Today I was listening to the Sirius Satellite Radio, to the talk show hosted by Mike Church, on my way to work.
He was talking about Mardis Gras.
He was pointing out how wonderful it is that after this short period of time after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was throwing the biggest party in America.
Then came the News Break.
An interviewer from ABC News asked a New Orleans Resident how she felt about the Celebration going on on Bourbon Street.
Her response was "Sure they Partyin' over there, but what about tha peoples who still sufferin' over here?"
I screamed at the radio, "They need ta get up off they butts, and quit sufferin'!!"
Then Mike Church continued his coverage of the party going on all around him, and continued to recount his participation in it so far, and to announce his plans to participate in it tonight,(Fat Tuesday) and his plans to party for the rest of the week.
I was struck by this thought.
The woman in the News Cast had a valid point.
If there are still people suffering in New Orleans, then this is no time to party.
Couldn't the money being spent on Alcohol and Beads and Hookers and food and nudity and debauchery and gambling and sin and partying be better spent helping the needy, helpless, unfortunate victims of Hurricane Katrina?
I mean, where is the compassion of these revelers?
Don't they know that people have lost EVERYTHING?
How can they party at a time like this?
This leads me to the only logical conclusion.
The people of New Orleans do not care about Black People.
No wait...
If the data collected SINCE Katrina is to be believed, then more White People were affected by the Hurricane than Black People...
So the people of New Orleans do not care about White People??
We all need to pitch in and help these White People out, right?
Three Hundred Billion Dollars of taxpayer money promised to help the people of New Orleans.
Three Hundred Thousand Million Dollars.
Three.
Hundred.
Thousand.
Thousand...
Thousand.....
Dollars.
Taxpayer money.
And they are having a party. The biggest party in America.
To me this seems to be the epitome of misplaced priorities.
If they can afford to have a party, then everything must be back to normal, and the Taxpayer obligation to help the people of New Orleans has been fully realized, right?
Or are we, the taxpayers subsidizing their party?
With the money that we worked for?
Isn't Big Government Great??!!
Tell me again what the Constitutional provision for Federal assistance for Natural Disaster victims is...
I can't seem to find it...
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
Controversy, Crap and Confusion...
Okay, let me tell you what happens now...
The UAE has requested, or agreed to, or however you want to look at it, an additional 45 day period during which the loudmouth dunder-head politicians in Washington who depend on the Media to find out what is going on in America will be brought up to speed on the details of the Dubai Ports World deal, and they will learn that it does not, and never has posed a National Security risk. They will then take this opportunity to attempt to expand their own power because of it.
When the 45 days are up, and they have exhausted the opportunity to expand Congressional power, they will flock to the cameras and microphones and announce that they have straightened it all out, and thanks to them, the deal can now go through, and we have nothing to worry about because they are on the job.
Then they will all rush home to watch themselves on Television.
This deal has been in the works since October of LAST YEAR. It was reported THEN in the Wall Street Journal. Look it up.
It only became a crisis last week. It only became a crisis when the Media realized that they could not make a criminal out of Dick Cheney over a hunting accident.
The week before that it was the NSA Domestic Spying Program.
The week before that, it was Scooter Libby.
None of these Scandals have removed the President from office. None of them have increased the popularity of a single Democrat.
None of it has worked.
None of it.
So now we move on to the next scandal, and we will all be informed how the whole Republican Party is a bunch of crooks and we should throw the bums out.
Here is this week's scandal.
By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t
Report Friday 24 February 2006
The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.
The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.
Sources close to the probe said the White House “discovered” the emails two weeks ago and turned them over to Fitzgerald last week.
The sources added that the emails could prove that Cheney lied to FBI investigators when he was interviewed about the leak in early 2004. Cheney said that he was unaware of any effort to discredit Wilson or unmask his wife’s undercover status to reporters.
(Hat tip to Erudite Redneck. - TBC )
It won't matter that the Fitzgerald Commission never uncovered any evidence that any crime was committed, or that Valerie Plame Flame Wilson-Plame was not a covert agent, or that there was no National Security issue with this case at all, or that the whole investigation was unconstitutional.
This is the Scandal Du Jour.
Don't get bogged down with the facts... Don't try to educate yourself about it...
Just recite the talking points. Just repeat what the News People tell you to.
Don't form your OWN opinion...
Buy into the hype!
The UAE has requested, or agreed to, or however you want to look at it, an additional 45 day period during which the loudmouth dunder-head politicians in Washington who depend on the Media to find out what is going on in America will be brought up to speed on the details of the Dubai Ports World deal, and they will learn that it does not, and never has posed a National Security risk. They will then take this opportunity to attempt to expand their own power because of it.
When the 45 days are up, and they have exhausted the opportunity to expand Congressional power, they will flock to the cameras and microphones and announce that they have straightened it all out, and thanks to them, the deal can now go through, and we have nothing to worry about because they are on the job.
Then they will all rush home to watch themselves on Television.
This deal has been in the works since October of LAST YEAR. It was reported THEN in the Wall Street Journal. Look it up.
It only became a crisis last week. It only became a crisis when the Media realized that they could not make a criminal out of Dick Cheney over a hunting accident.
The week before that it was the NSA Domestic Spying Program.
The week before that, it was Scooter Libby.
None of these Scandals have removed the President from office. None of them have increased the popularity of a single Democrat.
None of it has worked.
None of it.
So now we move on to the next scandal, and we will all be informed how the whole Republican Party is a bunch of crooks and we should throw the bums out.
Here is this week's scandal.
By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t
Report Friday 24 February 2006
The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.
The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.
Sources close to the probe said the White House “discovered” the emails two weeks ago and turned them over to Fitzgerald last week.
The sources added that the emails could prove that Cheney lied to FBI investigators when he was interviewed about the leak in early 2004. Cheney said that he was unaware of any effort to discredit Wilson or unmask his wife’s undercover status to reporters.
(Hat tip to Erudite Redneck. - TBC )
It won't matter that the Fitzgerald Commission never uncovered any evidence that any crime was committed, or that Valerie Plame Flame Wilson-Plame was not a covert agent, or that there was no National Security issue with this case at all, or that the whole investigation was unconstitutional.
This is the Scandal Du Jour.
Don't get bogged down with the facts... Don't try to educate yourself about it...
Just recite the talking points. Just repeat what the News People tell you to.
Don't form your OWN opinion...
Buy into the hype!
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Well, If Jimmy Carter Likes It...
Well, the tin-foil hat is back on the hat-rack, for now, and I have had some time to think about this whole Port Deal a little more. (I expect the hat-rack to have a nervous breakdown any minute...)
I have a question for all of you, and I want you to consider your answer very carefully...
Are there any GOOD Muslims in the world? Are there any GOOD Arabs?
Or are they ALL Terrorists?
If there are any good Arab Muslims, Isn't it in our best interests, as a nation that has been attacked by Terrorists and are currently conducting a War on Terror, to make friends with the good ones?
