| Mar
10, 2008 Change what? Believe what? I'm not
inspired, dammit. Two democrats are looking like either one
could take down the Republican front runner in the 2008
election, so why am I so totally dispirited and gloomy?
Well, for starts, both of these Democrats (Clinton & Obama)
are so conservative that I really couldn't feel good about
voting for either one. After seven years of a fascist who spends money like the proverbial drunken sailor I was thinking
that maybe, just maybe, the pendulum would swing to the left a
bit. But instead, we get two crypto-Republicans in
Democratic clothing. Heck, even the Republican is almost
on the same page with these
two DLC clowns. I've kept my mouth completely shut on
the net about this problem I have. This is the first time
I have publicly revealed my opinions.
Yes, I am definitely to the left of all the candidates. I'm even to
the left of Kucinich, and I still believe that Bill Clinton was the best
Republican president of the 20th Century. I am pissed at the way the
media has created such an effective smokescreen around Obama, casting him as a
progressive in spite of the fact that his record betrays the truth.
Indeed, if you compare the actual positions and ignore the inspiring purple
speeches, you will find that Obama differs only slightly from Hillary Clinton,
and in pretty much every case where there is a substantial difference, Obama is
positioned significantly to the political right of Hillary. Yes, yes, I
know Obama has made a lot hay over his alleged war position. But, it's
all bullshit, and the public record shows it. Take a look at these
articles from "Black
Agenda Report" (which is a truly left leaning African American
journal), and this
piece at Z-net, which is home to writers like Noam Chomsky, another true
liberal/leftist. What becomes clear is that although neither of these
candidates is going to please those of us on the political left, Barak Obama is
very different from the way he has been portrayed by his admiring throngs who
have been zombified by the media. It amazes me the degree to which
intelligent people have treated Obama as a blank screen upon which they project
their hopes--inspired no doubt by Obama's rhetorical stratagem of using verbs
like "believe" and "change" with no direct object.
This allows them to assume that the changes will be liberal, left, progressive,
etc. whatever they want!
As the authors of both articles I linked here have made clear, Clinton is
far from innocent of most of the same accusations. The point is that
there is so little difference between them in terms of policy, and that Obama's
health plan is quite a bit more "Republican" than Hillary's.
The worst part of this battle is that it is obviously going to get a lot
uglier. So, the wizened old man McCain doesn't even need to
campaign. He can just wait until the internecine warfare of the
Obamaniacs and Hillary-drones destroys the entire Democratic party, and then he
can just step in and take the prize after the smoke clears.
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't like EITHER candidate, BUT, I
plan to vote for whomever is most likely to keep McCain out of office. If
that means Obama, so be it. However, among the list of contending
Democrats running for the office, the MPR
candidate picker website told me that according to my own stated
preferences that Hillary was my fifth choice and Obama my sixth. That
puts them behind Gravel, Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards (in order from #1 to
#4). I noticed that plenty of Obama supporters who took that test came
out with puzzled looks, asking "Who's Mike Gravel?" And there's
the core of my anger--there seems to be no more substance behind Obama than
there was behind Reagan. People are inspired. They want change, but
they aren't bothering to ask what sort of changes he has in mind.
If you're hoping for a shift to the left, you
can forgetaboutit. But, at least the Republicans wouldn't be in
control of the Executive Branch. Unless Clinton and Obama destroy the
Democratic party. That's why I'm depressed. If you
need some evidence that Obamania has gone to irrational lengths, check out the Obamamessiah
blog, where the blogger has been collecting the craziest examples of
Obamania in the media and all over the net.
One more little piece--given a choice between Clinton
and Obama, considering how close their positions actually are,
I'd prefer to see the candidate with the experience,
connections, and personal strength be our president--Hillary
Clinton. But, the differences are so slight that I have to
make this decision solely on the basis of Obama's more deeply corporate health plan,
and the lack of connections he has in comparison to the
Clintons. Given the mess that the Republicans have
created, I believe that Hillary is more suited to deal with
it. But, that doesn't mean that I'm wearing any
Hillary pins. I don't support either of these
pseudo-Democrats. I plan to take a couple of shots of
whiskey, and hold my nose as I vote for whichever one of them
ends up on the Democratic ticket. If things get bad,
I'll vote for some third party candidate. I'd only do that
if it looked like Hillary and Obama have destroyed their
advantage and McCain is going to win.
Jan
10, 2008 I just realized that it has been almost a
year since I've bothered to comment on anything here.
Today I'm getting sick of listening to the media deal with it's
divinatory/clairvoyant infelicity in New Hampshire. The
media are very strange creatures indeed. They lie to us
(and I include in that National
Petroleum Radio) remorselessly. They lie and lie, and
when they are caught in their lie, or, as we see in New
Hampshire, if their mind control hoodoo-voodoo fails to persuade
people to do what they (meaning corporate special
interests) want them to do, then they even take entire
days, perhaps even a week to beat themselves up publicly.
They even call in the think tank bozos to intellectualize it all
and compare it to various historical
"precedents." Why did we get it wrong?
What's wrong with the polls? Why do we pay attention to
polls? I can't help noticing how similar this babbling is
to a fortune teller explaining how the message was
misinterpreted, or some invisible (unseen) force tilted the
scales so that the desired or expected event did not
occur. The one thing neither a fortune teller nor a
newscaster will never, ever tell you is that they have no powers
whatsoever, or that they are biased by the obvious wants of
those who are paying them. On the other hand, after
realizing that both "Hillary" (as the media disrespectfully refers
to her to avoid evoking the dreaded Clinton name) and Obama are
the top two recipients
of special interest financing from the health industry--the
very people who want to derail the project of universal health
care that they are both squawking about. Perhaps it's
merely a show to keep us paying attention to it because it's
"such a close race." Anyway, it would
appear that the health industry interests (pharmaceutical
companies and HMOs) have decided to invest their money in
Democrats, obviously in hopes of rerouting and deflating the
populist-socialist movement that is lifting up Democrats and
even a number of people who voted for Bush twice. What
does it tell you when both of the top two Democrats are getting
the most money from the very parties that they claim to be
prepared to conquer and reform? Don't get me wrong.
I don't question that either of them are nice people. I
only question the assumptions of those who believe them both
when they talk about nebulous "change." They too
sound like soothsayers, or fortune tellers. They tell
their clients what they want to hear, and what powers even
higher than them want them to say to those clients. It's
easy to make vague predictions and promises about the
future when nobody can pin a solid failure on you. What is
change? How will we know when it has happened?
"I see a tall dark stranger who will come and sweep you off
your feet."
Feb
27, 2007 Attacking Republicans has decayed to the point
where it falls into the same category as shooting fish in a
barrel, or bear-baiting, or quail hunting with Cheney.
