...if only for a moment
Last night when Anderson Cooper asked Mitt Romney to respond to John McCain’s comments about Romney’s tendency to change positions on certain issues, Mitt gave the answer that I’ve been waiting so long to hear from any politician. He said (I paraphrase) that someone who can’t learn from their experience should be fired. That if you can’t assimilate new information and reevaluate your position on important matters that you are not qualified to lead.
Thank God, someone has finally said it. Too bad no one said it when everyone was calling John Kerry a “flip flopper”. And I hope that while Mitt Romney made that profound statement that at least a few Dubbaya fans out there realized the tragedy of the FULL STEAM AHEAD!!! NO MATTER WHAT!!! Bush arrogance.
For a number of reasons, I certainly do not endorse Romney. But I hope that whoever does get in the White House next will have the sense of logic to understand this very basic concept. The concept being that early assessments of complex situations are often proved to be the wrong course of action. And by failing to understand this and react to it is arrogant, reckless and incompetent.
Though it is redundant to mention, I'll say it: Those are the three words which best describe our sitting President.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Now, let’s talk about abortion.
I don’t think that there is any subject in which the conservatives are more egregiously missing and misrepresenting the point of their opposition. And it’s not just the “Pro-Life” crowd who’s missing the point. The media is equally guilty of drawing an inaccurate picture of what the argument actually is.
The argument is not whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Whether or not it’s acceptable in extreme cases is a separate matter of varying opinions. But generally speaking, no one who isn’t mentally and morally sick thinks that abortion is an acceptable means of casual birth control. As no one in their right mind thinks that abortion is in any way a casual matter — or feels that its generally okay to do. An equal amount of people on the left and the right basically believe that abortion is a tragic thing.
So the first thing we need to clear up is: what are we’re debating? It’s not a battle of people in favor of abortion vs. people against abortion. The reality is that on some level, we are all against abortion. That’s not the argument.
This argument is the flagship example of the conservatives' disconnection from reality. Again and again; up and down so many issues; their relentless denial of reality is only equaled by what appears to be the high level of personal offence that they take when faced with reality. This truly and simply is the argument against the right-wing's relentless rejections of reality — and the fact that their renunciation of reality is largely the original cause of so many of the problems we debate . The reality of prohibition was that it just created illegal activity and violence. People were going to get their booze, regardless of the law. So we had to face the fact that the subject of alcoholic beverages in America was a matter of realistic regulation, not prohibition.
Without regard to your impervious rejection of reality, it is possible, perhaps likely that your child will become sexually active during their high school years, if not earlier. And if by the recklessness of your will, your child has been convinced that abstinence is the only form of birth control, you very well may be the cause of an unwanted pregnancy.
I know you righties hate science, but here's an interesting fact of science for you. The physical development of a person's brain has not completed until the age of 22. This may in part explain the fact that young scared girls make decisions based on their fear — driven by their mental and emotional immaturity. It’s a reality of youth that you can't preach out of them. This is a large part of the reason that a law against abortion did not prevent abortion from happening during the time that it was outlawed in this country. Despite the law, abortions continued to happen — but without the presence of any sort of medial professional or proper equipment. Everyone has heard the coat hanger horrors — that would so often result not only in the death of the fetus but also in the death of the young pregnant woman.
Now it may be your position that if a girl chooses to perform a “bathroom or back alley abortion” that she deserves whatever physical complication may befall her. Okay. But that’s a different argument, isn’t it? This is my point. Let’s be clear and honest about what we are debating. It’s not “baby killers” vs. “baby savers”, as the conservatives would like everyone to believe. If you’re against abortion, that’s great. So am I. Borrow my ladder and shout it from the roof tops. Get active. Promote more education and positive realistic guidance. Choose from many things that can be done that accomplish so much more than creating a law that is sure to be tragically ignored. Do something. But please think thoroughly about the real life effect of laws in our society before you bring your conviction into the argument of whether or not to outlaw something that so many young women and girls will find a way to do regardless of the law.