If they are ALL Terrorists, then why aren't we all clammoring for the Government to round them all up, or deport them, and get them from among us, in the name of National Security?
We can't single them out for searches at Airports because THAT would be Racial Profiling, but when they win a contract to manage some of our ports, THEN we all have a fit?
Isn't that Racism?
If it's not, then why isn't it?
I have learned a little more about the deal since I wrote my post last night, and I am not nearly as nervous about it as I was then.
First of all, what has really happened is that a British Corporation has sold their contract to a Corporation based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.
Great Britain is one of our strongest allies in the War on Terror.
So is the UAE.
The UAE Corporation already controls most of the ports on the other end, where the freight coming to America is loaded.
There is no American Corporation that is interested in assuming this contract. Not ONE.
From what I have been able to discover, there are only three Corporations in the World that DO do this type of work now. One in Hong Kong, (that's China...) one in Singapore, and the UAE Firm that won the bid. (The British have gotten out of the port-managing business, which is why the contract was up for bids in the first place.) (And Halliburton doesn't do this kind of work.)
Here is another factor at play in all of this. The News Media is taking every opportunity to mischaracterize this situation, to the point that it is very difficult to get any real information about it. The News man at my local Radio Station announced several times today that "Both Republican and Democrat Lawmakers in Washington are Questioning the Bush Administration's decision to turn over Security at several U.S. Ports to a Dubai based firm in the United Arab Emirates."
Did you catch that?
Nobody is turning the SECURITY of anything over to anybody. That statement is a misrepresentation of the facts.
So how do I feel NOW about the deal?
I'm not sure. It bothers me still that at this particular point in History, when every Republican needs to be on their absolute best behavior, for the good of America, we have to defend something that is as much of a political Turkey as this deal is.
But here is something else that I know.
The President has access to a lot more information than I do. And he gets the raw feed. I have to settle for what I can decipher from what the Media feeds me, and try to reconstruct the real truth from the tidbits that make it through the filters that the Leftist Press have put into place.
I also believe that the President wants to do things that will make America safer, no matter if it is politically popular or not, as evidenced by the NSA scandal that his Administration has recently weathered (successfully).
I trust President George W. Bush.
I have a question for all of you, and I want you to consider your answer very carefully...
Are there any GOOD Muslims in the world? Are there any GOOD Arabs?
Or are they ALL Terrorists?
If there are any good Arab Muslims, Isn't it in our best interests, as a nation that has been attacked by Terrorists and are currently conducting a War on Terror, to make friends with the good ones?
If they are ALL Terrorists, then why aren't we all clammoring for the Government to round them all up, or deport them, and get them from among us, in the name of National Security?
We can't single them out for searches at Airports because THAT would be Racial Profiling, but when they win a contract to manage some of our ports, THEN we all have a fit?
Isn't that Racism?
If it's not, then why isn't it?
I have learned a little more about the deal since I wrote my post last night, and I am not nearly as nervous about it as I was then.
First of all, what has really happened is that a British Corporation has sold their contract to a Corporation based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.
Great Britain is one of our strongest allies in the War on Terror.
So is the UAE.
The UAE Corporation already controls most of the ports on the other end, where the freight coming to America is loaded.
There is no American Corporation that is interested in assuming this contract. Not ONE.
From what I have been able to discover, there are only three Corporations in the World that DO do this type of work now. One in Hong Kong, (that's China...) one in Singapore, and the UAE Firm that won the bid. (The British have gotten out of the port-managing business, which is why the contract was up for bids in the first place.) (And Halliburton doesn't do this kind of work.)
Here is another factor at play in all of this. The News Media is taking every opportunity to mischaracterize this situation, to the point that it is very difficult to get any real information about it. The News man at my local Radio Station announced several times today that "Both Republican and Democrat Lawmakers in Washington are Questioning the Bush Administration's decision to turn over Security at several U.S. Ports to a Dubai based firm in the United Arab Emirates."
Did you catch that?
Nobody is turning the SECURITY of anything over to anybody. That statement is a misrepresentation of the facts.
So how do I feel NOW about the deal?
I'm not sure. It bothers me still that at this particular point in History, when every Republican needs to be on their absolute best behavior, for the good of America, we have to defend something that is as much of a political Turkey as this deal is.
But here is something else that I know.
The President has access to a lot more information than I do. And he gets the raw feed. I have to settle for what I can decipher from what the Media feeds me, and try to reconstruct the real truth from the tidbits that make it through the filters that the Leftist Press have put into place.
I also believe that the President wants to do things that will make America safer, no matter if it is politically popular or not, as evidenced by the NSA scandal that his Administration has recently weathered (successfully).
I trust President George W. Bush.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Does This Seem Kooky To You?
I'll go ahead and warn you right off the bat...
I've got my tin-foil hat on today.
Had it on all day.
I have a tendancy to dream up conspiracy theories, and wild ones at that. Always have. I can't help it. Sometimes logic and reason just can't explain the things that I see happening around me.
Here is the conspiracy theory that has been gnawing at the corner of my brain all day today...
There seems to me to be a deal of some kind between Republicans and Democrats in our National Government to keep the House and Senate pretty evenly divided.
The 2006 Congressional and Senatorial Elections looked like they were shaping up to be a bloodbath for Democrats last week. The "Controversy, Crap and Confusion" Press, or CCCP for short, (I'm not going to call them the "Mainstream Press" anymore, because the Blogosphere and Talk Radio have become more mainstream than the Antique Media is now...) made absolute asses of themselves all week long over the Dick Cheney Shooting Incident, and Democrats en mass rushed to the microphones and TV cameras to display their lack of class and statesmanship.
It looked like the elections were a wash for Republicans.
But that was last week.
This week, we have this to deal with.
The headline reads The Wrong Way to Guard the Ports ...
It's all about the sale of the operations of several U.S. ports to a state owned corporation from the United Arab Emirates based in Dubai.
Not the SECURITY of the ports (which is what the Democrats want you to believe), the OPERATIONS. Paying the power bills. Negotiating the contracts with the Labor Unions. Keeping the parking lots and loading yards paved, scheduling the trucks and ships.
The security will still be handled by the Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard. Same as always.
But that won't stop the Democrats from casting this whole situation as the Bush administration putting the Fox in charge of the Hen House, whether that is actually the case or not.
If President Bush was aware of this as it developed, and chose to do nothing about it, then maybe he really is too naive and simple to be the figurehead of the Republican Party. If he was told by his advisors that this would be okay, then he needs to fire everyone within 500 feet of him, and start over with all new advisors. If he didn't understand the political ramifications of this situation, then I don't know how to help him.
He should know better.
This is custom-made for Democrats in an Election Year.
Republicans could not have handed the Democrats a better stick to beat them with if they had assembled a Bi-partisan Commission to design it.
This looks for all the world to me like the Republicans in general, and the Bush Administration particularly are throwing a political bone to the Democrat Party.
This looks for all the world to me like an attempt to maintain Governmental gridlock.
