Republicans Are Just Sad
What's sadder is that Democrats and Independents just don't get it. Small government, slash taxes? Please. Where was the call for small government in the Bush years when the executive branch was exercising unprecedented powers? For all those that say he exercised enhanced "war powers" I ask what war he was fighting. No, seriously, point me to the declaration of war, authorized by Congress, that would give him those powers. (Part of the checks and balances built into the government by the Founders, who Republicans profess allegiance to when it is convenient, and ignore when it is not.) There wasn't one. Like in Korea (before the Vietnam War), America is fighting a "conflict" in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
So anyway, small government? Not when the Republicans are in power and control the agenda. They will legislate their religion, defy science, and diminish civil liberties through extensions of the police state. Their calls for small government only came about when Democrats took over. I.e., as a foil to the Democratic agenda, rather than adherence to any political philosophy. As for slashing taxes? Bush is the first president to slash taxes while engaged in such extensive military engagements, which is clearly fiscally irresponsible. And then, the strategy is to blame Obama for running a bloated federal government budget, and railing against him if he fails to renew the tax cuts. Again, it is a political ploy, not an exercise in political honesty.
Meanwhile, the first two years of Obama's administration, the Republicans do nothing but block his policies at every turn. Obama gets a few things passed, but not enough, considering he controls both houses of Congress, and even those bills are watered down thanks to Republican resistance. Now, with Republicans gaining seats at the midterm elections, the Republicans have avowed to block everything the Democrats attempt to pass until the next election. One can only hope that voters see this as detrimental to the functioning of the U.S. government, and a failure to cooperate a betrayal of their duties as legislators.
Sadly, the ancillary strategy of Republicans is to make intelligent voters so disgusted by the dysfunctional federal government that they disassociate from politics altogether; which, allows the so-called "grassroots", FoxNews-mob-inspired crowd to takeover. It's up to the rest of us not to let that happen.
Labels: politics, sad, strategy
|| posted by mW @ 9:56 AM
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 AMLanguage 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 PMFuck 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 PMMore 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 PMCockfighting
Whether people out of Louisiana realize it or not, one of the yearly legislative efforts is to finally ban cockfighting, as has been done in most other states. I mean to keep blogging about this, because I feel the whole media emphasis is wrong. Most of the complaints come from animal rights groups. They say it's cruel to the cocks. The defenders say it's part of a culture that mainstream America just doesn't get. I think everyone reading these articles is completely missing the point.
The moral quandary should have nothing to do with the birds. It's about us. I think if we stopped and asked the roosters, they would probably say they'd rather train to fight and kill and die in battle rather than be bred on farms to make chicken nuggets. Think about, they die no matter what. Maybe one's more more cruel. Maybe not. At least they die with pride in the ring. No, I'm worried about us. About what it says about our culture (our as in human, because these things happen in other states too) that we want to watch animals fight each other and die.
And also, this is not just about America. The interest in various ultimate fighting and extreme fighting and mixed styles fighting is growing worldwide. Are we so cultured to promote violence that this is our best entertainment? An old friend of mine said that he had studied with a professor teaching "psychohistory" I think it was called. His whole thesis was that you could tell everything you needed to know about a culture through its popular culture as a reflection of that culture's character.
I worry for all of us.
The moral quandary should have nothing to do with the birds. It's about us. I think if we stopped and asked the roosters, they would probably say they'd rather train to fight and kill and die in battle rather than be bred on farms to make chicken nuggets. Think about, they die no matter what. Maybe one's more more cruel. Maybe not. At least they die with pride in the ring. No, I'm worried about us. About what it says about our culture (our as in human, because these things happen in other states too) that we want to watch animals fight each other and die.
And also, this is not just about America. The interest in various ultimate fighting and extreme fighting and mixed styles fighting is growing worldwide. Are we so cultured to promote violence that this is our best entertainment? An old friend of mine said that he had studied with a professor teaching "psychohistory" I think it was called. His whole thesis was that you could tell everything you needed to know about a culture through its popular culture as a reflection of that culture's character.