This is the real debate:
Practical and fearless education, Realistic prevention, and Responsible safe regulation
vs.
An ideology that rejects the reality of the fact that preaching abstinence is not teaching birth control. An ideology which also rejects the reality; that under a law against abortion many young women would perform hazardous and lethal home abortions. It may also be the position of this ideology that any girl or woman willing to perform a home abortion deserves to die.
And if that final point is their position, I’m not judging them for it. I’m simply trying to present a more accurate picture of this argument. It’s an argument about a potential LAW and what the real life effect of that law would be. Everyone is to some degree against abortion. So the argument is not one of for or against abortion. The argument is for or against a law that would cause more pain and suffering than it would prevent.
The argument is not whether or not abortion is a good thing to do. Whether or not it’s acceptable in extreme cases is a separate matter of varying opinions. But generally speaking, no one who isn’t mentally and morally sick thinks that abortion is an acceptable means of casual birth control. As no one in their right mind thinks that abortion is in any way a casual matter — or feels that its generally okay to do. An equal amount of people on the left and the right basically believe that abortion is a tragic thing.
So the first thing we need to clear up is: what are we’re debating? It’s not a battle of people in favor of abortion vs. people against abortion. The reality is that on some level, we are all against abortion. That’s not the argument.
This argument is the flagship example of the conservatives' disconnection from reality. Again and again; up and down so many issues; their relentless denial of reality is only equaled by what appears to be the high level of personal offence that they take when faced with reality. This truly and simply is the argument against the right-wing's relentless rejections of reality — and the fact that their renunciation of reality is largely the original cause of so many of the problems we debate . The reality of prohibition was that it just created illegal activity and violence. People were going to get their booze, regardless of the law. So we had to face the fact that the subject of alcoholic beverages in America was a matter of realistic regulation, not prohibition.
Without regard to your impervious rejection of reality, it is possible, perhaps likely that your child will become sexually active during their high school years, if not earlier. And if by the recklessness of your will, your child has been convinced that abstinence is the only form of birth control, you very well may be the cause of an unwanted pregnancy.
I know you righties hate science, but here's an interesting fact of science for you. The physical development of a person's brain has not completed until the age of 22. This may in part explain the fact that young scared girls make decisions based on their fear — driven by their mental and emotional immaturity. It’s a reality of youth that you can't preach out of them. This is a large part of the reason that a law against abortion did not prevent abortion from happening during the time that it was outlawed in this country. Despite the law, abortions continued to happen — but without the presence of any sort of medial professional or proper equipment. Everyone has heard the coat hanger horrors — that would so often result not only in the death of the fetus but also in the death of the young pregnant woman.
Now it may be your position that if a girl chooses to perform a “bathroom or back alley abortion” that she deserves whatever physical complication may befall her. Okay. But that’s a different argument, isn’t it? This is my point. Let’s be clear and honest about what we are debating. It’s not “baby killers” vs. “baby savers”, as the conservatives would like everyone to believe. If you’re against abortion, that’s great. So am I. Borrow my ladder and shout it from the roof tops. Get active. Promote more education and positive realistic guidance. Choose from many things that can be done that accomplish so much more than creating a law that is sure to be tragically ignored. Do something. But please think thoroughly about the real life effect of laws in our society before you bring your conviction into the argument of whether or not to outlaw something that so many young women and girls will find a way to do regardless of the law.
This is the real debate:
Practical and fearless education, Realistic prevention, and Responsible safe regulation
vs.
An ideology that rejects the reality of the fact that preaching abstinence is not teaching birth control. An ideology which also rejects the reality; that under a law against abortion many young women would perform hazardous and lethal home abortions. It may also be the position of this ideology that any girl or woman willing to perform a home abortion deserves to die.
And if that final point is their position, I’m not judging them for it. I’m simply trying to present a more accurate picture of this argument. It’s an argument about a potential LAW and what the real life effect of that law would be. Everyone is to some degree against abortion. So the argument is not one of for or against abortion. The argument is for or against a law that would cause more pain and suffering than it would prevent.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Let’s talk about “Small Government”
and "Big Government" for that matter.