I have long had a suspicion that our elected leaders do not really run things, but that there are a handful of people hiding behind the chair in the Oval Office who really control things, no matter who we elect, and this looks like the type of thing that they would cause.
How else would you explain it?
I think that I will chose not to let it worry me very much, though...
As a general rule (if History is any teacher...), you can believe that if Moveon.org is upset about it, it is probably alright. If Americans Coming Together is screaming about it, it is probably a good thing for America. If the commentators on the Daily KOS are coming unglued about it, then we should go with it.
If these groups are FOR something, it probably is a bad idea.
(If History is any teacher...)
I've got my tin-foil hat on today.
Had it on all day.
I have a tendancy to dream up conspiracy theories, and wild ones at that. Always have. I can't help it. Sometimes logic and reason just can't explain the things that I see happening around me.
Here is the conspiracy theory that has been gnawing at the corner of my brain all day today...
There seems to me to be a deal of some kind between Republicans and Democrats in our National Government to keep the House and Senate pretty evenly divided.
The 2006 Congressional and Senatorial Elections looked like they were shaping up to be a bloodbath for Democrats last week. The "Controversy, Crap and Confusion" Press, or CCCP for short, (I'm not going to call them the "Mainstream Press" anymore, because the Blogosphere and Talk Radio have become more mainstream than the Antique Media is now...) made absolute asses of themselves all week long over the Dick Cheney Shooting Incident, and Democrats en mass rushed to the microphones and TV cameras to display their lack of class and statesmanship.
It looked like the elections were a wash for Republicans.
But that was last week.
This week, we have this to deal with.
The headline reads The Wrong Way to Guard the Ports ...
It's all about the sale of the operations of several U.S. ports to a state owned corporation from the United Arab Emirates based in Dubai.
Not the SECURITY of the ports (which is what the Democrats want you to believe), the OPERATIONS. Paying the power bills. Negotiating the contracts with the Labor Unions. Keeping the parking lots and loading yards paved, scheduling the trucks and ships.
The security will still be handled by the Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard. Same as always.
But that won't stop the Democrats from casting this whole situation as the Bush administration putting the Fox in charge of the Hen House, whether that is actually the case or not.
If President Bush was aware of this as it developed, and chose to do nothing about it, then maybe he really is too naive and simple to be the figurehead of the Republican Party. If he was told by his advisors that this would be okay, then he needs to fire everyone within 500 feet of him, and start over with all new advisors. If he didn't understand the political ramifications of this situation, then I don't know how to help him.
He should know better.
This is custom-made for Democrats in an Election Year.
Republicans could not have handed the Democrats a better stick to beat them with if they had assembled a Bi-partisan Commission to design it.
This looks for all the world to me like the Republicans in general, and the Bush Administration particularly are throwing a political bone to the Democrat Party.
This looks for all the world to me like an attempt to maintain Governmental gridlock.
I have long had a suspicion that our elected leaders do not really run things, but that there are a handful of people hiding behind the chair in the Oval Office who really control things, no matter who we elect, and this looks like the type of thing that they would cause.
How else would you explain it?
I think that I will chose not to let it worry me very much, though...
As a general rule (if History is any teacher...), you can believe that if Moveon.org is upset about it, it is probably alright. If Americans Coming Together is screaming about it, it is probably a good thing for America. If the commentators on the Daily KOS are coming unglued about it, then we should go with it.
If these groups are FOR something, it probably is a bad idea.
(If History is any teacher...)
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Where is the line? Has it been crossed?
I rarely write two posts on the same night, but my wife (the Queen and Dominatrix of the TIVO) has opted to watch the Winter Olympics, which I find mind-numbingly boring.
U.S. Legal Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Now...
Gore slams abuse of Arabs
By AP
"JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment. "
"Gore told the largely Saudi audience that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."
Think for a moment how that sounded to Former Vice President Gore's audience... These are people to whom beheadings and amputations as punishment for crimes are commonplace. These are people who chain people to walls and starve them as punishment for crimes.
These are people who beat women to death for showing their faces.
What do they imagine when they hear that Arabs are routinely rounded up, and held in conditions that are "just unforgivable"?
Now, imagine that you are a Muslim Male between the age of 17 and 35, and you have been considering the possibility of joining up with Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States, but you just haven't yet made up your mind. Would Gore's statements sway you in one direction or the other?
Did Gore realize what he was saying, and to whom he was speaking?
If he didn't, then he is one of the most profoundly dumb individuals ever to hold National Office.
If he did, then couldn't these statements be considered to, when the United States is at war convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, as stated in the section that I quoted above from the U.S. Legal Code?
I submit that if given that choice, every single prisoner being held in Saudi Arabia would gladly trade places with the Terrorists being held at Guantanimo Bay.
In a Heartbeat.
The Terrorists at Git'mo ARE NOT being tortured. Not by anyone's definition of torture anywhere else in the world.
To assert that they are is conveying a false report.
This false report gives aid and comfort to people who have declared War upon the United States.
More U.S. Code...
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Why again is the Main Stream Media, New York Times, White House Press Corps, et al, harping on the Cheney Hunting Accident?
Could it be to divert national attention away from the Treasonous remarks uttered on foriegn soil by a former Presidential Candidate that most of them supported, and that most of them still maintain had that particular election stolen from him, and should have been President?
If it is, then are they guilty of Treason as well?
Read the Code again...
At what point do incidents like this constitute Treason?
The Code seems pretty clear to me...
U.S. Legal Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Now...
Gore slams abuse of Arabs
By AP
"JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment. "
"Gore told the largely Saudi audience that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."
Think for a moment how that sounded to Former Vice President Gore's audience... These are people to whom beheadings and amputations as punishment for crimes are commonplace. These are people who chain people to walls and starve them as punishment for crimes.
These are people who beat women to death for showing their faces.
What do they imagine when they hear that Arabs are routinely rounded up, and held in conditions that are "just unforgivable"?
Now, imagine that you are a Muslim Male between the age of 17 and 35, and you have been considering the possibility of joining up with Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States, but you just haven't yet made up your mind. Would Gore's statements sway you in one direction or the other?
Did Gore realize what he was saying, and to whom he was speaking?
If he didn't, then he is one of the most profoundly dumb individuals ever to hold National Office.
If he did, then couldn't these statements be considered to, when the United States is at war convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, as stated in the section that I quoted above from the U.S. Legal Code?
I submit that if given that choice, every single prisoner being held in Saudi Arabia would gladly trade places with the Terrorists being held at Guantanimo Bay.
In a Heartbeat.
The Terrorists at Git'mo ARE NOT being tortured. Not by anyone's definition of torture anywhere else in the world.
To assert that they are is conveying a false report.
This false report gives aid and comfort to people who have declared War upon the United States.
More U.S. Code...
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Why again is the Main Stream Media, New York Times, White House Press Corps, et al, harping on the Cheney Hunting Accident?
Could it be to divert national attention away from the Treasonous remarks uttered on foriegn soil by a former Presidential Candidate that most of them supported, and that most of them still maintain had that particular election stolen from him, and should have been President?