I worry for all of us.
Labels: louisiana, morals, politics
|| posted by mW @ 5:32 PMThe Nightwatchman
Last night Sarah and I caught The Nightwatchman at the House of Blue's Parish Room in the French Quarter. That is, the folk-guitar solo act alter ego of Tom Morello, guitarist of Rage Against the Machine and more recently Audioslave. It was a fantastic show in many ways. The concept itself is great. Tom is not just a celebrity, but one who has used his success to benefit others, working hard to support the working class, civil liberties, and all who would be oppressed under any guise. At many of the protests and rallies he attended he realized that the songs sung were from the 60s and 70s, that there were no consciousness aware singable songs railing against the infinite varieties of social oppression that were so ubiquitous in those times. 
He wanted to change that. And perhaps the world a little. And so he wrote modern tales of political leftism, that dirty word in modern times, which conservatives have posed as a negative, rather than someone who is brave enough to fight for truth at any cost.
The Nightwatchman, as he calls himself now, was not only a great act musically, but the kind of person that inspires us all to be acts of change. And now I have one more album that I can listen to periodically and remind myself of my duty to make the world a better place. If not for myself, than for all those who are less fortunate than me. He reminds us that none of us have a right to complain about anything to which we have not actively struggled against.
He wanted to change that. And perhaps the world a little. And so he wrote modern tales of political leftism, that dirty word in modern times, which conservatives have posed as a negative, rather than someone who is brave enough to fight for truth at any cost.The Nightwatchman, as he calls himself now, was not only a great act musically, but the kind of person that inspires us all to be acts of change. And now I have one more album that I can listen to periodically and remind myself of my duty to make the world a better place. If not for myself, than for all those who are less fortunate than me. He reminds us that none of us have a right to complain about anything to which we have not actively struggled against.
Labels: music, New Olreans, politics
|| posted by mW @ 10:12 AMWhat are the Real Morals and Questions in the Abortion Debate?
Abortion rights activists are in trouble. Their terminology is failing. While they have successfully fended off the "anti-life" labels from their enemies, their own "pro-choice" label is becoming increasingly limited. First, there is the counter-attack on conservative forces, attempting to label "pro-lifers" as "anti-choice." This is a mistake. It exposes the weakness of the word choice. "Anti-choice" and "pro-choice" are bland. While the "right to choose" sounds nice, it does not link to a moral. The opposing side, for example, has a powerful tool in "pro-life." They have linked their political stand to a moral: saving a life. Now, who doesn't want to save lives? Too simple you say? In the end, yes. But most people don't get that far. For a world ruled by headlines, they have the advantage. The right to make choices in the end must be limited by the right to life. For example, we should all agree that murder is wrong. So, when can you rationalize taking a life? Do you see how the contextualization weakens the pro-abortion side?
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
Labels: abortion, choice, civil rights, freedom, language, politics
|| posted by mW @ 5:37 PMHate is Hate is Hate is Hate and Why are the Preachers the Last to Get It?
The House of Representatives yesterday passed legislation extending federal hate-crime legislation to include attacks resulting from bias against gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. This would expand the reach of a law that has existed since 1968, but has until now focused on race, color, religion, and national origin. In a political era fraught with scandals, and fixated on ill-conceived wars, it is fantastic to see a commitment by some politicians to protecting the ideals that this country was founded on. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Hate crimes have no place in America, no place in a nation where we pledge every morning 'with liberty and justice for all.' We must act to end hate crimes and save lives." Bravo. Bravo.
