I have not posted a blog in a while, so you'll have to forgive me there. I've been busy / lazy / had things on my mind which don't easily fall form into a coherent blog (as though there were such a thing). But, I thought I should post today if for no other reason than so you'll know I'm still alive and won't come searching for the body, only to discover me in the buff playing backgammon with a robot (it could happen).
The biggest problem with being a news junkie is that the most easily accesible news, and the most reported, is also the most sensationalistic (i.e., depressing). For instance, the story of the teenage boy in Alabama who got in an argument with his brother over a girl and in retaliation decided to rape his own mother. How did that happen? Well, she was passed out drunk on the couch in the middle of the day, and when she awoke, the kid wanted to finish. Seriously, I share a planet with these people?
And then because I didn't learn my lesson after reading that, I read an article about a mother who hit her adopted son on the head with a hammer, causing trauma that took a week to kill him. And the husband never took the kid to the hospital because he didn't want to get in an argument with his wife.
But the news isn't all bad. I for one am very excited, and hopeful, about the elections next week. I'm not the kind of person who thinks things will instantly become better overnight, but I'm hopeful that a step in the right direction might help to make things better. Here's the part where I normally would tell you "no matter who you vote for, make sure you vote" but we all know that's a crock. If I had my way, everyone who was eligible to vote would, and would take it seriously enough to be informed and actually think about their decision. Sure, I'd think it would be great if everyone voted for the people I want to win, but it's also simple-minded and childish to say "I'm going to vote for whoever the guy is who isn't Republican" or "I'm going to vote for whoever is against the war". When electing someone to a position for a term of years where they will vote on any number of bills and issues and wield power and influence, it's stupid to pick the person based solely on their party affiliation or a single issue. That really bugs me. Almost as much as people who say "what election? Didn't we just have one?" That's the problem with the heavy-handed executive, that people start to forget about the other branches. Anyone who only votes for President and neglects to care about their other representation should be forced to only eat one meal each week, forgoing all others. If they survive, then they are free to continue being lazy simpletons.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 9, 2006
Is This Your Beer?
A few tiny things that annoy me on an average day.
When people pronounce the word "Alzheimer's" as though there were a "T" in it. I think it helps people remember because it's like "Old Timer's Disease", but of course, that's not what it's called. This wouldn't bother me as much, except newscasters do it all the time, and they should know better because a.) they are supposed to research these kinds of things and b.) they are reading it off of a teleprompter, so they can see it right there.
When people step onto an escalator that isn't running, and wait several seconds before realizing that it isn't moving and then start walking down/up because they are oblivious to the world around them. Most people have used an escalator enough times to be able to tell just by looking whether or not it is moving, and even if they can't they should know immediately that they are just standing still. Really, when an escalator is turned off, it magically turns into stairs, and after all this time if you don't know how to use stairs without needing to think about it, perhaps you should just stop leaving your house in the morning.
When people sit on the floor in the aisles of a Barnes & Noble, thus blocking access for both walking and for paying customers to get to the actual books. If you are spending enough time reading in Barnes & Noble that your legs can no longer support you, you're not browsing...you're stealing. Buy the damn book already, or go to a library (and don't sit on the floor).
When people leave their garbage just lying around, especially in a city where you are almost never more than ten feet from a garbage can. This applies to the people who take 20 napkins at a movie theater/starbucks/fast food restaurant and then leave the 1 dirty one and 19 slightly dirty ones on the table along with their empty cup and the gum wrappers they emptied out of their purse before leaving. It's even worse when they do it in a park. I'm sure that empty cup and snickers wrapper is weighing you down, but seriously, just carry it until you get to a garbage can. You were able to carry it while it was full, so now it should be easier since it's empty. Why should other people clean up after you, when clearly you wouldn't do it.
When politicians complain about things being politicized. Who do they think politicized it? They did. And if they weren't politicizing it, it would simply be called "governance", and Fox News isn't going to put their face on TV for that.
and finally....
When people talk about how everything changed after 9/11. And yes, the lives of the people involved and the people they knew changed. And certainly the political climate changed, and then we went and started our global rampage. What I mean is when politicians and pundits say it, implying that before 9/11 the world was a happy and peaceful place and then the day after, terrorists just appeared from thin air and we had to do something about it. In fact, there were many terrorists and many terrorist attacks before 9/11. North Korea had nuclear weapons programs (and rudimentary weapons) before 9/11. Iraq was ruled by a dictator and Iran was ruled by a hardliner all before 9/11. Afghanistan was a hotbed of terrorist activities long before 9/11. The world didn't change on 9/11, we just started paying attention to all the bad things that we'd been ignoring before 9/11.