It's no fun any more. So, it's time to slap about some
Democrats who have been pretending to be liberals. I'm
talking in particular about pseudoliberals like both Clintons
and Al Gore, I thought it would be a nice gesture to all the
Democratic zombies to show y'all the dark, stinky underbelly of
these scumbags who came as wolves in sheep's clothing to fulfill
the wishlists of corporations and pursue personal power an
wealth. So, here are a couple of nifty articles on Al
Gore--both of which are from liberal/left websites: Some
Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore (@ Guerilla News) in which
his cousin Gore Vidal leads the siege against Gore. There
is also a great article from way back in 2000 that explores Al's
relationship to Occidental Petroleum and Colombian paramilitary
activity. Al
Gore-The Other Oil Candidate (@ Corp Watch--another
left/liberal site). Here
is an article from way back in 1999 about Clinton's war in
Kosovo., and this
more recent article on the same topic raise some really
disturbing questions about that war--questions that I notice
most "liberals" think never arose until George W. Bush
came on the scene.
Jan
24, 2007 I'm still watching with fascination as the Bush
administration implodes. The state of the union speech
last night was a rather lame effort to surge his local
"troops" in the Republican base. It seems to
have flopped quite soundly. The best part was the hubbub
about our freshman representative from Minnesota, Michelle
"Yacht Club Hussy" Bachman who groped and kissed the
president after the speech. Naturally, the buzz about
it was largely "That was unprofessional and shameful."
and "I don't see anything wrong with it."
Personally, I thought it was an example of karmic justice.
As you might recall, Mr. Bush committed a similar grievous
act of sexual harassment against the conservative chancellor of
Germany Angela Merkel. Bachman was apparently an
unwitting agent of irony and karma as she groped him. For
better or worse, it would appear that the effects were nil on
our Neanderthal despot, and, on the audience who apparently
forgot this earlier transgression. Sometimes a joke is
best when the irony is so subtle that it is completely missed by
its victim.
Some other tidbits of Bush news for y'all--a couple of weeks
ago we were treated to a posthumous presentation of the Medal of
Honor to the family of Corporal Jason Dunham. I don't want
to make light of the profound heroism of this man's
action. The story made a very strong impression on
me. Thinking of the heroism of this man sacrificing his
life to protect his men reminded me why it is so important that
we support our troops, no matter how much we may despise the
Commander in Chief, and the idiotic war he caused..
However, I do want to criticize the bizarre and creepy behavior
of our president at this ceremony. Perhaps it is only a
subjective reaction on my part, as I'm sure most Republicans who
still support Bush didn't notice anything amiss. I,
on the other hand, thought that this ceremony gave us a look at
Bush at his creepiest. He looks bored, irritated and
anything but solemn, and the event is definitely serious,
emotional and unsettling. His remarks are positively weird
and dissonant. Check
out this video from the White House website, which you'd
think would be the best possible record of the event. See
if you don't agree with me that his behavior made you long for
the days of Bill Clinton, who would have turned this event into
a truly moving and emotional experience. I was disgusted
and ashamed by him. Fortunately, I'm sure that the Marine
Corps gave this family a much more satisfying experience than
did Bush. That was blatantly obvious in the
ceremony.
Here
is an interesting and insightful article about Bush that
ought to make you even more worried about our future, in spite
of the apparent positive trends of late. This
article too deals out some scary thoughts about might happen
as the Bush administration collapses. And
this BBC article about current trends in the war in Iraq
(that it's becoming more and more of a civil war) will also make
it a bit harder for you to sleep tonight.
Click
here to view the extremely exhaustive election results
interactive map--wow! You'll see there that 166
districts became more Democratic and 27 became more Republican.
That constituted a "group movement" of 13%. That
also means that 84% of districts demonstrated their displeasure
with Bush and the GOP.
Nov
13, 2006 Seeing this near landslide against Republican
corruption and incompetence has been very therapeutic for me and
for many people I know. It wasn't quite like watching the
Death Star explode in Star Wars, but it was close. Still,
I hesitate to be overly optimistic. After all, the
Democratic party produced such memorable dolts as John Kerry and
Joseph Lieberman. There is little doubt in my mind that
things will get better than they have been, but I don't expect a
miraculous transformation. The K Street monster is just
too big and powerful. Yet, the K Street monster was
designed to work only with Republicans, so it might take a while
for them to round up new sleezebags who are skilled at
debauching liberals. Rumsfeld is gone. Rick Santorum
is gone. Ted Haggard is disgraced (a virtual, not actual
politician), Tom DeLay is
gone--along with Grover
Norquist's beloved K Street Project. Ann Coulter is
looking at a felony charge for illegally voting in the wrong
precinct. Dennis "Stud Muffin" Hastert has
stepped down. Bush sounds like a man who has had his spine
ripped out of him, and Karl Rove is in big trouble with those
who hired him to win the election.
Minnesota sent a black Muslim Democrat and a woman lawyer
Democrat to the US Congress. Republicans were dumped all
over the country. The Bush Cheney machine has been stopped
in its tracks. Right wing media sluts like Limbaugh have
been scurrying about trying to distance themselves from
Bush. Praise the gods--all of them who obviously saw fit
to contribute their providential influence on the long series of
problems that revealed what a bunch of criminals and losers who
are the Republican politicians. All of these wonderful
events evoke that eternal question: What kind of wine should you
serve with a bloated, raw, maggot infested crow? As for
worries about rolling back the Bush tax cuts, I have none
whatsoever, given the fact that over the past six years my taxes
have gone up dramatically while my income has been frozen
solid. I didn't notice any cut, and I suspect that the
Democrats have no interest in saddling a tax hike on my tax
bracket. I do have hopes that they will mount a vigorous
campaign to put the old name (Estate Tax) back on the
"Death Tax" as they roll back any and all cuts in that
regard. As you can see in my October 24th entry below, I
do not believe in Trickle Down Economics. It's time for
the return of progressive taxation.
I have indicated before that I think that an immediate pull out from Iraq is
a stupid idea. Creating Saddam Hussein in the first place was a far more
idiotic idea, and we have Reagan & Rumsfeld to thank for much of
that. We screwed that country up over and over. This time, it's
such a mess that we're now stuck there. However, I think that there are
solutions that could result in our military departure from Iraq. Given
that Iraq is an artificial nation created by the same people who created
Israel, the territorial integrity and national identity of Iraq are
already nothing but vague memories of an American puppet despot.
