peace with George Bush. Suppose they are willing to fight a bloody guerilla war campaign in their own country no matter how long it takes so long as Commander in Chief George Bush is the leader of the occupation force in their country. In this case the defeat of George Bush would go along way towards the US meeting its stated objectives of the pacification, rebuilding and eventual democratization of Iraq, right? In fact it seems fairly obvious that these objectives could not possibly be obtained with Bush in the White House. Bush is so wildly unpopular, not just in Iraq, but among the European public that it will be very difficult for our traditional allies to support peace making efforts that would help extricate us from this nightmare.
When you think about it Armitage's statement is an excellent argument for the election of John Kerry. It is not capitulating to the "enemy" it is furthering the goal of a reduction in casualties on both sides and eventual peace while justly punishing the moron who got us into this mess in the first place.
Thanks Dick.
Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, is the latest to weigh in on who our enemies want to win in November. Apparently it is not just Osama who is a Kerry supporter, the Iraqi insurgents want Kerry to win also. This explains why 200 Iraqi's have been killed since last weekend.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage alleged Friday that insurgents have stepped up their deadly assaults in Iraq because they want to "influence the election against President Bush," a statement that drew a sharp condemnation from the campaign of Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.
First of all the charge by Armitage is bogus on its face. Yes the insurgency hates George Bush, but their main goal appears to be the removal of US influence from Iraq not to effect US elections.
But lets play devils advocate for a moment. Suppose Armitage is right. Suppose that the Iraqi insurgency, by now clearly more than a few "dead-enders" loyal to Saddam Hussein or other former Baathists, is determined to never make peace with George Bush. Suppose they are willing to fight a bloody guerilla war campaign in their own country no matter how long it takes so long as Commander in Chief George Bush is the leader of the occupation force in their country. In this case the defeat of George Bush would go along way towards the US meeting its stated objectives of the pacification, rebuilding and eventual democratization of Iraq, right? In fact it seems fairly obvious that these objectives could not possibly be obtained with Bush in the White House. Bush is so wildly unpopular, not just in Iraq, but among the European public that it will be very difficult for our traditional allies to support peace making efforts that would help extricate us from this nightmare.
When you think about it Armitage's statement is an excellent argument for the election of John Kerry. It is not capitulating to the "enemy" it is furthering the goal of a reduction in casualties on both sides and eventual peace while justly punishing the moron who got us into this mess in the first place.
Thanks Dick.
Friday, September 17, 2004
No Child Left Behind
Isn't the free market wonderful? Who needs Public Schools when we have the robust American Free Enterprise system? It's just common sense that if you only have one hamburger joint in town service and quality are bound to not be as good as when it is forced to compete with hamburger joint 2, right? I actually heard Bill Sizemore, an infamous local anti-tax activist, seriously make this argument in a radio debate in which he accidentally declared, a little too openly, his belief in the elimination of public schools.
Today many lucky children in California are getting an extended Summer vacation! Yippee!
Here is a nice little snapshot of America's future:
Isn't the free market wonderful? Who needs Public Schools when we have the robust American Free Enterprise system? It's just common sense that if you only have one hamburger joint in town service and quality are bound to not be as good as when it is forced to compete with hamburger joint 2, right? I actually heard Bill Sizemore, an infamous local anti-tax activist, seriously make this argument in a radio debate in which he accidentally declared, a little too openly, his belief in the elimination of public schools.
Today many lucky children in California are getting an extended Summer vacation! Yippee!
Here is a nice little snapshot of America's future:
It had been a month since one of the nation's largest charter school operators collapsed, leaving 6,000 students with no school to attend this fall. The businessman who used $100 million in state financing to build an empire of 60 mostly storefront schools had simply abandoned his headquarters as bankruptcy loomed, refusing to take phone calls. That left Mr. Larson, a school superintendent whose district licensed dozens of the schools, to clean up the mess.
"Hysterical parents are calling us, swearing and shouting," Mr. Larson said in an interview in Oro Grande last week. "People are walking off with assets all over the state. We're absolutely sinking."
..... and here is the coup de grace:
One of Mr. Larson's secretaries interrupted the interview to announce that the landlord of a school forced to close in Los Angeles was threatening to dump desks and student records in the street to make way for a new tenant. Mr. Larson wrestled with the notion of driving a truck to Los Angeles himself to fetch the assets.
No Child Left Behind Indeed!
Kerry Voted for Higher Taxes ..
Isn't it odd that the above statement is a politically effective grave insult no matter what the circumstances. Amazing. What the other side is saying is that increasing revenue to actually pay the exhorbitant bills you are running up is a heinous act. Currently we are running a $400,000,000,000 annual deficit. Bush seems to be saying that if we re-elect him we'll never have to pay our bills. To believe this kind of garbage is to believe, at a mature age, in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the risen Elvis Presley!