Mind you, each of these thoughts pops up for about 2 seconds out of my day, and the rest of the time I am content to listen to my iPod, enjoy the beautiful weather, and read a good piece of fiction. It would just be extra nice if these little speed bumps didn't pop up in the middle of my great day.
When people pronounce the word "Alzheimer's" as though there were a "T" in it. I think it helps people remember because it's like "Old Timer's Disease", but of course, that's not what it's called. This wouldn't bother me as much, except newscasters do it all the time, and they should know better because a.) they are supposed to research these kinds of things and b.) they are reading it off of a teleprompter, so they can see it right there.
When people step onto an escalator that isn't running, and wait several seconds before realizing that it isn't moving and then start walking down/up because they are oblivious to the world around them. Most people have used an escalator enough times to be able to tell just by looking whether or not it is moving, and even if they can't they should know immediately that they are just standing still. Really, when an escalator is turned off, it magically turns into stairs, and after all this time if you don't know how to use stairs without needing to think about it, perhaps you should just stop leaving your house in the morning.
When people sit on the floor in the aisles of a Barnes & Noble, thus blocking access for both walking and for paying customers to get to the actual books. If you are spending enough time reading in Barnes & Noble that your legs can no longer support you, you're not browsing...you're stealing. Buy the damn book already, or go to a library (and don't sit on the floor).
When people leave their garbage just lying around, especially in a city where you are almost never more than ten feet from a garbage can. This applies to the people who take 20 napkins at a movie theater/starbucks/fast food restaurant and then leave the 1 dirty one and 19 slightly dirty ones on the table along with their empty cup and the gum wrappers they emptied out of their purse before leaving. It's even worse when they do it in a park. I'm sure that empty cup and snickers wrapper is weighing you down, but seriously, just carry it until you get to a garbage can. You were able to carry it while it was full, so now it should be easier since it's empty. Why should other people clean up after you, when clearly you wouldn't do it.
When politicians complain about things being politicized. Who do they think politicized it? They did. And if they weren't politicizing it, it would simply be called "governance", and Fox News isn't going to put their face on TV for that.
and finally....
When people talk about how everything changed after 9/11. And yes, the lives of the people involved and the people they knew changed. And certainly the political climate changed, and then we went and started our global rampage. What I mean is when politicians and pundits say it, implying that before 9/11 the world was a happy and peaceful place and then the day after, terrorists just appeared from thin air and we had to do something about it. In fact, there were many terrorists and many terrorist attacks before 9/11. North Korea had nuclear weapons programs (and rudimentary weapons) before 9/11. Iraq was ruled by a dictator and Iran was ruled by a hardliner all before 9/11. Afghanistan was a hotbed of terrorist activities long before 9/11. The world didn't change on 9/11, we just started paying attention to all the bad things that we'd been ignoring before 9/11.
Mind you, each of these thoughts pops up for about 2 seconds out of my day, and the rest of the time I am content to listen to my iPod, enjoy the beautiful weather, and read a good piece of fiction. It would just be extra nice if these little speed bumps didn't pop up in the middle of my great day.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Mafia in the Music Industry
So running up to the midterm elections, I'm wondering why we even bother ending elections, because it seems that politicians start running for office again earlier and earlier, leaving a smaller and smaller window of time during which anyone feels comfortable doing real work. Take for example the most recent bill passed by the Senate: the "compromise" between the President and his rivals...Republicans. Wait, what? Anyway, he wanted to be able to define what "torture" was and hold "enemy combatants" without trials. John McCain and friends said "NO!" and came up with a bill to challenge him by...allowing him to define what "interogation" techniques are allowed and setting up military courts to try combatants without congressional oversight or a right of habeas corpus. Totally different than what the President wanted. He must be fuming..."Damn John McCain, ruining everything" he must say as he twirls his mustache.
