A Dark Day for Democracy
Yesterday, the US Senate voted in favor of S.3929,a bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. You can read the actual bill here and also see which senators voted for it. It passed 65 to 34 meaning a bunch of Democrats, including my own Senator Bill Nelson, voted for it.
This will go down in history, along with the Japanese Internment of World War II and Gulf of Tonkin Act that got us into Vietnam, as among the worst and most regretted legislation ever passed.
This bill gives monarchial powers to a president who already believes he is king. It gives him the power to arrest you, an American citizen, for any reason, without having to show you the evidence (Habeas Corpus), and detain you for the rest of your life without charge or trial. Don't believe me? Read the bill! Your Senators voted for a bill that gives the president tyrannical powers. Read the bill!
It also immunizes the administration, retroactively, from prosecution for war crimes, essentially pardoning them for things they could be charged with under the war crimes act of 1996, but have yet to be charged with. This is an unbelievable act by congress who has, once again, abrogated their duty to the country and handed almost unlimited unilateral powers to the executive branch.
This president has added signing statements to hundreds of bills, during his term, stating that he reserves the right not to comply with the law if he interprets is differently. He will not add a signing statement to this one. This tells you that it is exactly what he wants and we should have every reason to now fear for our safety as Americans if we dissent, associate with dissenters, or do anything that could, in any way, be considered support for terrorism and under the powers the president now has, means whatever he wants it to mean (really) which could be as simple as disagreeing with his viewpoint. This blog could land me in Guantanamo Bay, or worse, with no legal recourse, for the rest of my life. Read the bill.
Your feckless, weak and useless Congress is handing the president power no other president (other than perhaps President Hussein), but no U.S. President has ever had. Goodbye bill of rights.
I hope and pray that those who are in a position to will challenge the constitutionality of this and have it thrown out by the courts. Obviously we, the people, either don't understand it, buy the bullshit, or just don't care, otherwise we'd grab our torches and pitchforks and head for Washington. Another hope is that the Democrats, worthless as they may be, win both houses of congress and put a stop to this insanity.
I called my Senator today, Bill Nelson, and told his aide that the only reason I am voting for him in November is because I am voting against Katherine Harris (can you imagine that train wreck as a Senator?). I am very disappointed today, and deeply concerned.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
We don't need no stinkin' National Intelligence
That's the message you get from the Bush administration when you learn that they've only ordered one National Intelligence Estimate on global Jihadism since the invasion of Iraq, just one.
In case you're wondering, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the general concensus, and hopefully honest assessment, of the combined intelligence apparatus of the government. It's purpose is to provide a sober bottom line on what we know, not what we think, or hope, or want, but is real. It's the best tool the president has, especially in time of war, because of its unfiltered analysis.
No one can argue that the world is in a state of conflict with political unrest, wars, a low opinion of the U.S and the constant threat of terrorist attack anywhere, anytime. That's got to keep a president up at night. Yet Bush has only ordered one NIE in nearly 4 years. And while most thinking people are probably not surprised, there is a firestorm of reaction to what is a very grim picture painted by this belated NIE.
I don't know about you, but if I was at war with the world, I'd have a full-blown NIE every month, with daily updates in between, and I'd be running it out of the basement of the Whitehouse so I could drop in on them day or night. This is important stuff!
Anyway, the Bush machine is trying to downplay the reality of the NIE by saying that the portion of it leaked to the media does not give the big picture. Okay, I'll give them that. But what is the big picture, and who leaked the part we did see? The latter doesn't matter but apparently one of the few people privy to the big picture felt somehow duty-bound to let us in on it and probably chose the portion that would get the most attention, so as to draw attention to the rest of it.
Anytime someone leaks classified material to the press, they do so at great personal risk so either this is someone with a conscience who has had enough of the bullshit and found an opportunity to do something positive, or perhaps it is a ploy by the administration to whip up controversy, get everyone focused on it, only to douse it with an incontrovertable rebuttal, just in time for elections. It's hard to tell anymore what is or isn't part of a carefully calculated political play, but judging by the record of these guys, they're not smart enough to pull of something like this so I'll stick to my own personal intelligence estimate that they've got another PR problem and a bit of 'splainin' to do. I can't wait to see how they handle it.
That's the message you get from the Bush administration when you learn that they've only ordered one National Intelligence Estimate on global Jihadism since the invasion of Iraq, just one.
