www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/
I swear to God, it's like the Bush Administration lives in an entirely different world. Have they never read the Constitution? Are they illiterate?
Imagine for just a second the shitstorm that would occur if anything they've done up to this point had been done by a Democrat: warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, torture of detainees, illegitimate preemptive war that subsequently turns into an inescapable quagmire worse than Vietnam, etc...
Sandy Berger was practically jailed for accidentally taking a few documents from the archives. Cheney doesn't even think he's required to submit to the archive system and, when someone points out that he's wrong he tries to have the department eliminated.
It's not even like this is the first time Cheney's done this. He doesn't want to submit to the traditional, and legally mandated, transparency with any of his office's actions. He didn't want to turn over the list of people he met with about the energy policy (mostly because the negotiations involved him asking the industry to write their own legislation), he didn't want to turn over the list of people who've visited his residence (even though he lives in a house owned by the American people), now he doesn't want to submit to rules governing the handling of classified information even though we're in the middle of a war.
What I really want to know though is this, and maybe some wacko right-winger will answer this for me: if Dick is not a part of the Executive branch, what branch is he part of? Is there some crazy secret fourth branch that the framers forgot to mention? Does his occasional role as tie-breaker in the Senate somehow make him a member of the Legislative branch even though that really is mostly a ceremonial role and is entirely reliant on his position as Vice President? (while his role as VP does not in any way rely on his Presidency in the Senate) More importantly, since this does actually appear to be his argument, if he's not a member of the Executive Branch, who is? If the guy who actually shared the ticket with the President, who is essentially just a President in waiting, isn't a member of the Executive how can you claim that anyone other than the President is? Or maybe that's their plan...next we'll be hearing that the Justice Dept. is actually part of the Judicial Branch (or maybe I should stop before I give them any ideas...)
This is the most secretive and ideological administration in the history of this great nation. It's literally scary to think of all the ways they've attempted to hide from scrutiny and exempt themselves from any sort of accountability. Clinton was impeached for receiving an oral favor from a consenting adult female. Bush has lied to Congress, he's lied to Americans about events that have cost thousands of American lives not to mention many more lives outside America, he's kidnapped American citizens and denied them basic judicial rights, he's wiretapped the phones of American citizens in violation of FISA, and that's just the beginning. Cheney's refused to disclose any information about how he does his job despite the very clear requirements for him to do so, he's also lied to Congress and the American people and is equally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly linked to the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most seriously of all, both Bush and Cheney have willfully failed to capture Osama and appear to not even be trying to catch him. Bush admitted as much when he stated that he wasn't all that concerned about capturing Osama. Where are the articles of impeachment? Where is John Roberts in those absurd academic robes we were treated to when Clinton was impeached?
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Paging scientific method...scientific method to the front desk...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.
Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.
My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,
There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.
who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,
As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.
and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.
Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.
After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.
The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.
I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.
Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.
My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,
There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.
who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,
As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.
and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.
Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.
After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.
The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Selective reasoning...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html
Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.
Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).
The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.
an elite media that long opposed him
Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.
Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.
But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.
The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.
I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.
And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.
An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"
I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.
As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.
And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.
He comes across as a straight shooter.
People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.
I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.
If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.
Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.
Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).
The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.
an elite media that long opposed him
Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.
Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.
But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.
The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.
I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.
And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.
An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"
I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.
As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.
And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.
He comes across as a straight shooter.
People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.
I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.
If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
It's about time...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.
This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Chaka Fattah officially ends his run for mayor of Philadelphia...
www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/16692405.htm...
This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.
1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)
2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?
Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.
London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.
Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).
3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.
Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.
This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.
1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)
2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?
Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.
London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.
Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).
3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.
Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.
Double standards...
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/13...
But it's the ones who dare question the Catholic Church who have to be destroyed...
Two very good people were threatened and intimidated all because they dare to be women and have an opinion that doesn't jive with the conservative Catholic idiots and the complacent, conservative media.