So Kerry, in a long Senate career in which thousands of votes have been cast, on bills involving disagreements, compromises, bizarre, off-topic rider amendments and political calculation, voted on occassion to tell Americans, "Guess what, stuff aint free, eventually we have to pay our bills." What Kerry's votes helped lead to was a balanced budget followed by a surplus, something which Americans had almost given up on ever eliminating after 12 years of Republican administrations that grew the National Debt between 1980 and 1992 from $930 billion dollars to over $4 trillion! Republicans say they are the fiscally conservative party and they increased the debt by $3 trillion? And then some commie radical senator votes to pay some of this crushing load which will one day be our children's, and very likely our own, ruin. How dare he!
STARVE THE BEAST
Doesn't he understand that the idea is to run massive deficits intentionally in order to make the elimination of extremely popular social programs almost a certainty. It's not like anyone seriously believes Supply Side Economics actually works. These programs could never be threatened in the absence of a fiscal crisis because it would be political suicide to mount a frontal attack on them. Therefore the plan is to intentionally create a fiscal crisis of immense proportion. Think I am making this up? David Stockman, Reagan's first Budget Director admitted openly to this conspiracy in 1986. The delightful Grover Norquist from American Taxpayers United has said that we need to starve the beast (the Federal Government) in order to, "shrink it down to the size that you can drown in a bathtub." Does that sound like a good idea?
So that is what this election is about. Not fiscal conservative republican versus free spending liberals. The choice is between the eventual elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and the public school system or the pre-Bush status quo. So, this would mean that the Democrats are the conservatives and the Republicans are the ones working hard towards a radical transformation of American life.
Hmm. Imagine that.
Isn't it odd that the above statement is a politically effective grave insult no matter what the circumstances. Amazing. What the other side is saying is that increasing revenue to actually pay the exhorbitant bills you are running up is a heinous act. Currently we are running a $400,000,000,000 annual deficit. Bush seems to be saying that if we re-elect him we'll never have to pay our bills. To believe this kind of garbage is to believe, at a mature age, in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the risen Elvis Presley!
So Kerry, in a long Senate career in which thousands of votes have been cast, on bills involving disagreements, compromises, bizarre, off-topic rider amendments and political calculation, voted on occassion to tell Americans, "Guess what, stuff aint free, eventually we have to pay our bills." What Kerry's votes helped lead to was a balanced budget followed by a surplus, something which Americans had almost given up on ever eliminating after 12 years of Republican administrations that grew the National Debt between 1980 and 1992 from $930 billion dollars to over $4 trillion! Republicans say they are the fiscally conservative party and they increased the debt by $3 trillion? And then some commie radical senator votes to pay some of this crushing load which will one day be our children's, and very likely our own, ruin. How dare he!
STARVE THE BEAST
Doesn't he understand that the idea is to run massive deficits intentionally in order to make the elimination of extremely popular social programs almost a certainty. It's not like anyone seriously believes Supply Side Economics actually works. These programs could never be threatened in the absence of a fiscal crisis because it would be political suicide to mount a frontal attack on them. Therefore the plan is to intentionally create a fiscal crisis of immense proportion. Think I am making this up? David Stockman, Reagan's first Budget Director admitted openly to this conspiracy in 1986. The delightful Grover Norquist from American Taxpayers United has said that we need to starve the beast (the Federal Government) in order to, "shrink it down to the size that you can drown in a bathtub." Does that sound like a good idea?
So that is what this election is about. Not fiscal conservative republican versus free spending liberals. The choice is between the eventual elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and the public school system or the pre-Bush status quo. So, this would mean that the Democrats are the conservatives and the Republicans are the ones working hard towards a radical transformation of American life.
Hmm. Imagine that.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
My Sentiments Exactly
This is a pretty apt description of the downright scariness of our ho-hum reaction to the willful targeting of civilians by our own nation. Aren't we in violation of a few UN Resolutions? Resolutions that we eagerly signed and embraced, regarding minimum acceptable "universal rights" for all of humanity?
I guess we just don't believe that hopeful, optimistic garbage anymore. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out, that's where we are. Hey war sucks, we're sick of hearing about it ...... and anyway "Survivor II" is having a reunion special, and we want to watch it.
Please don't tell me this is who we are now!
Gloom. Doom.
This is a pretty apt description of the downright scariness of our ho-hum reaction to the willful targeting of civilians by our own nation. Aren't we in violation of a few UN Resolutions? Resolutions that we eagerly signed and embraced, regarding minimum acceptable "universal rights" for all of humanity?
I guess we just don't believe that hopeful, optimistic garbage anymore. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out, that's where we are. Hey war sucks, we're sick of hearing about it ...... and anyway "Survivor II" is having a reunion special, and we want to watch it.
Please don't tell me this is who we are now!
Gloom. Doom.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the Poor
Here is a lovely little story from the magical land of Texas, where all of America's future can be seen if Bush and his thugs get their way.
