Hornets Love
For anyone who's noticed the darth of posts here, it's largely because Sarah and I have been investing all our spare time in our newfound appreciation for the NBA's New Orleans Hornets. This includes, among other things, keeping up with our new blog at HornetsHype.com.. Check us out there!
Labels: basketball, entertainment, Hornets
|| posted by mW @ 12:08 PM
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Republicans Are Smarter Than Everyone
Anyone ever play that card game "bullshit," which is based on bluffing and posturing more than the cards in your hands? Well, I call "bullshit" on the Republicans. Although, I think I'm the only one doing so. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1996 with their hugely successful "Contract With America" pledge, they did so for the first time in decades. At a point where trust with politicians was at low ebb, they made the unusual move of promising a comprehensive plan of legislation, accompanied by the threat that if they didn't do what they said, they would expect to be elected out of office. This kind of accountability was something America ate up and won them Congress during the term of an enduringly popular President Clinton and a thriving economy. The strategy was wide-spread among the party and novel in its sweeping effect, not to mention its overwhelming success.
Well I say the Republicans are at it again, pioneering election strategy in new ways. Whatever back-room party deals were made, it was clear that the GOP machinery was behind George Bush in the 2000 election. To try and gain an edge, to differentiate himself, John McCain declared himself a maverick, an anti-establishment guy. It didn't work. Or did it? Sure, he lost the GOP nomination then. Or did he? Maybe he was never meant to win. Maybe what he did was part of a long term strategy. What I am suggesting is that the GOP is attempting multi-campaign strategems, not content to plan each election on its own.
Look at McCain's voting record. Almost every vote during Bush's two terms McCain has voted lock-step with his party. Is that the record of a maverick? The only waves he made was in fighting the torture capacities of the U.S. a year or so back. Oh sure he stood up to Bush, he made a big push in the media. But the end "compromise" with the White House was that the U.S. could do what it wanted if national security was endangered. I paraphrase, but not much. Look it up. It made me sick to read the final wording. Incidentally, Bush just vetoed a recent attempt to make waterboarding illegal. I haven't seen McCain call him out for that. Any way, so McCain "loses" the GOP election, but with just enough efficacy that he is thought to be a future contender for the spot.
Now, in 2007-08, he runs again, but everyone counts him out. But then Rudy runs his campaign into the ground. Mitt the Mormon and converted conservative never stood a chance. To either, McCain still looks the favorite, so the GOP pretends its desperate and adds Fred Thompson as they so-called "true conservative," but then throws him in too late to make a difference and had him stumble left and right. Well done, Mr. Thompson. Well acted. Against any of these, McCain still looks conservative. So what do you do? Throw in Huckabee. Note: only against a former preacher does McCain no longer look conservative. And then conservative pundits rip McCain for not being conservative when he jumps out to a lead. Because that is how he is made to look. It is a chosen representation more than any indication of truth. Why does Huckabee stay in the race when it is clear he will lose? Because he needs to point out how not conservative McCain allegedly is. (And incidentally, he lays the groundwork for a future run if he or the party so think it is advisable).
All in all, the point is this. The GOP sees that their strategy over the last eight years has alienated many people, because in reality it has benefited so few. They realized the Demos will be poised to strike at the presidency. So they need to have a maverick ready, a rebel ready, who is just liberal enough to swing some moderate viewers, while the GOP faithful vote for whomever because that is what they do, just as loyal liberals will do the same with their candidate. And so the conservative pundits continue to complain, and some moderates and liberals may even think they don't want McCain but of course they do because either Clinton or Obama are insanely liberal in their eyes. Will it work? Who knows. I hope not.
But I for one, am calling "bullshit." McCain you are no fake conservative. You are exactly what conservatives want. You will cut back taxes and regulations on big corporations. You will mire us in years more of war. Both serving to give away our country's future to foreign banks as we build the national debt. At the same time, a President McCain would almost certainly ignore millions of Americans who suffer without health insurance or good jobs, and imperil all our civil rights by appointing conservative idealogues to the Supreme Court. I for one, have had enough of that type of leadership. Bush, McCain, it's all the same.
America, vote how you will. But don't be fooled.