Nov
1, 2006 Basic logic 101 for Republicans. The
other day, John Kerry, who I don't actually want to defend,
because he really is such a rich boy twit, made a joke about
education and the military that has quickly turned into a
"tempest in a teapot." Kerry did in fact state
that kids who don't do well in school could end up stuck in
Iraq. The sub-intellectual fury of the Republican response
is based on a really basic logical fallacy. Just in case
you don't see it, let me illustrate it for you with an analogous
example: "Some (or all) people who do action x might
end up in situation y." The Republican
interpretation of the remark is of this form: "All
people in situation y are essentially disposed to action x."
To reduce it further to the Aristotelian syllogism, Kerry made a
statement of the form: if x then y. The
Republicans committed the fallacy of "affirming the
consequent," which means to twist the statement into: if y
then x. This is an invalid argument, and it is the
logical opposite of what Kerry said. To apply that to
another situation that might make the fallacy more obvious,
there is a huge difference between the statement: If it rains, I
will get wet. and the statement: "I am wet, therefore it is
raining." Little wonder that our simian president
would follow up his anti-logical nonsense with the amazingly
eloquent "Our troops are plenty smart." This
remark failed to kindle enthusiasm or confidence for those who
were actually paying attention to the intellectual content of
his remarks.
What is surprising is how quickly the right wing media picked
up on the remark, and without batting an eye, fell on their
logical swords. Why? Could it be that they are
really terrified of the public actually thinking about the
ontological status of our military? In our all volunteer
military there is a veritable caste system, which made it easy
to find a sympathetic audience of high ranking soldiers who
would dutifully boo when Bush placed Kerry's remarks into the
rational hall of circus mirrors that is his mind. On the
other hand, there is a plain and simple hard fact. Many
(but not all) the soldiers who are actually doing the dirty work
came from poor backgrounds. Many may also have done poorly
in school. Large numbers of people in the military joined
so that they could get a college education, and therefore many
reservists now have college educations because of the miitary,
and not because of their academic performance before
joining. It's also the case that those who have done
poorly in school have few options other than the military, so
what Kerry said is basically true, although he ignored the
socio-economic factors that would make the whole argument even
stronger. However, the basic idea of the remark is
completely true: poor people who probably have received bad
educations, and those who did not do well in school have taken
their best option, which is to join the military. Ever
since the end of the draft, the military has definitely tipped
in this direction. These soldiers joined without knowing what
sort of warmongers might take over the government. They
have indeed ended up stuck in Iraq. That certainly does
not mean that all members of the military have that
background. Those educated soldiers are most likely officers, and are
certainly not likely to express critical views of the Iraq
"policy," nor would they like to reveal that dirty
"secret" that all of us knew long before Kerry
awkwardly stated it. Ask yourself this: "How many
enlisted soldiers and National Guard members had college
educations BEFORE they joined the military? How many
enlisted soldiers and National Guard members joined in hopes of
getting a college education? Does it make sense to use
this example to scare kids into studying?" Perhaps
this last question is the core of the matter. If Kerry can
scare kids out of the military, then that will reduce the
enlistment numbers for their imperial plans. So, let me
repeat Kerry's admonition in a more clear way: "Do whatever
you can to stay the hell out of the military until these
nutcases are out of power! Let's reduce the size of the
military so they can't start more imperial wars."
Oct
24, 2006 Tomorrow is the anniversary of Paul Wellstone's death
(or assassination, depending on how you viewed that plane
crash). I was reading a piece on Buzzflash--not one of my
favorite sites, but they had published a spirited and
enlightening set of quotes from famous people guaranteed to
annoy right wingers. My personal favorite explains a whole
lot of what has gone wrong with America today. Imagine
Thomas Jefferson arguing for the estate tax (known deceptively
as the "death tax").
"There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on
wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents... The
artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in
government, and provisions should be made to prevent its
ascendancy."
-- Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author
(1743-1826) in a letter to John Adams October 28,
1813.
Go
here for a fuller rendition of this quote and an excellent
article on the birth of modern liberalism and the debates
between Jefferson and Adams in regards to the virtues or lack
thereof in the aristocracy, especially the merely rich.
Superficial students of American history (among which I sadly
count myself) often neglect this intense debate, or the simple
fact that the end result was that the views of Adams, the
proponent of aristocracy, or more accurately in this case,
plutocracy (rule by the rich), were the ones that most heavily
defined the Constitution of this country. Jefferson joined
Madison, Franklin and George Washington in championing a more
representative, popular democracy that counteracted the
counter-evolutionary, interventionist socialism and managed
economy in the service of a nepotistic class of conservative
plutocrats. Nevertheless, as the Common
Dreams article points out:
Early on in the debate, the Adams side won
most of the argument. The President would be elected not by
the people, but by "wise elders" appointed by the
states (the electoral college). The Senators would not be
elected by the people, but appointed by the politicians of the
states, with the overt and clear purpose of representing the
interest of wealth and capital in those states. Only the House
of Representatives was to be directly elected. (It wasn't
until 1913, with the passage of the 17th
Amendment, that we began to directly elect US Senators -
the result of the progressive movement that arose as a
backlash against the Gilded Age.)
And here we are all over again, not quite a century later,
and the rich have warped the system and created a mess of greedy
idiots controlling everything. That includes a lot of
Democrats, sadly, but mostly Republicans. It's not surprising
that through gerrymandering they have assured their control over
that first bastion of populism, and turned it into a veritable
whorehouse of plutocracy.
Seeing things like this always gets me riled up--evoking
recitations of my fundamental moral/economic rule: Trickle Down
Economics (aka Supply Side Economics) is the opposite of the way
money actually moves when left to run freely. As
artificial means (like banks) are allowed to dam up this flow,
the result is injustice, economic disparity as well as an
accompanying decay of intelligence and morals in those
responsible for that dam. In order to assure democracy,
progress and justice, the laws that regulate the flow of money
should be designed to compensate for or prevent the building of
financial dams in the river of money. In particular, the
most destructive economic force is the ability to pass enormous
amounts of money to one's children. More important is
their idea that giving money to the rich will have more positive
impact on the economy than giving that same money to the
poor. This is as ridiculous and contrary to reality as
perpetual motion. The current president's father himself
remarked of Reagan's trickle down lunacy that it was
"voodoo economics." He was uncanny in his
foresight. It's more than a little ironic that these
people who trust you with money to spend (because they will
spend it better than you) are the same ones who enflame their
voters with lies about how their tax relief shell game will give
them money that they should be able to decide how it's
spent. You have to give the GOP credit for creating the
most successful shell game in history.
Americans were slow to catch on, but I think they finally
caught on after experiencing a dimwitted perpetual failure like
Dubyah, a knuckle dragging thug like Jack Abramoff, a predator
like Mark Foley, and an greedy, reckless Jesus Bully like Tom
DeLay to show America the truth of this basic axiom of Darren's
school of arcane sociology. Tax the rich. Give it to
the poor. The money will flow up quickly, I promise.