In case you're wondering, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the general concensus, and hopefully honest assessment, of the combined intelligence apparatus of the government. It's purpose is to provide a sober bottom line on what we know, not what we think, or hope, or want, but is real. It's the best tool the president has, especially in time of war, because of its unfiltered analysis.
No one can argue that the world is in a state of conflict with political unrest, wars, a low opinion of the U.S and the constant threat of terrorist attack anywhere, anytime. That's got to keep a president up at night. Yet Bush has only ordered one NIE in nearly 4 years. And while most thinking people are probably not surprised, there is a firestorm of reaction to what is a very grim picture painted by this belated NIE.
I don't know about you, but if I was at war with the world, I'd have a full-blown NIE every month, with daily updates in between, and I'd be running it out of the basement of the Whitehouse so I could drop in on them day or night. This is important stuff!
Anyway, the Bush machine is trying to downplay the reality of the NIE by saying that the portion of it leaked to the media does not give the big picture. Okay, I'll give them that. But what is the big picture, and who leaked the part we did see? The latter doesn't matter but apparently one of the few people privy to the big picture felt somehow duty-bound to let us in on it and probably chose the portion that would get the most attention, so as to draw attention to the rest of it.
Anytime someone leaks classified material to the press, they do so at great personal risk so either this is someone with a conscience who has had enough of the bullshit and found an opportunity to do something positive, or perhaps it is a ploy by the administration to whip up controversy, get everyone focused on it, only to douse it with an incontrovertable rebuttal, just in time for elections. It's hard to tell anymore what is or isn't part of a carefully calculated political play, but judging by the record of these guys, they're not smart enough to pull of something like this so I'll stick to my own personal intelligence estimate that they've got another PR problem and a bit of 'splainin' to do. I can't wait to see how they handle it.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Where's a real president when you need one?
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that simply said "I Miss Bill". If you look past the incredible amout of bullshit heaped on him by his opponents, throughout his entire presidency, you'll see a lot of things Bill Clinton did that place him among the most effective presidents we've had and for that reason, I miss him too. One of the things that is often overlooked is what his opponents criticized him for at the time, his "obsession" with offing Osama bin Laden. Now, those same people, and we know who they are, are accusing him of not doing enough about bin Laden.
It seems a little odd that Bush has been in office nearly six years, has the full weight of the military, the CIA and the FBI, as well as a blank check from Congress, to go after bin Laden and not only does he continue to not do it with any conviction, but I hear they even cut back the bin Laden unit at the CIA for budget reasons.
When Clinton was president, he could not get the CIA or the FBI to even sign off on the fact that bin Laden was responsible for the embassies and USS Cole bombings, leaving him with limited options beyond cruise missle attacks and Special Forces raids (which were both called "wag the dog" tactics by Republicans at the time). He even had a plan in place to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban, but needed basing rights in Uzbekistan before he could launch the plan. He also had one of the best weapons we've ever had against terrorism, Richard Clarke, who worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, until Bush II decided he didn't need the one person who knew more about this subject than anyone on earth.
To add insult to injury, Bush ignored what Clinton had in motion and Condi Rice even said that there was no need to retaliate aginst Al Qaeda for the Cole bombing (now that we know who did it) because that happened on Clinton's watch and we're past that now. What?! The crux of the biscuit is that Bush ignored a secret briefing from the CIA with the title of something like "bin Laden plans to fly planes into buildings" about a month before...well, you know what happened.
And now these inept bozos have the gall to heap their miserable failures on Clinton? I'm sorry but Clinton left the ball on the 1-yard line and Bush fumbled it.
This weekend, Chris Wallace from FOX news had Clinton on for an interview under the false pretense (a lot of that going around) that the subject would be about Clinton raising 7.3 billion dollars to fight global climate change. In a bait-and-switch move FOX obviously got right from their benefactor's play book, Wallace started to press Clinton about his efforts to get bin Laden. Wallace was quickly confronted with how bad an idea that was when Clinton tore him a new asshole. You don't even have to lower yourself to watching FOX to hear how it went. It's easy to find a transcript and read it for yourself. Here's one.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that simply said "I Miss Bill". If you look past the incredible amout of bullshit heaped on him by his opponents, throughout his entire presidency, you'll see a lot of things Bill Clinton did that place him among the most effective presidents we've had and for that reason, I miss him too. One of the things that is often overlooked is what his opponents criticized him for at the time, his "obsession" with offing Osama bin Laden. Now, those same people, and we know who they are, are accusing him of not doing enough about bin Laden.