But not everyone feels the same way. According to the Washington Post, "the House's staunchest conservatives wrote to Bush, saying the legislation federalizes crime enforcement and 'segregates people into different groups...then seeks to either reward or punish these different groups using different standards." This is absolutely non-sensical dribble. First of all, this law does no more to "federalize" law enforcement. Hate crimes have been illegal to some extent since the late 1960s. Also, note that they do not use any legal terms, such as "constitutional" in their complaint. This is because they full well know that section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress sweeping powers to legislate just this kind of thing. Just who do these hypocrites think they are? Are not these the same politicians voting for the Patriot Act and its extension, the most sweeping form of federal law enforcement legislation this country has ever seen? Or in favor of President Bush being able to set up wiretaps on anyone, without even a warrant? Second, they think that this law "segregates" people into groups? I'm sorry, but this law does not tell whites and blacks to be separate groups or force gays and straights apart. America segregates itself just fine, thank you. Sadly, American culture has long identified itself by such distinctions. All this law does is stipulate that if a person hurts another person with a motivation based on these distinctions, the act is more heinous than otherwise, and should be punished accordingly. Thirdly, this extension of an already existing law does not treat groups by different standards. All it says is if you hate a gay person and hit them or kill them because of that bias, you will be subject to punishment above and beyond the penalty for hitting or killing someone. The same would apply to a gay person who hits or kills a straight person because they hate straights. The law applies equally to any person in any group, majority or minority, who acts in hatred to hurt a member of another group. These politicians, and their statements, make no sense once examined under a microscope.
But the story doesn't end there, as you knew it wouldn't. Conservative religious groups are also concerned, reports the Washington Post. They're afraid "the bill would make criminals of clergymen who speak out against homosexuality, then inadvertently inspire violence from misguided followers." Listen, laypeople of America: no priest wrote that statement. Not one. It was written by lawyers or public relations specialists with knowledge of the law. First, they are aware that inducing another to commit a crime can be a crime. Second, they use the word "inadvertent" to avoid any imputed intent to the priest. Lastly, they note that not only does the priest not intend harm to anyone, but if harm did actually result, the acting person was clearly "misguided." Bullshit. I can't say it enough times. Bullshit. What does anyone expect when they counsel that an entire segment of society is wrong? They know, and they're covering their ass. I don't know why they cling to this crap, but I can explain why they should know better.
Here's the simple logic. It's all heirarchical. Religious persons have long been concerned about war. If "thou shall not kill" is a key commandment from one's god, what does that mean for the soul of those drafted into wars? Thus Catholic Catechisms, among other sources, responded that as long as the war was just, and one was faithfully obeying one's duty to one's country, it was essentially all good. So, killing is okay if there's a good reason. I.e., millions of dead to stop a great evil like Adolf Hitler is acceptable. By analogy, abortion is murder. Thus some people believed they could attack or even kill abortion doctors to prevent thousands of murders. Seemed a fair trade-off. And now, you say gays are sinners by virtue of their "choice" to be gay. (As if with all the prejudice and difficulties that come with being gay, it's somehow a "choice." They're called genes. Some people are just born that way. As one character says in the movie, "Chasing Amy," "it just feels right." Whether straight or gay, or somewhere in between, people just do what their own biology dictates. For the same reason that humans are attracted to other humans, rather than say, dogs, we are each attracted to certain sexes, man or woman, despite what our own sex is.) But the use of the term "choice" is just a way to get around knowing that people would not hate gays if they were born that way. I recommend segments of George Lakoff's, a Berkeley cognitive linguist, book Moral Politics for more on this choice of words used by religious groups. Yet when these religious groups indicate to their congregation that an entire segment of society doesn't have a right to exist, they cannot honestly expect some not to act on those words-especially with the weight given to words of the clergy by the faithful. They have to know. Especially after the issues with abortion doctors, these religious groups have to know. So in the end, this resistance to hate-crime legislation is no different that the priestly sexual abuse scandals. Sweep up culpability under the rug, cover your own ass, and most importantly, protect your money. But they of all people, should know that hate is hate is hate. But money changes quite a lot.