And who the hell cares what William Donahue thinks anyway? The guy's a racist and a nut.
But it's the ones who dare question the Catholic Church who have to be destroyed...
Two very good people were threatened and intimidated all because they dare to be women and have an opinion that doesn't jive with the conservative Catholic idiots and the complacent, conservative media.
And who the hell cares what William Donahue thinks anyway? The guy's a racist and a nut.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Molly Ivins, RIP...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/obit.ivins.ap/index.html
Molly Ivins has passed away...
She was a great American and a truly great writer. I'm afraid there aren't any more like her anymore.
I heard about it first on Democratic Underground...
Molly Ivins has passed away...
She was a great American and a truly great writer. I'm afraid there aren't any more like her anymore.
I heard about it first on Democratic Underground...
Thursday, November 09, 2006
We Won...
The Democrats gain the Senate and the House. Maybe we can actually get some oversight on the Executive Branch now.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
November surprise?...
feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/42997163/2006...
Given the fact that we own the Iraqi government, and the fact that we seem to have veto power over the composition of the court, I don't doubt for a moment that our government is behind this. The question is, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it again or have they gained a bit of insight into the actions of the Bush Administration. One thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that a large number of people caught on when gas prices started plummeting and (right or wrong) realized there was a good chance it was a gimmick by the Bushies to influence the elections.
Given the fact that we own the Iraqi government, and the fact that we seem to have veto power over the composition of the court, I don't doubt for a moment that our government is behind this. The question is, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it again or have they gained a bit of insight into the actions of the Bush Administration. One thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that a large number of people caught on when gas prices started plummeting and (right or wrong) realized there was a good chance it was a gimmick by the Bushies to influence the elections.
New Jersey Republican Party Newspaper Endorses Kean for Senate...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...
Now seriously, I get that the Courier Post is the right-wing newspaper for South Jersey, but what planet are they living on? The Republicans in New Jersey are just as corrupt as the Democrats, if not more. The only reason they may be a bit less vocal about it is because they've been in the political wilderness for so long in this state. Look at Burlington County, they are in control here and they're even more corrupt than the state Democrats. Give them a little power on the state level and you'll see what happens.
It doesn't really matter though what Kean will do about the supposed state corruption because he's not running for a state office. He's running for the Senate. Right now, the Senate is run by the corrupt Republican Party. The only way to stop that corruption is to give the Democrats control of the Senate so they can start investigations. No matter how much of a "New Jersey Republican" Kean is, the second he joins the Senate he will become a Republican Republican and will start helping the national party cover up its own corruption.
No matter what the New Jersey Republican Party says through its mouthpiece the Courier Post, we need a new direction in this country and the only way we're going to accomplish this is by voting for Democrats across the board. I don't care how much the Courier Post loves Kean, or how different he supposedly is from every other Republican in the world (if he's so different why is Bush campaigning for him?), he's a Republican and he's the last thing we need in this state right now.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...
Ah yes, and here they...uh...endorse a candidate for the 1st District. Sort of... This kind of lukewarm half assed endorsement just goes to prove how beholden the Courier Post is to the state Republican Party. They make it very clear that they're only endorsing him because he's running essentially unopposed. Given an alternative they'd be trumpeting how little baggage he has and how he's so much better than Andrews.
While we certainly endorse U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, in his quest to continue representing New Jersey's 1st Congressional District, it's unfortunate for voters in his district that they have no choice in the matter.
Uh oh, they'd better watch out or Andrews might start blushing. What a rousing and passionate endorsement they've given him. "Well, we really wish there was a Republican candidate so we could endorse him, but since there isn't I guess we endorse Andrews." If Sexton wasn't running against the corrupt Jim Saxton, do you think the Courier Post would be bemoaning the lack of a challenger in that race? Or do you think they'd still be issuing the rousing endorsement for Representative Freedom Fries that they're sure to come out with anyway?
