Thursday, June 30, 2005
My prediction about the new president of Iran supposedly being one of the Iranian hijackers in 1979: this is one of those stories that we'll look back on as one of the ways in which the Republicans swept Congress in the 2006 election. We've already been told that "Al Qaida [is] hiding in Iran" and now we're told that the new president of that country is a "terrorist" as Tucker Carlson just did. And not just any terrorist, but one involved with the one of our most ignominious encounters with Middle East culture prior to Sept. 11.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Ahmadinejad was in fact not actually one of the captors, and he and others have already protested to the contrary. However, let's remember that in these times, facts, truth, and reality have no bearing on anything our leaders do. What matters is that today Bush said that if Ahmadinejad was one of the captors, that raises "serious questions" or some such rubbish. The Bush smear jihad never ends: McCain, Gore, Paul O'Neill, Max Cleland, Kerry, Durbin, and now Ahmadinejad.
It's the only winning strategy the Repukes have: demonize and terrify, demonize and terrify, demonize and terrify--or if you prefer, call it "the ol' smear 'n' fear". Mark my words, after this case of mistaken identity thunderstorm blows over, we'll get the facts in a light breeze that no, in fact Ahmadinejad was not one of the captors. But by then conventional wisdom will already be fixed--the new president of Iran is a cold-blooded terrorist and always has been. So when the Iran invasion is rolled out, that will already be set in the public's mind.
And then there's this story about changing the video at the Lincoln memorial because it contains footage of pro-abortion and pro-gay rights activists but not Promise Keepers or other Christo-fascist rubbish. What makes these Christ thugs think that abortion and gay rights activists aren't Christians and that those movements aren't in fact rooted in Christian sentiment? Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality or abortion? No, he did not--not one word. Did he say anything about loving people even if they don't love you and giving people as much as you are able if not more? Ummm, yeah, he did.
Not only that, but the fight for abortion and gay rights are civil liberties issues, of a piece with the black struggle for equality--civil rights are civil rights. The Promise Keepers are about men being better fathers--a noble undertaking, but not necessarily the moral equivalent of fighting for civil rights. This just feeds into what has become the conventional wisdom among evangelicals--that Christianity is under fire in the U.S. and this Lincoln Memorial video is just one more strike against it.
Well, let's put it this way, no one is trying to introduce a constitutional amendment that says only Catholics can marry or that Baptists can't get married or what have you. The Christian persecution complex is only perceived and objectively not real, whereas homosexual persecution is perceived because it is objectively real.
If only Fred Phelps would get as impassioned about the other things in the various lists in which homosexuality is included in the Bible--he might picket the White House with signs saying "God HATES Liars"...
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
...if you work for Halliburton
...if you work for Fluor
...if you are Osama bin Laden
Really, can George Bush really convince people that this war is worth it? Hopefully not--people are finally starting to come around, based on a couple of recent polls. But we all know how to listen to a Bush speech--everything that he asserts as being true isn't. So when he says bullshit like "It is worth it," that means that in reality, the war isn't worth it, and so forth.
For the real dope on Iraq and how things have progressed, or rather, devolved, Antiwar.com had some great links today, this one from the Independent foremost among them...
Canada seems so civilized...they're going to legalize gay marriage. And I guess we'll just continue to oppress people down south in Washington D.C.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Meaning, of course, when the fight that Bush is now trying to pick with Iran starts (with another OK for Bush to use force hitting Congress in Oct. '06, natch) in spring '07, will we be seeing a leak of a memo that was written I don't know--yesterday?
The reason I ask this is because we've seen a drip-drip-dripping of these types of stories on Internet portals and such: on the MSN home page, one of the headlines is "Al Qaida hiding in Iran?" and then when clicked on, the headline is "Al Qaida Finds Safe Haven In Iran." These hints are being drop-drop-dropped in the laps of the ever-credulous mainstream media and right now they're not front-page, blaring news--i.e., the other two headlines on the MSN homepage right now are "3 N.J. boys found dead" and "2nd case of mad cow in U.S." Not pleasant stuff, but the Iran tease is third in the list.