Not just a trickle either. I mean a firehose. Just
look at all the moral, theological and economic epicycles and
convoluted nonsense necessary to justify what is so obviously
false. Trickle down....bullshit. Let's repeal Bush's
tax "relief" that didn't help me one little bit, and
then reset the "death tax" to where it was, while
doubling it for estates over 1 million dollars, or whatever the
amount is that would allow a lazy oaf like Dubyah to spend a
relatively comfortable life living off of a trust fund, but not
enough to leave a penny for his progeny. I see
absolutely no evidence that the cheap labor conservative
plutocrats have any interest in making our lives better. I
see absolutely no evidence that our aristocracy has produced
anything remarkable or even worthy of praise, at least in such a
way that many more who are not in that elite class have not
matched and exceeded. No evidence connects wealth with
talent, achievement, labor, etc. That is fundamentally
what is wrong with America now. That, and the fact that so
many Americans actually believe what the Plutocrat media tells
them. There is class warfare alright, but it's the
plutocrats that have declared war on us. In the words of
Paul Wellstone, whose memory I am commemorating with this little
diatribe: Stand up, fight back.
And, just to stir the pot a little more, I'm reprinting a
series of links to information about the plane crash that killed
Paul,
Wellstone
Conspiracies from RENSE -- Great
article ridiculing the "tin-foil hat conspiracy
theorists." -- However, one
interesting story has not been widely told: Paul
Wellstone was threatened by Dick Cheney over his vote for Bush's
blank check for war in Iraq. The article states: At a
meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his
death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If
you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will
do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe
ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."
August
30, 2006 Keith
Olbermann of MSNBC delivers a verbal hydrogen bomb into Donald
Rumsfeld's lap. This withering blast is in response to
Rumsfeld's ironic and ridiculous accusation that dissenters are
supporting fascism. Olbermann beautifully articulates the
historical irony that Rumsfeld and the Bushies are far more like
Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill, and that they,
not us, are the ones working hard to destroy democracy and
America. High powered journalism like this hasn't been
seen since Edward R. Murrow smacked down McCarthy, and Olbermann
channels the ghost of Murrow here for our times. This
video clip must be seen. This isn't a shot across the
bow. This is a nuclear weapon of truth delivered right to
the bridge of the sinking ship that is the Bush
Whitehouse. No doubt it will be the buzz of the AM radio
Nazis tomorrow. I can hardly wait to hear them
sputtering... Then, for some humor, singer/guitarist
Eric Schwartz sings this very funny song: Clinton Got a Blowjob.
(contains sexual vulgarity and entertaining criticism of
Bush.) Visit Eric
Schwartz's website.
August
28, 2006 I've been completely disconnected from this
web site all summer long. A lot did happen in the world
that I could have expressed my ranting opinions about.
However, I felt unmotivated to remark about any of it. For
those of us who really are paying attention to what's going on,
hardly anything needed to be said. For those who don't pay
attention, nothing I could say here is worth the bandwidth it
sucks up. But, let me give a highly condensed summary of
the Summer's news: John
Mark Karr was apparently hired by Karl
Rove to distract Americans by recycling the wretched murder
of that victim of parentally endorsed pedophilic porn.
Hezbollah decided that it would be a good idea to shoot cheap,
inaccurate missiles at Israeli civilians from civilian
neighborhoods in Lebanon--thus inviting savage bombing of those
areas. A whole lot of my good will toward the Palestinian
cause went up in smoke. That is pure terrorism, and it's
no surprise that Israel would come blow up the homes nearby
terrorist missile launch sites. Absolutely
disgusting! I don't want to defend Israel's choice
to bomb those non-military targets that were way too close to
the violent stooges of Iranian policies, but Hezbollah proved
the radical, unethical and violent methods they are willing to
use. Still, I think that Jeff
Nygaard's blog on Lebanon provides a balancing perspective
that helps keep my mind open. (Just to drive home the
point--not all Israelis are whacko fanatics: Gush
Shalom--Israeli peace movement, & B'Tselem
Israeli Human Rights org) At long last, Bush is slipping rapidly
into lame duck status and Republicans are running scared all
over the country. A
recent jab from John Stewart illustrates clearly the desperation
and idiocy of our president. Not only does it look
like the GOP is going to lose control of the government, but
it's really starting to look like the end of the party as a
whole. Perhaps I'm living in fantasy land, but I have
certainly noticed the extreme lack of lawn signs for Republican
politicians as of today, 15 days before the primary and a month
and a half before the election. Oh, and Global
Warming seems to have crossed the threshold from
"Theory" to "Fact Questioned only by Religious
& Corporate Lunatics"--similar to the 17th century
transition to the heliocentric
universe.
May
19, 2006 Although the American economy appears to be
sinking and although the War of American Hegemony in the Middle
East is turning into a terrifying mess, things are starting to
look up. Twenty-seven of thirty red states that voted for
Bush in 2004 are now registering higher disapproval of Bush
polling results than their approval. Survey
USA, which compiles polls from a variety of sources, provides
this interesting picture of American anti-Bush sentiment.
Idaho, Utah & Wyoming are the only remaining states where
the Bush approval rating is higher than the disapproval.
Before you Republicans get excited about those three, the net
approval in even those states is 7%, 5% and 1%
respectively. What makes this particularly interesting is
that the net Bush
vs Gore approval for Bush in the 2000 election was 41% for
all three of them, and they were the top three pro-Bush states
in that election. Perhaps the most important message here is
that the traditional "South" has entirely shifted its
opinion. There is not a single state below the Mason-Dixon
line where the approval of Bush is higher than his
disapproval. It might not be so surprising if we realize
that in the 2000 election, there were 18 states where Bush won
by more than 10% over Gore, and of those, only 7 are in
Dixie. We could declare Kansas and Indiana as
"Southern", and we'd still only have 1/2 of the
heavily Bush states in the ranks of the "South."
The rest are the "Square States" of the West.
Mississippi was, and still is, the most favorable toward Bush in
the South, but we see a shift from 15% margin in the 2000
election, to a net disapproval of 5%. Even more good news:
Right wingers on the AM radio band have been proclaiming the
demise of their own GOP. This
interesting analysis from the British Guardian newspaper
maps out the thinly veiled immolation of the Republican party.
The bad news is that just because the Republican party might be
buried along with the Whigs and Bull Moose, that doesn't mean
they will vote for a Democrat. There is always a risk that
they will shift to a true right winger, which is
something Bush never was. What if the next president is an
out-and-out fascist?