If it is, then are they guilty of Treason as well?
Read the Code again...
At what point do incidents like this constitute Treason?
The Code seems pretty clear to me...
Tug Get's Noticed!!
Did you hear it?
I did...
Rush Limbaugh used my post from last night as an outline for his second hour monologue today.
He started with "Bad news for Democrats today..." and then basically hit my main points, in order. Granted, he went into a little more detail than I did, but he was talking, and I was typing. (And he is a LOT better at talking than I am at typing...)
So, you're welcome, Rush. Feel free to use my Blog any time! We are, after all, on the same team, and God knows I have used your show and website for inspiration from time to time. I'm thrilled that I could return the favor.
Sean Hannity touched briefly on the idea as his show opener as well, but he didn't follow my basic outline as closely as Rush did.
I think that Rush actually read my post, and was so excited about how brilliant it was that he called Sean on the phone and told him about it. (That's my theory, anyway...)
Made me proud!
So to all of you in the New Media...
Don't worry, guys...
Your show prep will continue...
After these comments.
(Tee, hee, hee...)
I did...
Rush Limbaugh used my post from last night as an outline for his second hour monologue today.
He started with "Bad news for Democrats today..." and then basically hit my main points, in order. Granted, he went into a little more detail than I did, but he was talking, and I was typing. (And he is a LOT better at talking than I am at typing...)
So, you're welcome, Rush. Feel free to use my Blog any time! We are, after all, on the same team, and God knows I have used your show and website for inspiration from time to time. I'm thrilled that I could return the favor.
Sean Hannity touched briefly on the idea as his show opener as well, but he didn't follow my basic outline as closely as Rush did.
I think that Rush actually read my post, and was so excited about how brilliant it was that he called Sean on the phone and told him about it. (That's my theory, anyway...)
Made me proud!
So to all of you in the New Media...
Don't worry, guys...
Your show prep will continue...
After these comments.
(Tee, hee, hee...)
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Next...
Bad news today for Democrats.
Harry Whittington did not die, nor is he likely to, so their dreams of involuntary manslaughter charges against Vice President Dick Cheney will probably never come true.
This minor setback has not stopped them from trying to make this situation as bad as they can make it for the Vice President, the Bush Administration, and Republicans in general, though...
From All Headline News (Red Letter Edition)...
The former first lady [says]: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says the secretive tendency goes beyond Cheney, pervading the entire Bush White House.
"I think it's time the American people heard from the vice president, in a real meeting just like we're having here," says Reid, who called the George W. Bush presidency "the most secretive administration in modern history."
Hillary can't seem to recall the fact that her minions kept Law Enforcement Officials out of Vince Foster's office for 30 hours after his death, while they plundered his file cabinets for anything that might incriminate her, and she seems to have no knowledge of how the subpoenaed billing records for the Rose Law Firm spontaneously occured on her coffee table the moment that the Statute of Limitations ran out on the investigation...
Harry Reid, meanwhile, declined to explain his connections to Jack Abramoff's clients, or the letters he wrote on their behalf, and also failed to explain how his whole family has become rich through his manipulation of Government assets.
But REPUBLICANS are above the law, don'tcha know...
There is also a plethora of wild, tin-foil hat type conspiracy theories floating around, ranging from "Dick Cheney shot Whittington on purpose to send a message to Scooter Libby", to "Dick Cheney shot Whittington on purpose to redirect news coverage away from the Scooter Libby testimony", to "Dick Cheney was drunk at the time", to "Dick Cheney had his mistress along on the trip, so he delayed reporting the incident until he could stash her somewhere", to "this is an attempted Whitehouse Cover-up!!"
Well, if it was an attempted cover-up, it has to be the worst one in recorded history. There was a Police Report filed, the Secret Service witnessed the incident, the victim of the shooting was admitted to a hospital, and the owner of the ranch called the local newspaper.
The only thing that DIDN'T happen was that the Vice President didn't immediately alert the White House Press Corps, and hold a Press Conference for them so that they could brow-beat him on Television over it.
And I don't blame him. I wouldn't have either. I would have seen about my friend, done my job, and expected them to do theirs and not sit around eating donuts expecting to be spoon-fed every piece of news that they report.
In other news, it looks now like the Congressional Hearings into the President's "Super Top Secret NSA (No Such Agency) Domestic Wiretapping Spying Violation of the Privacy of All American Citizens Program" that the Democrats have been salivating about for the last month are not going to happen. (Thanks to Dick Cheney.) So I guess it's on to the next "Scandal Du Jour"...
I can't wait to find out what THAT will be...
I mean, God forbid that the Democrats should have to engage Republicans in the Arena of IDEAS...
Harry Whittington did not die, nor is he likely to, so their dreams of involuntary manslaughter charges against Vice President Dick Cheney will probably never come true.
This minor setback has not stopped them from trying to make this situation as bad as they can make it for the Vice President, the Bush Administration, and Republicans in general, though...
From All Headline News (Red Letter Edition)...
The former first lady [says]: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says the secretive tendency goes beyond Cheney, pervading the entire Bush White House.
"I think it's time the American people heard from the vice president, in a real meeting just like we're having here," says Reid, who called the George W. Bush presidency "the most secretive administration in modern history."
Hillary can't seem to recall the fact that her minions kept Law Enforcement Officials out of Vince Foster's office for 30 hours after his death, while they plundered his file cabinets for anything that might incriminate her, and she seems to have no knowledge of how the subpoenaed billing records for the Rose Law Firm spontaneously occured on her coffee table the moment that the Statute of Limitations ran out on the investigation...
Harry Reid, meanwhile, declined to explain his connections to Jack Abramoff's clients, or the letters he wrote on their behalf, and also failed to explain how his whole family has become rich through his manipulation of Government assets.
But REPUBLICANS are above the law, don'tcha know...
There is also a plethora of wild, tin-foil hat type conspiracy theories floating around, ranging from "Dick Cheney shot Whittington on purpose to send a message to Scooter Libby", to "Dick Cheney shot Whittington on purpose to redirect news coverage away from the Scooter Libby testimony", to "Dick Cheney was drunk at the time", to "Dick Cheney had his mistress along on the trip, so he delayed reporting the incident until he could stash her somewhere", to "this is an attempted Whitehouse Cover-up!!"
Well, if it was an attempted cover-up, it has to be the worst one in recorded history. There was a Police Report filed, the Secret Service witnessed the incident, the victim of the shooting was admitted to a hospital, and the owner of the ranch called the local newspaper.
The only thing that DIDN'T happen was that the Vice President didn't immediately alert the White House Press Corps, and hold a Press Conference for them so that they could brow-beat him on Television over it.
And I don't blame him. I wouldn't have either. I would have seen about my friend, done my job, and expected them to do theirs and not sit around eating donuts expecting to be spoon-fed every piece of news that they report.
In other news, it looks now like the Congressional Hearings into the President's "Super Top Secret NSA (No Such Agency) Domestic Wiretapping Spying Violation of the Privacy of All American Citizens Program" that the Democrats have been salivating about for the last month are not going to happen. (Thanks to Dick Cheney.) So I guess it's on to the next "Scandal Du Jour"...