And then, the story is not about Al Qaida finding "safe haven" in Iran or setting up a camp there as the headlines would have you believe, it's about some complicated deal the Iranians supposedly worked out with the Saudis to detain some Al Qaida leaders. Or something. At any rate, the damage is done to Iran's reputation to the casual headline-glancer--if you don't read the story, you see the phrase "Al Qaida hiding in Iran" and maybe you see the question mark at the end, maybe you don't. Maybe you can't remember later if there was any punctuation, but that one phrase sticks in your mind "Al Qaida hiding in Iran." So when Foxbaugh Coulterannity starts to talk about how Iran is our enemy and they need to do what we say and they're a terror state with links to Al Qaida, the headline-glancer subconsciously remembers that phrase "Al Qaida hiding in Iran." The glancer thinks: I know Al Qaida was deemed responsible for 9/11 and...now...they're...in...Iran? Did they have some hostages or somethin'? Aren't they fuckin' crazy towelheads like the rest of 'em? Damn right Mr. Foxbaugh, let's go get 'em--I read somewhere that Al Qaida is hidin' in Iran! I'll glady send everybody else's sons and daughters to fight over something that has come to us on the word of a handful of anonymous sources--and let's make sure I get my $300 in tax "relief" while we spend another $300 billion we don't have! Because Al Qaida is hiding in Iran!"
So let's ask right now--does everybody know now, like people are saying "everybody knew" in summer '02, that we're going to invade Iran? Or is it in fact, an open question? Scott Ritter of course has made his prediction and Seymour Hersh has done his story on U.S. operations in Iran.
Let's look around and take note--are we being told that the president has already decided to go to war with Iran? Are we being told that right now? Is that what we should get from these little popcorn kernels of news?
I wish a White House reporter would ask every day, starting right now, if the President has already decided to go to war anywhere. And a different reporter should ask every day "Has President George Walker Bush [gotta be very specific so that no conservative asshole can come along in 2 or 3 years and say that the answer to this question was just some flunky's opinion] decided today or any time this week to go to war or commit troops to any other country in the world besides Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Ask that fucking question every day starting right now and then when Son of Downing Street is leaked, we'll know for sure whether "everybody knew" that the President has decided on war or not. But no, we're in such a tizzy about whether Korpulent Korporate-whore Karl insulted liberals and is the current Downing Street memo real or fake or new or old or whatever that talk of war with Iran is going to be floated ever so quietly, like brushes on a snare.
And then, after Labor Day '06, the new product line will be introduced, all Democratic veterans will have their pictures morphed into Saddam Hussein's in attack ads, all in the hope that Republicans will at least not lose any seats in Congress. Because if there was ever a time that they need to keep a majority, it's now. If they don't, in a variation of what the Thing might say "It's impeachin' time!"
Thursday, June 23, 2005
So "evil genius" Korpulent Kocksucker Karl Rove does exactly what I pointed out yesterday--he conflates criticism of the war or our tactics with criticism of the soldiers:
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
And then another wacko had this to say:
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who joined Pryce at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service that it "is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops..."
Oh my, this is politics at its dirtiest...another Repuke said that "what we've seen from Democrat leaders is a growing pattern of jumping at any chance to point the finger at our own troops, bending over backwards to promote the interests of terror-camp detainees while dragging our military's honored reputation through the mud."
You can plainly see the button-pushing, hyperbolic phrases--"our military's honored reputation," "guerilla warfare on American troops." What Dick Durbin said had nothing to do with besmirching our military's honored reputation--it merely pointed out that the tactics which have been authorized by our leaders, i.e., Rumsfeld, et. al. are plainly against what America stands for.