When politicians talk about big government and small government, what are they really referring to? Think about this deeply. In the practical cause and effect sense of the matter, what is the negative impact of large government or the advantage of smaller government?
Money must be at the top of the list. New bureaus and larger more complex government agencies cost money to support, right? So that must be a big part of it.
And then there’s the matter of living in the land of the free, we don’t want the government telling us what to do. We’re grown-ups in a free society. We can make our own decisions.
There are probably a few more but I’m guessing that Money and Freedom are the two main points of the Size of the Government Issue.
Okay, so first let’s look at the matter of government spending. The Democrats believe that as the wealthiest most powerful nation on Earth, we have a moral obligation to do something about our national poverty rate and things of that nature. This means social programs.
The Republicans believe that corporate and military might are the answers to all our problems so they say “privatize”. They say “we want smaller government. Replace government agencies with private companies.” Here’s where the republican delusion comes in. First, they put this idea in your head that Democrats want to “Socialize” everything. It’s like McCarthyism all over again. It truly is textbook Right-Wing Rule by Fear tactics. It hasn’t changed since the dark ages. Obviously because it still works (in favor of the rulers). Meanwhile, back in reality, the Democrats actually don’t want to “Socialize” everything. They are simply realistic about the facts of business. The purpose of business is profit. Business answers to profit first – morals later – much later and only if it is very convenient. This is not a judgment about business. It is simply a reality. Now the republicans say privatize everything. Well, the thing is that many very important issues in our society need services that are not necessarily so profitable. The organizations providing such services would need to have a mission based priority rather than a profit priority. So in a perfect republican world, these services would only exist if private businesses could afford to forgo profit. Therefore, they would simply not exist. Of course, rampant disease and a massive increase in crime would be the result of the republican’s perfect world – so we would have to spend billions more dollars on law enforcement, jails, prisons and hospitals. Wait a minute… turning our backs on nearly half of the nation was supposed to reduce the size of the government. Well, that’s the little hiccup in convenient republican plans. The positive effects only last long enough to get votes for republicans. And then reality happens. The fact is that investing in our nation is actually much cheaper than turning our backs on it.
Assuming that nightmare doesn’t happen, let’s look at things that the republicans spend money on now. Like the $8 Billion a month war. Even when that war ends – if republicans had their way they’d get us straight into another war. Ask yourself: How many democrat sponsored domestic social programs cost the American tax payers EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH? And it’s not just war. All of the republican tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals… Who pays for that? Yeah, the vast majority of American tax payers.
You see, when it comes to government agency spending, the republicans want BIGGER government than the democrats. The main difference is that the republicans think the money needs to go to corporations and wealthy individuals, while democrats want money spent to help the majority of people in this nation. Which would make us a collectively stronger nation as a whole. It’s just a matter of convenient labeling. When republicans spend money they scare you into believing that it’s just “the price of freedom”. When democrats spend less money, republicans cry “Big Government”.
Speaking of hypocrisy, let’s move on to that issue of the government encroaching on our personal liberties. You’ll notice that there are all kinds of activists who publicly demonstrate. Some on the left and some on the right. And if you look at the objectives of these demonstrations, you will notice distinctive consistencies. When left wing activists engage in a public demonstration, their objective is usually to gain personal liberties, rights or fair treatment for themselves or a group of people. You will also notice that when right wing activists demonstrate publicly, they are usually organized with the objective to restrict or revoke the personal liberties, rights or fair treatment of some person or group of people.
So, Big Government… Righty’s afraid that Big Government is trying to tell him what to do. Trying to stomp out the 2nd amendment. Tryin’ to take my guns. Well, that is very far from any possible reality. I challenge anyone to find any proposed form of legislation that is intended to deny law abiding Americans the right to bear arms. Some folks just think that it makes sense to prevent criminals from having more powerful weapons than police. Call me crazy… But that seems to make sense. So no one is trying to take your rights from you. They are just trying to give the nice policeman a slight advantage when he’s trying to save your child from a schoolyard shooting.