One of the most successful anti-hate groups in America is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They not only fight for civil rights, but pursue aggressors in civil lawsuits. For example, when the Ku Klux Klan killed a black man, the SPLC helped the man's family file a wrongful death suit not only against the men convicted in criminal court of his murder, but of the Klan itself. They ended up confiscating the group's regional headquarters as part of the settlement. This is how to fight hate today. Bankrupt the haters. Because if a person is convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court, it is an almost automatic civil suit victory for wrongful death, where the burden of proof is the lesser "preponderance of the evidence." So if someone's church tells them that gays are evil, and that person kills a gay person, I say attach a civil suit not only to the person, but the church. While society may have a special respect for the clergy in this country that might deem this improper, I say the hell with that. No one feels sorry when the Catholic Church forks over millions because they hid the fact that some dozens of priests molested hundreds of kids. Same thing here. If you preach hate, you SHOULD be held liable, no matter who you are. And certainly, plenty of hard working Americans, who barely scrape by, might be surprised to learn that the churches who solicit their donations every week from the pew, have invested that money to make billions. Not each individual church, of course, but when sectarian groups put together their funds, it's a dirty little secret of money economics. Any major religious group has significant bankrolls. And they don't even have to pay taxes on it like you and I.
But even beyond the money, who are these preachers anyway, and what Bible do they read? Even if you were ignorant enough to believe gayness a sin, wouldn't Jesus be living with them, not hurling stones at them? Didn't he hang out with thieves and prostitutes and counsel mercy for all? And guess what, those are professions: things about which people have choices. There can be nothing wrong with-and indeed can only be called alignment with one's nature (as opposed to foolish claims of the opposite)-being who you were born to be. Gay people forced to pretend they're not who they are suffer a hell on earth as it is. Let's just let them be who they are and find happiness. Aren't they promised at least the pursuit of that? Oh yeah, and they deserve life and liberty too. So let's punish those who would take away any of those rights: life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. What else could be more American?
So the moral of this post is that hate has no place in America. Call your senator and convince them to pass this bill in the Senate. And then write the White House and tell them that a lame duck president with twenty-some percent approval has no right to stand in the way of a Congress with the mandate of the people in general, let alone stand in the way of making hate-crimes illegal.
But not everyone feels the same way. According to the Washington Post, "the House's staunchest conservatives wrote to Bush, saying the legislation federalizes crime enforcement and 'segregates people into different groups...then seeks to either reward or punish these different groups using different standards." This is absolutely non-sensical dribble. First of all, this law does no more to "federalize" law enforcement. Hate crimes have been illegal to some extent since the late 1960s. Also, note that they do not use any legal terms, such as "constitutional" in their complaint. This is because they full well know that section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress sweeping powers to legislate just this kind of thing. Just who do these hypocrites think they are? Are not these the same politicians voting for the Patriot Act and its extension, the most sweeping form of federal law enforcement legislation this country has ever seen? Or in favor of President Bush being able to set up wiretaps on anyone, without even a warrant? Second, they think that this law "segregates" people into groups? I'm sorry, but this law does not tell whites and blacks to be separate groups or force gays and straights apart. America segregates itself just fine, thank you. Sadly, American culture has long identified itself by such distinctions. All this law does is stipulate that if a person hurts another person with a motivation based on these distinctions, the act is more heinous than otherwise, and should be punished accordingly. Thirdly, this extension of an already existing law does not treat groups by different standards. All it says is if you hate a gay person and hit them or kill them because of that bias, you will be subject to punishment above and beyond the penalty for hitting or killing someone. The same would apply to a gay person who hits or kills a straight person because they hate straights. The law applies equally to any person in any group, majority or minority, who acts in hatred to hurt a member of another group. These politicians, and their statements, make no sense once examined under a microscope.