Well I say the Republicans are at it again, pioneering election strategy in new ways. Whatever back-room party deals were made, it was clear that the GOP machinery was behind George Bush in the 2000 election. To try and gain an edge, to differentiate himself, John McCain declared himself a maverick, an anti-establishment guy. It didn't work. Or did it? Sure, he lost the GOP nomination then. Or did he? Maybe he was never meant to win. Maybe what he did was part of a long term strategy. What I am suggesting is that the GOP is attempting multi-campaign strategems, not content to plan each election on its own.
Look at McCain's voting record. Almost every vote during Bush's two terms McCain has voted lock-step with his party. Is that the record of a maverick? The only waves he made was in fighting the torture capacities of the U.S. a year or so back. Oh sure he stood up to Bush, he made a big push in the media. But the end "compromise" with the White House was that the U.S. could do what it wanted if national security was endangered. I paraphrase, but not much. Look it up. It made me sick to read the final wording. Incidentally, Bush just vetoed a recent attempt to make waterboarding illegal. I haven't seen McCain call him out for that. Any way, so McCain "loses" the GOP election, but with just enough efficacy that he is thought to be a future contender for the spot.
Now, in 2007-08, he runs again, but everyone counts him out. But then Rudy runs his campaign into the ground. Mitt the Mormon and converted conservative never stood a chance. To either, McCain still looks the favorite, so the GOP pretends its desperate and adds Fred Thompson as they so-called "true conservative," but then throws him in too late to make a difference and had him stumble left and right. Well done, Mr. Thompson. Well acted. Against any of these, McCain still looks conservative. So what do you do? Throw in Huckabee. Note: only against a former preacher does McCain no longer look conservative. And then conservative pundits rip McCain for not being conservative when he jumps out to a lead. Because that is how he is made to look. It is a chosen representation more than any indication of truth. Why does Huckabee stay in the race when it is clear he will lose? Because he needs to point out how not conservative McCain allegedly is. (And incidentally, he lays the groundwork for a future run if he or the party so think it is advisable).
All in all, the point is this. The GOP sees that their strategy over the last eight years has alienated many people, because in reality it has benefited so few. They realized the Demos will be poised to strike at the presidency. So they need to have a maverick ready, a rebel ready, who is just liberal enough to swing some moderate viewers, while the GOP faithful vote for whomever because that is what they do, just as loyal liberals will do the same with their candidate. And so the conservative pundits continue to complain, and some moderates and liberals may even think they don't want McCain but of course they do because either Clinton or Obama are insanely liberal in their eyes. Will it work? Who knows. I hope not.
But I for one, am calling "bullshit." McCain you are no fake conservative. You are exactly what conservatives want. You will cut back taxes and regulations on big corporations. You will mire us in years more of war. Both serving to give away our country's future to foreign banks as we build the national debt. At the same time, a President McCain would almost certainly ignore millions of Americans who suffer without health insurance or good jobs, and imperil all our civil rights by appointing conservative idealogues to the Supreme Court. I for one, have had enough of that type of leadership. Bush, McCain, it's all the same.
America, vote how you will. But don't be fooled.
Labels: democracy, democrat, politics, republican, strategy
|| posted by mW @ 11:37 AMThursday, March 06, 2008
Democrats & Representation
It has become clear to me in the last few months that biases we think we hold we don't and those we say we don't have we do. In watching Senators Clinton and Obama fight for the Democratic nomination, from both the response of popular media and general population alike, it is clear how much racism is really classism. No one's afraid of a black man in a suit, but people are threatened by a woman in charge. Having a random woman in the boardroom or Congress is an aberation, a token acquiescence. However, it is clear in how the two are treated that in today's America we still feel female agency as a threat to the status quo more than a black man in power, because after all, a black man's still a man.
How many times have you heard someone (in conversation or online, not the media) call Clinton a "bitch?" It's there. Funny. I haven't heard that Obama's a "nigger." Nor have I heard he's a "dick" or "asshole" or any of the other things you might call a black man or just a man. It's ironic. Clinton is more the stereotypical man of the two: tough, stubborn, and determined. While Obama plays it out like he is building bridges and listening, the empath: a typically feminine archetype. Yet if we look back at Clinton's history she has always been a multiculturalist, one willing to listen and hear and respect others, and make changes based on results. In fact, these traits were largely what made the Right hate her in the first place. I dare say her tougher side is to win over the moderates who might still flinch at another staunch Republican or those who try to portray Democrats at large as weak.