Meanwhile Righty wants the government to tap our phone lines and tell us who we’re allowed to love.
Overall, it appears that in realm of practical cause and effect reality, it is the republicans who are far guiltier of bringing about a “Big Government” economic impact on our nation as well as a “Big Government / Big Brother” encroachment on our personal liberties. As usual, when you look beyond the smokescreen of the Republican catch phrase you find that they are actually the hypocritical perpetrators of what they accuse the Democrats of.
When politicians talk about big government and small government, what are they really referring to? Think about this deeply. In the practical cause and effect sense of the matter, what is the negative impact of large government or the advantage of smaller government?
Money must be at the top of the list. New bureaus and larger more complex government agencies cost money to support, right? So that must be a big part of it.
And then there’s the matter of living in the land of the free, we don’t want the government telling us what to do. We’re grown-ups in a free society. We can make our own decisions.
There are probably a few more but I’m guessing that Money and Freedom are the two main points of the Size of the Government Issue.
Okay, so first let’s look at the matter of government spending. The Democrats believe that as the wealthiest most powerful nation on Earth, we have a moral obligation to do something about our national poverty rate and things of that nature. This means social programs.
The Republicans believe that corporate and military might are the answers to all our problems so they say “privatize”. They say “we want smaller government. Replace government agencies with private companies.” Here’s where the republican delusion comes in. First, they put this idea in your head that Democrats want to “Socialize” everything. It’s like McCarthyism all over again. It truly is textbook Right-Wing Rule by Fear tactics. It hasn’t changed since the dark ages. Obviously because it still works (in favor of the rulers). Meanwhile, back in reality, the Democrats actually don’t want to “Socialize” everything. They are simply realistic about the facts of business. The purpose of business is profit. Business answers to profit first – morals later – much later and only if it is very convenient. This is not a judgment about business. It is simply a reality. Now the republicans say privatize everything. Well, the thing is that many very important issues in our society need services that are not necessarily so profitable. The organizations providing such services would need to have a mission based priority rather than a profit priority. So in a perfect republican world, these services would only exist if private businesses could afford to forgo profit. Therefore, they would simply not exist. Of course, rampant disease and a massive increase in crime would be the result of the republican’s perfect world – so we would have to spend billions more dollars on law enforcement, jails, prisons and hospitals. Wait a minute… turning our backs on nearly half of the nation was supposed to reduce the size of the government. Well, that’s the little hiccup in convenient republican plans. The positive effects only last long enough to get votes for republicans. And then reality happens. The fact is that investing in our nation is actually much cheaper than turning our backs on it.
Assuming that nightmare doesn’t happen, let’s look at things that the republicans spend money on now. Like the $8 Billion a month war. Even when that war ends – if republicans had their way they’d get us straight into another war. Ask yourself: How many democrat sponsored domestic social programs cost the American tax payers EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH? And it’s not just war. All of the republican tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals… Who pays for that? Yeah, the vast majority of American tax payers.
You see, when it comes to government agency spending, the republicans want BIGGER government than the democrats. The main difference is that the republicans think the money needs to go to corporations and wealthy individuals, while democrats want money spent to help the majority of people in this nation. Which would make us a collectively stronger nation as a whole. It’s just a matter of convenient labeling. When republicans spend money they scare you into believing that it’s just “the price of freedom”. When democrats spend less money, republicans cry “Big Government”.
Speaking of hypocrisy, let’s move on to that issue of the government encroaching on our personal liberties. You’ll notice that there are all kinds of activists who publicly demonstrate. Some on the left and some on the right. And if you look at the objectives of these demonstrations, you will notice distinctive consistencies. When left wing activists engage in a public demonstration, their objective is usually to gain personal liberties, rights or fair treatment for themselves or a group of people. You will also notice that when right wing activists demonstrate publicly, they are usually organized with the objective to restrict or revoke the personal liberties, rights or fair treatment of some person or group of people.