Now seriously, I get that the Courier Post is the right-wing newspaper for South Jersey, but what planet are they living on? The Republicans in New Jersey are just as corrupt as the Democrats, if not more. The only reason they may be a bit less vocal about it is because they've been in the political wilderness for so long in this state. Look at Burlington County, they are in control here and they're even more corrupt than the state Democrats. Give them a little power on the state level and you'll see what happens.
It doesn't really matter though what Kean will do about the supposed state corruption because he's not running for a state office. He's running for the Senate. Right now, the Senate is run by the corrupt Republican Party. The only way to stop that corruption is to give the Democrats control of the Senate so they can start investigations. No matter how much of a "New Jersey Republican" Kean is, the second he joins the Senate he will become a Republican Republican and will start helping the national party cover up its own corruption.
No matter what the New Jersey Republican Party says through its mouthpiece the Courier Post, we need a new direction in this country and the only way we're going to accomplish this is by voting for Democrats across the board. I don't care how much the Courier Post loves Kean, or how different he supposedly is from every other Republican in the world (if he's so different why is Bush campaigning for him?), he's a Republican and he's the last thing we need in this state right now.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...
Ah yes, and here they...uh...endorse a candidate for the 1st District. Sort of... This kind of lukewarm half assed endorsement just goes to prove how beholden the Courier Post is to the state Republican Party. They make it very clear that they're only endorsing him because he's running essentially unopposed. Given an alternative they'd be trumpeting how little baggage he has and how he's so much better than Andrews.
While we certainly endorse U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, in his quest to continue representing New Jersey's 1st Congressional District, it's unfortunate for voters in his district that they have no choice in the matter.
Uh oh, they'd better watch out or Andrews might start blushing. What a rousing and passionate endorsement they've given him. "Well, we really wish there was a Republican candidate so we could endorse him, but since there isn't I guess we endorse Andrews." If Sexton wasn't running against the corrupt Jim Saxton, do you think the Courier Post would be bemoaning the lack of a challenger in that race? Or do you think they'd still be issuing the rousing endorsement for Representative Freedom Fries that they're sure to come out with anyway?
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Good for New Jersey...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025...
I say good for Corzine. The state doesn't need that money if it forces them to lie to the kids.
requires them to describe sex outside marriage as potentially mentally and physically damaging.
What is it about conservative lies? Why do they always have to claim that things they don't like cause disease? At least it's not cancer this time. This is right up there with "abortion causes breast cancer" and "stem cells cause cancer".
Sex within marriage can be just as damaging physically and mentally. In the end though, if it causes you physical or mental harm you're doing it wrong. And, ultimately, if you're doing it wrong it's the fault of one or both of the participants, not the fault of sex.
Conservatives questioned the decision.
"We should take a step back and try a new approach," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life. "What we have now is not working, as reflected by the rates of abortions and high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases."
I'm truly shocked that conservatives support something that is tailored directly to their own prejudices (though it seems they have no problems personally with having pre-marital sex given their own, sometimes very deviant, sexual histories).
I say good for Corzine. The state doesn't need that money if it forces them to lie to the kids.
requires them to describe sex outside marriage as potentially mentally and physically damaging.
What is it about conservative lies? Why do they always have to claim that things they don't like cause disease? At least it's not cancer this time. This is right up there with "abortion causes breast cancer" and "stem cells cause cancer".
Sex within marriage can be just as damaging physically and mentally. In the end though, if it causes you physical or mental harm you're doing it wrong. And, ultimately, if you're doing it wrong it's the fault of one or both of the participants, not the fault of sex.
Conservatives questioned the decision.
"We should take a step back and try a new approach," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life. "What we have now is not working, as reflected by the rates of abortions and high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases."
I'm truly shocked that conservatives support something that is tailored directly to their own prejudices (though it seems they have no problems personally with having pre-marital sex given their own, sometimes very deviant, sexual histories).
Sunday, October 22, 2006
October Surprise?...
thinkprogress.org/2006/10/16/nowrasteh-paramount-stone
In theaters...no doubt somewhere around 10/08. October Surprise anyone?