Yet Obama has become the darling favorite, despite no experience at the national level. He plays it as a bonus. An attribute to be lauded. He claims incorruptability. Yet even if he was--which I severely doubt--he would not make any laws as president. Congress does that. So he still has to "change" all of them too. I'd rather a president who understands how government works and understands its strengths and weaknesess and will look to better it from that standpoint. Personally, I don't care if that person is a woman. And neither should the rest of America.
||
posted by mW @ 7:46 PM
How many times have you heard someone (in conversation or online, not the media) call Clinton a "bitch?" It's there. Funny. I haven't heard that Obama's a "nigger." Nor have I heard he's a "dick" or "asshole" or any of the other things you might call a black man or just a man. It's ironic. Clinton is more the stereotypical man of the two: tough, stubborn, and determined. While Obama plays it out like he is building bridges and listening, the empath: a typically feminine archetype. Yet if we look back at Clinton's history she has always been a multiculturalist, one willing to listen and hear and respect others, and make changes based on results. In fact, these traits were largely what made the Right hate her in the first place. I dare say her tougher side is to win over the moderates who might still flinch at another staunch Republican or those who try to portray Democrats at large as weak.
Yet Obama has become the darling favorite, despite no experience at the national level. He plays it as a bonus. An attribute to be lauded. He claims incorruptability. Yet even if he was--which I severely doubt--he would not make any laws as president. Congress does that. So he still has to "change" all of them too. I'd rather a president who understands how government works and understands its strengths and weaknesess and will look to better it from that standpoint. Personally, I don't care if that person is a woman. And neither should the rest of America.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Prosecutions and Immunities
Who the powers that be go after in this country and how the media portrays it baffles me. Today's A-12 second headline is "Immunity is sought in CIA tapes probe." That's all we hear about, albeit quietly. Immunity for Blackwater "security guards" (a.k.a. mercenaries). Immunity for Bush for arranging illegal wiretaps. Yet the front pages are about Barry Bonds maybe or maybe not lying about steriod use. (And for those of you that think that is important, look at how many pitchers have been busted and look up when steroids actually became against the rules of professional baseball.) All I'm saying, is everytime some semi-important story like Bonds is put up, make sure you look and see what is underneath.
For example, as now the country goes apeshit on Roger Clemons and his possible steroid use, the White House is again building up its case for war on Iran. Although not quite the same, consider how many months of coverage did football superstar, Michael Vick's,dog fighting prosecution get? I'm not saying he was right (because he wasn't), but at the same time we continue to ignore calls to prosecute anyone involved in going to war with Iraq, despite the fact that our reasons for going in were erroneous and likely an outright lie. Or how come nobody has been prosecuted for leaking a CIA agent's name (Valerie Plume)? The closest thing was a conviction for lying about leaking it, and that person's sentence was commuted!
We already know that this White House administration is one of the most secretive ever. What makes things worse, is that the few things that do leak out, they cover with bullshit side stories and the media gets sucked right in.
||
posted by mW @ 10:14 AM
For example, as now the country goes apeshit on Roger Clemons and his possible steroid use, the White House is again building up its case for war on Iran. Although not quite the same, consider how many months of coverage did football superstar, Michael Vick's,dog fighting prosecution get? I'm not saying he was right (because he wasn't), but at the same time we continue to ignore calls to prosecute anyone involved in going to war with Iraq, despite the fact that our reasons for going in were erroneous and likely an outright lie. Or how come nobody has been prosecuted for leaking a CIA agent's name (Valerie Plume)? The closest thing was a conviction for lying about leaking it, and that person's sentence was commuted!
We already know that this White House administration is one of the most secretive ever. What makes things worse, is that the few things that do leak out, they cover with bullshit side stories and the media gets sucked right in.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Writing Again
In the midst of a job search, I've realized the hard way that while such a thing can be time consuming, it does not involve 40 hours a week. So instead of burying myself in books, movies, and video games, I've decided to do some more writing. I recently completed one short story and submitted it; another requires one more draft (that is on hold because my computer broke...long story...). Both are urban fantasy.