So, Big Government… Righty’s afraid that Big Government is trying to tell him what to do. Trying to stomp out the 2nd amendment. Tryin’ to take my guns. Well, that is very far from any possible reality. I challenge anyone to find any proposed form of legislation that is intended to deny law abiding Americans the right to bear arms. Some folks just think that it makes sense to prevent criminals from having more powerful weapons than police. Call me crazy… But that seems to make sense. So no one is trying to take your rights from you. They are just trying to give the nice policeman a slight advantage when he’s trying to save your child from a schoolyard shooting.
Meanwhile Righty wants the government to tap our phone lines and tell us who we’re allowed to love.
Overall, it appears that in realm of practical cause and effect reality, it is the republicans who are far guiltier of bringing about a “Big Government” economic impact on our nation as well as a “Big Government / Big Brother” encroachment on our personal liberties. As usual, when you look beyond the smokescreen of the Republican catch phrase you find that they are actually the hypocritical perpetrators of what they accuse the Democrats of.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Democrats want to give tax breaks
To the people! The majority of the people. As opposed to the republican philosophy that tax cuts are just for corporations and wealthy people.
Washington is largely in bipartisan agreement that some sort of tax relief should be a part of the solution to the current problems facing our economy. It’s great to see them mostly agree on something.
Of course, the devil’s in the details. So let’s look at the basics of the differences.The democrats propose plans that would provide tax relief for middle to lower income Americans. Meaning most Americans. Some republicans are in favor of this as well. But naturally, the more conservative republicans in congress (meaning a lot of them) believe that the economy would be better served by giving these tax breaks to corporations, rather than citizens.
Now, its one thing if that is simply their opinion based on sound advice from a diverse pool of independent expert economists. But I heard one of these congressmen on the radio the other day, and it sounds like it’s just another ill-advised republican maneuver that protects Corporate America at the expense of American Citizens.
You know how republicans like to wrap complex issues into little catch phrases that have nothing to do with the practical reality of the matter…
Well here’s how this congressman wrapped up this one. He said that he’d like to see that tax relief go into paychecks rather than welfare checks. Clever little catch phrase. Now let’s examine how disconnected from reality it is. First, he’s suggesting that out of the generosity of the corporate heart, tax breaks for corporations would result in more or larger paychecks for workers. That really is what he's suggesting. The second part of his handy little catch phrase labels tax relief for the non-wealthy as being nothing but welfare. His words… He actually called it welfare.
On the first point, let’s look at the history of corporate behavior during hard times. What is the first thing that corporations do when they get nervous? Do they examine the possibility that they may be top heavy at the executive level? Not so much. Do the highest paid executives bite the bullet and take a little pay cut for the greater good? Heavens no. Why get crazy, when you can just lay off a large part of the work force. Sure, all the families of the laid off workers suffer and middle management has to work a lot harder to keep the wheels turning, but they don’t need to see their families. Right? Not to mention the hits that local economies take when a bunch of people get laid off. And when you’re listening to financial news shows, and you hear about a big corporation having a profitable quarter — is it followed by news of how those profits were put into bigger or more paychecks for workers ? No. In fact news like that is often accompanied by reports about raises and massive bonuses for the top executive of the company. And that’s fine. The people making the big decisions should be compensated for good results.
But please! You republican congressmen really need to stop assuming that Americans are so stupid that they would actually believe that tax breaks for corporations will result in bigger or more paychecks for the working class. You're selling a fantasy to people who are not as delusional as you are. This idea that a company's surplus revenue will trickle down the corporate stream into the pockets of it's worker is quite unfortunately, a non-reality. It's simply not the nature of business. It's like the story of the fox and scorpion.
As for the point made in the second part of the congressman's cute little catch phrase — the part where he refers to tax breaks for working Americans as “welfare”… Well, that is such a flagrantly arrogant and condescending insult to the majority of Americans — that it really speaks for its self and I need not say more.