It seems a little odd that Bush has been in office nearly six years, has the full weight of the military, the CIA and the FBI, as well as a blank check from Congress, to go after bin Laden and not only does he continue to not do it with any conviction, but I hear they even cut back the bin Laden unit at the CIA for budget reasons.
When Clinton was president, he could not get the CIA or the FBI to even sign off on the fact that bin Laden was responsible for the embassies and USS Cole bombings, leaving him with limited options beyond cruise missle attacks and Special Forces raids (which were both called "wag the dog" tactics by Republicans at the time). He even had a plan in place to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban, but needed basing rights in Uzbekistan before he could launch the plan. He also had one of the best weapons we've ever had against terrorism, Richard Clarke, who worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, until Bush II decided he didn't need the one person who knew more about this subject than anyone on earth.
To add insult to injury, Bush ignored what Clinton had in motion and Condi Rice even said that there was no need to retaliate aginst Al Qaeda for the Cole bombing (now that we know who did it) because that happened on Clinton's watch and we're past that now. What?! The crux of the biscuit is that Bush ignored a secret briefing from the CIA with the title of something like "bin Laden plans to fly planes into buildings" about a month before...well, you know what happened.
And now these inept bozos have the gall to heap their miserable failures on Clinton? I'm sorry but Clinton left the ball on the 1-yard line and Bush fumbled it.
This weekend, Chris Wallace from FOX news had Clinton on for an interview under the false pretense (a lot of that going around) that the subject would be about Clinton raising 7.3 billion dollars to fight global climate change. In a bait-and-switch move FOX obviously got right from their benefactor's play book, Wallace started to press Clinton about his efforts to get bin Laden. Wallace was quickly confronted with how bad an idea that was when Clinton tore him a new asshole. You don't even have to lower yourself to watching FOX to hear how it went. It's easy to find a transcript and read it for yourself. Here's one.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Inventing Dirty Words
Nobody loves a good cuss word as much as I do, but I prefer to stick to the standard vocabulary. Some words really cross the line, like racial epithets, because they identify a group of people with a label that, by design, carries a negative connotation. Take that one step further, put a cuss in front of an epithet, incorporate a little spit with its delivery, and you've clearly demonstrated your low opinion of that stereotype.
What's interesting is how words with a positive meaning can be redefined as being negative, simply by the tone of delivery and by who is saying it. If you heard someone say, "look at those low-down Red Cross volunteers", you'd surely wonder what the heck they meant by that. Or how about. "Look at that good-for-nothing hospice nurse with her gentle smile and compassion for the dying. She makes me sick". How about this one. "Those pathetic Liberals."
Now that last one makes you pause for a second. What was the first image that popped into your mind when you heard the word Liberal? Depending on your point of view, it could be almost anything. Perhaps you had this image of athiests, gay people, vegans, hippies, pot-smokers, communists, women who make their own clothes, hybrid car owners, people standing in a food stamp line, coddlers and whiners,... maybe even terrorist symapthizers. Where did that image come from? Is that what the word Liberal actually means? If someone asked you if you were a Liberal, would you say "absolutely not!"? Is that really true, that you're not a Liberal? Let's dwell on that last one for a minute.
A quick look at the dictionary give some very clear definitions of what the word Liberal means.
1. Free from prejudice or bigotry.
2. Characterized by generosity and willingness to give.
3. Favorable to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies
4. Favorable to the concepts of the maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Are you in agreement with any of these things? Or, is there even one of these definitions you are diametrically opposed to? Just for a minute, forget about the look on Ann Coulter's face when she says the word Liberal and think about what the word actually means. By definition now, could you call yourself an American, a Christian, even a "good person", if you are not, by definition, a Liberal?
We've had the artificially negative connotation commonly associated with the word Liberal so drilled into us by the gasbag commentators out there that approximately half the population in this country could not face the prospect that they are one. And yet, look what the word really means. It's an actual word, in English, and it's in the dictionary. Look it up.
If you hate gay people, black people, white people, people from Boston, poor people, whoever, call them as you see them. Then see how many people actually still want to associate with you. Then, when you find them, go start your own country. That'll be easy because you won't need much space, perhaps something the size of a golf course.
Nobody loves a good cuss word as much as I do, but I prefer to stick to the standard vocabulary. Some words really cross the line, like racial epithets, because they identify a group of people with a label that, by design, carries a negative connotation. Take that one step further, put a cuss in front of an epithet, incorporate a little spit with its delivery, and you've clearly demonstrated your low opinion of that stereotype.