But the story doesn't end there, as you knew it wouldn't. Conservative religious groups are also concerned, reports the Washington Post. They're afraid "the bill would make criminals of clergymen who speak out against homosexuality, then inadvertently inspire violence from misguided followers." Listen, laypeople of America: no priest wrote that statement. Not one. It was written by lawyers or public relations specialists with knowledge of the law. First, they are aware that inducing another to commit a crime can be a crime. Second, they use the word "inadvertent" to avoid any imputed intent to the priest. Lastly, they note that not only does the priest not intend harm to anyone, but if harm did actually result, the acting person was clearly "misguided." Bullshit. I can't say it enough times. Bullshit. What does anyone expect when they counsel that an entire segment of society is wrong? They know, and they're covering their ass. I don't know why they cling to this crap, but I can explain why they should know better.
Here's the simple logic. It's all heirarchical. Religious persons have long been concerned about war. If "thou shall not kill" is a key commandment from one's god, what does that mean for the soul of those drafted into wars? Thus Catholic Catechisms, among other sources, responded that as long as the war was just, and one was faithfully obeying one's duty to one's country, it was essentially all good. So, killing is okay if there's a good reason. I.e., millions of dead to stop a great evil like Adolf Hitler is acceptable. By analogy, abortion is murder. Thus some people believed they could attack or even kill abortion doctors to prevent thousands of murders. Seemed a fair trade-off. And now, you say gays are sinners by virtue of their "choice" to be gay. (As if with all the prejudice and difficulties that come with being gay, it's somehow a "choice." They're called genes. Some people are just born that way. As one character says in the movie, "Chasing Amy," "it just feels right." Whether straight or gay, or somewhere in between, people just do what their own biology dictates. For the same reason that humans are attracted to other humans, rather than say, dogs, we are each attracted to certain sexes, man or woman, despite what our own sex is.) But the use of the term "choice" is just a way to get around knowing that people would not hate gays if they were born that way. I recommend segments of George Lakoff's, a Berkeley cognitive linguist, book Moral Politics for more on this choice of words used by religious groups. Yet when these religious groups indicate to their congregation that an entire segment of society doesn't have a right to exist, they cannot honestly expect some not to act on those words-especially with the weight given to words of the clergy by the faithful. They have to know. Especially after the issues with abortion doctors, these religious groups have to know. So in the end, this resistance to hate-crime legislation is no different that the priestly sexual abuse scandals. Sweep up culpability under the rug, cover your own ass, and most importantly, protect your money. But they of all people, should know that hate is hate is hate. But money changes quite a lot.
One of the most successful anti-hate groups in America is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They not only fight for civil rights, but pursue aggressors in civil lawsuits. For example, when the Ku Klux Klan killed a black man, the SPLC helped the man's family file a wrongful death suit not only against the men convicted in criminal court of his murder, but of the Klan itself. They ended up confiscating the group's regional headquarters as part of the settlement. This is how to fight hate today. Bankrupt the haters. Because if a person is convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court, it is an almost automatic civil suit victory for wrongful death, where the burden of proof is the lesser "preponderance of the evidence." So if someone's church tells them that gays are evil, and that person kills a gay person, I say attach a civil suit not only to the person, but the church. While society may have a special respect for the clergy in this country that might deem this improper, I say the hell with that. No one feels sorry when the Catholic Church forks over millions because they hid the fact that some dozens of priests molested hundreds of kids. Same thing here. If you preach hate, you SHOULD be held liable, no matter who you are. And certainly, plenty of hard working Americans, who barely scrape by, might be surprised to learn that the churches who solicit their donations every week from the pew, have invested that money to make billions. Not each individual church, of course, but when sectarian groups put together their funds, it's a dirty little secret of money economics. Any major religious group has significant bankrolls. And they don't even have to pay taxes on it like you and I.
But even beyond the money, who are these preachers anyway, and what Bible do they read? Even if you were ignorant enough to believe gayness a sin, wouldn't Jesus be living with them, not hurling stones at them? Didn't he hang out with thieves and prostitutes and counsel mercy for all? And guess what, those are professions: things about which people have choices. There can be nothing wrong with-and indeed can only be called alignment with one's nature (as opposed to foolish claims of the opposite)-being who you were born to be. Gay people forced to pretend they're not who they are suffer a hell on earth as it is. Let's just let them be who they are and find happiness. Aren't they promised at least the pursuit of that? Oh yeah, and they deserve life and liberty too. So let's punish those who would take away any of those rights: life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. What else could be more American?