Washington is largely in bipartisan agreement that some sort of tax relief should be a part of the solution to the current problems facing our economy. It’s great to see them mostly agree on something.
Of course, the devil’s in the details. So let’s look at the basics of the differences.The democrats propose plans that would provide tax relief for middle to lower income Americans. Meaning most Americans. Some republicans are in favor of this as well. But naturally, the more conservative republicans in congress (meaning a lot of them) believe that the economy would be better served by giving these tax breaks to corporations, rather than citizens.
Now, its one thing if that is simply their opinion based on sound advice from a diverse pool of independent expert economists. But I heard one of these congressmen on the radio the other day, and it sounds like it’s just another ill-advised republican maneuver that protects Corporate America at the expense of American Citizens.
You know how republicans like to wrap complex issues into little catch phrases that have nothing to do with the practical reality of the matter…
Well here’s how this congressman wrapped up this one. He said that he’d like to see that tax relief go into paychecks rather than welfare checks. Clever little catch phrase. Now let’s examine how disconnected from reality it is. First, he’s suggesting that out of the generosity of the corporate heart, tax breaks for corporations would result in more or larger paychecks for workers. That really is what he's suggesting. The second part of his handy little catch phrase labels tax relief for the non-wealthy as being nothing but welfare. His words… He actually called it welfare.
On the first point, let’s look at the history of corporate behavior during hard times. What is the first thing that corporations do when they get nervous? Do they examine the possibility that they may be top heavy at the executive level? Not so much. Do the highest paid executives bite the bullet and take a little pay cut for the greater good? Heavens no. Why get crazy, when you can just lay off a large part of the work force. Sure, all the families of the laid off workers suffer and middle management has to work a lot harder to keep the wheels turning, but they don’t need to see their families. Right? Not to mention the hits that local economies take when a bunch of people get laid off. And when you’re listening to financial news shows, and you hear about a big corporation having a profitable quarter — is it followed by news of how those profits were put into bigger or more paychecks for workers ? No. In fact news like that is often accompanied by reports about raises and massive bonuses for the top executive of the company. And that’s fine. The people making the big decisions should be compensated for good results.
But please! You republican congressmen really need to stop assuming that Americans are so stupid that they would actually believe that tax breaks for corporations will result in bigger or more paychecks for the working class. You're selling a fantasy to people who are not as delusional as you are. This idea that a company's surplus revenue will trickle down the corporate stream into the pockets of it's worker is quite unfortunately, a non-reality. It's simply not the nature of business. It's like the story of the fox and scorpion.
As for the point made in the second part of the congressman's cute little catch phrase — the part where he refers to tax breaks for working Americans as “welfare”… Well, that is such a flagrantly arrogant and condescending insult to the majority of Americans — that it really speaks for its self and I need not say more.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
still optimistic... still wrong.
I just heard President Bush throwing around the word “optimistic” again. The republicans love wearing the badge of “Optimism”. It’s been a very convenient and effective method of selling their multi-issue rejection of reality.
When a progressive promotes the acceptance or implementation of reality, he is swiftly labeled “Pessimist”.
When an unrealistic (aka: “optimistic”) republican plan fails, they blame it on the pessimistic resistance of uncooperative lefties. While the reality of the matter is that their unrealistic plan slammed into the brick wall of REALITY.
To make sure you righties believe me about the empirical concrete nature of REALITY, I’ve pasted in the first paragraph of reality’s definition from Conservapedia:
Reality is something that is really true. Reality is mind-independent, i.e. reality would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed it, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe it in the first place.
So there you have it! Even the conservative web site that largely exists for the purpose of renouncing reality, admits that Reality is not a synonym for pessimism.
Think about that the next time that you’re about to cram your rejection of reality into the costume of “optimism”.
When a progressive promotes the acceptance or implementation of reality, he is swiftly labeled “Pessimist”.
