Playing Catch-Up
Ok, consider the blog re-opened. I'm keeping all my politically-inclined thoughts in here now, since my Xanga was getting pretty crowded... or something... anyways, here are my thoughts thus far...
Executive:
First of all, the whole war in Iraq thing... more and more evidence is coming out that completely contradicts EVERYTHING we've been told thus far... we probably won't have to go to war (blew that one), Saddam must disarm or else we attack (disarm what?), he's not cooperating with the weapons inspectors (he showed them everything he had...), we have numerous allies (our only real ally doubted us from the start), it will be quick and painless (over 1700 dead as of today, and we have no signs of it being over)... etc. Even the causes of war have slowly morphed, and for some reason people kept believing him. What was it he said in a White House press release? They know that Saddam has WMDs, and the only course of action left is to attack? Look it up if you don't believe me... the archives are here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/ ...you know the dates. So we go, attack, big surprise no WMDs. Just some old weapons research plans that we most likely gave him way back in the day. Yeah, they neglect to mention that one, too. So ok, we need a reason for war. Well, we were SUPPOSED to be hunting for Osama in Afghanistan, which we kinda did, nevermind that we knew he was hiding in Pakistan at the time. You can't blame that little nugget on an FBI-CIA feud. Bush thought, hey, Saddam doesn't like us... who else doesn't like us? Oh, yeah! Al Qaeda! They MUST be linked. So we finish the war and investigate... nevermind that Saddam HATED Al Qaeda as much as we did. So yeah, they investigate... nope, no signs of them anywhere. Well shit, thinks Shrub, we're in a pickle. How can we salvage our patriotism and our good stature in the world? Of course! We were bringing the Iraqis DEMOCRACY! And everyone laughed at the little joke, and we went on ahead and started rebuilding. Now, some would say that the driving force behind our invasion was oil. If we really wanted oil, Iran or Saudi Arabia would have been better targets. But we were rubbing elbows with the Shah of Saudi Arabia and Iran was, well... maybe they misspelled it? Just kidding! But we'll probably get our chance soon. Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush are doing their best to piss Iran off and seem to be dying for an excuse to attack. Anyways, the courageous and rational Ann Coulter puts those fears to rest with something like ARE YOU LIBERALS FUCKING RETARDED?!? Oh, yeah, we definitely invaded for oil! Look at how low oil prices are now that we own Iraq! Oh, that's right... THEY'RE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH! In response, Ms. Coulter, lets not forget that if we just all of a sudden tossed out a huge oil contract to, say, Halliburton, through our puppet... er, installed... er, subtly influenced Iraqi government days after we toppled the Saddam statue, the world would have been in an uproar. Your president may be stupid, but he's not that stupid. I don't think, anyways. And OPEC controls a great deal of the prices, not Iraq. They raised prices and lowered production in response to our obstinate threats to their rather authoritarian governments. I have no idea what Rove's strategy is in advising the administration to do this, but I'm sure he has a good reason... speaking of Rove...
Rove recently accused Democrats of playing politics for the mere sake of partisanship. I believe a great political strategist once said, "Most people I know on both sides of the aisle believe in the positions they take. Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree." You know who said that? Karl Rove did. Speaking to graduates at a college. You think maybe he's slightly hypocritical? Keep in mind Rove has obsessed with making W successful even through college. He has a huge hard-on for the Bush family and worked for 30 years to get W in office. His only goal is to make W look as successful as he can, and the man spins more than Jeff Gordon's tires to accomplish this. When asked if the president had a plan for the Iraq war, Rove quickly listed all the things that they couldn't plan for but didn't happen. He's done it so much it's almost automatic. You can trust absolutely nothing he says.