In theaters...no doubt somewhere around 10/08. October Surprise anyone?
40 Chessboards!?!?!...
feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/37809595/2006_10_15...
Ok, seriously, what freaking planet does Tony Snow live on? He's going to have a hard enough time convincing most Americans that Bush is of average intelligence, why start out trying to convince them he's a damn genius?
And who the hell plays chess at the gym?
Ok, seriously, what freaking planet does Tony Snow live on? He's going to have a hard enough time convincing most Americans that Bush is of average intelligence, why start out trying to convince them he's a damn genius?
And who the hell plays chess at the gym?
Swift boating Sestak...
blog.citizensforethics.org/node/197
So nice for the guy with no military service to despearately try to "swift boat" a veteran. Kinda reminds me of another election...
So nice for the guy with no military service to despearately try to "swift boat" a veteran. Kinda reminds me of another election...
I'm Rick Santorum and I approve this message...
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15816458.htm
Oh well, when you put it that way, who wouldn't vote for the guy? Forget for a minute that he equated gay sex to men molesting dogs. Forget for a minute that he did say that women shouldn't work if they have kids. Forget for a minute that he's militantly anti-women's rights. None of that matters because he loves his kids and happens to agree with Bono on something. Why don't we just nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize and call him the next Jimmy freaking Carter? Because we all know that Bono is the only voice for liberals and we all must walk in lock step with his every proclamation.
Rather than view his zeal for confronting the most controversial issues of the day as refreshing or even admirable for an elected official, critics see a cheeky ideologue.
Oh yes, so great that he likes to confront controversial issues. So admirable that he considers it his honor to champion government discrimination against gays and workplace and legal discrimination against women. So refreshing that he doesn't feel the need to hide his bigotry and instead wears it as a badge of honor. You know who else had a zeal for confronting controversial issues, Hitler. Maybe the Inquirer could run a piece on him pointing out his love of painting.
This is the stupidest, most useless, piece of fluff campaign press release I've ever seen in a reputable newspaper. We're already starting to see the fruits of the paper falling into the hands of far right-wing Republican operatives.
The fact of the matter is that the "republican revolution" is over. The party has defaulted on the "Contract with America" (or was it the Contract on America?) The "revolution" has been destroyed by greed and corruption. They have become everything they wrongly accused the Democrats of being in 94 and oh so much more. They've consolidated power to an extent never before seen in the modern history of this country.
No mention is ever made that part of the Contract with America was term limits. They promised they'd take two terms (six terms for Representatives) and then leave peacefully, yet it's been 12 years and they're running for re-election.
I wonder if they'll do a similar fluff piece on Casey, somehow I doubt it.
And just for comparision, here is the piece on Casey:
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15822585.htm
He's just there because he's his father's son. He's "bland", boring, unforceful. Unlike Santorum the rockstar.
He's only notable for not being Rick Santorum as if he doesn't have any selling points of his own.
People are only voting for him because he's not Santorum. Somehow he both won an election with the most votes ever in Pennsylvania and simultaneously enjoys the lowest name recognition ever.
A victory also would be a vindication of sorts for Casey's father, who famously was shunned for his antiabortion views, banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention.
Ok seriously, Shut The HELL Up about Casey's father. He was NOT shunned for being anti-abortion. It DID NOT HAPPEN. He was shunned because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate for President, Bill Clinton. Bottom line. What's next, a mention of Gore claiming to have invented the internet? Clinton having Vince Foster murdered?
Oh well, when you put it that way, who wouldn't vote for the guy? Forget for a minute that he equated gay sex to men molesting dogs. Forget for a minute that he did say that women shouldn't work if they have kids. Forget for a minute that he's militantly anti-women's rights. None of that matters because he loves his kids and happens to agree with Bono on something. Why don't we just nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize and call him the next Jimmy freaking Carter? Because we all know that Bono is the only voice for liberals and we all must walk in lock step with his every proclamation.