So the moral of this post is that hate has no place in America. Call your senator and convince them to pass this bill in the Senate. And then write the White House and tell them that a lame duck president with twenty-some percent approval has no right to stand in the way of a Congress with the mandate of the people in general, let alone stand in the way of making hate-crimes illegal.
Labels: civil rights, congress, gay, politics, religion
|| posted by mW @ 8:12 AMToo Smart?
Plenty of people are upset at the current state of this country. In one sense, that's no surprise. People always complain. But in another sense, it seems heightened now. The Bush administration's approval rating has dropped into the high-twenties, an all time low. A lot of smart people I know constantly ask how so many people could be "so stupid" to fall for the tactics of this administration.
However, more and more, I feel the opposite is the problem. It's not that there are a lot of dumb people out there, too dim to notice the perspicuous manipulations of a devious regime. No. I'm starting more and more to think that there are too many smart people out there, controlling perception, managing spin, and manipulating representations in order to establish what the rest of us call reality. Our country is built on laws. But inherent to American culture is that whatever you can get away with to succeed is okay. Therefore, even moreso, whatever you can get away with legally to succeed is okay.
Just because something is not illegal does not make it right. Maybe insurance lawyers can find a loophole to tell someone that the insurance policy they've paid for twenty years doesn't cover their damage; maybe pharmaceutical companies can pay for pretty ads to make people ask their doctors for drugs they don't need; and maybe selling guns to Third World countries fills the coffers of this and other countries: but maybe none of those things are right.
No. We definitely have too many people keeping us busy with a surfeit of information, anesthetizing television, and sense numbing video games: while I have no objection to the content of any of these things, the problem that is it all functions to keep our attention off the things that matter. No matter one's education, every person has an instinct for what is right and wrong. But we only can care about it if we know about it. So no. Education is not the problem. How we use our educations is the problem. It's a moral problem. A matter of ethics. Choose the word you like. But something in our culture fosters those that can live without it. And that's a problem with which we all are being force to live.
However, more and more, I feel the opposite is the problem. It's not that there are a lot of dumb people out there, too dim to notice the perspicuous manipulations of a devious regime. No. I'm starting more and more to think that there are too many smart people out there, controlling perception, managing spin, and manipulating representations in order to establish what the rest of us call reality. Our country is built on laws. But inherent to American culture is that whatever you can get away with to succeed is okay. Therefore, even moreso, whatever you can get away with legally to succeed is okay.
Just because something is not illegal does not make it right. Maybe insurance lawyers can find a loophole to tell someone that the insurance policy they've paid for twenty years doesn't cover their damage; maybe pharmaceutical companies can pay for pretty ads to make people ask their doctors for drugs they don't need; and maybe selling guns to Third World countries fills the coffers of this and other countries: but maybe none of those things are right.
No. We definitely have too many people keeping us busy with a surfeit of information, anesthetizing television, and sense numbing video games: while I have no objection to the content of any of these things, the problem that is it all functions to keep our attention off the things that matter. No matter one's education, every person has an instinct for what is right and wrong. But we only can care about it if we know about it. So no. Education is not the problem. How we use our educations is the problem. It's a moral problem. A matter of ethics. Choose the word you like. But something in our culture fosters those that can live without it. And that's a problem with which we all are being force to live.
Labels: business, ethics, morals, politics
|| posted by mW @ 9:10 AMCarhart and Abortion
In the just handed down U.S. Supreme Court case of Carhart, the court upheld the ban on the so-called "partial-birth abortions" (see my earlier posts for refutation of that very label). This is a not-so-subtle battle in the outright war on the right of abortion. Do not be fooled that this only about one procedure. It's just one more step for these people to eradicate this right altogether.