The House passing the flag-burning amendment just pisses me off. I hope the Senate doesn't pass it as well, or I'll be the first one in the streets lighting it on fire. This is purely stampeding all over first amendment rights. If a paparazzi can crash head-on into an actor's car and then sue him for assault on a member of the press, why can't I light a piece of cloth on fire? This energy bill business... the Senate passed it with massive support, which is a good sign, as the measure adds benefits to wind, hydro, and ethanol power producers and slightly decreases those to petroleum and other nonrenewable resources. However, Tom DeLay is threatening to block it in the House because they failed to include the one measure he really supported: the protection for gasoline companies from lawsuit for dumping the chemical MTBE into drinking water and poisoning hundreds of communities. Special interest anyone? If he shoots this down because of that then he truly is the worst representative in the country.
The Supreme court took one step in the right direction and two steps the wrong way with their final decisions. In the matter of Separation of Church and State: they outlawed the display in Kentucky of a framed copy of the Decalogue in a courthouse, which was very very good of them. For anyone who doesn't know this story, Roy Moore, a judge in Kentucky, ordered the display in the courtroom as bait for liberals to harp on him about separation of church and state, thus alienating them from the Christian base and allowing Republicans to gain considerable ground. The sick thing is, it actually worked, and Moore found himself as the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. However, the ruling in favor of the display in Texas still bothers me. It may very well have been well-intentioned when it was donated, but having a phrase in bold saying "I am the LORD thy GOD" under the 10 Commandments framed by the founding documents of our country is most certainly indicative of our country being Christian-oriented. And as much as a lot of our country would like it to be, it's not. Scalia has done his part to alienate much of the country, including our founding fathers. He says that the belief in a monotheistic, personal religion accounts for 97.75% of the country and therefore is majority enough to allow the integration of religion and government. For those of you not familiar with the history of our country, most of our founding fathers were NOT Christian, but Deist. They believed in one god, but thought of him more as a clockwork god. He set the world in motion and then left it alone, making him not a personal god but a hands-off one. And the personal religion may dominate the RELIGIOUS side of society, but there are still agnostics, atheists, and non-god religions to contend with. Scalia is out of touch with the world, and if he actually did his homework we might actually have had a decent ruling on this issue. The other wrong step was ruling unanimously in favor of big record labels against P2P software. To sue a company that has no control over what passes through their software is ridiculous. Sony won the lawsuit filed against them by the movie industry when people began recording movies on their VCRs. It is the same principle. And by shutting down P2P networks, we lose our ability to share independent music. I for one do not buy CDs unless I sample a majority of a record first. The only way I can do that is by downloading music. By cutting that off, they're losing my contribution, not gaining it.
The administration really needs to leave Iran alone. We are trying to export democracy, and we have no right to do so. Keep in mind the human race survived all the way until the 1700s without democracy, and some parts of the world has never seen it. Does Bush think that the Ayatollah of Iran is just going to hand over his power to a people that has never known how to live on their own? Of course he wouldn't, it would do more harm than good to the country. I don't support his rule, but if we try to intervene we'll just cause more strife in the Mid-East. 43% of the country says that we are less safe from terrorist attacks now that we've invaded Iraq. Is that Bush's idea of protecting the country. Speaking of Iraq (again), Rove has been saying things that we need to set straight. He refers to the insurgents as both terrorists allied with Al Qaeda and jihadists who want to reinstall Saddam's regime. While they do commit acts of terror, they have nothing to do with Al Queda. One group has chosen to deal with Al Queda, but the dozens others want nothing to do with them. The main reason they do this is because they want the US out of their country. Bush says that giving a time table would play right into their hands. By skirting around the topic, they think we will be there forever, and they will continue to attack until we leave. I believe that if we leave as soon as the government is stable (though Bush said we were leaving when they had established one... so much for that), the attacks will peter out. Telling them we have no plans of leaving yet is just playing into their hands...
There is a lot more I did not get to cover, most of the editorials and blogs, actually, but from here on out I will be more diligent on what I cover. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I've been thinking recently.
P.S. Normally I would link the editorials, news stories, and blogs I read that day here, but they're from at least a week ago, and I'm working from memory. So hit up the archives at Yahoo! News and see for yourself, if you're so interested.