The whole war is wrong, not the troops. Love the troops, hate the war. But these motherfuckers are playing the dirtiest of games--deliberately misrepresenting what Democrats and antiwar activists have said for their own political gain. It's what Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has been pointing out for seven years now--these people are making a joke of our public discourse.
So we have to fight back and fight back hard and dirty. Like Dr. Alterman has been saying recently, we have to abandon our so-called "principles" of fair play and logic and so forth. We're after results, not a game fairly played. We have to get it together and not have Democrats/liberals backbiting and contradicting each other. We have to present a united front and do our bickering in private.
Our main goal has to be getting these Repukes out of power and reminding Red-Staters and the media that it is perfectly acceptable and logical to LOVE THE TROOPS, HATE THE WAR...
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Sgt. Arnold's funeral was today. He and another Mississippian, Terrance Lee, were both killed in Iraq when an IED went off near the vehicle they were riding in on June 11. I saw on the AP wire today that Lee was posthumously promoted to sergeant, which at first I took as an insult to Lee and a morale killer for other troops, i.e., want a sure-fire way to get that promotion--just die in battle! But now that I think about it, maybe it was something that was pending anyway and his promotion will give his family a little more money. After all, he has two young children already and his wife is expecting their first child together in September.
This kind of stuff makes me sick inside. Sgt. Arnold's wife missed his last phone call and their 28th wedding anniversary would have been in July or August and he had grandchildren, for God's sake. Sgt. Lee is more than a decade my junior--that's so odd to me for some reason.
But please, oh please can we not end this war yesterday? Even Republican Rep. Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones has had his fill. But there's too much of attitudes like Bill O'Reilly's--who said that Sen. Durbin and the employees of Air America have committed treason and should be put in chains--and this obviously anti-anti-war (I didn't want to say "pro-war," because only criminals like Bush and Cheney deserve that epithet) propaganda piece I saw on a forum today. Here's a link and here's the text in full:
I was sitting alone in one of those loud, casual steak houses that you find all over the country. You know the type--a bucket of peanuts on every table, shells littering the floor, and a bunch of perky college kids racing around with longneck beers and sizzling platters.
Taking a sip of my iced tea, I studied the crowd over the rim of my glass. My gaze lingered on a group enjoying their meal. They wore no uniform to identify their branch of service, but they were definitely "military:" clean shaven, cropped haircut, and that "squared away" look that comes with pride.
Smiling sadly, I glanced across my table to the empty seat where my husband usually sat. It had only been a few months since we sat in this very booth, talking about his upcoming deployment to the Middle East. That was when he made me promise to get a sitter for the kids, come back to this restaurant once a month and treat myself to a nice steak. In turn he would treasure the thought of me being here, thinking about him until he returned home to me.
I fingered the little flag pin I constantly wear and wondered where he was at this very moment. Was he safe and warm? Was his cold any better? Were my letters getting through to him? As I pondered these thoughts, high pitched female voices from the next booth broke into my thoughts.
"I don't know what Bush is thinking about. Invading Iraq. You'd think that man would learn from his old man's mistakes. Good lord. What an idiot! I can't believe he is even in office. You do know, he stole the election."
I cut into my steak and tried to ignore them, as they began an endless tirade running down our president. I thought about the last night I spent with my husband, as he prepared to deploy. He had just returned from getting his smallpox and anthrax shots. The image of him standing in our kitchen packing his gas mask still gives me chills.
Once again the women's voices invaded my thoughts. "It is all about oil, you know. Our soldiers will go in and rape and steal all the oil they can in the name of 'freedom'. Hmph! I wonder how many innocent people they'll kill without giving it a thought. It's pure greed, you know."
My chest tightened as I stared at my wedding ring. I could still see how handsome my husband looked in his "mess dress" the day he slipped it on my finger. I wondered what he was wearing now. Probably his desert uniform, affectionately dubbed "coffee stains" with a heavy bulletproof vest over it.