What's interesting is how words with a positive meaning can be redefined as being negative, simply by the tone of delivery and by who is saying it. If you heard someone say, "look at those low-down Red Cross volunteers", you'd surely wonder what the heck they meant by that. Or how about. "Look at that good-for-nothing hospice nurse with her gentle smile and compassion for the dying. She makes me sick". How about this one. "Those pathetic Liberals."
Now that last one makes you pause for a second. What was the first image that popped into your mind when you heard the word Liberal? Depending on your point of view, it could be almost anything. Perhaps you had this image of athiests, gay people, vegans, hippies, pot-smokers, communists, women who make their own clothes, hybrid car owners, people standing in a food stamp line, coddlers and whiners,... maybe even terrorist symapthizers. Where did that image come from? Is that what the word Liberal actually means? If someone asked you if you were a Liberal, would you say "absolutely not!"? Is that really true, that you're not a Liberal? Let's dwell on that last one for a minute.
A quick look at the dictionary give some very clear definitions of what the word Liberal means.
1. Free from prejudice or bigotry.
2. Characterized by generosity and willingness to give.
3. Favorable to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies
4. Favorable to the concepts of the maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Are you in agreement with any of these things? Or, is there even one of these definitions you are diametrically opposed to? Just for a minute, forget about the look on Ann Coulter's face when she says the word Liberal and think about what the word actually means. By definition now, could you call yourself an American, a Christian, even a "good person", if you are not, by definition, a Liberal?
We've had the artificially negative connotation commonly associated with the word Liberal so drilled into us by the gasbag commentators out there that approximately half the population in this country could not face the prospect that they are one. And yet, look what the word really means. It's an actual word, in English, and it's in the dictionary. Look it up.
If you hate gay people, black people, white people, people from Boston, poor people, whoever, call them as you see them. Then see how many people actually still want to associate with you. Then, when you find them, go start your own country. That'll be easy because you won't need much space, perhaps something the size of a golf course.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
A Republican Nightmare!
Here's something rather profound to think about. There are a number of things happening that could cause a more dramatic change in Washington that anything that has ever gone before, and there is serious likelihood of it happening. Here it is:
First, the Democrats could percievably win a majority in the House and, to a lesser degree of chance, but possible, a majority in the Senate in November. This, in itself, would have an enormous impact on what goes on in Congress from that point on, but the balance of power routinely shifts in Congress.
Publicly, the Democrats have shied away from talking about impeachment of the president as being on their agenda (should they have the good fortune to control the agenda) and that's obviously in their political best interest during a contentious election cycle. But we know darn well that it will become the centerpiece of Congressional activity because of at least one particular opportunity they simply could not pass up.
For sake of argument, let's assume they decide to pursue impeachment and removal of the President from office. That said, we know they would not want to do that and just leave Dick Cheney to take over. That would just make it worse. And besides, you couldn't really convict Bush without Cheney, who is arguably even more culpable in this criminal enterprise. So, suffice it to say, Bush and Cheney both go.
If you remember your civics lessons, you know that there is a succession order. If the president is incapacitated (and a successful impeachment would certainly be incapacitating), the vice president takes over. If the veep gets the axe too, the next in line is the speaker of the house. And just who do you think that would be in a Democrat-controlled House?
You got it... Nancy Pelosi.
Think about that for a minute. Then, consider this. Can you recall a situation where there was this kind of red meat hanging in front of a group of people so desperate for change? Now do you think they would opt not to pursue impeachment if they had the chance? You have to assume the Republicans have considered this and it becomes more evident as you see the efforts they go through to not lose control of Congress. A nightmare scenario for them.
Here's something rather profound to think about. There are a number of things happening that could cause a more dramatic change in Washington that anything that has ever gone before, and there is serious likelihood of it happening. Here it is:
First, the Democrats could percievably win a majority in the House and, to a lesser degree of chance, but possible, a majority in the Senate in November. This, in itself, would have an enormous impact on what goes on in Congress from that point on, but the balance of power routinely shifts in Congress.
Publicly, the Democrats have shied away from talking about impeachment of the president as being on their agenda (should they have the good fortune to control the agenda) and that's obviously in their political best interest during a contentious election cycle. But we know darn well that it will become the centerpiece of Congressional activity because of at least one particular opportunity they simply could not pass up.
For sake of argument, let's assume they decide to pursue impeachment and removal of the President from office. That said, we know they would not want to do that and just leave Dick Cheney to take over. That would just make it worse. And besides, you couldn't really convict Bush without Cheney, who is arguably even more culpable in this criminal enterprise. So, suffice it to say, Bush and Cheney both go.