In a new rate-setting tactic for electric utilities, the unit of Dallas-based TXU Corp. plans bigger rate increases for customers with low "credit scores," which are numeric rankings that take into account customer histories of paying electricity, phone and cable bills, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Remember Enron energy traders laughing at stealing all of granny's money in California until some crazy lefties insisted on price controls which Bush opposed? Don't you just love compassionate conservatism? Can't afford to pay your rent and your electric bill on time? Next month your electric bill will be higher, which of course means that your credit score will be even lower, which means your electric bill will be higher .............
Maybe we should let the wise and all knowing market control everything, including all of our utilities. It seems reasonable for a utility to charge $2 for a glass of water in the middle of the summer when everyone is thirsty instead of a hundredth of a cent doesn't it? The price should be determined by the willingness of buyers to pay not by some vague notion of the public good. The people who can't afford it can do their civic duty and die. This seems to be what the pro-life party believes. I know, lets rename "privatization and deregulation"; "The Final Solution", it's easier to say and it gets the point across more effectively.
The really ironic thing is that policies like this and not anything that the so called liberals in this country have ever advocated are what is likely to lead to real class revolt. All of the real radicals are on the right, but when this is pointed out the critics are accused of fomenting 'class warfare". In a real sense it is the well off that are the ones killing the goose that laid the golden egg, which is the enviable "American way of life" by allowing their greed to get the best of them.
If we continue on down this road there will be strong resistance at some point. This is not in the best interest of anyone.
Here is a lovely little story from the magical land of Texas, where all of America's future can be seen if Bush and his thugs get their way.
In a new rate-setting tactic for electric utilities, the unit of Dallas-based TXU Corp. plans bigger rate increases for customers with low "credit scores," which are numeric rankings that take into account customer histories of paying electricity, phone and cable bills, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Remember Enron energy traders laughing at stealing all of granny's money in California until some crazy lefties insisted on price controls which Bush opposed? Don't you just love compassionate conservatism? Can't afford to pay your rent and your electric bill on time? Next month your electric bill will be higher, which of course means that your credit score will be even lower, which means your electric bill will be higher .............
Maybe we should let the wise and all knowing market control everything, including all of our utilities. It seems reasonable for a utility to charge $2 for a glass of water in the middle of the summer when everyone is thirsty instead of a hundredth of a cent doesn't it? The price should be determined by the willingness of buyers to pay not by some vague notion of the public good. The people who can't afford it can do their civic duty and die. This seems to be what the pro-life party believes. I know, lets rename "privatization and deregulation"; "The Final Solution", it's easier to say and it gets the point across more effectively.
The really ironic thing is that policies like this and not anything that the so called liberals in this country have ever advocated are what is likely to lead to real class revolt. All of the real radicals are on the right, but when this is pointed out the critics are accused of fomenting 'class warfare". In a real sense it is the well off that are the ones killing the goose that laid the golden egg, which is the enviable "American way of life" by allowing their greed to get the best of them.
If we continue on down this road there will be strong resistance at some point. This is not in the best interest of anyone.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Jesus vs. Bush
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Aristocracy
I was watching the Republican convention last week and was struck by the horrible performance of the Bush daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The pair came across as incredibly childish, shallow and apathetic. They confessed to being "not political" which to me is an almost unforgiveable thing for a college educated person to say at a time like this. They giggled and spoke of clothes and TV and generally came across as immature 13 year olds as the voting public looked on in shock. They even bragged about their intention to remain young and irresponsible, like daddy.
Then it occurred to me. Barbara, like her father, grandfather and great-grandfather, graduated from Yale. "This idiot got into Yale?!" I thundered at the dog.
My next thought was that my 18 year old daughter had to be ten times as smart as both of these girls put together. My daughter, who at the age of 4 demanded that I explain slavery to her and not leave anything out. At the age of 8 she announced that the smartest people go to Ivy League colleges and so that's where she wanted to go ( I have no idea where she got this from). She devoured every book she could get her hands on, reading the most challenging books she could find. At 15 she asked me to list works of literature and film that a person should read and watch if she wanted to think of herself as educated. She was not an introverted "book worm", although that is a great thing to be in my opinion. She started and presided over The Activism Awareness and Free Speech Club at her high school and volunteered as a student representative on the local school board. She got high scores on her SAT's, traveled to Costa Rica on an exchange program for 8 weeks becoming semi-fluent in Spanish, and earned an IB diploma. Her grades her last two years averaged a low B since she preferred reading Sartre, Dostoevsky, Orwell and Vonnegut and seeing as much live music as she could to making the extra effort to get A's in class. She applied to an Ivy League school (not Yale) and was rejected. I knew her grades would be an issue and so did she, but she learned a lot more than most outside of school and that was more important to her.