I am also working on one of my abandoned novels. It is short. It is satirical. It is a madcap look at Americana and God. We'll see if it works. The first draft of one of my chapter can be found here
I am also working on one of my abandoned novels. It is short. It is satirical. It is a madcap look at Americana and God. We'll see if it works. The first draft of one of my chapter can be found here
Labels: America, God, satire, writing
|| posted by mW @ 1:17 PMSunday, October 07, 2007
Language Tridaux
Of course, "Tridaux" is not a real word, but it doesn't matter anymore. Language is out of control. I wanted to watch something making breakfast in the kitchen, and so turned on the news. They were talking about "torture." And how the U.S. put out a position paper saying they do "not torture" people. Then months later a memo was circulating condoning several "interrogation methods" that were "not torture," like exposing prisoners to physical violence, psychological violence, and several methods that the global community generally consider "torture." And then the news (Fox) channel proceeded to not even talk about torture but "special interrogation methods" and when which was appropriate. Was it fair if there was a "ticking time bomb" situation?
Listen: torture, is torture, is torture, is torture. It is never an accepted policy. Never. First of all, it is unreliable. All you big patriots out there consider that. People will say anything under torture. I.e. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Lots of our intelligence about Iraq was wrong. Why? Oh, prisoners overstated things. They had inflated egos. Or maybe they were tortured and said anything they could think of to make it stop. Listen, if you are a ground agent recognizing that impending disaster is there, might you desperately make the wrong choice for the right reasons? I can see it. I would probably even forgive it. But if people cannot see the difference between that and a blanket-pardon for any U.S. citizen doing what the rest of the world considers not just illegal, but immoral, then you need to think about it some more.
||
posted by mW @ 9:48 AM
Listen: torture, is torture, is torture, is torture. It is never an accepted policy. Never. First of all, it is unreliable. All you big patriots out there consider that. People will say anything under torture. I.e. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Lots of our intelligence about Iraq was wrong. Why? Oh, prisoners overstated things. They had inflated egos. Or maybe they were tortured and said anything they could think of to make it stop. Listen, if you are a ground agent recognizing that impending disaster is there, might you desperately make the wrong choice for the right reasons? I can see it. I would probably even forgive it. But if people cannot see the difference between that and a blanket-pardon for any U.S. citizen doing what the rest of the world considers not just illegal, but immoral, then you need to think about it some more.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Language Redux
Again, this country has been hornswaggled by the power of language. And the biggest sucker of them all? The media. In the so-called effort to maintain "detached journalism" or "objective reporting" the media has been tricked into using the language of those who are smart enough to know that language controls meaning. What recently reinvigorated my loathing of our current administration and their continual attempt to control public perception is the Blackwater affair in Iraq.
Blackwater is an "independent security contractor." What the fuck does that mean? Come on, think about it. People that are paid to fight in a war? They are not "contractors." They are not a "private security firm." They are called "mercenaries." I'm sorry people, they are mercenaries. Use the right term. But this is nothing new. When the beginning is smoke and mirrors the perpetuation is too. Listen, how many times have you heard "The War on Terror" or "The War in Afghanistan" or "The War in Iraq?" Funny. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Yet Congress has NOT declared war. They authorized the use of force. There is difference. Therefore, there is no "war" in the legal sense. And do you want to know why? If there is a war, there are prisoners of war. If there are prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions (to which the U.S. is a party) apply and we must respect these prisoners. But we want to torture them for information. But wait, maybe they are criminals and deserve constitutional rights. No. They can't be criminals, because we have no jurisidiction to arrest people out of our country. So thus we invented the "enemy combatant" classification. Yet it was an unconstitutional declaration. The president has no such power to invent such a classification. So before he could be sued, the Republican Congress, as a parting present to the President after being voted out of power, made legal this classifcation after the fact.