"You know, we should just leave Iraq alone. I don't think they are hiding any weapons. In fact, I bet it's all a big act just to! Increase the president's popularity. That's all it is, padding the military budget at the expense of our social security and education. And, you know what else? We're just asking for another 9-ll. I can't say when it happens again that we didn't deserve it."
Their words brought to mind the war protesters I had watched gathering outside our base. Did no one appreciate the sacrifice of brave men and women, who leave their homes and family to ensure our freedom? Do they even know what "freedom" is?
I glanced at the table where the young men were sitting, and saw their courageous faces change. They had stopped eating and looked at each other dejectedly, listening to the women talking.
"Well, I, for one, think it's just deplorable to invade Iraq, and I am certainly sick of our tax dollars going to train professional baby killers we call a military."
Professional baby killers? I thought about what a wonderful father my husband is, and of how long it would be before he would see our children again.
That's it! Indignation rose up inside me. Normally reserved, pride in my husband gave me a brassy boldness I never realized I had. Tonight one voice will answer on behalf of our military, and let her pride in our troops be known.
Sliding out of my booth, I walked around to the adjoining booth and placed my hands flat on their table. Lowering myself to eye level with them, I smilingly said, "I couldn't help overhearing your conversation. You see, I'm sitting here trying to enjoy my dinner alone. And, do you know why? Because my husband, whom I love with all my heart, is halfway around the world defending your right to say rotten things about him." "Yes, you have the right to your opinion, and what you think is none of my business. However, what you say in public is something else, and I will not sit by and listen to you ridicule MY country, MY president, MY husband, and all the other fine American men and women who put their lives on the line, just so you can have the "freedom" to complain. Freedom is an expensive commodity, ladies. Don't let your actions cheapen it." I must have been louder than I meant to be, because the manager came over to inquire if everything was all right. "Yes, thank you," I replied. Then turning back to the women, I said, "Enjoy the rest of your meal."
As I returned to my booth applause broke out. I was embarrassed for making a scene, and went back to my half eaten steak. The women picked up their check and scurried away.
After finishing my meal, and while waiting for my check, the manager returned with a huge apple cobbler ala mode. "Compliments of those soldiers," he said. He also smiled and said the ladies tried to pay for my dinner, but that another couple had beaten them to it. When I asked who, the manager said they had already left, but that the gentleman was a veteran, and wanted to take care of the wife of "one of our boys."
With a lump in my throat, I gratefully turned to the soldiers and thanked them for the cobbler. Grinning from ear to ear, they came over and surrounded the booth. "We just wanted to thank you, ma'am. You know we can't get into confrontations with civilians, so we appreciate what you did."
As I drove home, for the first time since my husband's deployment, I didn't feel quite so alone. My heart was filled with the warmth of the other diners who stopped by my table, to relate how they, too, were proud of my husband, and would keep him in their prayers. I knew their flags would fly a little higher the next day. Perhaps they would look for more tangible ways to show their pride in our country, and the military who protect her. And maybe, just maybe, the two women who were railing against our country, would pause for a minute to appreciate all the freedom America offers, and the price it pays to maintain it's freedom.
As for me, I have learned that one voice CAN make a difference. Maybe the next time protesters gather outside the gates of the base where I live, I will proudly stand on the opposite side with a sign of my own. It will simply say, "Thank You!"
(*Lori K is a 31 year old teacher and proud military wife. A California native, Mrs. K currently lives in Alabama)
To those who fought for our Nation: Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Now this little tearjerker was posted in this forum under the heading "Military Wife Speaks Out," as though it were an actual interview with an actual person. So you start reading it, and even I got drawn in, and then you forget that you thought you were hearing from a real person and it's not till it's over that you realize that it had to have been written by some gay-bashing, Bible-thumping, jingo-jango, the-military-is-great-even-when-they-torture-prisoners type of Republican propaganda group. Unless you are a member of such a group, then you think "Right on! That brave woman put those snooty college whores in their place--they think they're so goddamn smart but they don't realize they shouldn't even be allowed to say such things--or even think them! This is America!"