She'll be fine, her heart isn't at all broken and I am sure she will go far. Her idiot father attended a state university and received a good education there. (Referencing yourself in the third person is the first sign of madness, right Bob Dole?) She will be mad at me for making her an example here but too bad. Fathers have a right, nay duty, to sing the praises of their children. When I pointed out the irony of the Bush brood's unequal treatment to her the other day she said, "Hey, you're right that sucks!"
The point is that W and his girl did get into Yale and certainly did not earn it. W has always been a C student and doesn't like to read anything, especially not PDB's. What irks me is, as former Texas Governor Ann Richards so eloquently said of W's father, "George Bush was born on 3rd base and thinks he got a triple!" The same is even more true of W.
Taken along with revelations aired tonight on 60 Minutes II of strings pulled to get little George W in the Texas Air National Guard so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam an ugly picture of American aristocracy starts emerging. The former Texas Speaker of the House, Ben Barnes, reported that it was common practice for powerful people to have strings pulled for their kids and he was happy to do it. When someone with a little power pulls strings for someone with more power he gets more power in return, Barnes said.
Gee why do you think African Americans may need a helping hand in a society that functions this way? No wait a minute, we can't have unequal treatment based on color can we? No, only wealth should grant privilege because wealth is a sign of god's favor. Yale can swing its doors open wide for the drooling idiots of its alumni but the University of Michigan better not take into account the slavery dwelling past of its applicants' forebears. That would be unfair.
As if these great advantages weren't enough, George W's number one priority upon taking office was to cement he and his friends' 3 base lead on the rest of us by ending the Estate tax. Then he pushed for and won the elimination of taxes on dividends, so people fortunate enough to have stock portfolios so big they never need to work for a paycheck, or stop drinking heavily until they are 40, can enjoy tax free incomes in perpetuity. Don't you love that word, perpetuity?
Hi Ho. (little Vonnegut tribute)
We are told that higher taxes on the rich unfairly punish success.
Poppycock. (Jimmy Stewart tribute)
Allowing hard working successful people such as Paris Hilton to retain fortunes guaranteed to insure that generations of her disgusting spawn can retain their millions is not rewarding success, it is rewarding birth. It is bestowing aristocratic privilege on irresponsible dimwitted white trash. (Yea, I said it, white trash)
Accumulation of this kind of wealth is bad for society. It allows the beneficiaries to be above the laws. These folks will eventually own everything and we will be their serfs, yearning for the day when they graciously trickle down on us.
There's some lovely filth over here! (Python, of course!)
Didn't we flee old Europe and fight a revolution to get away from this sort of thing or have I just gone stark raving mad? (Please don't answer that)
Read former Republican Strategist Kevin Phillips' excellent book "American Dynasty - Aristocracy, Fortune, And the Politics Of Deceit In The House of Bush" for a much more eloquent and level headed discussion of this topic. (Although it will probably make you go frothing mad if you do)
Fight the Power. (Public Enemy)
I was watching the Republican convention last week and was struck by the horrible performance of the Bush daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The pair came across as incredibly childish, shallow and apathetic. They confessed to being "not political" which to me is an almost unforgiveable thing for a college educated person to say at a time like this. They giggled and spoke of clothes and TV and generally came across as immature 13 year olds as the voting public looked on in shock. They even bragged about their intention to remain young and irresponsible, like daddy.
Then it occurred to me. Barbara, like her father, grandfather and great-grandfather, graduated from Yale. "This idiot got into Yale?!" I thundered at the dog.
My next thought was that my 18 year old daughter had to be ten times as smart as both of these girls put together. My daughter, who at the age of 4 demanded that I explain slavery to her and not leave anything out. At the age of 8 she announced that the smartest people go to Ivy League colleges and so that's where she wanted to go ( I have no idea where she got this from). She devoured every book she could get her hands on, reading the most challenging books she could find. At 15 she asked me to list works of literature and film that a person should read and watch if she wanted to think of herself as educated. She was not an introverted "book worm", although that is a great thing to be in my opinion. She started and presided over The Activism Awareness and Free Speech Club at her high school and volunteered as a student representative on the local school board. She got high scores on her SAT's, traveled to Costa Rica on an exchange program for 8 weeks becoming semi-fluent in Spanish, and earned an IB diploma. Her grades her last two years averaged a low B since she preferred reading Sartre, Dostoevsky, Orwell and Vonnegut and seeing as much live music as she could to making the extra effort to get A's in class. She applied to an Ivy League school (not Yale) and was rejected. I knew her grades would be an issue and so did she, but she learned a lot more than most outside of school and that was more important to her.
She'll be fine, her heart isn't at all broken and I am sure she will go far. Her idiot father attended a state university and received a good education there. (Referencing yourself in the third person is the first sign of madness, right Bob Dole?) She will be mad at me for making her an example here but too bad. Fathers have a right, nay duty, to sing the praises of their children. When I pointed out the irony of the Bush brood's unequal treatment to her the other day she said, "Hey, you're right that sucks!"