I'm surprised they were able to get this passed, what with those cut-and-run Democrats trying to add on crazy amendments...like one that would guarantee the Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus and one that would give Congress (the people who passed this bill) oversight over C.I.A. interrogations. Who'd want those things? Oh, and the other amendment that luckily they didn't pass would have required the State Department to inform other countries of what interrogation techniques we thought were permissable on captured American soldiers. Thank god that didn't pass, because then otherwise our soldiers might have been treated humanely and other countries might have found out what types of interrogation techniques we might possibly be using. It's really better if all captured soldiers everywhere are kept hidden, without rights or oversight, and that we don't tell people what we do with them or what they tell us. It just makes sense.
Why is this a waste of time? Well, it's so broad and seemingly in violation of the Constitution and various international treaties that many of the Republicans who voted for it commented that the Supreme Court will almost definitely overturn it, adding that they wished they weren't rushing this before midterms so that they could do it right because they're going to have to do it again once the Supreme Court knocks it down. So, the House and Senate have passed a bill that even they are pretty sure will never become law just so they can say they are doing something to combat terrorism and to make Democrats (and one or two Republicans) look like they are coddling terrorists by giving them things like "trials" and "humane treatment". We can't be bothered being ethical when we have information to get, through means that would make that information insubmissable in an American court but not in a secret tribunal.
At times like this, I just want to put on Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and wipe my tears with an American flag.
I'm surprised they were able to get this passed, what with those cut-and-run Democrats trying to add on crazy amendments...like one that would guarantee the Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus and one that would give Congress (the people who passed this bill) oversight over C.I.A. interrogations. Who'd want those things? Oh, and the other amendment that luckily they didn't pass would have required the State Department to inform other countries of what interrogation techniques we thought were permissable on captured American soldiers. Thank god that didn't pass, because then otherwise our soldiers might have been treated humanely and other countries might have found out what types of interrogation techniques we might possibly be using. It's really better if all captured soldiers everywhere are kept hidden, without rights or oversight, and that we don't tell people what we do with them or what they tell us. It just makes sense.
Why is this a waste of time? Well, it's so broad and seemingly in violation of the Constitution and various international treaties that many of the Republicans who voted for it commented that the Supreme Court will almost definitely overturn it, adding that they wished they weren't rushing this before midterms so that they could do it right because they're going to have to do it again once the Supreme Court knocks it down. So, the House and Senate have passed a bill that even they are pretty sure will never become law just so they can say they are doing something to combat terrorism and to make Democrats (and one or two Republicans) look like they are coddling terrorists by giving them things like "trials" and "humane treatment". We can't be bothered being ethical when we have information to get, through means that would make that information insubmissable in an American court but not in a secret tribunal.
At times like this, I just want to put on Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and wipe my tears with an American flag.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
I Feel Safer Already
A classified intelligence report concludes that the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat to the United States, something that I could have told them, if only they had thought to ask. The newly revealed document is the first formal report on global trends in terrorism by the National Intelligence Estimate, which is put out by the National Intelligence Council. This, also coming during the same week when U.S. casualties in Iraq have reached the point of being double the casualties of 9/11 which precipitated this whole thing (and dozens of times more if you include the Iraqi civilian deaths, but who cares about them, right?).
So now we have professionals in the intelligence community telling us what we already knew, that we've only been creating more resentment and fueling terrorist action and recruitment. As for how our nation building is going, the Associated Press reported today that some U.S. soldiers working in Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops are among the worst they've ever seen. That's fine, though, because we can just stay there for 20 or 30 years until all of the kinks are worked out. Even Senator McCain acknowledged on "Face the Nation" that the war in Iraq is a rallying point of terrorists and that at this point we're fueling terrorist organizations, but that also failure now will lead to a greater threat than we ever had pre-Iraq.
So, when we began this little "War on Terror", it was to eliminate the threat of terrorists and bring justice to the people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11th. Five years later we have failed to bring the terrorists to justice, especially the guy at the top, and we have since increased the terrorist threat. Oh, and we've taken a country that was so weak that we were able to topple its government in the span of a long weekend and created a hotbed of chaos and violence where, if things continue as they have been, terrorists will have a fertile training ground. Awesome. Mission accomplished.