March
28, 2006 A blast from the past. Remember when
Republicans were actually conservative? That would be a
reference to Barry Goldwater, of course. Joshua Micah
Marshall's blog published a 1981 comment that Goldwater made in
reference to Jerry Falwell in commemoration of the grand event
of the disingenuous scumbag John McCain (also an Arizona Senator
with presidential aspirations) sucking up to his former
nemesis--Falwell. "I think every good Christian
ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." Apparently
McCain lacks the conservative/libertarian spine to follow in Goldwater's
footsteps.
March
20, 2006 I have to confess that although I'm a shameless
liberal, I'm deeply ashamed of most liberals right now.
Why? How about the entire Democratic contingent of the
House and Senate (with the possible exception of Feingold, and the
non-elected Howard Dean) just for starts? Could they be
any more worthless? Nope. What else are liberals
doing that pisses me off? The pleas to withdraw from Iraq
seem to me ignorant of the consequences. However, given
some of the rather suspicious stories I am hearing from various
sources other than the Evil American Media Monster, I'm really
shifting my tune. [the Christian
Peacemakers Team, Cato
Inst., Iraq
war vet] There are good arguments to be made that the
American occupation causes the violence in Iraq.
Although we aren't hearing this in our media, the buzz among
Arabs is that the American military is being used to perpetuate
and accelerate the civil war there so as to justify a continued
American occupation. Notice that Bush's mantra "When
the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." leaves the door
wide open as long as the Iraqis are busy fighting each
other. I am personally torn between these realizations and
the moral mandate "we broke it, we bought it."
So, where are liberals on this issue? All over the place,
by and large, but for the most part ignorant of what's really
going on in Iraq. Then there's the impeachment. I was in
favor of it for a while. I'm still hoping it happens
someday. But, I'm smart enough to realize that politically
it's a harebrained idea and waste of energy. It's merely a
substitute for doing something constructive to solve our
problems. Instead of trying to convince Republican
officials to impeach Bush (and concomitantly, impugn
themselves), they ought to be working to do something real. Josh
Marshall states the case against impeachment (at this point in
time) quite well here. Oh, and just a reminder (or
heads up). If you thought that maybe Bush went to war in
Iraq for reasons other than oil, you could be partially
correct. The
international monetary market and Iran's ambitions for creating
a petroeuro market is a major threat to the American
economy--perhaps bigger than than the oil itself. For
more cheery news, take a look at this story about a dramatic
increase in private intelligence (interrogation) contractor
hiring in Iraq. Lastly, if you thought that elections
will save us, take a look at this story
about Diebold corruption and Stephen Heller, the
whistleblower's plight. Meanwhile, Russ Feingold is
running about begging for a censure vote. Lame, lame,
lame.
Feb
24, 2006 Call me naive, but I was kind of thinking that
things couldn't get much worse than they already
were. I was very wrong. Bush has created an
amazingly complex and profound mess here and in the world.
It hardly seems worth describing all of it. One issue that
has generated way too many stupid responses is the
"Mohammed Cartoons" controversy. While I will
agree that the cartoons are clearly intended to antagonize and
offend, I am not willing to grant that their own cartoons and
rhetoric in relation to Jews and Christians justifies any
special treatment or respect on the part of non-Muslims.
In other words, the responses are profoundly hypocritical and
merit nothing more than derision or apathy. I have seen
enough anti-Israel cartoons and films to know that their own
hearts are full of a seething hatred and anger that goes far
beyond what those Danish cartoons showed. I found it very
sad and unfortunate that Arabs and Muslims were so easily baited
into affirming the stereotypes that the West has created about
them. As for prohibitions against representations of
Mohammed, there are numerous examples within the tradition of
Muslim art itself. So, here
is an excellent website for you to go view a vast collection
of images of Mohammed--many of which are positive and even
devout, while others are more critical, including those
cartoons. Also, I found this
nice collection of Arab cartoons about Israel and
America. In other locations on this quasi-blog, I
have numerous criticisms of the West and its behavior in regards
to Muslims, but this was so egregious that I could not
ignore it. I am also a bit miffed that more liberals (like
myself) did not take a stand against this hypocritical
indignation and violence. Perhaps the critique of
absolutist monotheistic theology and ethics is easier for those
of us who aren't enmeshed in the mindset of Zorastrianism-Judaism-Christianity-Islam.
Lest anyone call me biased, religious fundamentalism is absurd
whether it's nationalist Hindus or Hammas
"revolutionaries" or Pat Robertson.
Jan
23, 2006 Things are going from bad to pathetic. As the
Democrats are sliding into moral oblivion due to an inability to
stop wanting to be Republicans, a crazy dimwit in Minnesota has
announced that the first "Vampyre" candidacy for
governor and for US President. Mr. Sharkey is clearly not
graced with an excess of intelligence, but it shouldn't surprise
anyone that a vampire would support nearly every plank in the
Republican platform. I'm sure there are religious
conservatives out there who are horrified by this, especially
since they remember that Jesse Ventura, who was only slightly
more interesting, won the election because of his appeal to the
youth. No doubt the Vampyre will also draw lots of
petulant, angry youth votes. But, I'd like to point
something out. I think that even among consenting adults
that drinking blood is indicative of deep psychological issues,
and could also indicate sociopathic behavior. However, in
my moral assessment, it is much less evil for a politician to
pretend to be much more evil than s/he is (such as claiming to
be a vampire), than it is for someone to pretend to be a
Christian when in actuality he is a vampire. That is the
epitome of evil. For example, when a politician is able to
use guns and gays to hypnotize union workers into believing that
labor unions are a sinister tool of North Korea, or that they
destroy the economy, when in fact Unions assure that workers have
enough money to buy the things they make. That is evil,
evil, evil. As for the self-proclaimed vampire, I
certainly hope that he is as open and vociferous about his right
wing ideology as he is about his blood drinking. It will
be fun to watch conservatives ponder their options: Tim Pawlenty
and the Vampyre, considering that the only really significant
differences are a) political experience, and b) impaling vs
lethal injection. Oh yeah, and Pawlenty doesn't own any
covens. Let's just hope that he does a good job making
everyone else realize that there is a very fine line between the
Social Darwinist conservatism of the GOP and the ideology of
Satanism. The Church of Satan is a big promoter of fascism
and "achievement-orientated leadership."
Hmmm. Isn't it odd that Tucker
Carlson was so eager for an Interview with the Vampyre?