The point is that W and his girl did get into Yale and certainly did not earn it. W has always been a C student and doesn't like to read anything, especially not PDB's. What irks me is, as former Texas Governor Ann Richards so eloquently said of W's father, "George Bush was born on 3rd base and thinks he got a triple!" The same is even more true of W.
Taken along with revelations aired tonight on 60 Minutes II of strings pulled to get little George W in the Texas Air National Guard so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam an ugly picture of American aristocracy starts emerging. The former Texas Speaker of the House, Ben Barnes, reported that it was common practice for powerful people to have strings pulled for their kids and he was happy to do it. When someone with a little power pulls strings for someone with more power he gets more power in return, Barnes said.
Gee why do you think African Americans may need a helping hand in a society that functions this way? No wait a minute, we can't have unequal treatment based on color can we? No, only wealth should grant privilege because wealth is a sign of god's favor. Yale can swing its doors open wide for the drooling idiots of its alumni but the University of Michigan better not take into account the slavery dwelling past of its applicants' forebears. That would be unfair.
As if these great advantages weren't enough, George W's number one priority upon taking office was to cement he and his friends' 3 base lead on the rest of us by ending the Estate tax. Then he pushed for and won the elimination of taxes on dividends, so people fortunate enough to have stock portfolios so big they never need to work for a paycheck, or stop drinking heavily until they are 40, can enjoy tax free incomes in perpetuity. Don't you love that word, perpetuity?
Hi Ho. (little Vonnegut tribute)
We are told that higher taxes on the rich unfairly punish success.
Poppycock. (Jimmy Stewart tribute)
Allowing hard working successful people such as Paris Hilton to retain fortunes guaranteed to insure that generations of her disgusting spawn can retain their millions is not rewarding success, it is rewarding birth. It is bestowing aristocratic privilege on irresponsible dimwitted white trash. (Yea, I said it, white trash)
Accumulation of this kind of wealth is bad for society. It allows the beneficiaries to be above the laws. These folks will eventually own everything and we will be their serfs, yearning for the day when they graciously trickle down on us.
There's some lovely filth over here! (Python, of course!)
Didn't we flee old Europe and fight a revolution to get away from this sort of thing or have I just gone stark raving mad? (Please don't answer that)
Read former Republican Strategist Kevin Phillips' excellent book "American Dynasty - Aristocracy, Fortune, And the Politics Of Deceit In The House of Bush" for a much more eloquent and level headed discussion of this topic. (Although it will probably make you go frothing mad if you do)
Fight the Power. (Public Enemy)
DISGRACEFUL!
It's finally happened. The so called Liberal Media has finally objected in strong language about Dick Cheney's behavior. I am still waiting for them to call him a liar, which he quite clearly is, but I'll take whatever I can get at this point. This criticism is way overdue. I swear I think Cheney's job is too scare the daylights out of people. He reminds me of the creepy old man who scared my little brother to death when he was 4 by telling him that firemen didn't put fires out, they set them! It took my brother 3 years to get over his dread of firefighters after that. No matter what the rest of the family told him he could not believe that dignified looking, white haired gentlemen would lie like that to children.
I am including the whole editorial from the NY Times here. Here is the url:
There are some things a presidential campaign should steer clear of, through innate good taste, prudence or just a sensible fear of a voter backlash. We'd have thought that both the Kerry and Bush camps would instinctively know that it would be appalling to suggest that terrorists were rooting for one side or another in this race. But Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to breach that unspoken barrier this week in Des Moines. If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that "these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts."
At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.
There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.
Immigration and homeland security strategies are policy fights, fair game for a political campaign. What's totally unacceptable is to tell the American people that the mere act of voting for your opponent opens the door to a terrorist attack. For Mr. Cheney to suggest that is flat wrong. There was a time in this country when elected officials knew how to separate the position from the person. The American people, we're sure, would like to return to it.
It's finally happened. The so called Liberal Media has finally objected in strong language about Dick Cheney's behavior. I am still waiting for them to call him a liar, which he quite clearly is, but I'll take whatever I can get at this point. This criticism is way overdue. I swear I think Cheney's job is too scare the daylights out of people. He reminds me of the creepy old man who scared my little brother to death when he was 4 by telling him that firemen didn't put fires out, they set them! It took my brother 3 years to get over his dread of firefighters after that. No matter what the rest of the family told him he could not believe that dignified looking, white haired gentlemen would lie like that to children.
I am including the whole editorial from the NY Times here. Here is the url:
There are some things a presidential campaign should steer clear of, through innate good taste, prudence or just a sensible fear of a voter backlash. We'd have thought that both the Kerry and Bush camps would instinctively know that it would be appalling to suggest that terrorists were rooting for one side or another in this race. But Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to breach that unspoken barrier this week in Des Moines. If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that "these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts."