When an unrealistic (aka: “optimistic”) republican plan fails, they blame it on the pessimistic resistance of uncooperative lefties. While the reality of the matter is that their unrealistic plan slammed into the brick wall of REALITY.
To make sure you righties believe me about the empirical concrete nature of REALITY, I’ve pasted in the first paragraph of reality’s definition from Conservapedia:
Reality is something that is really true. Reality is mind-independent, i.e. reality would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed it, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe it in the first place.
So there you have it! Even the conservative web site that largely exists for the purpose of renouncing reality, admits that Reality is not a synonym for pessimism.
Think about that the next time that you’re about to cram your rejection of reality into the costume of “optimism”.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Real Lies vs Real Skeletons
It seems that at least twice a week I hear someone make wise cracks about Barack Obama’s name. Yes very clever… Barack Osama. And it seems that just as often I hear news reports about the relentless fabrications about Obama’s supposed Muslim background. Every time someone tries to start one of these rumors, it is immediately revealed (by responsible members of the press) to be an absolute fabrication. But that doesn’t stop them. These people are in love with the idea of trying to get people to believe this lie. It's actually because of these people that everyone is now so aware of the fact that Barack Obama was baptized Protestant and never had any ties to radical Muslims. And despite the rampant global knowledge of the truth about Obama, these people remain relentless in there quest to spread the lie.
It would have been interesting if people had attacked George W in such a way, back when he was first running. At least they would have some legitimate ammunition. Considering the fact that the Grandfather of our sitting president was practically a member of the Nazi party. Not figuratively. Prescott Bush actually was an active partner and share holder in major companies that greatly aided and greatly profited from the Nazi war machine. It’s just one of the uglier skeletons in the Bush family closet. Dandy little gem in American history. I didn’t notice anyone use it against dubbaya during his campaign years. But if they had played that dirty, at least they would have been armed with truth.
It would have been interesting if people had attacked George W in such a way, back when he was first running. At least they would have some legitimate ammunition. Considering the fact that the Grandfather of our sitting president was practically a member of the Nazi party. Not figuratively. Prescott Bush actually was an active partner and share holder in major companies that greatly aided and greatly profited from the Nazi war machine. It’s just one of the uglier skeletons in the Bush family closet. Dandy little gem in American history. I didn’t notice anyone use it against dubbaya during his campaign years. But if they had played that dirty, at least they would have been armed with truth.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Coincidence and Convenience
“President” Pervez Musharraf is supposedly an ally to our nation against terrorism. That sounds nice but I wonder about what details of that relationship we’re not privy to. I wonder if the negative aspects of those details may radically outweigh this assumed Musharraf anti-terrorism prowess. It does seem to be an interesting coincidence that a couple of Presidents, whom have both achieved the office of Presidency by questionable means, have now become so chummy.
And then there is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is very real. They do really bad things. But it may have become just a bit too convenient for shady fuckers like Musharraf and Bush to blame Al-Qaeda for incidents which they’d prefer not to explain truthfully. You know… Things like the Bhutto Assassination. Or perhaps it was just a very convenient coincidence that Al-Qaeda came along to pull that Bhutto thorn out of Musharraf’s side. Not sure if Al-Qaeda likes him enough to do him that favor...Hmm. At any rate, Musharraf appears to have the resources to handle tasks like that for himself. But if he did need the favor, he’d probably go to someone he was more chummy with.
And then there is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is very real. They do really bad things. But it may have become just a bit too convenient for shady fuckers like Musharraf and Bush to blame Al-Qaeda for incidents which they’d prefer not to explain truthfully. You know… Things like the Bhutto Assassination. Or perhaps it was just a very convenient coincidence that Al-Qaeda came along to pull that Bhutto thorn out of Musharraf’s side. Not sure if Al-Qaeda likes him enough to do him that favor...Hmm. At any rate, Musharraf appears to have the resources to handle tasks like that for himself. But if he did need the favor, he’d probably go to someone he was more chummy with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)