Thanks for reading!
Executive:
First of all, the whole war in Iraq thing... more and more evidence is coming out that completely contradicts EVERYTHING we've been told thus far... we probably won't have to go to war (blew that one), Saddam must disarm or else we attack (disarm what?), he's not cooperating with the weapons inspectors (he showed them everything he had...), we have numerous allies (our only real ally doubted us from the start), it will be quick and painless (over 1700 dead as of today, and we have no signs of it being over)... etc. Even the causes of war have slowly morphed, and for some reason people kept believing him. What was it he said in a White House press release? They know that Saddam has WMDs, and the only course of action left is to attack? Look it up if you don't believe me... the archives are here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/ ...you know the dates. So we go, attack, big surprise no WMDs. Just some old weapons research plans that we most likely gave him way back in the day. Yeah, they neglect to mention that one, too. So ok, we need a reason for war. Well, we were SUPPOSED to be hunting for Osama in Afghanistan, which we kinda did, nevermind that we knew he was hiding in Pakistan at the time. You can't blame that little nugget on an FBI-CIA feud. Bush thought, hey, Saddam doesn't like us... who else doesn't like us? Oh, yeah! Al Qaeda! They MUST be linked. So we finish the war and investigate... nevermind that Saddam HATED Al Qaeda as much as we did. So yeah, they investigate... nope, no signs of them anywhere. Well shit, thinks Shrub, we're in a pickle. How can we salvage our patriotism and our good stature in the world? Of course! We were bringing the Iraqis DEMOCRACY! And everyone laughed at the little joke, and we went on ahead and started rebuilding. Now, some would say that the driving force behind our invasion was oil. If we really wanted oil, Iran or Saudi Arabia would have been better targets. But we were rubbing elbows with the Shah of Saudi Arabia and Iran was, well... maybe they misspelled it? Just kidding! But we'll probably get our chance soon. Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush are doing their best to piss Iran off and seem to be dying for an excuse to attack. Anyways, the courageous and rational Ann Coulter puts those fears to rest with something like ARE YOU LIBERALS FUCKING RETARDED?!? Oh, yeah, we definitely invaded for oil! Look at how low oil prices are now that we own Iraq! Oh, that's right... THEY'RE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH! In response, Ms. Coulter, lets not forget that if we just all of a sudden tossed out a huge oil contract to, say, Halliburton, through our puppet... er, installed... er, subtly influenced Iraqi government days after we toppled the Saddam statue, the world would have been in an uproar. Your president may be stupid, but he's not that stupid. I don't think, anyways. And OPEC controls a great deal of the prices, not Iraq. They raised prices and lowered production in response to our obstinate threats to their rather authoritarian governments. I have no idea what Rove's strategy is in advising the administration to do this, but I'm sure he has a good reason... speaking of Rove...
Rove recently accused Democrats of playing politics for the mere sake of partisanship. I believe a great political strategist once said, "Most people I know on both sides of the aisle believe in the positions they take. Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree." You know who said that? Karl Rove did. Speaking to graduates at a college. You think maybe he's slightly hypocritical? Keep in mind Rove has obsessed with making W successful even through college. He has a huge hard-on for the Bush family and worked for 30 years to get W in office. His only goal is to make W look as successful as he can, and the man spins more than Jeff Gordon's tires to accomplish this. When asked if the president had a plan for the Iraq war, Rove quickly listed all the things that they couldn't plan for but didn't happen. He's done it so much it's almost automatic. You can trust absolutely nothing he says.