I can't wait to find out what THAT will be...
I mean, God forbid that the Democrats should have to engage Republicans in the Arena of IDEAS...
Monday, February 13, 2006
Talk To Me...
"Dead serious. Not being funny. I'm pretty sure it's too late for all that, though, because talk radio has poisoned this country, and people who are otherwise pretty smart, follow the bright, shiny parade playing their happy-happy music like sheep." - Erudite Redneck, from my comments page.
"You must only listen to Rush, Sean, and Glenn for your information. You need to broaden your information sources." - Jim, from the comments page of Mark, at "Four Rows Back."
I am a regular listener of Talk Radio, but if you read this blog regularly, you have already guessed that.
Here is my lineup.
I have a Sirius Satellite Radio system, which I move from my car to my Big Truck, and back to my car every day, so my day starts out with the first couple of hours of Howard Stern, not because I especially like Howard Stern, but because he usually is the most interesting thing going until 9:00 AM, when Tony Snow comes on one of the local AM stations in my area.
At 9:00, I switch over to Tony, and listen to him until Neal Boortz comes on at 11:00.
I listen to one hour of Boortz, and then switch to the other AM station that I can get with any clarity, and that speaks English, at Noon, and listen to Rush until 3:00.
At 3:00, a local guy named Todd Schnitt comes on the station that Rush was on. He is a Center/Right, common sense Conservative.
I listen to his first hour, and at 4:00, I switch back to the Sirius, and listen to Bubba The Love Sponge throughout the rest of my workday, and on the ride home.
Most of you have probably not heard of Bubba, but he was the recipient of the single largest FCC indecency fine ever handed down. He was fired from Clear Channel Communications, and did not work in radio for over two years before he was hired by Howard Stern to fill space on one of his two Satellite Channels.
He has a stripper pole and a torture rack in his studio, and frequently makes use of both. His main topics are Sex, Racing, Wrestling, and Sex, and I am interested in three of these four topics. He is the poster boy for the people in America who believe that the sole reason for the First Amendment is to allow him to say the "F" word on the radio.
ER and Jim would have you believe that everyone who listens to Talk Radio does it in order to decide what to think, and without it, they would have no opinions. They believe that all Talk Radio listeners march in lock-step, and recieve their marching orders from Rush and Sean Hannity every day, without putting any thought into what they are hearing, and whether or not it makes any sense, or whether or not it is true.
Well, believe it or not, I can tell the truth from Hogwash, and lately I have heard a lot more Hogwash coming from Ted Kennedy, Harry Ried, John Murtha, and John Kerry than I have from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
I listen to Talk Radio from both sides. Some of what I hear, I agree with, and some of it, I don't. (From BOTH sides.)
What I do not hear, from either side is marching orders, or "happy-happy music".
The reason that I listen to "Right Wing" Talk Radio is because the commentators state things that I already believe. I don't listen in order to learn what I should think, but because they say what I already think.
Not because I agree with them, but because THEY agree with ME.
When "Left Wing" Talk Radio commentators begin to say things that make sense, and do it in a compelling way, the balance will shift, and people will listen to them. (I'm not going to hold my breath.)
In the meantime, ask yourself this question.
Why do people who work in the Main Stream Media (I.E. Newspapermen, Television News people, etc...) have such a problem with Talk Radio?
If there is no bias on the part of the Old Media, then they should have nothing to fear from the New Media.
Freedom of speech is all about alternative viewpoints, isn't it?
"You must only listen to Rush, Sean, and Glenn for your information. You need to broaden your information sources." - Jim, from the comments page of Mark, at "Four Rows Back."
I am a regular listener of Talk Radio, but if you read this blog regularly, you have already guessed that.
Here is my lineup.
I have a Sirius Satellite Radio system, which I move from my car to my Big Truck, and back to my car every day, so my day starts out with the first couple of hours of Howard Stern, not because I especially like Howard Stern, but because he usually is the most interesting thing going until 9:00 AM, when Tony Snow comes on one of the local AM stations in my area.
At 9:00, I switch over to Tony, and listen to him until Neal Boortz comes on at 11:00.
I listen to one hour of Boortz, and then switch to the other AM station that I can get with any clarity, and that speaks English, at Noon, and listen to Rush until 3:00.
At 3:00, a local guy named Todd Schnitt comes on the station that Rush was on. He is a Center/Right, common sense Conservative.
I listen to his first hour, and at 4:00, I switch back to the Sirius, and listen to Bubba The Love Sponge throughout the rest of my workday, and on the ride home.
Most of you have probably not heard of Bubba, but he was the recipient of the single largest FCC indecency fine ever handed down. He was fired from Clear Channel Communications, and did not work in radio for over two years before he was hired by Howard Stern to fill space on one of his two Satellite Channels.
He has a stripper pole and a torture rack in his studio, and frequently makes use of both. His main topics are Sex, Racing, Wrestling, and Sex, and I am interested in three of these four topics. He is the poster boy for the people in America who believe that the sole reason for the First Amendment is to allow him to say the "F" word on the radio.
ER and Jim would have you believe that everyone who listens to Talk Radio does it in order to decide what to think, and without it, they would have no opinions. They believe that all Talk Radio listeners march in lock-step, and recieve their marching orders from Rush and Sean Hannity every day, without putting any thought into what they are hearing, and whether or not it makes any sense, or whether or not it is true.
Well, believe it or not, I can tell the truth from Hogwash, and lately I have heard a lot more Hogwash coming from Ted Kennedy, Harry Ried, John Murtha, and John Kerry than I have from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
I listen to Talk Radio from both sides. Some of what I hear, I agree with, and some of it, I don't. (From BOTH sides.)
What I do not hear, from either side is marching orders, or "happy-happy music".
The reason that I listen to "Right Wing" Talk Radio is because the commentators state things that I already believe. I don't listen in order to learn what I should think, but because they say what I already think.
Not because I agree with them, but because THEY agree with ME.
When "Left Wing" Talk Radio commentators begin to say things that make sense, and do it in a compelling way, the balance will shift, and people will listen to them. (I'm not going to hold my breath.)
In the meantime, ask yourself this question.
Why do people who work in the Main Stream Media (I.E. Newspapermen, Television News people, etc...) have such a problem with Talk Radio?
If there is no bias on the part of the Old Media, then they should have nothing to fear from the New Media.
Freedom of speech is all about alternative viewpoints, isn't it?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
YEEAHHHH!!!!
Howard Dean Compares President Bush to President of Iran
By CK RairdenFeb 9, 2006
Howard Dean made an appearance on the ABC's 'Good Morning America' on Thursday and compared President Bush to the president of Iran.
The DNC Chairperson was desperately trying to convince the viewers of the program that Democrats are strong on national defense when he said, "All we ask is that we not turn into a country like Iran where the president of Iran can do anything (he) wants at anytime."