At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.
There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.
Immigration and homeland security strategies are policy fights, fair game for a political campaign. What's totally unacceptable is to tell the American people that the mere act of voting for your opponent opens the door to a terrorist attack. For Mr. Cheney to suggest that is flat wrong. There was a time in this country when elected officials knew how to separate the position from the person. The American people, we're sure, would like to return to it.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
$87 Billion Flip Flop?
Over and over and over again John Kerry has been accused of flip flopping on supporting the troops in Iraq. Kerry's unfortunate statement, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," has led to all sorts of gleeful disingenuous attacks from his critics. Republicans have said Kerry has voted against body armor for our troops and for reinforcing armor for Humvees. They have presented a laundry list of things he voted against as if they were separate bills when in fact they were all included in the same $87 billion funding bill.
Like all measures this bill had to go through the House and the Senate and be worked out in a conference committee before it went to the President. Kerry, along with many others including Republicans supported amendments to this bill. Key amendments involved making a portion of the reconstruction funds included in the bill a loan rather than a grant. To many people this seemed reasonable since shortly after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration said that reconstruction costs would be minimal (estimated at $1.7 billion!) since Iraq was a country rich in oil resources and could therefore pay for its own reconstruction. The White House contacted wayward representatives and said that the president would veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if all money was not in the form of a grant rather than a loan.
The Senate also passed an amendment to the bill providing an:
additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
Once again the President threatens to vote against body armor for our troops!!
The third major sticking point was how to pay for this bill. Since before the Iraq invasion had begun the Bush administration refused to budget anything for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and they belittled anyone who suggested that there would be significant financial costs associated with Iraq. Kerry, again along with many other lawmakers, felt that the responsible thing to do when fighting a war was to not just vote for funding but to face the need to actually allocate revenues to the war, especially since the country was running a record deficit already. He therefore supported an amendment to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (whose taxes Bush had recently lowered substantially) to pay for the funding package. Again Bush threatened to veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if Kerry and his fellow lawmakers dared include language raising taxes on anyone. Bush by the way is the first leader in written history who lowered taxes during a war. (In fact Bush is raising taxes on all of us, he is just deferring these huge tax increases to a later unspecified date since it is easier to get reelected that way.)
After a head count revealed that in fact the bill would pass and soldiers would in fact not be denied body armor (though why 40,000 troops were sent by Bush into a war zone without body armor in the first place is a good question to ask) Kerry voted against the measure in large part because of the three items above not making up part of the final bill.
On the effort to make the reconstruction funds a loan it struck me at the time that the Iraqi provisional government was unhappy about not having any control over reconstruction funds. They would be especially unhappy in the event that these funds would have to be repaid. They might even insist that Iraqi firms actually get awarded contracts instead of having so many no-bid contracts go to Halliburton. Could this be why Bush would rather have our troops killed than make Iraqi's pay for their own reconstruction? It would be cynical for me to suggest such a thing.
The Rethuglicans would have Americans believe that Kerry voted against this bill because he hates America, our troops, apple pie, free enterprise and capitalism. He is a weak kneed Massachusetts effete, french looking girlie man who doesn't have the guts to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to defending the homeland. Kerry is a closet Marxist who is still rooting for communist domination of the earth and Bush represents good old fashioned red meat lovin, god fearin' manhood in all its glory.
Zell Miller should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the Senate.
Over and over and over again John Kerry has been accused of flip flopping on supporting the troops in Iraq. Kerry's unfortunate statement, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," has led to all sorts of gleeful disingenuous attacks from his critics. Republicans have said Kerry has voted against body armor for our troops and for reinforcing armor for Humvees. They have presented a laundry list of things he voted against as if they were separate bills when in fact they were all included in the same $87 billion funding bill.
Like all measures this bill had to go through the House and the Senate and be worked out in a conference committee before it went to the President. Kerry, along with many others including Republicans supported amendments to this bill. Key amendments involved making a portion of the reconstruction funds included in the bill a loan rather than a grant. To many people this seemed reasonable since shortly after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration said that reconstruction costs would be minimal (estimated at $1.7 billion!) since Iraq was a country rich in oil resources and could therefore pay for its own reconstruction. The White House contacted wayward representatives and said that the president would veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if all money was not in the form of a grant rather than a loan.
The Senate also passed an amendment to the bill providing an:
additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
Once again the President threatens to vote against body armor for our troops!!