Dec
28, 2005 Solstice was more satisfying and uplifting than it
has been for a while. Last year was so dreadfully gloomy,
what with that dimwit president pulling another election hijack
in Ohio. But this year, things are really looking
up. Bush is getting a serious ass-whupping. I doubt
that I need to remind readers of Bush's recent defeats and
humiliations. Shear speculation on my part, but I suspect
that it all started when Bush passed the buck for his sins onto
the intelligence community after he had saddled them with their
new torture jobs. Doesn't it look to you like the Plame
story converged for the media and intelligence workers to pull
back the proverbial curtain hiding the Wizard of Oz? Who
leaked the news about the secret torture sites? Who leaked
the news about the secret spying? Could it be angry government
employees who are, like most of us Americans, sick of
Bush? Hmmmm. And all those shameful press
conference/stump speeches for the war... pathetic.
The funniest piece came when Bush tried to defend his secret
spying on Americans by saying that his program was limited in
scope:
From
Reuters:
"This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to
arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck
dinner," he told reporters. "These are designed to
monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have
a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and
churches."
As
John in DC of America Blog noted, using only 1/4 of his brain power, why
are there people like this in America that are not now sweating in a stockade
at Guantanamo? More importantly, who would imagine that Bush would have
any trouble in the pre-Patriot FISA court, given that he had any suspicions
like this??? Basically, there are
only two ways to interpret this remark. Either Bush is insane and
incompetent, or he is lying. I recall that Bush's antics frequently set
us up with this conundrum. Is he crazy, or is he just arrogantly
deceiving us while flipping us the bird behind his back? I'd say
that it's obvious that he's spending tax dollars and intelligence resources
that should be focused on Al Qaeda spying on journalists, MoveOn.Org, college
professors, bloggers and anyone who represents opposition to Bush personally,
or to the agenda of the Neocon GOP.
Adding more evidence to this hermeneutic debate is another
observation (in the form of a rhetorical question) made by an
unknown source to blogger
Joshua Micah Marshall made this week was this:
When was the last time there was a major terror alert? They
were something like a regular occurence for the eighteen months or so before the
2004 election. And through 2004 the administration pushed the line that al Qaida
was aiming to disrupt the elections themselves. But as near I can tell there
hasn't been a single one since election day.
I wonder if Bush thinks this will remain unremarked much
longer?
Dec
4, 2005 Mother Jones published a new "Diddly
Awards for God Abuse", and there are some profoundly
disturbing remarks coming from GOP Christians that ought to
drive a huge wedge between them and any self-respecting
Christian. Take for example this remark from Tom DeLay,
who is also being prosecuted for felonious behavior:
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
appeared at a prayer breakfast just after the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed
240,000 people. DeLay read a passage from Matthew about a nonbeliever:
"…a fool who built his house on sand: The rain fell, the floods came,
and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely
ruined." Then, without comment, he righteously sat down.
Wow. Could you imagine a less pious use of scripture? This ranks
up there with pretending that Jihad could include ramming a jetliner full of
people into skyscraper full of people. But it doesn't stop
there.
Add Rep. Richard Baker to the list of congressional
Republicans who have made unfortunate comments about hurricane victims --
although he's the first we know of from Louisiana. The Wall Street Journal's
"Washington Wire" reports comments Baker made this week to lobbyists:
"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it,
but God did." CNN
So, what do you think? Is that a more or less sinister
use of scripture than Tom DeLay's? Is it disgusting enough
yet for real Christians to finally stand up and kick
these bastards out of their churches? Still, I have yet
one more Diddly for you that relates to the secret Shaikh of
American politics, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose conservative
morality and deep pockets have GOP Talibans marching after him
like the Pied Piper of Hamlin. Check out this little-known
story:
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
(R-Md.), who attended the infamous coronation, in the Senate
building, of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon involving a weird
ceremony of robes and pillows and pompous language declaring
Moon the world's messiah. Other pols scrambled to say they had
been tricked into attending, but not Bartlett. "What was
so strange?" he groused. "If I was there and asked
to do something that was benign, handing a robe to an old
person and honoring him for his contribution to world peace
and fundamental morality, now why wouldn't I do that if I was
asked to?"
Just in case you haven't heard of the
self-proclaimed fascist messiah, Mr. Moon, of the Unification
Church, or his startling power over American politics, check out
these links: [Consortium
News] [Jesus
is Savior] [Common
Dreams--on Bush family & Moon ]
Nov
20, 2005 Youch! Cindy
Sheehan writes an open letter to Barbara Bush (George Bush's
mom) that strikes right at the heart. In most contexts it
is considered uncultured and brutish to question the honor of
your enemy's mother, the current context and the quality of this
piece help this impassioned missive transcend the realm of
"yo mamma" to a desperate attempt to call upon your
enemy's mother to try to intervene. However, one further
piece of context places yet another twist on it. Since we
know from Barbara's own words that she doesn't bother her
beautiful mind with ugly things, it's not likely that she'll
read a single word of it. So, it should be evident to
strategists that this letter is aimed at Republican mothers in
general who still haven't noticed what a morally bankrupt family
sired the raving lunatic in our Whitehouse.
Nov
15, 2005 Just when I thought it couldn't get any more
surreal than this, I hear the following two wacko arguments:
#1) Somebody leaked information revealing the existence of
top secret, overseas prisons where terrorist suspects are being
tortured. Only a Democrat (Bush-hater) and/or traitor
could have revealed this and thereby undermined our national
security. The
Republicans somehow think it's a good countercharge against the
Plame leak--to show that the person who leaked the
information that foreign prisoners are being tortured for no
good reason, given the fact that every interrogation expert will
tell you that torture doesn't yield good results. That's
not to mention the fact that it's an international war crime and
we claim that "We don't torture." Of course,
that's because we are even outsourcing our torture.
Obviously some CIA officer who is disgusted by being forced to
participate in this torture is responsible, but who in their
right mind would ever criticize a whistle blower for revealing
something like this? Who could possibly think that the
news of these sites would remain secret, and that the potential
positives would outweigh the overall negatives? What kind
of person would think that this behavior is justifiable under any
circumstances? Who??? Rush Limbaugh, for
one. So now we are reduced to arguing over which
leak was more treasonous--the one that endangered a
"legitimate" espionage network, or one that endangered
an illegal interrogation network? Hmmm. Let me think
about that for about 1/6 of a second. . . If this is the
best response they can come up with for the Plame leak, they
must be desperate and loony.
#2) Now that the war is an obvious failure and Bush's
approval is in a freefall, they seem to have lost their resolute
determination to insist they are right in the face of contrary
evidence. Rather than say "I was wrong. Sorry
about that." He's arguing "I
was wrong, but so were a lot of Democrats." At
first glance, it might appear that he has a point, except for
the facts: the "Same intelligence information" that
the Democrats looked at is the very thing in question. To
wit, was that intelligence distorted by the Bush League?