Sadly, this is one more result that falls directly at the feet of each pro-Bush voter in 2004. I tried to warn people that the presidential nominees were irrelevant to the long-term civil rights of this country, but the ability to name Supreme Court justices would last for decades. Bush's two right-wing appointees, Roberts and Alito, both voted with the 5-4 majority (and based on her voting record, the departed O'Connor likely would have sided with the minority). A majority, who according to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, offered "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. This is not the first 5-4 decision that these Roberts and Alito have swung.
While I understand the viewpoint of religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder, and thus must be stopped at all costs, they need to understand the viewpoint of persons with different religious beliefs. What is obvious to them is just spin to me. "Partial-birth abortion" was and is called "DX." What some see as a "baby" others see as a "fetus," and yet others see as a mere collection of cells: what the Roe court called a "potential life." Those that have the ability to think for themselves have the right NOT to see this as murder, but as the control of possibilities.
That is, there is the problem that abortion isn't just abortion, it's about fitting women into historical gender roles. That they should be mothers, life-givers, servants. Right. That thinking should be dead. Women have proved more than capable to do anything men can. As such, they should be given the right to choose how to use that possibility by controlling what happens to their bodies. It's impossible not to see abortion as a piece of that male-dominated cultural hegemony.
Moreover, this attitude is emblematic of male attempts not only to control women, but to control women's sexuality. There is the concept that women themselves are at fault for having sex. Right. I've yet to see any serious attack on men at that level. Several years back, there was a big outrage against "teen premarital sex." A major magazine inquired to many of these conservative figures (Republican and Democrat) to comment on "adult premarital sex." None would. So if you don't want to ban all sex, what are you doing? Trying to use it as a method of control, as an apparatus of power.
Sex is what it is. Use it as you will. Don't let anyone judge you for it. And don't let it dictate your possibility. Man or woman. And be wary of any sideways attack on the right to have an abortion, no matter how inconsequential or tangental to that right it may seem.
Sadly, this is one more result that falls directly at the feet of each pro-Bush voter in 2004. I tried to warn people that the presidential nominees were irrelevant to the long-term civil rights of this country, but the ability to name Supreme Court justices would last for decades. Bush's two right-wing appointees, Roberts and Alito, both voted with the 5-4 majority (and based on her voting record, the departed O'Connor likely would have sided with the minority). A majority, who according to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, offered "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. This is not the first 5-4 decision that these Roberts and Alito have swung.
While I understand the viewpoint of religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder, and thus must be stopped at all costs, they need to understand the viewpoint of persons with different religious beliefs. What is obvious to them is just spin to me. "Partial-birth abortion" was and is called "DX." What some see as a "baby" others see as a "fetus," and yet others see as a mere collection of cells: what the Roe court called a "potential life." Those that have the ability to think for themselves have the right NOT to see this as murder, but as the control of possibilities.
That is, there is the problem that abortion isn't just abortion, it's about fitting women into historical gender roles. That they should be mothers, life-givers, servants. Right. That thinking should be dead. Women have proved more than capable to do anything men can. As such, they should be given the right to choose how to use that possibility by controlling what happens to their bodies. It's impossible not to see abortion as a piece of that male-dominated cultural hegemony.
Moreover, this attitude is emblematic of male attempts not only to control women, but to control women's sexuality. There is the concept that women themselves are at fault for having sex. Right. I've yet to see any serious attack on men at that level. Several years back, there was a big outrage against "teen premarital sex." A major magazine inquired to many of these conservative figures (Republican and Democrat) to comment on "adult premarital sex." None would. So if you don't want to ban all sex, what are you doing? Trying to use it as a method of control, as an apparatus of power.
Sex is what it is. Use it as you will. Don't let anyone judge you for it. And don't let it dictate your possibility. Man or woman. And be wary of any sideways attack on the right to have an abortion, no matter how inconsequential or tangental to that right it may seem.