Rather than view his zeal for confronting the most controversial issues of the day as refreshing or even admirable for an elected official, critics see a cheeky ideologue.
Oh yes, so great that he likes to confront controversial issues. So admirable that he considers it his honor to champion government discrimination against gays and workplace and legal discrimination against women. So refreshing that he doesn't feel the need to hide his bigotry and instead wears it as a badge of honor. You know who else had a zeal for confronting controversial issues, Hitler. Maybe the Inquirer could run a piece on him pointing out his love of painting.
This is the stupidest, most useless, piece of fluff campaign press release I've ever seen in a reputable newspaper. We're already starting to see the fruits of the paper falling into the hands of far right-wing Republican operatives.
The fact of the matter is that the "republican revolution" is over. The party has defaulted on the "Contract with America" (or was it the Contract on America?) The "revolution" has been destroyed by greed and corruption. They have become everything they wrongly accused the Democrats of being in 94 and oh so much more. They've consolidated power to an extent never before seen in the modern history of this country.
No mention is ever made that part of the Contract with America was term limits. They promised they'd take two terms (six terms for Representatives) and then leave peacefully, yet it's been 12 years and they're running for re-election.
I wonder if they'll do a similar fluff piece on Casey, somehow I doubt it.
And just for comparision, here is the piece on Casey:
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15822585.htm
He's just there because he's his father's son. He's "bland", boring, unforceful. Unlike Santorum the rockstar.
He's only notable for not being Rick Santorum as if he doesn't have any selling points of his own.
People are only voting for him because he's not Santorum. Somehow he both won an election with the most votes ever in Pennsylvania and simultaneously enjoys the lowest name recognition ever.
A victory also would be a vindication of sorts for Casey's father, who famously was shunned for his antiabortion views, banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention.
Ok seriously, Shut The HELL Up about Casey's father. He was NOT shunned for being anti-abortion. It DID NOT HAPPEN. He was shunned because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate for President, Bill Clinton. Bottom line. What's next, a mention of Gore claiming to have invented the internet? Clinton having Vince Foster murdered?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Live from an undisclosed location...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cheney
"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."
"Yes, the unthinkable, like that stuff I just made up to justify invading Iraq so my company's stock could go through the roof". Cheney then ripped the head off a young kitten and drank its blood "Mmm, the blood of the young really gets the juices flowing."
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005.
No shit, Sherlock. Most of us figured that out before you said it. There's no medal for getting it right a year and a half late.
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
Again, most of us realized this was crap long ago, good of Dick to join us albeit several years (and thousands of lives) late. Forgive me if I'm not impressed that he's finally coming to these conclusions when it appears his bungling is going to cost his party the elections.
"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.
Yes, where would we be. Well, several thousand of our young men and women would still be alive, I'm sure their parents are really glad that didn't happen. Many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, I'm sure their families are cheering the fact that we didn't let their lives get in the way of Halliburton's stock price. We'd have most likely caught Osama if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize and removed most of our special forces from Afghanistan so they could piss around Iraq and commit war crimes.
And of course let's not forget Saddam. He'd still be an impotent dictator who couldn't even exercise authority in a large portion of his country. Yeah, that was totally worth all the lives and billions of dollars and allowing Osama to remain free.
The vice president said the reports were about as valid "as the ones that said I was in charge of everything."
He then sat George Bush on his lap and drank a glass of water while Bush recited Mary Had a Little Lamb.
"I think we've done a pretty good job of securing the nation against terrorists. You know, we're here on the fifth anniversary (of the 9/11 attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home," Cheney said in the broadcast interview. "I don't know how much better you can do than no, no attacks for the past five years."
Unless of course you still remember all those anthrax tainted letters that had everyone scared to open their mailboxes. But of course you don't remember that because the media's done its job of distracting you and making sure you don't remember.