For Republicans, Howard Dean is just the gift that keeps on giving.
Amen.
This is the modern Democrat Party.
Take a good look.
Pay attention.
"Bush is Hitler. Bush is Ahmadinejad. Bush is (insert Villain here.)"
I can think of no better spokesman for the Modern Left than Dean. He's perfect.
He is the Chairman of a Bankrupt Organization with Bankrupt Ideals, and every time he gets in front of a camera, he further illustrates why the Democrats are losing the battle of Ideas in our Country, and why they will continue to lose.
Now, tell us some more about how the President isn't making us safer, and how he is spying on Aunt Mabel to try to find out what she is planning to serve for Sunday Dinner. Tell us some more about how the President wants to know what toppings we like on our pizza.
Tell us some more about how you guys are going to take back the House and Senate this year.
With 5 Million Dollars in Campaign money.
We're all ears.
By CK RairdenFeb 9, 2006
Howard Dean made an appearance on the ABC's 'Good Morning America' on Thursday and compared President Bush to the president of Iran.
The DNC Chairperson was desperately trying to convince the viewers of the program that Democrats are strong on national defense when he said, "All we ask is that we not turn into a country like Iran where the president of Iran can do anything (he) wants at anytime."
For Republicans, Howard Dean is just the gift that keeps on giving.
Amen.
This is the modern Democrat Party.
Take a good look.
Pay attention.
"Bush is Hitler. Bush is Ahmadinejad. Bush is (insert Villain here.)"
I can think of no better spokesman for the Modern Left than Dean. He's perfect.
He is the Chairman of a Bankrupt Organization with Bankrupt Ideals, and every time he gets in front of a camera, he further illustrates why the Democrats are losing the battle of Ideas in our Country, and why they will continue to lose.
Now, tell us some more about how the President isn't making us safer, and how he is spying on Aunt Mabel to try to find out what she is planning to serve for Sunday Dinner. Tell us some more about how the President wants to know what toppings we like on our pizza.
Tell us some more about how you guys are going to take back the House and Senate this year.
With 5 Million Dollars in Campaign money.
We're all ears.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
National Security v.s. Freedom to Break the Law...What's YOUR Problem?
Excerpt from the Washington Post...
Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects
NSA's Hunt for Terrorists Scrutinizes Thousands of Americans, but Most Are Later Cleared... (Emphasis added - TBC)
"The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000." ( Again, Emphasis added - TBC)
Did you catch that?
First of all, let me explain for a moment how the NSA Anti-Terror Electronic Surveilance Program works.
Under this program, people in the United States, (not necessarily U.S. Citizens, just people who may be here...) who make phone calls to, or recieve phone calls from KNOWN AL-QAEDA MEMBERS, may or may not have their calls intercepted and monitored by the National Security Agency.
And that article said that there may be as many as 5000 people in our Country who are engaging in that type of activity.
Thank God for the Bush Administration!!
Does anyone but me realize that it has been three and a half YEARS since our Country has been attacked, and we are at War? Have been at War the whole time?
Al Qaeda struck first, but for all of their threats, (and there have been plenty...) they have not hit us again since then.
That's a FACT.
This is not a co-incidence. This isn't just luck. It doesn't mean that Al Qaeda has lost their will to attack us at home.
Somebody, somewhere has been successful in thwarting their plans.
Plain and simple.
Today was the second day of hearings into the NSA Electronic Survielance Program. Televised Hearings. With very vocal Democrats questioning the propriety of this very valuable tool that our Government has been using for these past three and a half years to prevent attacks against us on our own soil by our enemies.
Let me ask you a question, and I ask you to forget partisanship, and hatred for the current President for a moment, and consider this logically.
If we are all concerned with National Security, and are interested in keeping each other safe from Terrorist Attacks on our soil, then why are these hearings being televised?
Why are we allowing our enemies to see these proceedings, and why are we allowing them to learn all that they can about this program by exposing it's details on national and international television?
Do you think that Al Qaeda does not watch C-Span?
Let me ask you another question...
If you are against this program, then why?
Why are you afraid of this?
Are YOU talking to Al Qaeda? If not, then what are you afraid of the Government learning about you?
Are you doing something illegal?
Would you talk about it on the phone if you were?
Are you that flippin' dumb?
If you are, then you deserve to be caught, and punished.
The simple truth about this whole issue is that there are some Americans who are more interested in making President George W. Bush look bad, or in trying to orchestrate a situation in which they might try to impeach him (just like the Republicans did to Clinton) that they would throw National Security by the wayside, and severely damage this valuable program to the point of uselessness, just to accomplish that goal.
They couldn't care less about National Security, as long as Republicans look bad, and Democrats regain power.
I sincerely hope that you don't fall into that category...
Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects
NSA's Hunt for Terrorists Scrutinizes Thousands of Americans, but Most Are Later Cleared... (Emphasis added - TBC)
"The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000." ( Again, Emphasis added - TBC)
Did you catch that?
First of all, let me explain for a moment how the NSA Anti-Terror Electronic Surveilance Program works.
Under this program, people in the United States, (not necessarily U.S. Citizens, just people who may be here...) who make phone calls to, or recieve phone calls from KNOWN AL-QAEDA MEMBERS, may or may not have their calls intercepted and monitored by the National Security Agency.
And that article said that there may be as many as 5000 people in our Country who are engaging in that type of activity.
Thank God for the Bush Administration!!
Does anyone but me realize that it has been three and a half YEARS since our Country has been attacked, and we are at War? Have been at War the whole time?
Al Qaeda struck first, but for all of their threats, (and there have been plenty...) they have not hit us again since then.
That's a FACT.
This is not a co-incidence. This isn't just luck. It doesn't mean that Al Qaeda has lost their will to attack us at home.
Somebody, somewhere has been successful in thwarting their plans.
Plain and simple.
Today was the second day of hearings into the NSA Electronic Survielance Program. Televised Hearings. With very vocal Democrats questioning the propriety of this very valuable tool that our Government has been using for these past three and a half years to prevent attacks against us on our own soil by our enemies.
Let me ask you a question, and I ask you to forget partisanship, and hatred for the current President for a moment, and consider this logically.
If we are all concerned with National Security, and are interested in keeping each other safe from Terrorist Attacks on our soil, then why are these hearings being televised?
Why are we allowing our enemies to see these proceedings, and why are we allowing them to learn all that they can about this program by exposing it's details on national and international television?
Do you think that Al Qaeda does not watch C-Span?
Let me ask you another question...
If you are against this program, then why?
Why are you afraid of this?
Are YOU talking to Al Qaeda? If not, then what are you afraid of the Government learning about you?
Are you doing something illegal?
Would you talk about it on the phone if you were?
Are you that flippin' dumb?
If you are, then you deserve to be caught, and punished.
The simple truth about this whole issue is that there are some Americans who are more interested in making President George W. Bush look bad, or in trying to orchestrate a situation in which they might try to impeach him (just like the Republicans did to Clinton) that they would throw National Security by the wayside, and severely damage this valuable program to the point of uselessness, just to accomplish that goal.