But then the "war" which wasn't really a war was declared won years ago when Bush made his triumphant speech before the "Mission Accomplished" banner (and "mission accomplished" is significant because it didn't say victory because there was no war) and we were winners. But then it became obvious the fighting wasn't done and so we had to pretend again we were at war. And at that time, the White House said, we're just "keeping the peace" (a nonsensical term in itself) and if there was "civil war" we're out of there, because we don't want to interfere in such internal disputes (another ridiculous idea considering our involvement there). No, the administration said, we don't want to interfere in that that kind of mess. But then everyone said there was a civil war in fact and then it was all about "insurgency." How convenient.
Is my point not obvious yet? They just keep changing the labels to hide the truth. George Carlin got it right when he compared "shellshock" to "post-traumatic syndrome disorder." The latter lacks the brutal punch of the former. And so the words change the perception. It waters down our outrage. Wake the fuck up America. You're being lied to every day by the words your own government chooses to use because these choice words change the meaning of the message they portend to portray. And the media, right or left, is complicit because they adopt the words verbatim as spoonfed by people who know better. So don't just listen when you hear or read or see the news. Think.
Blackwater is an "independent security contractor." What the fuck does that mean? Come on, think about it. People that are paid to fight in a war? They are not "contractors." They are not a "private security firm." They are called "mercenaries." I'm sorry people, they are mercenaries. Use the right term. But this is nothing new. When the beginning is smoke and mirrors the perpetuation is too. Listen, how many times have you heard "The War on Terror" or "The War in Afghanistan" or "The War in Iraq?" Funny. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Yet Congress has NOT declared war. They authorized the use of force. There is difference. Therefore, there is no "war" in the legal sense. And do you want to know why? If there is a war, there are prisoners of war. If there are prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions (to which the U.S. is a party) apply and we must respect these prisoners. But we want to torture them for information. But wait, maybe they are criminals and deserve constitutional rights. No. They can't be criminals, because we have no jurisidiction to arrest people out of our country. So thus we invented the "enemy combatant" classification. Yet it was an unconstitutional declaration. The president has no such power to invent such a classification. So before he could be sued, the Republican Congress, as a parting present to the President after being voted out of power, made legal this classifcation after the fact.
But then the "war" which wasn't really a war was declared won years ago when Bush made his triumphant speech before the "Mission Accomplished" banner (and "mission accomplished" is significant because it didn't say victory because there was no war) and we were winners. But then it became obvious the fighting wasn't done and so we had to pretend again we were at war. And at that time, the White House said, we're just "keeping the peace" (a nonsensical term in itself) and if there was "civil war" we're out of there, because we don't want to interfere in such internal disputes (another ridiculous idea considering our involvement there). No, the administration said, we don't want to interfere in that that kind of mess. But then everyone said there was a civil war in fact and then it was all about "insurgency." How convenient.
Is my point not obvious yet? They just keep changing the labels to hide the truth. George Carlin got it right when he compared "shellshock" to "post-traumatic syndrome disorder." The latter lacks the brutal punch of the former. And so the words change the perception. It waters down our outrage. Wake the fuck up America. You're being lied to every day by the words your own government chooses to use because these choice words change the meaning of the message they portend to portray. And the media, right or left, is complicit because they adopt the words verbatim as spoonfed by people who know better. So don't just listen when you hear or read or see the news. Think.
Labels: Bush, Iraq, language, politics, representation, words
|| posted by mW @ 10:16 PMWednesday, August 15, 2007
Fuck the Federal Government
The federal government just allocated $354 million dollars to help New York City deal with traffic congestion. Yet houses remain unbuilt here in New Orleans, entire skyscrapers stand broken and empty, we're surrounded by roads that barely deserve the name, and the levees and waterpumps that protect the city are woefully undercapable. What the fuck is wrong with our federal government.
Do we have to start an armed revolution in this country to get people to understand? This is bullshit. Oh, and President Bush just vetoed a water bill that would have allocated $22 million to levee defense down here because it "cost too much." Bull shit.
Do we have to start an armed revolution in this country to get people to understand? This is bullshit. Oh, and President Bush just vetoed a water bill that would have allocated $22 million to levee defense down here because it "cost too much." Bull shit.