The third major sticking point was how to pay for this bill. Since before the Iraq invasion had begun the Bush administration refused to budget anything for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and they belittled anyone who suggested that there would be significant financial costs associated with Iraq. Kerry, again along with many other lawmakers, felt that the responsible thing to do when fighting a war was to not just vote for funding but to face the need to actually allocate revenues to the war, especially since the country was running a record deficit already. He therefore supported an amendment to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (whose taxes Bush had recently lowered substantially) to pay for the funding package. Again Bush threatened to veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if Kerry and his fellow lawmakers dared include language raising taxes on anyone. Bush by the way is the first leader in written history who lowered taxes during a war. (In fact Bush is raising taxes on all of us, he is just deferring these huge tax increases to a later unspecified date since it is easier to get reelected that way.)
After a head count revealed that in fact the bill would pass and soldiers would in fact not be denied body armor (though why 40,000 troops were sent by Bush into a war zone without body armor in the first place is a good question to ask) Kerry voted against the measure in large part because of the three items above not making up part of the final bill.
On the effort to make the reconstruction funds a loan it struck me at the time that the Iraqi provisional government was unhappy about not having any control over reconstruction funds. They would be especially unhappy in the event that these funds would have to be repaid. They might even insist that Iraqi firms actually get awarded contracts instead of having so many no-bid contracts go to Halliburton. Could this be why Bush would rather have our troops killed than make Iraqi's pay for their own reconstruction? It would be cynical for me to suggest such a thing.
The Rethuglicans would have Americans believe that Kerry voted against this bill because he hates America, our troops, apple pie, free enterprise and capitalism. He is a weak kneed Massachusetts effete, french looking girlie man who doesn't have the guts to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to defending the homeland. Kerry is a closet Marxist who is still rooting for communist domination of the earth and Bush represents good old fashioned red meat lovin, god fearin' manhood in all its glory.
Zell Miller should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the Senate.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Twins
I just watched the Bush twins embarrassing performance at the Republican National Convention. I cannot believe that the Republicans were foolish enough to let them deliver such a horrible speech.
A couple of highlights:
Jenna endorses premarital sex as hip (When she said the word "sex" in front of all those uptight delegates it got uncomfortably quiet in a hurry)
The twins tell their father and the world that they plan to remain irresponsible just as their father did. (This may have been the ultimate revelation)
They say they are not political but due to their connections they expect a high government post, despite their youth, inexperience and obvious intellectual shortcomings because that is what they have been taught is their due.
Finally, in what will go over very badly among the religious right in detailing what their parents taught them the subject of Jesus was not mentioned. The born again types always mention religion first.
Summation: The Bush girls are irreligious promiscuous drunken partiers who nevertheless expect a plum position in the White House. The apple has not fallen far from the tree.
By the way I would never be so cruel and prudish to point all of this out if the Republican party wasn't promoting this family as the zenith of faith, charity and family grace.
In case you didn't see it here is a sample:
J. BUSH: It's great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn't he awesome? Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat, nobody can complain, except maybe our grandmother, Barbara. And if she doesn't like it, we would definitely hear about it. We already know she doesn't like some of our clothes, our music, or most of the TV shows we watch. Gammie (ph), we love you dearly, but you're just not very hip. She thinks "Sex and the City" is something married people do, but never talk about. We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight. Sometimes, we did a little better job than others.
J. BUSH: We kept trying to explain to my dad that when we are young and irresponsible, well, we're young and irresponsible. B. BUSH: Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our dad too much to stand back and watch from the sidelines. We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted to be a part of it. Besides, since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years. Kind of like dad.
J. BUSH: Our parents have always encouraged us to be independent and dream big. We've spent a lot of time at the White House, so when we showed up the first day, we thought we had it all figured out. But apparently my dad already has a chief of staff, named Andy.
B. BUSH: When your dad's a Republican and you go to Yale, you learn to stand up for yourself. I knew I wasn't quite ready to be president, but number two sounded pretty good.
B. BUSH: Who is this man they call Dick Cheney?
J. BUSH: I think I know a lot about campaigns. After all, my grandfather and my dad have both run for president, so I put myself in charge of strategy. Then I got an angry call from some guy named Karl.
B. BUSH: We knew we had something to offer. I mean, we've traveled the world; we've studied abroad. But when we started coming home with foreign policy advise, dad made us call Condi.
J. BUSH: Not to be deterred, we thought surely there's a place for strong willed, opinionated women in communications. And next thing we know, Karen's back.
B. BUSH: So we decided the best thing we could do here tonight would be to introduce somebody we know and love.
J. BUSH: You know all those times when you're growing up and your parents embarrass you? Well, this is payback time on live TV.
B. BUSH: Take this. I know it's hard to believe, but our parents' favorite term of endearment for each other is actually "Bushy." And we had a hamster, too. Let's just say ours didn't make it.
J. BUSH: But, contrary to what you might read in the papers, our parents are actually kind of cool. They do know the difference between mono and Bono. When we tell them we're going to see Outkast, they know it's a band and not a bunch of misfits. And if we really beg them, they'll even shake it like a Polaroid picture.
B. BUSH: So, OK, maybe they have learned a little pop culture from us, but we've learned a lot more from them about what matters in life, about unconditional love, about focus and discipline.