If you remember your civics lessons, you know that there is a succession order. If the president is incapacitated (and a successful impeachment would certainly be incapacitating), the vice president takes over. If the veep gets the axe too, the next in line is the speaker of the house. And just who do you think that would be in a Democrat-controlled House?
You got it... Nancy Pelosi.
Think about that for a minute. Then, consider this. Can you recall a situation where there was this kind of red meat hanging in front of a group of people so desperate for change? Now do you think they would opt not to pursue impeachment if they had the chance? You have to assume the Republicans have considered this and it becomes more evident as you see the efforts they go through to not lose control of Congress. A nightmare scenario for them.
El Presidente es El Diablo!
Dang! I've heard Bush called a lot of names, many by me, but the Devil? Satan, Beelzebub, The Horn-ed One... Nosafuge -- to be compared to the epitome of evil by another president can only mean one thing. I think, in the modern vernacular, the term is to be "Punk'd". Also, to suggest the president left behind a foul stench of Sulfur (what else has a sulfurous odor that humans can leave in their wake?), that's just brutal. You heard a lot of people come out and say that Chavez' comments were inappropriate, but from the sounds of laughter and speckled applause in the Assembly, it was at least entertaining. All that's left to do is add a laugh-track to the President's speeches and there's no where else to go. I think the footnote to all of this is that when reasonable discourse fails to point out the absurdity, simple ridicule (crass as it may be) can be very effective. There's an ulterior motive to this too. Chavez is, in large part, a populist in his country. He's speaking to his supporters, a base which is growing in South America, Cuba and elsewhere in the world. I wasn't sure how the Bushies were going to handle their worst nightmare, a democratically elected leftist leader sitting on massive oil reserves, but now it's gotten worse for them, at least from the perspective of the rest of the world. They're becoming a laughing stock. Maybe they should redecorate the White House in contemporary Pee Wee's Play House, just to be consistent. Or maybe a theme park with furry characters and rides. Decider World.
Dang! I've heard Bush called a lot of names, many by me, but the Devil? Satan, Beelzebub, The Horn-ed One... Nosafuge -- to be compared to the epitome of evil by another president can only mean one thing. I think, in the modern vernacular, the term is to be "Punk'd". Also, to suggest the president left behind a foul stench of Sulfur (what else has a sulfurous odor that humans can leave in their wake?), that's just brutal. You heard a lot of people come out and say that Chavez' comments were inappropriate, but from the sounds of laughter and speckled applause in the Assembly, it was at least entertaining. All that's left to do is add a laugh-track to the President's speeches and there's no where else to go. I think the footnote to all of this is that when reasonable discourse fails to point out the absurdity, simple ridicule (crass as it may be) can be very effective. There's an ulterior motive to this too. Chavez is, in large part, a populist in his country. He's speaking to his supporters, a base which is growing in South America, Cuba and elsewhere in the world. I wasn't sure how the Bushies were going to handle their worst nightmare, a democratically elected leftist leader sitting on massive oil reserves, but now it's gotten worse for them, at least from the perspective of the rest of the world. They're becoming a laughing stock. Maybe they should redecorate the White House in contemporary Pee Wee's Play House, just to be consistent. Or maybe a theme park with furry characters and rides. Decider World.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Pope on a Rope
What was he thinking? He did proof-read his speech I hope. Well, in a way I hope not because it should have been obvious to anyone that now is really not a good time to piss off everyone east of Mecca with something unflattering about the marketing methods their main guy. In all fairness, it's pretty common knowledge that there's a lot of sword-play involved in saving souls too. In fact, on the time scale of the middle east (where the old testament is considered recent history), they're still avenging the crusades and if you want to talk about spreading one's religion using swords and other unpleasant techniques, you needn't look much further than those crazy Templars and their hundred-years quest to start a Christmas club in Palestine.
The Pope's only had the gig for what, less than 2 years? And he's already besmirched his jerkin with something that's definitely going on his permanent record. You can look for him on Monster.com if this thing doesn't blow over pretty soon. I wonder if he gets to keep the little red JonBenet Ramsey cowboy hat he was wearing yesterday. That was cute, wasn't it?
What was he thinking? He did proof-read his speech I hope. Well, in a way I hope not because it should have been obvious to anyone that now is really not a good time to piss off everyone east of Mecca with something unflattering about the marketing methods their main guy. In all fairness, it's pretty common knowledge that there's a lot of sword-play involved in saving souls too. In fact, on the time scale of the middle east (where the old testament is considered recent history), they're still avenging the crusades and if you want to talk about spreading one's religion using swords and other unpleasant techniques, you needn't look much further than those crazy Templars and their hundred-years quest to start a Christmas club in Palestine.