But the whole argument that this pile of dung is based upon is this: American soldiers are protecting the righteous conservatives as well as the ungrateful liberals by being in Iraq. The problem is, they're not protecting us.
Look, everyone understands they're just doing their job and that the nature of the military is that you follow orders and shut the fuck up. The antiwar movement has no beef with the soldiers, in fact, the antiwar movement wants the soldiers out of harm's way as soon as possible (if I may presume to speak for the antiwar movement for a hot minute). Hell, if the antiwar movement had its way, the soldiers would have never gone to war in the first place.
And that's why bullshit like that exists, because the anti-antiwar people know that their cause is helped by making people think that the antiwar movement is against the soldiers when in fact the antiwar movement is against the policy of the war. Of course, the soldiers are the tools that are used to implement the policy, but nonetheless, they are completely separate from the policy.
Of course, every time a pro-war or anti-antiwar person is on TV and is asked about 6 out of 10 people being against the war (i.e., Karl Rove on "Hardball" last night, they make sure to make their answer about the brave sacrifice of our soldiers rather than addressing whether or not the policy is wrong. For Christ's sake, it's perfectly clear and logically acceptable that you can feel sorry for the troops and wish them no ill and simultaneously realize that the war is the most vile thing ever.
And maybe that's what a lot of this Christo-fascist-yellow-magnetites are thinking, i.e., "if I speak out against the war, I'll be hurting the troops." And Rush and O'Lie-ly and Hannity and all the others have worked very hard to put that idea in people's heads--if you criticize the war, you're criticizing the troops. But of course nothing could be further than the truth. Maybe more of these pro- and anti-antiwar types will come around if we do a better job of helping them realize that critcism of the war is not even remotely close to a criticism of U.S. soldiers.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
So Killen got convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Well, at least that's something.
Well, I'll say this, Killen and the KKK may have gotten rid of three civil rights workers, but the civil rights movement kicked their ass. It's still kicking their ass, and amen to that.
Oh the irony is so rich. Vietnam's prime minister comes to visit--he probably didn't have a problem with Bush, because Bush got out of having to fight against the Vietnamese. He was boldy and bravely not living up to his Air Guard commitments, remember? But Bush will finally get to see Vietnam next year, from the comfort of air-conditioned motorcades in exquisite government buildings. Unlike John Kerry, who first saw it through shrapnel and gunfire. But yeah, Bush is the big "commander-in-chief"...it's disgusting...
Monday, June 20, 2005
If only the Downing Street memo had been abducted in Aruba...
Oh yeah, fuck you, Dana Milbank and thank you, Greg Mitchell...
Raw Story pointed this out: UK official says WMD claims were totally implausible
PARSING THE MEMO
For fun, let's parse this section of the memo, frequently referred to as the "most damning" section in the hopes that it will give us 1)insight into what was said and 2) ammo to repel belittling attacks on the memo after having gained such insight:
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam": OK, so did everybody else. That's not so terrible.
"through military action"--Why did he want to do it through military action? Weren't there other ways of doing it? Buying him off, for instance? Staging an Allende-esque coup, for example? Negotiations about ending sanctions, inspections, etc.--there were many options available to Bush besides military action. Already, the "damning" stuff has started.
"justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"--Ah! That's how they'd make the case that only military action on our part could/should be used--because Saddam is known to reward terrorists and encourage terrorism and supposedly has WMD. But as Powell and Rice both indicated pre-9/11, Iraq was known to not have this capability. And of course, that's why 9/11 was such a godsend for Bush, because even though Iraq was in fact a weak nation lacking the means to inflict harm on the US (again, by the administration's own admission), the spin on 9/11 was that just when we think we're safe, the "evil ones" will strike.
"But the intelligence and facts"--Dearlove knew that the "intelligence" that Saddam had little to no capability to strike the U.S. created the "fact" that Iraq was therefore not a threat to the U.S. or, as Powell pointed out, his regional neighbors. To justify the war, the intelli-facts had to be and were being fixed around the policy.