Labels: Bush, Government, Money, New Orleans, politics
|| posted by mW @ 6:10 PMThursday, July 12, 2007
More Lies About New Orleans
Don't be fooled by the difference between unfiltered science and a legal rebuttal. After the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers issued a report than unequivocally placed the fault of this destruction on the failure of the levees, which was declared to be the fault of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Funny how the powers that be allowed this report to become public knowledge when it was believed that the federal government was immune from litigation stemming from the damage caused by their faulty work (sad as Louisiana tort law doesn't apply to the federal government, but the cornerstone our tort law is that "Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it ... Every person is responsible for the damage he occasions, not merely by his act, but by his negligence, his imprudence, or his want of skill." La. Civ. Code arts. 2315-16). However, the federal courts have altered this blanket exemption from such ordinary liability.
Clever lawyers, finding a loophole in liability, found a way to enable persons to sue the federal government for negligence that led to the failure of the levees. Basically, it involves not the work done on flood protection (levees themselves), which remains exempt from liability, but the work done on commercial waterways (canals) constructed for other purposes, which negligently weakened the city's flood protection. And it was the finding of this loophole, which I firmly believe led to the report issued yesterday.
Nowhere is there scientific honesty, but rather a politicized retraction, claiming that the levee failures could not be traced to any one agency or group, and rather should be allocated over fifty-odd years of decisions made by a variety of agencies and persons throughout city, state, and federal governments. Listen, this is no different than when I cut my head on a quick-swinging door at a Bruins hockey game after being kicked out (as a 29-year-old) for giving Sarah (a 24-year-old) a beer -- it's a long story, but trust me, true -- and Sarah wrote a letter complaining of their treatment of us. Her focus was on their service and treatment of out of state persons (especially Katrina refugees) and the Bruins' response was mainly to deny liability for me injuring my head. It wasn't a real response but a legal form letter already written to get the average ignorant person to drop the issue.
This current denial of responsibility is the same. And it honestly boggles me. It's our federal government spitting legalese instead of doing the right thing. They're acting like the cheating man from Eddie Murphy's Raw. The joke was that you could practically be caught cheating in your woman's bed, but as long as you denied, denied, denied, it would go away and she would forgive you. True or not, joke or not, the Bush administration is the same way. There's no problems, there's no problems, there's no problems. Look at something else!
Because of such actions, it is incumbent upon each of us as American citizens to call bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Our federal government fucked up, they admitted it, so in all fairness they should make restitution. For a government willing to spend $12 billion a month (see recent news articles) on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of over half a trillion dollars, it is mind-boggling that they refuse to spend money to save a struggling American city. Any funds they do allocate are swept up in red tape and slowed by a mind-numbing skepticism that the money will be spent properly.
If only I could convince our president that Katrina was caused by a new form of Al Queda technology and that the struggles of New Orleans are proof that the fight for freedom is a lost cause unless the city is rebuilt, maybe then he'd do something. The sad thing is, maybe that's what it would take to get our own country to fix something that was their own fault. Or maybe a republic governor.
In closing, let me be clear. No naturally occurring hurricane destroyed New Orleans. Had the levees NOT broken, the city would have been all but fine. It was the levees breaking, i.e. human failure, that led to the massive destruction of New Orleans. Fight anyone that tells you otherwise. It's the truth. Remember it.
Clever lawyers, finding a loophole in liability, found a way to enable persons to sue the federal government for negligence that led to the failure of the levees. Basically, it involves not the work done on flood protection (levees themselves), which remains exempt from liability, but the work done on commercial waterways (canals) constructed for other purposes, which negligently weakened the city's flood protection. And it was the finding of this loophole, which I firmly believe led to the report issued yesterday.
Nowhere is there scientific honesty, but rather a politicized retraction, claiming that the levee failures could not be traced to any one agency or group, and rather should be allocated over fifty-odd years of decisions made by a variety of agencies and persons throughout city, state, and federal governments. Listen, this is no different than when I cut my head on a quick-swinging door at a Bruins hockey game after being kicked out (as a 29-year-old) for giving Sarah (a 24-year-old) a beer -- it's a long story, but trust me, true -- and Sarah wrote a letter complaining of their treatment of us. Her focus was on their service and treatment of out of state persons (especially Katrina refugees) and the Bruins' response was mainly to deny liability for me injuring my head. It wasn't a real response but a legal form letter already written to get the average ignorant person to drop the issue.