Labels: abortion, gender, politics, sex
|| posted by mW @ 12:13 PMThe Buck Stops Where?
For almost as long as the Iraq Civil War raged post-invasion, critics have called for (now former-) Defense Secretary of State's resignation. Ultimately, it came. "Scooter" Libby was just convicted for lying about the revelation of a CIA operative's identity. The White House blamed the CIA for "intelligence failures" regarding the status of Iraq pre-invasion, yet when one puts together all the information available it is quite clear that they knew this going into the matter. The NSA has got into trouble over its warrantless wiretapping, and now, FBI surveillance has been found to have transgressed the already broad powers provided by the Patriot Act. Then, of course, there is the flap over the federal prosecutors fired for not persecuting democrats. (And don't get me started on how this affected my Congressperson, William Jefferson.)
So when is America going to ask who's responsible? Are all these high-level secretaries and chiefs of staff just rogue agents, acting alone? Or is it an orchestrated theater of deception and misuse of power? Personally, I see a pattern, and it doesn't take a genius to see it. When Democrats stormed back to control of both houses of Congress, Republicans first response was well, you better not use this as a bogus political haymaker to impeach Bush. Why not? Clinton lied about where he put his penis-an act that physically hurt no one and emotionally hurt only a few-and his credibility was so under attack that he was impeached and almost forced from office. Bush's lies (yes multiple) put this country into an unnecessary war, killing thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, created civil war in a country where order had once ruled (albeit not the best kind of order, but most likely more importantly here an order that was opposed to American goals). Now the whole Middle East is destabilized while the U.S. reels from a series of high level political scandals, and economic fraternizing that led to commercial favoritism over results, which left America with problems like substandard construction in military projects overseas (to aid companies friendly to the White House) and amazingly poor health care for those men and women who have sacrificed in those same places (e.g., the Walter Read situation).
So when do we ask where the Buck stops? And when do we decide that where a man or woman puts their private parts and who they decide to share such experiences with, are much less important than waging wars on other countries and affecting the outcomes of real people's lives just to make a few bucks on the side, to make a friend happy (so he can make the money), or even through misguided good intentions? Even if wholeheartedly done to better America and the world, when do the rest of us get to say, you've gone to far and betrayed everything you were trying to protect?
I say now.
So when is America going to ask who's responsible? Are all these high-level secretaries and chiefs of staff just rogue agents, acting alone? Or is it an orchestrated theater of deception and misuse of power? Personally, I see a pattern, and it doesn't take a genius to see it. When Democrats stormed back to control of both houses of Congress, Republicans first response was well, you better not use this as a bogus political haymaker to impeach Bush. Why not? Clinton lied about where he put his penis-an act that physically hurt no one and emotionally hurt only a few-and his credibility was so under attack that he was impeached and almost forced from office. Bush's lies (yes multiple) put this country into an unnecessary war, killing thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, created civil war in a country where order had once ruled (albeit not the best kind of order, but most likely more importantly here an order that was opposed to American goals). Now the whole Middle East is destabilized while the U.S. reels from a series of high level political scandals, and economic fraternizing that led to commercial favoritism over results, which left America with problems like substandard construction in military projects overseas (to aid companies friendly to the White House) and amazingly poor health care for those men and women who have sacrificed in those same places (e.g., the Walter Read situation).
So when do we ask where the Buck stops? And when do we decide that where a man or woman puts their private parts and who they decide to share such experiences with, are much less important than waging wars on other countries and affecting the outcomes of real people's lives just to make a few bucks on the side, to make a friend happy (so he can make the money), or even through misguided good intentions? Even if wholeheartedly done to better America and the world, when do the rest of us get to say, you've gone to far and betrayed everything you were trying to protect?
I say now.
Labels: Bush, impeach, Iraq, politics, responsibility
|| posted by mW @ 12:30 PM[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010