Further, it's pretty clear that most Democrats did not vote to
permit Bush to do what he actually did do. They assumed he
would exhaust all the other possible routes before going to
war. While this might play well to those rare individuals
who still have Bush Cheney stickers on their pickups and SUVs,
the vast majority of us see right through to the rotten core of
that lie. He's clearly grasping for straws on that
one.
Nov
8, 2005 Tonight, at about 8:40 PM, 40 minutes after the
polls closed, Randy Kelly conceded the election on MPR. In case
you don't know St. Paul politics. It's a very DFL town, but they
like their Democrats to be conservative. Hence Norm Coleman, and
now Randy Kelly--both came from the DFL (local independent
branch of the Democratic Party), but came out of the closet as
Republicans. Coleman did pretty well for himself,
propelled from behind to a slim win by an auto-immune disorder
of anti-liberal inflammation that spewed forth from the partisan
frenzy of the Wellstone funeral.
The preliminary results of the St. Paul 2005 mayoral/school
board election are suggesting something like an almost 30+ to
60+
loss, hence the quickly announced concession. Norm Coleman and
his bag of silver coins he got for switching parties were very
much responsible for putting Randy Kelly into office in the
first place, and he returned the favor by coming out in support
of Dubyah in 2004. After that, he had some campaign events with
Pawlenty, Coleman and Cheney.
They spent a whole lot of money on this guy because St Paul
has a "strong mayor" by constitution. Mpls has a
"weak mayor" with City Council leadership. There was a
huge amount of telephone and snail mail promotion of Kelly.
Chris Coleman had a very light weight campaign by snail
mail. I did get lots of phone calls from union sources
that encouraged me to do what I would have done without their
support. In contrast to St. Paul, Minneapolis hasn't
run a Republican mayoral candidate for some time now, and hasn't
produced a single politician who has switched parties for
personal gain. As I recall (somewhat vaguely I confess),
the Independent Republican Party (local GOP branch) the IR has
fewer City Council seats than the Green Party right now.
There are no results yet on the Minneapolis, but the
incumbent is expected to win against a guy who has Fire Dept and
Police Dept. support over some contract conflict grudges.
The encumbent, RT Reibeck, seems to me to be a Clintonesque
quasiliberal, but not so effective with African Americans. As
for St. Paul's highly significant and symbolic election, the
pseudo-Democrat who has been kissing GOP bum for a couple of
years now just got himself a serious ass-whupping. I'm
sure that Kelly surrendered so quickly in order to grasp at the
last tiny shred of dignity he could have that might propel him
onward to a new job that's at least illustrious as Rod Grams'
current gig. (For those who don't know, Rod Grams lost to
Paul Wellstone, and afterward he achieved such a degree of fame
that a quick Google reveals that nothing is from the current
century.) Given the huge expenditure and effort, the GOP
obviously wanted to get this guy elected. Just to add a
wee bit o'salt to the wound, it's worth noting that the strongly
Irish Catholic town of St Paul slapped their own son on the
behind. Perhaps this is a sign that St Paul is no longer
the Westernmost "East Coast" style Catholic
city. However, I definitely sense a strong Catholic fervor
here, and Kelly was definitely aiming to win over the religious
and foreign policy conservatives, and he did not do well at
all. I wonder how much GOP funding he'll be getting
now?
Oct
31, 2005 Samhain Ghosts seem to be rattling
their chains in the White House basement these days, don't you
think? Kind of spooky, thinking about this
scenario:
Bush
is too stupid to be president alone.
Cheney is too evil and mean to be president alone (he is president,
but not alone)
Karl Rove is too smart and evil not to be there to keep the system
working. As has been loudly noticed, the whole Bush team
is incapable of even pulling off their usual bullshit swagger
and dazzle. It's so bloody obvious, and I don't even
watch TV.
Therefore, Scooter Libby is, like a Rook or a Bishop in a game of chess, expendable.
But,
if we were to take out both Cheney and Bush, we'd have that
asshole Hastert, and who wants that? Not
only do the Bushies think like this, but I think the whole
country does, including the politicians and media. They
have us over a barrel. I mean, what happens if the whole
sequence of command is found corrupt? Is there anything
on that in the Constitution? DeLay, Frist, on and on and
on... Perhaps this will end up as a civil suit, like it
did with Clinton, and OJ Simpson.
Just in case things aren't topsy turvy and scary enough for you yet, listen
to Roger Pilon, overt member of the Federalist Society, founder, director,
legal affairs vp and spokesperson for the classical conservative/libertarian,
pro-corporate, Reaganesque CATO institute tear Bush apart over Hariet Miers--and
without even the slightest hint that his motives are religious. He tells
us that he thinks Bush is losing his grip on reality, perhaps even
sanity. Strong words for this bastion of Reaganthink. As if that weren't
enough, Pilon
spoke again to Charlie Rose to add insult to injury when she withdrew.
Oct
25, 2005 Just when you thought the Republicans
couldn't get any more stupid and hypocritical, we suddenly see
them defending perjury. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
said of Fitzgerald's CIA leak investigation: "... if there
is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that
it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality
where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to
something just to show that their two years of investigation was
not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." This is
the same wacko who said of Bill Clinton's lying about
adultery: "I do not hold the view of our Constitution that there
must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a
public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator
that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony
criminal offense, that would justify the removal of a public
officer from office, including the President of the United
States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our
Nation and to the American people and gross abuse of trust and
of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that
would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."
[thanks
to Alec Baldwin for posting that.] Apparently it's now
necessary for the entire Republican party to write a basic high
school English compare and contrast composition on the
differences between lying about sex and lying to start a
war--justified or not. For more late 1990's vintage quotes
from GOP vultures eager to rip out Clinton's eyeballs, click
here.
Oct
5, 2005 Things sure aren't looking good for Mr.
Bush. In a fit of arrogant stupidity, he is resurrecting
John Ashcroft's pet project of overthrowing states' rights in
the Oregon Assisted Suicide law. Listening to the radio
today I heard a hilarious counterargument. If using
controlled substances to cause death of a moribund, suffering
person who wants to die is illegal, then isn't it a
fortiori illegal to use controlled substances to cause death
by lethal injection for those who do not want to
die? Doesn't anyone check their arguments before
they play them? Oh, and could it possibly be that Bush
appointed his personal trial lawyer to the Supreme Court because
he's worried that he's going to have to answer to a conspiracy
and treason charge there? It sure has been entertaining
listening to the far right Jesus Bullies scream and whine over
this. I'm sure they were hoping and praying that Bush
would put some moronic metaphysical moralist maniac in
there. Of course, we can't be sure that Miers isn't cut
from the same obsessive compulsive cloth, but it sure would be
entertaining if Ms. Miers didn't listen to the demands of
radical clerics Pat Robertson and James Dobson. What a
pleasure it is to see the right wingers shooting at each other
for once.