The Pope's only had the gig for what, less than 2 years? And he's already besmirched his jerkin with something that's definitely going on his permanent record. You can look for him on Monster.com if this thing doesn't blow over pretty soon. I wonder if he gets to keep the little red JonBenet Ramsey cowboy hat he was wearing yesterday. That was cute, wasn't it?
Bluff Called - Now What?
On August 31st, there was this deadline for Iran to stop doing the [nucular] thing, or else. Well, Iran basically told us to go plook ourselves, and said a bunch of other incendiary things about us and Israel and the holocaust and all that, probably just to get us even more riled up, then laughed when the deadline passed and "or else" didn't happen. In fact, the Bushies are all into this diplomacy track now, former Iranian president Khatami is hanging out in the US and Ahmadinejad is headlining at the big UN soiree.
Now what? Are we going to bomb Iran now? It's like having a stare-down in the playground and only when the other kid walks away laughing, you throw a rock at him. That's the problem with acting like a badass. When you get your bluff called, you look even worse than if you simply came up short in a more diplomatically rooted argument. But this is serious too. Other countries are watching this. North Korea for one. Remember them?
Whenever we exercise our democracy by criticizing the adminstration, they and all their sycophants start screaming that we "embolden our enemies". Well, if you square off at somebody, then don't do anything when they call your bluff, what does that do, hmmm? I'm not saying we should send in the B-52s just to save face. That would be even more retarded! They just need to tone down the cowboy rhetoric, keep the diplomatic back-channel wide open, and start acting like a member of a world community.
Actually, Bush should have insisted on meeting with Ahmadinejad. If Bush truly is the tough guy he thinks he is, sitting down with his rival and saying, "Look man, we both know we have a problem here. Let's figure out what we're gonna do about it. Let's agree that we live in the same world together, despite our differences, and take it from there." That's what real leaders do. Not only would it shock the hell out of everybody, it would change everything. It would show the world that we really want to solve these problems, not simply create yet another controversial pretext for another war. Sadly, though, I think the latter is indeed the goal. Not only that, Bush's people certainly know that he could never hold his own in a debate, let alone a discussion, with Ahmadinejad. Forget about who has the moral high ground, Bush simply doesn't have the skill, or the balls, to face his enemy.
On August 31st, there was this deadline for Iran to stop doing the [nucular] thing, or else. Well, Iran basically told us to go plook ourselves, and said a bunch of other incendiary things about us and Israel and the holocaust and all that, probably just to get us even more riled up, then laughed when the deadline passed and "or else" didn't happen. In fact, the Bushies are all into this diplomacy track now, former Iranian president Khatami is hanging out in the US and Ahmadinejad is headlining at the big UN soiree.
Now what? Are we going to bomb Iran now? It's like having a stare-down in the playground and only when the other kid walks away laughing, you throw a rock at him. That's the problem with acting like a badass. When you get your bluff called, you look even worse than if you simply came up short in a more diplomatically rooted argument. But this is serious too. Other countries are watching this. North Korea for one. Remember them?
Whenever we exercise our democracy by criticizing the adminstration, they and all their sycophants start screaming that we "embolden our enemies". Well, if you square off at somebody, then don't do anything when they call your bluff, what does that do, hmmm? I'm not saying we should send in the B-52s just to save face. That would be even more retarded! They just need to tone down the cowboy rhetoric, keep the diplomatic back-channel wide open, and start acting like a member of a world community.
Actually, Bush should have insisted on meeting with Ahmadinejad. If Bush truly is the tough guy he thinks he is, sitting down with his rival and saying, "Look man, we both know we have a problem here. Let's figure out what we're gonna do about it. Let's agree that we live in the same world together, despite our differences, and take it from there." That's what real leaders do. Not only would it shock the hell out of everybody, it would change everything. It would show the world that we really want to solve these problems, not simply create yet another controversial pretext for another war. Sadly, though, I think the latter is indeed the goal. Not only that, Bush's people certainly know that he could never hold his own in a debate, let alone a discussion, with Ahmadinejad. Forget about who has the moral high ground, Bush simply doesn't have the skill, or the balls, to face his enemy.