The House passing the flag-burning amendment just pisses me off. I hope the Senate doesn't pass it as well, or I'll be the first one in the streets lighting it on fire. This is purely stampeding all over first amendment rights. If a paparazzi can crash head-on into an actor's car and then sue him for assault on a member of the press, why can't I light a piece of cloth on fire? This energy bill business... the Senate passed it with massive support, which is a good sign, as the measure adds benefits to wind, hydro, and ethanol power producers and slightly decreases those to petroleum and other nonrenewable resources. However, Tom DeLay is threatening to block it in the House because they failed to include the one measure he really supported: the protection for gasoline companies from lawsuit for dumping the chemical MTBE into drinking water and poisoning hundreds of communities. Special interest anyone? If he shoots this down because of that then he truly is the worst representative in the country.
The Supreme court took one step in the right direction and two steps the wrong way with their final decisions. In the matter of Separation of Church and State: they outlawed the display in Kentucky of a framed copy of the Decalogue in a courthouse, which was very very good of them. For anyone who doesn't know this story, Roy Moore, a judge in Kentucky, ordered the display in the courtroom as bait for liberals to harp on him about separation of church and state, thus alienating them from the Christian base and allowing Republicans to gain considerable ground. The sick thing is, it actually worked, and Moore found himself as the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. However, the ruling in favor of the display in Texas still bothers me. It may very well have been well-intentioned when it was donated, but having a phrase in bold saying "I am the LORD thy GOD" under the 10 Commandments framed by the founding documents of our country is most certainly indicative of our country being Christian-oriented. And as much as a lot of our country would like it to be, it's not. Scalia has done his part to alienate much of the country, including our founding fathers. He says that the belief in a monotheistic, personal religion accounts for 97.75% of the country and therefore is majority enough to allow the integration of religion and government. For those of you not familiar with the history of our country, most of our founding fathers were NOT Christian, but Deist. They believed in one god, but thought of him more as a clockwork god. He set the world in motion and then left it alone, making him not a personal god but a hands-off one. And the personal religion may dominate the RELIGIOUS side of society, but there are still agnostics, atheists, and non-god religions to contend with. Scalia is out of touch with the world, and if he actually did his homework we might actually have had a decent ruling on this issue. The other wrong step was ruling unanimously in favor of big record labels against P2P software. To sue a company that has no control over what passes through their software is ridiculous. Sony won the lawsuit filed against them by the movie industry when people began recording movies on their VCRs. It is the same principle. And by shutting down P2P networks, we lose our ability to share independent music. I for one do not buy CDs unless I sample a majority of a record first. The only way I can do that is by downloading music. By cutting that off, they're losing my contribution, not gaining it.
The administration really needs to leave Iran alone. We are trying to export democracy, and we have no right to do so. Keep in mind the human race survived all the way until the 1700s without democracy, and some parts of the world has never seen it. Does Bush think that the Ayatollah of Iran is just going to hand over his power to a people that has never known how to live on their own? Of course he wouldn't, it would do more harm than good to the country. I don't support his rule, but if we try to intervene we'll just cause more strife in the Mid-East. 43% of the country says that we are less safe from terrorist attacks now that we've invaded Iraq. Is that Bush's idea of protecting the country. Speaking of Iraq (again), Rove has been saying things that we need to set straight. He refers to the insurgents as both terrorists allied with Al Qaeda and jihadists who want to reinstall Saddam's regime. While they do commit acts of terror, they have nothing to do with Al Queda. One group has chosen to deal with Al Queda, but the dozens others want nothing to do with them. The main reason they do this is because they want the US out of their country. Bush says that giving a time table would play right into their hands. By skirting around the topic, they think we will be there forever, and they will continue to attack until we leave. I believe that if we leave as soon as the government is stable (though Bush said we were leaving when they had established one... so much for that), the attacks will peter out. Telling them we have no plans of leaving yet is just playing into their hands...
There is a lot more I did not get to cover, most of the editorials and blogs, actually, but from here on out I will be more diligent on what I cover. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I've been thinking recently.
P.S. Normally I would link the editorials, news stories, and blogs I read that day here, but they're from at least a week ago, and I'm working from memory. So hit up the archives at Yahoo! News and see for yourself, if you're so interested.
Thanks for reading!
posted by Josh at 9:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home