This current denial of responsibility is the same. And it honestly boggles me. It's our federal government spitting legalese instead of doing the right thing. They're acting like the cheating man from Eddie Murphy's Raw. The joke was that you could practically be caught cheating in your woman's bed, but as long as you denied, denied, denied, it would go away and she would forgive you. True or not, joke or not, the Bush administration is the same way. There's no problems, there's no problems, there's no problems. Look at something else!
Because of such actions, it is incumbent upon each of us as American citizens to call bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Our federal government fucked up, they admitted it, so in all fairness they should make restitution. For a government willing to spend $12 billion a month (see recent news articles) on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of over half a trillion dollars, it is mind-boggling that they refuse to spend money to save a struggling American city. Any funds they do allocate are swept up in red tape and slowed by a mind-numbing skepticism that the money will be spent properly.
If only I could convince our president that Katrina was caused by a new form of Al Queda technology and that the struggles of New Orleans are proof that the fight for freedom is a lost cause unless the city is rebuilt, maybe then he'd do something. The sad thing is, maybe that's what it would take to get our own country to fix something that was their own fault. Or maybe a republic governor.
In closing, let me be clear. No naturally occurring hurricane destroyed New Orleans. Had the levees NOT broken, the city would have been all but fine. It was the levees breaking, i.e. human failure, that led to the massive destruction of New Orleans. Fight anyone that tells you otherwise. It's the truth. Remember it.
Labels: levees, New Orleans, politics
|| posted by mW @ 12:02 PMWednesday, July 04, 2007
No Justice
I really don't understand how "conservatives" can be calling for Bush to grant a full pardon to Scooter Libby. He was convicted of four felonies. Aren't these the same ones that are all for "three strikes" and you're away for life? Libby is now a four-striker, so shouldn't "conservatives" be calling for him to go away for life, instead of serving no jail time? Maybe this is why they believe he needs the full pardon, because otherwise, there is no justification for his sentence to be commuted; it is illogical -- but if the underlying crimes were absolved, then there truly is no need to go to jail. The whole thing is ridiculous and brings to mind a bunch of kids playing politics instead of house, where there is no real accountability or logic. For fuck's sake, Paris Hilton served over two weeks for driving on a suspended license. It wasn't like she was helping disclose secrets of national security or covering for those that did. And if these "conservatives" feel Libby's the unfairly treated scapegoat, how come they are not calling for the Justice Department to prosecute who was actually at fault?
All this entire situation does is continue to erode the credibility of the entire Republican regime. These are people who claim no laws apply to them and they can do whatever they want to secure "freedom and democracy" and even when caught look for ways to get out of it. I'm sorry. But those in the generation above me always wonder why my generation and younger are generally thoughtless, petulant, and assume no responsibility for our actions. But the answer should be obvious. It's because we have such poor role models. People who don't see the parellels aren't opening their eyes. It only takes common sense to see that the actions of those above us are our models for behavior, especially in a culture where we deride all other societies and mores and uphold our Ameritocracy as the pinacle of human civilization, blind to the limitations of this philosophy.
It has to stop. We need new leaders who are willing to be role models. Who will accept diversity and have integrity. One can hope.
||
posted by mW @ 5:57 PM
All this entire situation does is continue to erode the credibility of the entire Republican regime. These are people who claim no laws apply to them and they can do whatever they want to secure "freedom and democracy" and even when caught look for ways to get out of it. I'm sorry. But those in the generation above me always wonder why my generation and younger are generally thoughtless, petulant, and assume no responsibility for our actions. But the answer should be obvious. It's because we have such poor role models. People who don't see the parellels aren't opening their eyes. It only takes common sense to see that the actions of those above us are our models for behavior, especially in a culture where we deride all other societies and mores and uphold our Ameritocracy as the pinacle of human civilization, blind to the limitations of this philosophy.
It has to stop. We need new leaders who are willing to be role models. Who will accept diversity and have integrity. One can hope.
[top]