"were being fixed around the policy": The right wing freakos want to argue that this is a British colloquialism that is being misunderstood by the American public, that to Britons, "fixed around" means "telling the absolute truth" or some such rubbish (too British?--"garbage" would've worked just as well). But that is merely a continuation of the semantic game the Repukes have gotten too good at (thank you, Frank Luntz)--create the slightest doubt that words may not mean what they seem to mean, and then hammer away at it. But "fixed around," from the context of the memo, clearly means "being obfuscated" or "being used to bamboozle the American public"--as Alex Hamilton pointed out at DailyKos, if "fixed around" didn't mean "doctored," there would be no need for the explanatory "but" at the beginning of the sentence. What the memo is saying is that, the Americans know and we know the case against Saddam is weak (the memo goes on to say that our "NSC had no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record [because they know that would show Iraq to not be a threat]"), but not to worry, the Yanks will convince their people otherwise in accordance with the Bush admin. desire to go to war.
Note that there are no other incidences of British slang throughout the memo--this was serious business and slang was not being employed.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Just watched most of the Conyers (God bless that man) hearing on C-Span 2. It re-airs tomorrow on C-Span 2 at 8:00 Eastern. It's good, real good...damn good. My wife says, "Yeah, but nobody's watching this." They may not have seen this hearing, or even the next few hearings, but there will be a hearing that the American public at large will be aware of and attend to.
What I found most pleasing about it was the frequent use of the word "impeachment" and the reassurance that the Downing Street Memo is in fact the "smoking gun" that proves Bush's mendacity. The witnesses at the hearing were spectacular--I had heard of John Bonifaz and Ray McGovern but hadn't seen them on TV (what a shock--what with our "liberal media" and all). Cindy Sheehan was very important to have on hand as well.
But yes, the Downing St. document is the smoking gun. On Countdown, James Vandehei of the Wash. Post tried to downplay it with the Repuke-lickin' talking points--there's nothing new in it, we've known everything in it for years now, etc. But he did point out--and in the process undermining his attempt to undermine the DSM--that the DSM is our first evidence on paper of what was going on.
Well, Vandehei, then at least that is what is new (even though there's so much more). We didn't have a paper trail before, and now we do. That's extremely important.
I don't know about you, but I get the impression that Thad Cochran and Trent Lott and some of their rich, elitist Republican fellow travelers are pro-lynching. Why in God's holy name would any senator in 2005 think that they shouldn't sign on as a co-sponsor to the lynching apology? Didn't Trent Lott learn anything from sucking Strom Thurmond's wrinkled dick? He and Cochran are complete and utter jackasses. I wish I could say they'd lose their seats when their times come, but this is Mississippi. This poll shows why Lott and Cochran will retain their seats (should show up on this page tomorrow).
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
This story says it all...a soldier from a town near where I grew up died in Iraq on Saturday. This story from the local paper really validates everything that’s ever been said about the poor being sent to fight the rich man’s war, i.e. :
CARRIERE - A gray 1949 Chrysler will become a tribute to Sgt. Larry Arnold Sr., killed Saturday in Iraq by a roadside bomb, his son said Monday. [snip]People don’t live in “mobile homes” by preference. If a person has a choice between a tornado magnet or a real house, they don’t choose the magnet. Could it be that the Arnolds couldn’t afford a real, non-mobile home and that’s why they lived in a trailer? Being from the area and knowing its vast quantities of trailer parks and very low income statistics, I’d say that of course that’s why this “superhero” lived in a trailer (“superhero” is what his son described him as).
The car has tremendous sentimental value, said Larry Arnold Jr., sitting outside the mobile home where the family lives in rural Pearl River County.
Unfortunately, one of Arnold’s sons is also in the military–does the same fate await him, too?