They couldn't care less about National Security, as long as Republicans look bad, and Democrats regain power.
I sincerely hope that you don't fall into that category...
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Presidential Politics...
I have a question...
I am only 39 years old, and have only been politically aware for about 30 years or so, so my own personal perspective only goes back to the mid-seventies.
I vaguely remember the Watergate hearings, (they pre-empted the "Gilligan" re-runs that I liked to watch after school,) (I HATED politics back then...) so I remember some of the things that were said about President Nixon.
I remember seeing President Ford fall down every other week, and I remember how he was portrayed on the News.
I vividly remember the Carter Years, and at that early stage of my development, I was provided with an undeniable example of an appeasing, bed-wetting, hand wringing Liberal, and experienced first hand how quickly living conditions will crash when a Country embraces Liberalism, and how severe that crash will be.
Don't get me wrong. It wasn't all President Carter's fault. Whether you like the President or not, Policy is set in the House and Senate. It wasn't Carter's ideas that caused the crash, he didn't have any. He just couldn't lead, so everyone's confidence tanked, and he went along with whatever the Democrat controlled Legislature wanted.
Then there was Reagan.
I remember how he was revered by the Right (and still is), and roundly despised and ridiculed by the Left. I remember the short-lived sit-com featuring the ridiculously ugly "Spitting Image" puppets making fun of how stupid President Reagan was. I remember the outrage in the Media over the "Evil Empire" comment, and all of the talk about President Reagan's "disasterous Economic Policies".
But I also remember that those Policies created an Economic Boom almost equal to the one we are currently experiencing. He revamped the tax code (Tax Cuts for "The Rich",) and got Government out of the way of industry, and jobs magically appeared out of thin air. He inspired National Confidence and pride by portraying strength and firm belief in Ideals.
He made the commitment to end the Cold War by whatever means necessary.
And he did it.
But then we read George H.W. Bush's lips, and elected him. He was the "kinder, gentler" President. The "Compassionate Conservative."
He remembered the bashing that President Reagan took for eight years, and wanted people to like him, and not make fun of him that way. So he tried to compromise with the other side, and went back on his "no new taxes" promise, and his approval ratings dropped from the highest any President had ever had, to the lowest ever, in less than two years. EVERYBODY hated G.B. 41.
He let the U.N. dictate how America would prosecute a War, and subsequently left Saddam Hussein in power for someone else to deal with at a later date. (A policy which Bill Clinton adhered to as well.)
Clinton. "The First Black President". The first Co-President. (The first President who couldn't even tell his wife, "Leave me alone, I'm trying to work!") (Depending on what he was working on...)
Clinton was the recipient of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the end of the Cold War, and was able to surf the Reagan Economic Wave all the way to the beach. Through slashing Military spending on things like body armour for the troops and up-armoured Hum-Vees, cutting troop numbers to dangerously low levels, and creative book-keeping, Clinton was able to create the perception that he and his policies generated a huge surplus in the National Treasury. (There NEVER was any surplus.) (But that's another post.)
Clinton was impeached over lying to a Grand Jury, and to the American People. (Not about the Sex. I don't blame him for that. Have you SEEN Hillary?)
Then along came G.B. 43, and stole the Florida Election. Somehow, even before he was selected President, he was able to control the Supreme Court, and cause them to stop Al Gore from assuming his rightful place in the White House.
This Evil Warmonger assumed power, and immediately began to transform our Country into Nazi Germany at a break-neck pace. He worked secretly with Al-Qeada and Osama Bin Laden to arrange the 9/11 attacks, so that he could then overthrow the benevolent, innocent Dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was minding his own business, not hurting anyone and was universally loved and admired.
"Dubya" manufactured and manipulated intelligence to fool the Democrats into supporting his unwarranted agression against Iraq for about two minutes, in order to give Iraq's oil to Shell and Exxon, just to make his buddies richer, and in order to give Haliburton, (which belongs to the EEE-VILL Dick Cheney,) the contracts to rebuild and repair the damage that he did there, without even offering the contracts to one of the myriad of other Corporations who wanted them, like... like... well, there is... what's the name of that other... company...
Anyway...
My Question is this.
Have HALF of the people in America always blindly hated the President, no matter who he was?
Or is this something new that has come about during my lifetime, or just before?
Has it always been this severe?
Does it HAVE to be?
I am only 39 years old, and have only been politically aware for about 30 years or so, so my own personal perspective only goes back to the mid-seventies.
I vaguely remember the Watergate hearings, (they pre-empted the "Gilligan" re-runs that I liked to watch after school,) (I HATED politics back then...) so I remember some of the things that were said about President Nixon.
I remember seeing President Ford fall down every other week, and I remember how he was portrayed on the News.
I vividly remember the Carter Years, and at that early stage of my development, I was provided with an undeniable example of an appeasing, bed-wetting, hand wringing Liberal, and experienced first hand how quickly living conditions will crash when a Country embraces Liberalism, and how severe that crash will be.
Don't get me wrong. It wasn't all President Carter's fault. Whether you like the President or not, Policy is set in the House and Senate. It wasn't Carter's ideas that caused the crash, he didn't have any. He just couldn't lead, so everyone's confidence tanked, and he went along with whatever the Democrat controlled Legislature wanted.
Then there was Reagan.
I remember how he was revered by the Right (and still is), and roundly despised and ridiculed by the Left. I remember the short-lived sit-com featuring the ridiculously ugly "Spitting Image" puppets making fun of how stupid President Reagan was. I remember the outrage in the Media over the "Evil Empire" comment, and all of the talk about President Reagan's "disasterous Economic Policies".
But I also remember that those Policies created an Economic Boom almost equal to the one we are currently experiencing. He revamped the tax code (Tax Cuts for "The Rich",) and got Government out of the way of industry, and jobs magically appeared out of thin air. He inspired National Confidence and pride by portraying strength and firm belief in Ideals.
He made the commitment to end the Cold War by whatever means necessary.
And he did it.
But then we read George H.W. Bush's lips, and elected him. He was the "kinder, gentler" President. The "Compassionate Conservative."
He remembered the bashing that President Reagan took for eight years, and wanted people to like him, and not make fun of him that way. So he tried to compromise with the other side, and went back on his "no new taxes" promise, and his approval ratings dropped from the highest any President had ever had, to the lowest ever, in less than two years. EVERYBODY hated G.B. 41.
He let the U.N. dictate how America would prosecute a War, and subsequently left Saddam Hussein in power for someone else to deal with at a later date. (A policy which Bill Clinton adhered to as well.)
Clinton. "The First Black President". The first Co-President. (The first President who couldn't even tell his wife, "Leave me alone, I'm trying to work!") (Depending on what he was working on...)
Clinton was the recipient of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the end of the Cold War, and was able to surf the Reagan Economic Wave all the way to the beach. Through slashing Military spending on things like body armour for the troops and up-armoured Hum-Vees, cutting troop numbers to dangerously low levels, and creative book-keeping, Clinton was able to create the perception that he and his policies generated a huge surplus in the National Treasury. (There NEVER was any surplus.) (But that's another post.)