Coin-Operated Brain Wash
I must admit a certain envy for friends of mine who get along just fine without cable. It's almost kind of sweet, in a way, when I mention someone prominent in the news, and they don't know who I'm talking about. Or, they've yet to hear of some major current event that is reshaping the world as we speak. It's like "freedom from information". I can't do it. I'm a news junkie and I think it's important to know what's going on around us. An uninformed population is easily manipulated. But one needs to carefully filter out the 99% crap and find those nuggets of truth. But therein lies the danger. The act of filtering information is antithetical to the whole point of watching cable TV. The reason you have 200 channels is because you don't have the attention span to devote to anything substantive in the first place. And the things that get your attention need to be flashy and edgy, almost seizure-inducing. Here's where I'm headed with this. Most people really do want the truth, but at the same time, they want it flashed at them. That's why so many people get their news from Jon Stewart (myself included). But there's a dark side. FOX News.
Murdoch understands this very well. He knows that a population with the attention span of a Tse-Tse fly is easy to seduce with his brand of food-fight journalism where the loudest voice wins and the winner surely speaks the truth. He also understands the power of language; how the choice of words can alter perception. For example, during the recent outfreakage between Israel and Lebanon, Fox News reporters embedded with Israeli forces used terms like "we" and "us", suggesting that the Israeli side was "our" side and Lebanon was the enemy. Regardless of your preference, reporters who take sides are no longer objective. They're whores. (Notice I said Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Israel and Hezbollah were fighting, but the tanks rolled into Lebanon, where a lot of people like you and I watched their worlds come to an end.)
I know people, whose intellect I respect, become seduced and ultimately brainwashed by this insidious form of "info-tainment". Not only that, they're paying for it, like pumping quarters into a brain-washing machine. I can see the effects of this when I hear people insist they can sum up the world in loud bold-red shouting points, just like they hear coming at them. You simply cannot and it really undermines your credibility when you try (unless you are among others who think the same way).
The road to the truth is paved in gray, not black and white. Radicalism, on either side of an ideology, is destructive and disingenuous. The irony of fighting terrorism (violence) with war (also violence) seems to be lost on many people. It's like the shouting-match news. Whoever is more violent wins.
Yet the daily diet of corporate news, be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., focuses you on the concept of "the war" as if it were a force of nature, like "the hurricane", and not something we allowed to happen through our own apathy. The more it soaks in, the harder it is to change until something really bad happens.
Think about Germany in the 1920s and 30s. This was, and still is, a country full of intelligent people who want the same things we do, peace, prosperity, security and good food. Yet somehow a guy like Hitler ends up doing what he did. We all know how that ended but it did not begin with some kind of military coup or hostile takeover of the government. It was the silence, acquiescence, and tacit approval of the population that allowed the gradual steps to that end. Along the way, they were fed a diet of twisted logic, lies, and patriotic jibberish that became indistinguishable from the truth until it was too late. Even when the concentration camps were liberated, people living in the nearby towns were horrified to learn, for the first time, what had been going on, in their name, to their neighbors, friends, and people like you and me who just happened to have a 'berg or 'stein in their last name. The Germans then were not stupid people and neither are we now. If we think, however, that we are not vulnerable to the kinds of things that have led to disastrous results time and time again throughout history, then no matter how intelligent we are, we are very naive. If you fail to learn from previous mistakes, you are destined to repeat them.
I must admit a certain envy for friends of mine who get along just fine without cable. It's almost kind of sweet, in a way, when I mention someone prominent in the news, and they don't know who I'm talking about. Or, they've yet to hear of some major current event that is reshaping the world as we speak. It's like "freedom from information". I can't do it. I'm a news junkie and I think it's important to know what's going on around us. An uninformed population is easily manipulated. But one needs to carefully filter out the 99% crap and find those nuggets of truth. But therein lies the danger. The act of filtering information is antithetical to the whole point of watching cable TV. The reason you have 200 channels is because you don't have the attention span to devote to anything substantive in the first place. And the things that get your attention need to be flashy and edgy, almost seizure-inducing. Here's where I'm headed with this. Most people really do want the truth, but at the same time, they want it flashed at them. That's why so many people get their news from Jon Stewart (myself included). But there's a dark side. FOX News.
Murdoch understands this very well. He knows that a population with the attention span of a Tse-Tse fly is easy to seduce with his brand of food-fight journalism where the loudest voice wins and the winner surely speaks the truth. He also understands the power of language; how the choice of words can alter perception. For example, during the recent outfreakage between Israel and Lebanon, Fox News reporters embedded with Israeli forces used terms like "we" and "us", suggesting that the Israeli side was "our" side and Lebanon was the enemy. Regardless of your preference, reporters who take sides are no longer objective. They're whores. (Notice I said Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Israel and Hezbollah were fighting, but the tanks rolled into Lebanon, where a lot of people like you and I watched their worlds come to an end.)