And of course the lovely liberal media once again forgets to remind everyone how Cheney's statement is a bullshit lie.
Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
This would be the perfect gotcha moment for the media. Really stick it to Cheney by pointing out all the times he actually did say that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. But, yet again, the damn liberal media lets it go.
In an hourlong interview, Cheney also:
• Acknowledged the recent rise of violence in Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, saying the U.S. military would be in the country "for some considerable" time. He said the hunt for bin Laden remains a priority for the administration.
Yes, such a priority that the government abandoned the whole thing to concentrate on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Osama or 9/11.
_Said he still disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or Geneva Conventions protections. He declined to discuss specific treatment of detainees, but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."
Yes, criminals often disagree when the court finds against them.
_Declined to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted Republicans would keep control of both House and Senate.
And the captain of the Titanic said the ship was unsinkable. And the Hussein regime was still releasing reports saying the Americans were on the retreat even as we were bombing their asses from one side of Baghdad to another and Saddam was cowering in a hole.
"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."
"Yes, the unthinkable, like that stuff I just made up to justify invading Iraq so my company's stock could go through the roof". Cheney then ripped the head off a young kitten and drank its blood "Mmm, the blood of the young really gets the juices flowing."
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005.
No shit, Sherlock. Most of us figured that out before you said it. There's no medal for getting it right a year and a half late.
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
Again, most of us realized this was crap long ago, good of Dick to join us albeit several years (and thousands of lives) late. Forgive me if I'm not impressed that he's finally coming to these conclusions when it appears his bungling is going to cost his party the elections.
"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.
Yes, where would we be. Well, several thousand of our young men and women would still be alive, I'm sure their parents are really glad that didn't happen. Many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, I'm sure their families are cheering the fact that we didn't let their lives get in the way of Halliburton's stock price. We'd have most likely caught Osama if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize and removed most of our special forces from Afghanistan so they could piss around Iraq and commit war crimes.
And of course let's not forget Saddam. He'd still be an impotent dictator who couldn't even exercise authority in a large portion of his country. Yeah, that was totally worth all the lives and billions of dollars and allowing Osama to remain free.
The vice president said the reports were about as valid "as the ones that said I was in charge of everything."
He then sat George Bush on his lap and drank a glass of water while Bush recited Mary Had a Little Lamb.
"I think we've done a pretty good job of securing the nation against terrorists. You know, we're here on the fifth anniversary (of the 9/11 attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home," Cheney said in the broadcast interview. "I don't know how much better you can do than no, no attacks for the past five years."
Unless of course you still remember all those anthrax tainted letters that had everyone scared to open their mailboxes. But of course you don't remember that because the media's done its job of distracting you and making sure you don't remember.
And of course the lovely liberal media once again forgets to remind everyone how Cheney's statement is a bullshit lie.
Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
This would be the perfect gotcha moment for the media. Really stick it to Cheney by pointing out all the times he actually did say that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. But, yet again, the damn liberal media lets it go.
In an hourlong interview, Cheney also:
• Acknowledged the recent rise of violence in Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, saying the U.S. military would be in the country "for some considerable" time. He said the hunt for bin Laden remains a priority for the administration.
Yes, such a priority that the government abandoned the whole thing to concentrate on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Osama or 9/11.
_Said he still disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or Geneva Conventions protections. He declined to discuss specific treatment of detainees, but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."
Yes, criminals often disagree when the court finds against them.
_Declined to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted Republicans would keep control of both House and Senate.
And the captain of the Titanic said the ship was unsinkable. And the Hussein regime was still releasing reports saying the Americans were on the retreat even as we were bombing their asses from one side of Baghdad to another and Saddam was cowering in a hole.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
As if we needed another reason...
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060909/pl_nm/bush_...
Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.
Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.
Path to 9/11...or Path to Republican win in November?...
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/05/true-or-false/#more-4331
I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.
Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.
And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.
If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.
I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.
Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.
And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.
If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.
Not paying attention...
www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911
Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.
Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.
Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.
Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)