Oct
1, 2005 What a week this has been. Mr. Bush is
still turning off Americans and even his GOP gestapo. The
house majority leader and senate majority leader are both under
indictment for felonious activities for the first time in
American history. Judy Miller got out of jail after
apparently spending enough time there to bolster the right of
journalists to choose to help treasonous public servants
undermine national security for their own political and
ideological gain. This smells fishy--maybe Libby is taking
the fall to protect Cheney or Rove or even Bush himself. It's going to be
difficult for the White House to spin that story in any positive
way, so I'm guessing that Libby must be some sort of red
herring. In spite of the hype, the Miller-Plame treason
has no logical connection to the important issue of anonymous
sources. The anonymous source clearly intended to commit
treason in order to discredit someone who was standing in the
way (for what are now clearly legitimate reasons) of a war on
false pretenses. The reporter received information that was itself not appropriate for the media to have under any
circumstances. The leak itself was the crime. That
is very, very different from a situation where a leak uncovers a
crime. In a real case of protecting an anonymous sources,
we see a crime that was committed and the witness needs to be
protected from some sort of reprisal for revealing that
information, which is essential in order for justice to be
served and corruption eliminated. Judy Miller was an
accomplice in a treasonous crime in which an honest man and his
wife were attacked for trying to stop Bush from committing an
even greater, treasonous international crime--the Iraq
War. On the other hand, maybe Judy is fed up and has,
unlike her statements would suggest, cracked under the pressure
and has decided to implicate these creeps because they have
pretty much abandoned her there as far as media coverage
goes. Though she has apparently had over 100 visitors
since she has been there.
And what about that Iraq War and the fuel costs, and the
impotent faith-based disaster management circus? In Iraq,
the rate of death seems to be accelerating, women are now forced
to wear hijab in Baghdad, though they were not allowed to during
Saddam. For devout Muslims, this is an increase in their
religious liberty, but from the eye of the American public, the
fact that women NOW have to do what they did not have to during
Saddam can't look too good. Even Afganistan isn't doing so
well in that regard. Women still wear burkas. The
media and the administration have been effective at hiding this
from us, but it looks like all this bad news about our evil war
is starting to seep into the mainstream. See, that's where
you find the opportunity to for a valid anonymous source, not in
a private, partisan meeting with a lacky GOP whore
journalist.
To top all that off, Bob
Novak, legendary GOP butt kisser from CNN reported that the
annual Aspen Conference of Forstmann Little & Co., in
the past attended by enthusiastic GOP voters, was this year
characterized by blatant and frequent hostility toward Bush and
his policies. It's starting to look like it
might not be so far-fetched to be visualizing Bush and Cheney in
orange jumpsuits.
Sept 25, 2005 The GOP attempted to drum up some
counterbalance to Cindy Sheehan's DC demonstration by sponsoring
the Support
The Troops and their Mission Weekend Rally. It's not
surprising that it was not well attended, but the extreme
weakness of the attendance was actually a surprise to me.
I waited until October 2nd to give them time to post their
pictures, and then I did one last Google. I was trying to
find blog mentions of the event with pictures from a RIGHT wing
perspective. Naturally, there is a ton of mocking
commentary from the left, but I wanted to get some less biased
views and some photos shot by fans rather than critics.
Look as I might, I
only found this site, and the combination of text and pictures
pretty much tell the story for you. There is a link at
the bottom of the page to three pages of more pictures.
Here are some of the shots that present the crowd: 1,
2.
The blogger offered his wise analysis of the low turnout as
follows:
I would say the numbers are low because most
people that are supportive of America are hardworking,
actually have jobs and can't be traipsing about the country in
dreadlocks spending Soros dollars attending counterculture
events sponsored by the anti-American crowd.
It reminded me of just how hard George W. Bush works on his
Crawford ranch. Anyway, C-Span has captured the whole
sorry event on archived digital video. I
dare you to watch all 4.5 hours. It's really much more
telling of the audience than any of the photos I've
seen.
Sept
14, 2005 Bill
Maher reaches a pinnacle of his sarcastic art in this wonderful
clip where he tells the president to "bugger off."
Listen to the audience cheer. One thing is clear to
me--Bush has reached a new low of career, and will
probably be looking for a new job to screw up in the private
sector that includes a really effective bodyguard and security
detail. I especially liked Maher's remark that George has
messed things up so badly that he has turned the rest of his
term as president into the Bush family's ultimate
nightmare--taking care of poor people. Something
tells me that Pseudodemocrats like Liebermann and Hilary Clinton
aren't feeling so good lately either. Too bad. So
sad. It's time to clean house, and if a some
Pseudodemocrats get tossed out in the process, so much the
better for all of us.
Sept
13, 2005 Interesting times.... After hurricane
Katrina revealed what a shambles our Federal Government is in
since the right wing overthrow and its subsequent dismantling, George
W. Bush takes responsibility for the incompetent response of
FEMA. Part of me wants to gloat and sneer as Bush
finally stammers out something resembling an apology. The
other part of me is feeling just a wee bit sorry for Bush.
Yes, you heard me right. I'm feeling sorry for him--not
because he doesn't deserve our anger, but rather because the
real cause of this mess was not so much George W. Bush, but
rather the whole right wing agenda of privatization and smaller
government. This agenda is SO important to these parasitic
corporate ideologues that they will even take down their
dimwitted proxy dictator. They'll do anything to keep us
from thinking about how the ideological trends of American
government since Reagan are the real cause of the Katrina
disaster. On the fourth anniversary of 9-11, Bush's
supporters have been smacked square in the face with a stark and
terrifying reality: rather than working to make us
safer, he and his fellow ideologues have been working to make
their ideology safe by surrounding themselves with a thick shell
of obsessive ideologues rather than people who are actually
competent to do the jobs to which he appointed them. It's
worth noting that George W. Bush was never actually qualified to be Governor of
Texas, let alone president of the United States either, but that didn't
stop the corporate ideologues from ramming him into the job. In
other words, Michael Brown's real talent isn't Arabian horses,
but rather fund raising and supporting the right wing
agenda. If we look around the Bush cabinet and appointees,
we see this pattern over and over again. Ashcroft,
Wolfowitz, Rove, and others. A few competent individuals
helped get him elected in 2000--Colin Powell, and perhaps Dick
Cheney. Condaleeza Rice was fairly competent too, but the
rest of the crew are little more than parrots of Grover
Norquist.
click here to view the old,
archived front page stories from Aug 2005 and back.
|
