BUSH: TOO LAME FOR RIDICULE

Thank God for the Center for American Progress. Every day, they call bullshit
on the Bush administration. I couldn't even watch Bush's waste-of-everyone's-time-and-money speech last night--I figured, correctly,
that all the pertinent bits would be dissected to the nth degree today.
Apparently, it's more of the same--unbelievable, I know.

Why don't we just get the bloody hell out of Iraq? And I mean yesterday! Watched "The Fog Of War" over the weekend. Regardless of what one may think of
McNamara, his insights were dead-on. It's amazing to think that when the USSR had actual missiles 90 miles away from us, we negotiated a peaceful settlement but when Iraq "possessed" fictitious WMD thousands of miles away, we invaded and
took over their country. Still haven't found any, except that "sarin" shell that they've apparently tested 50 million times and still don't want to say for sure if it's sarin or not (OK, today they say it is. I liked when Kucinich held up a picture of the shell on "Meet The Press" and asked "We went to war over this?"

And frankly, now that I think about it, the Republican mouthpiece on that episode of "Meet The Press" talked about how he kept a photo in his top drawer that showed dead Kurdish women and children, killed by poison gas. That's mighty white of him, I suppose, by why doesn't he keep a picture of the uninsured babies and adults and/or un-or-under-employed people in the United States and really focus his attention on fixing that?

It's like the churches one sees down here in Hattiesburg and all over the South--they have rows upon rows of white crosses on their grounds that represent the "Holocaust" of the unborn. They usually have some kind of explanatory sign saying words to the effect of "This is wrong and these crosses should prick your conscience about abortion." Well, la-di-da...why don't they ever seem to care about living people and erect a sign that says "Hungry people can come here and eat for free" or "If you need money, come see us, we'll give you some" or "If you can't pay your medical bills, we'll help you pay them or pay them for you."

Why don't they put up such signs? Because then they'd actually have to do something. They'd actually have to do what Jesus said and help people. When they condemn abortion, it doesn't really do anything but make them feel self-righteous and holier than thou. Jesus never said jackshit about abortion, but he sure as hell said that if someone asks you for something, you should give it to them. He didn't make a qualification, like, "you can give them what they ask for if it doesn't inconvenience you too much" or "give 'em what they want but charge 'em interest" or what have you. Just give to people. OK, tangent over...

Reading a really good Chomsky book at the moment, "Profit Over People." As always, he breaks down the self-serving corporate rhetoric that is still flying over the airwaves today. I found this collection of essays to be somewhat more direct and less dense than some of his other stuff. Or maybe I'm just getting used to his writing style. It's unbelievable that poor people will let Republicans get away with scolding them for wanting government assistance while making sure that the biggest corporations in the United States and indeed, the world, are the recipients of big government bailouts. My favorite statistic so far was that a study (search on page for "The Logic Of International Restructuring") showed that "at least twenty companies in the 1993 Fortune 100 would not have survived at all as independent companies, if they had not been saved by their respective governments."
And then as Bill O'Lie-ly asks whether "income redistribution" is "morally right" (insinuating it isn't) on his radio show last week, he and his ilk choose to ignore or divert public attention from the fact of large-scale income redistribution from the middle and bottom to defense contractors and the Pentagon (i.e. this "Profit Over People" observation--"bear in mind the domestic role of the Pentagon system: to transfer public funds to advanced sectors of industry, so that Newt Gingrich's rich constituents, for example, can be protected from the rigors of the marketplace with more government subsidies than any other suburban district in the country...while the leader of the conservative revolution denounces big government and lauds rugged individualism"). At this point in his career, how can O'Reilly possibly expect anyone
to take him seriously when he starts asking rhetorically whether a thing is "morally right"? It's obvious he wouldn't know morality if it magically bleached his age spots--I guess that's why he feels the need to ask about morality.

Oh well...it's hard enough to read a blog every day, much less write in one
every day...

I used to hate "Mad TV" but now that Comedy Central has replaced "SNL" with it, I think it's actually pretty smart, sexy comedy...my favorite sketch so far is the psychiatrist skit with Bob Newhart and Mo Collins...I'd write it out, but it's funnier if you see it, so just watch for it...

And one more thing...is it just me or are lyrics to current country songs purposefully mundane...I mean, it seems to be a trend in current country lyrics to deal with very specific and very run-of-the-mill situations as a sort of badge of honor or as something...the only example I can come up with right now is the song "Back Of The Bottom Drawer" by Chely Wright...more on this topic in the future...