Clinton was impeached over lying to a Grand Jury, and to the American People. (Not about the Sex. I don't blame him for that. Have you SEEN Hillary?)
Then along came G.B. 43, and stole the Florida Election. Somehow, even before he was selected President, he was able to control the Supreme Court, and cause them to stop Al Gore from assuming his rightful place in the White House.
This Evil Warmonger assumed power, and immediately began to transform our Country into Nazi Germany at a break-neck pace. He worked secretly with Al-Qeada and Osama Bin Laden to arrange the 9/11 attacks, so that he could then overthrow the benevolent, innocent Dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was minding his own business, not hurting anyone and was universally loved and admired.
"Dubya" manufactured and manipulated intelligence to fool the Democrats into supporting his unwarranted agression against Iraq for about two minutes, in order to give Iraq's oil to Shell and Exxon, just to make his buddies richer, and in order to give Haliburton, (which belongs to the EEE-VILL Dick Cheney,) the contracts to rebuild and repair the damage that he did there, without even offering the contracts to one of the myriad of other Corporations who wanted them, like... like... well, there is... what's the name of that other... company...
Anyway...
My Question is this.
Have HALF of the people in America always blindly hated the President, no matter who he was?
Or is this something new that has come about during my lifetime, or just before?
Has it always been this severe?
Does it HAVE to be?
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
State Of The Union Highlights...
I don't know if anyone is aware of this already, but the President gave his State Of The Union speech last night.
I watched it, and I was impressed by several aspects of it. I was impressed by the class and statesmanship that the President displayed. I was impressed by the positive tone of his message. (Of course I know that no President is ever going to walk into the chamber to deliver his State Of The Union speech and say that America sucks, and we will all probably starve to death in the next 6 months...) (Although if Carter had done that, it might have sounded accurate...)
I was impressed that he acknowledged some of his failures, as well as his (and our Nation's) successes.
I was not impressed with the party of loyal obstruction sitting on their hands when the President mentioned the successes that America has realized over the past few months. Whether you like him or not, President Bush has presided over a period of incredible economic recovery and prosperity, even in a time of war. Our Country has not experienced a Terrorist attack on our soil since the one that was planned and carried out on 9/11/2001 by the guy that Senator Clinton's Husband wouldn't lock up when he was President.
I was not impressed with the Democrats standing and cheering for themselves over blocking progress toward a solution to the Socialist Security Program.
"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security..." Said the President.
"Yeah!! Whoooo!! Alright!! Yay!! Hooray for Us!! We kept the Republicans from solving the Social Security problem!! Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!"
Shut up.
Is that REALLY the best that you guys can do? If so, then the sooner the Democrats are completely marginalized, ignored completely, and forgotten, the better off all Americans will be.
Last night's State Of The Union speech was an occasion of several historic firsts.
It was the first time (to my knowledge) that a Supreme Court Nominee has been confirmed on the same day as a State Of The Union speech.
It was the first time (to my knowledge) that Ted Kennedy has intentionally blown off an event like this, where there was obvious opportunity for Camera Time, and people who would probably seek him out and ask his rambling, disjointed, incomprehensible opinion.
It was the first time (to my knowledge) that a dog was invited to attend the State Of The Union speech.
Cindy Sheehan (the only parent who has lost a child to the War in Iraq that the Media seems to be able to locate) was invited by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D. Ca.), and was removed from the hall before the proceedings began because she chose to wear an anti-war tee-shirt.
"I didn't know that a person could be arrested for wearing a tee-shirt. I didn't know that a person could be arrested for protesting inside the People's Hall..." Said Sheehan.
Well, I guess you found out last night, didn't you Cindy?
And she should have been. Anyone should know better than to wear a tee-shirt to an event like the State Of The Union speech. It's a classy event. Dress up a little bit, for Pete's sake.
Hippies...
I even suffered through a little of the Democrat Rebuttal, given by newly elected Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. The gist of it was, "We can do better, but we can't tell you how, because then we would have to kill you."
"Stop looking at my eyebrow!"
Overall, it was a good speech. I felt that it was worth putting off watching Monday Night's episode of 24 from my Tivo for an hour or so in order to watch it.
I can't wait for the next one.
I watched it, and I was impressed by several aspects of it. I was impressed by the class and statesmanship that the President displayed. I was impressed by the positive tone of his message. (Of course I know that no President is ever going to walk into the chamber to deliver his State Of The Union speech and say that America sucks, and we will all probably starve to death in the next 6 months...) (Although if Carter had done that, it might have sounded accurate...)
I was impressed that he acknowledged some of his failures, as well as his (and our Nation's) successes.
I was not impressed with the party of loyal obstruction sitting on their hands when the President mentioned the successes that America has realized over the past few months. Whether you like him or not, President Bush has presided over a period of incredible economic recovery and prosperity, even in a time of war. Our Country has not experienced a Terrorist attack on our soil since the one that was planned and carried out on 9/11/2001 by the guy that Senator Clinton's Husband wouldn't lock up when he was President.
I was not impressed with the Democrats standing and cheering for themselves over blocking progress toward a solution to the Socialist Security Program.
"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security..." Said the President.
"Yeah!! Whoooo!! Alright!! Yay!! Hooray for Us!! We kept the Republicans from solving the Social Security problem!! Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!"
Shut up.
Is that REALLY the best that you guys can do? If so, then the sooner the Democrats are completely marginalized, ignored completely, and forgotten, the better off all Americans will be.
Last night's State Of The Union speech was an occasion of several historic firsts.
It was the first time (to my knowledge) that a Supreme Court Nominee has been confirmed on the same day as a State Of The Union speech.
It was the first time (to my knowledge) that Ted Kennedy has intentionally blown off an event like this, where there was obvious opportunity for Camera Time, and people who would probably seek him out and ask his rambling, disjointed, incomprehensible opinion.
It was the first time (to my knowledge) that a dog was invited to attend the State Of The Union speech.
Cindy Sheehan (the only parent who has lost a child to the War in Iraq that the Media seems to be able to locate) was invited by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D. Ca.), and was removed from the hall before the proceedings began because she chose to wear an anti-war tee-shirt.
"I didn't know that a person could be arrested for wearing a tee-shirt. I didn't know that a person could be arrested for protesting inside the People's Hall..." Said Sheehan.
Well, I guess you found out last night, didn't you Cindy?
And she should have been. Anyone should know better than to wear a tee-shirt to an event like the State Of The Union speech. It's a classy event. Dress up a little bit, for Pete's sake.
Hippies...
I even suffered through a little of the Democrat Rebuttal, given by newly elected Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. The gist of it was, "We can do better, but we can't tell you how, because then we would have to kill you."
"Stop looking at my eyebrow!"
Overall, it was a good speech. I felt that it was worth putting off watching Monday Night's episode of 24 from my Tivo for an hour or so in order to watch it.
I can't wait for the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