I know people, whose intellect I respect, become seduced and ultimately brainwashed by this insidious form of "info-tainment". Not only that, they're paying for it, like pumping quarters into a brain-washing machine. I can see the effects of this when I hear people insist they can sum up the world in loud bold-red shouting points, just like they hear coming at them. You simply cannot and it really undermines your credibility when you try (unless you are among others who think the same way).
The road to the truth is paved in gray, not black and white. Radicalism, on either side of an ideology, is destructive and disingenuous. The irony of fighting terrorism (violence) with war (also violence) seems to be lost on many people. It's like the shouting-match news. Whoever is more violent wins.
Yet the daily diet of corporate news, be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., focuses you on the concept of "the war" as if it were a force of nature, like "the hurricane", and not something we allowed to happen through our own apathy. The more it soaks in, the harder it is to change until something really bad happens.
Think about Germany in the 1920s and 30s. This was, and still is, a country full of intelligent people who want the same things we do, peace, prosperity, security and good food. Yet somehow a guy like Hitler ends up doing what he did. We all know how that ended but it did not begin with some kind of military coup or hostile takeover of the government. It was the silence, acquiescence, and tacit approval of the population that allowed the gradual steps to that end. Along the way, they were fed a diet of twisted logic, lies, and patriotic jibberish that became indistinguishable from the truth until it was too late. Even when the concentration camps were liberated, people living in the nearby towns were horrified to learn, for the first time, what had been going on, in their name, to their neighbors, friends, and people like you and me who just happened to have a 'berg or 'stein in their last name. The Germans then were not stupid people and neither are we now. If we think, however, that we are not vulnerable to the kinds of things that have led to disastrous results time and time again throughout history, then no matter how intelligent we are, we are very naive. If you fail to learn from previous mistakes, you are destined to repeat them.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I went to see Amy Goodman speak tonight at the Tampa Theatre (in Tampa). I have to say that if there was ever a Nobel Prize for journalistic integrity, Amy should have it. After listening to her show, as often as possible, it's hard to watch something like CNN and give it even a shred of credibility. For example, the other night, Paula Zahn was doing one of those little 10 second promos for her show, you know, where she teases you with the big question of the day in hopes that you'll tune in to hear her in-depth and thought provoking analysis. Anyway, she was talking about Iranian president Ahmadinejad, how he's Bush's nemesis and all, then the big question: so, what's he doing on American soil? Well, Paula, he's at the freakin' U.N. General Assembly. That's what he's doing here. What a dumb question! Gee, I better tune in to the Paula Zahn show because I think she spotted this guy in the village and he might be up to something. He is, after all, Iranian and he might have one of those [nucular] weapons we keep hearing about with him and she's gonna get to the bottom of it. And aren't the Iranians supposed to be our new arch enemies? I don't know. Eurasia, Eastasia, what about the Malabar front? I can't keep it straight. I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on Paula though. She's just reading the cue cards. You know, the ones that come in the special envelopes.
This is post number one here at Marginal Thought. Why did I call this blog Marginal Thought? Well, all the other things I wanted to call it were already thought of by people who've thought about blogging longer than the 5 minutes I've been considering it. Actually, I read a lot of blogs, my favorite being David Corn's daily dose of Washington insider musings, so I think about blogs, albeit, unconsciously, but now I've joined the ranks of the hordes spewing assiduous drivel for the greater benefit of humankind. Back to the original question (why the name). Well, so much of what is considered "main stream thinking" is so absolutley inane and retarded, that rational thinking has been marginalized, and the conclusions one could draw from it are rarely converted to advice-put-to-use. So here we are, those of us who tend to think about things, on the fringes of society and the margins of life.
So what "drivel" can you expect from me? Well, if you think Bush is an idiot, war is pointless, Zappa is the best, that sort of thing, you might check back from time to time. I promise to try and be somewhat interesting and not too condescending toward those content to follow the lemmings over the cliff, although don't count on it.
So what "drivel" can you expect from me? Well, if you think Bush is an idiot, war is pointless, Zappa is the best, that sort of thing, you might check back from time to time. I promise to try and be somewhat interesting and not too condescending toward those content to follow the lemmings over the cliff, although don't count on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