Also, according to the article, the father died after reaching retirement eligibility. What a pisser. George W. Bush and the neocons preyed on the patriotism, sense of duty, and lack of other choices of people like Sgt. Arnold. Here’s how Arnold’s wife put it:
Obviously Sgt. Arnold was a real man of loyalty with a powerful sense of kinship with his brothers in arms. He even decided to forego retirement to be with his men on what their commander-in-chief told them was a vitally important mission, to supposedly defend America from an inevitable and devastating “nuke-you-luhr” attack (now that I write this, maybe that’s why Bush the Criminal insists on that pronunciation–because it implies that you will be nuked–“nuke-you-luhr”).
"He had his 20 years just about the time they got the orders for activation," Melinda Arnold said.
Her husband did not try to avoid the second tour of duty in Iraq.
"He wanted to go over there and finish what he started with the 890th," she said. "He wanted to finish his mission."
The troops remaining in Iraq stayed on his mind during Arnold's two-week leave in early May, she said.
"The whole time he was home, he worried about the guys in Iraq," she said. "He wasn't comfortable."
Not only is Arnold a father of three, he also had two grandchildren and was married to Melinda for almost 28 years. He was 46 years old. That’s who this foul, evil war is killing–grandfathers and faithful, devoted husbands–and not just on the American side. If that fact doesn’t utterly sicken you deep within, given that every reason we were told we had to invade and occupy Iraq has now turned out to be not just untrue but in fact vicious, sinful lies, then you literally have no soul.
Make One Giant Magnet
Sgt. Arnold is the very emblem and reason we should all rip the yellow magnets off our cars, point them all to the east simultaneously and hope that the magnetic force generated will attach to the troop transports and pull them back here. We should be lying down en masse to stop traffic and striking en masse to grind our economy to a halt until our boys are back home. We should encircle the White House with Bush inside and lay siege to it until he issues the order to bring the soldiers back home and then submits to being thrown into the brig.
But I fear that none of that will happen–even Sgt. Arnold’s own son, one of the people who should be the angriest of all, misunderstands what is happening:
"He was a real life super-hero," he said of his father. "The super-heroes in comic books don't have anything on him. He went to serve his country and protect the people of Iraq and America.But the superheroes in comic books don’t die (and even if they do, they always come back to life), and soldiers dying in Iraq are not protecting America. Saying that doesn’t mean Sgt. Arnold is any less of a true patriot who clearly loved his country more than his own life. It means that George W. Bush and company will have a hell of time come judgment day.
Monday, June 13, 2005
...since I did some blog...
Goddamn I love Sam and Janeane on the Majority Report! Listen! Listen!
It's so kickass that Edgar Ray Killen has to be wheeled in for his trial...it's the long arm of the law, baby. Nobody's too broke down to face lady justice, Nazi punks fuck off, hey hey fuck the KKK, and all that...
Iraq support way down...finally! But hey all you fucking red-state cannon fodder types--TOO LITTLE TOO LATE! Where was this dissatisfaction around say, 7 months ago, last November, when it might have fucking mattered? We all have to learn that no one should ever vote for a Republican, not even John McCain...if Jesus H. Christ came back to earth and ran on a Republican ticket you shouldn't vote for Jesus. Don't do it--they fuck shit up.
As our fine friend the Conceptual Guerilla has pointed out, the economy is better, unemployment is decreased, and a whole host of other good things happen when Democrats hold the Presidency.
Oh, and Michael Jackson. I'm glad he was found innocent, and I'll tell you why. You can't believe the testimony of children, especially not when the stakes are this high. Teaching school for five years taught me that much. Kids lie, especially when their parents or parent or whatever tell them to. Michael Jackson ain't perfect and he is weird, but so what...
And, one last thing, the new White Stripes album blows. "Blue Orchid" is a rockin' song, but the rest of the album is pretentious fluff. And Pitchfork was dead wrong about Robbie Fulks' latest--it is great. The new Teenage Fanclub is nice--nothing new, but there was nothing wrong with what they were doing before, so why change it?