B. BUSH: They taught us the importance of a good sense of humor, of being open-minded and treating everyone with respect. And we learned the true value of honesty and integrity.
J. BUSH: When you grow up as the daughters of George and Laura Bush, you develop a special appreciation for how blessed we are to live in this great country. We are so proud to be here tonight to introduce someone who read us bedtime stories, picked up car pool, made us our favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and cheered for us when we scored a goal, even when it was for the wrong team.
B. BUSH: Someone who told us we actually looked cute in braces, always welcomed our friends and was there waiting when we came home at curfew.
J. BUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the two most loving, thoughtful people we know.
B. BUSH: Your president and our dad, George W. Bush.
--- I think I'm gonna hurl!
I just watched the Bush twins embarrassing performance at the Republican National Convention. I cannot believe that the Republicans were foolish enough to let them deliver such a horrible speech.
A couple of highlights:
Jenna endorses premarital sex as hip (When she said the word "sex" in front of all those uptight delegates it got uncomfortably quiet in a hurry)
The twins tell their father and the world that they plan to remain irresponsible just as their father did. (This may have been the ultimate revelation)
They say they are not political but due to their connections they expect a high government post, despite their youth, inexperience and obvious intellectual shortcomings because that is what they have been taught is their due.
Finally, in what will go over very badly among the religious right in detailing what their parents taught them the subject of Jesus was not mentioned. The born again types always mention religion first.
Summation: The Bush girls are irreligious promiscuous drunken partiers who nevertheless expect a plum position in the White House. The apple has not fallen far from the tree.
By the way I would never be so cruel and prudish to point all of this out if the Republican party wasn't promoting this family as the zenith of faith, charity and family grace.
In case you didn't see it here is a sample:
J. BUSH: It's great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn't he awesome? Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat, nobody can complain, except maybe our grandmother, Barbara. And if she doesn't like it, we would definitely hear about it. We already know she doesn't like some of our clothes, our music, or most of the TV shows we watch. Gammie (ph), we love you dearly, but you're just not very hip. She thinks "Sex and the City" is something married people do, but never talk about. We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight. Sometimes, we did a little better job than others.
J. BUSH: We kept trying to explain to my dad that when we are young and irresponsible, well, we're young and irresponsible. B. BUSH: Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our dad too much to stand back and watch from the sidelines. We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted to be a part of it. Besides, since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years. Kind of like dad.
J. BUSH: Our parents have always encouraged us to be independent and dream big. We've spent a lot of time at the White House, so when we showed up the first day, we thought we had it all figured out. But apparently my dad already has a chief of staff, named Andy.
B. BUSH: When your dad's a Republican and you go to Yale, you learn to stand up for yourself. I knew I wasn't quite ready to be president, but number two sounded pretty good.
B. BUSH: Who is this man they call Dick Cheney?
J. BUSH: I think I know a lot about campaigns. After all, my grandfather and my dad have both run for president, so I put myself in charge of strategy. Then I got an angry call from some guy named Karl.
B. BUSH: We knew we had something to offer. I mean, we've traveled the world; we've studied abroad. But when we started coming home with foreign policy advise, dad made us call Condi.
J. BUSH: Not to be deterred, we thought surely there's a place for strong willed, opinionated women in communications. And next thing we know, Karen's back.
B. BUSH: So we decided the best thing we could do here tonight would be to introduce somebody we know and love.
J. BUSH: You know all those times when you're growing up and your parents embarrass you? Well, this is payback time on live TV.
B. BUSH: Take this. I know it's hard to believe, but our parents' favorite term of endearment for each other is actually "Bushy." And we had a hamster, too. Let's just say ours didn't make it.
J. BUSH: But, contrary to what you might read in the papers, our parents are actually kind of cool. They do know the difference between mono and Bono. When we tell them we're going to see Outkast, they know it's a band and not a bunch of misfits. And if we really beg them, they'll even shake it like a Polaroid picture.
B. BUSH: So, OK, maybe they have learned a little pop culture from us, but we've learned a lot more from them about what matters in life, about unconditional love, about focus and discipline.
B. BUSH: They taught us the importance of a good sense of humor, of being open-minded and treating everyone with respect. And we learned the true value of honesty and integrity.
J. BUSH: When you grow up as the daughters of George and Laura Bush, you develop a special appreciation for how blessed we are to live in this great country. We are so proud to be here tonight to introduce someone who read us bedtime stories, picked up car pool, made us our favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and cheered for us when we scored a goal, even when it was for the wrong team.
B. BUSH: Someone who told us we actually looked cute in braces, always welcomed our friends and was there waiting when we came home at curfew.
J. BUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the two most loving, thoughtful people we know.
B. BUSH: Your president and our dad, George W. Bush.
--- I think I'm gonna hurl!