So now we have professionals in the intelligence community telling us what we already knew, that we've only been creating more resentment and fueling terrorist action and recruitment. As for how our nation building is going, the Associated Press reported today that some U.S. soldiers working in Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops are among the worst they've ever seen. That's fine, though, because we can just stay there for 20 or 30 years until all of the kinks are worked out. Even Senator McCain acknowledged on "Face the Nation" that the war in Iraq is a rallying point of terrorists and that at this point we're fueling terrorist organizations, but that also failure now will lead to a greater threat than we ever had pre-Iraq.
So, when we began this little "War on Terror", it was to eliminate the threat of terrorists and bring justice to the people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11th. Five years later we have failed to bring the terrorists to justice, especially the guy at the top, and we have since increased the terrorist threat. Oh, and we've taken a country that was so weak that we were able to topple its government in the span of a long weekend and created a hotbed of chaos and violence where, if things continue as they have been, terrorists will have a fertile training ground. Awesome. Mission accomplished.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
You Just Got F'ed in the A
After talking about Bill O'Reilly yesterday, that got me thinking about torture. Like when I go home to visit my parents and have to walk through the gauntlet of televisions in the house tuned to The Factor. As you may know, there's discussion in the Senate, and especially in the media, about a bill that would "define" torture, or to be more accurate, would legalize some types of torture. There are of course the arguments that torture is ineffective and only gets people to tell you what they think you want to hear and not the actual truth. There's the argument that if we torture people then we'll have no clout in demanding that our own soldiers not be tortured. There's also the argument that human decency doesn't allow torture no matter who or why. But, just in case our government decides to do the weaselish thing, I'd like to suggest some alternative forms of torture that won't leave any marks (because as we all know, it doesn't hurt if there's not a bruise).
* Make them watch hours of speeches given by President Bush, giggling and fumbling over the English language, and then show them a copy of his diploma.
* Subject them to a normal American diet by attaching an IV of corn syrup directly to their heart.
* Drive them around the country and make them enter every single children's beauty pageant. (Torture if ever there was)
* Ask them a question, and then when they try to answer, shout "Shut up, shut up!" before they can say anything (also known as the O'Reilly method)
* Lock them in a house with all of the kids from MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen". Then tell all of the kids that all of the other girls have nicer clothes than them. Stand back and watch the chaos ensue.
* Dress the victim in a suit and tie, make them work in an office for 40 years. Force them to take weekly diversity and sexual harassment seminars and engage in "casual fridays". Require them to go for happy hour at Applebee's with the gang from accounts payable. When they go to retire, tell them they don't have a pension. (More a long term strategy, but proven to break spirits).
* Sit them in front of a bank of monitors showing all of the 24 hour news channels for 3 months straight. Then tell them that they can go free if they can fill one index card with the list of topics discussed (one per line). When they can't, show them a picture of Chris Matthews with his shirt off. Repeat.
These are just a few ideas, but I'm sure I can come up with more. That's why, I offer my services to our president as "Torture Czar". I'll be in charge of all torture operations whether they be "enemy combatants", "evil-doers", or "dirty, hippie, liberals". I've watched enough episodes of 24 to know how to torture someone, and enough clips of American Idol to know what it's like to suffer.
* Make them watch hours of speeches given by President Bush, giggling and fumbling over the English language, and then show them a copy of his diploma.
* Subject them to a normal American diet by attaching an IV of corn syrup directly to their heart.
* Drive them around the country and make them enter every single children's beauty pageant. (Torture if ever there was)
* Ask them a question, and then when they try to answer, shout "Shut up, shut up!" before they can say anything (also known as the O'Reilly method)
* Lock them in a house with all of the kids from MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen". Then tell all of the kids that all of the other girls have nicer clothes than them. Stand back and watch the chaos ensue.
* Dress the victim in a suit and tie, make them work in an office for 40 years. Force them to take weekly diversity and sexual harassment seminars and engage in "casual fridays". Require them to go for happy hour at Applebee's with the gang from accounts payable. When they go to retire, tell them they don't have a pension. (More a long term strategy, but proven to break spirits).
* Sit them in front of a bank of monitors showing all of the 24 hour news channels for 3 months straight. Then tell them that they can go free if they can fill one index card with the list of topics discussed (one per line). When they can't, show them a picture of Chris Matthews with his shirt off. Repeat.
These are just a few ideas, but I'm sure I can come up with more. That's why, I offer my services to our president as "Torture Czar". I'll be in charge of all torture operations whether they be "enemy combatants", "evil-doers", or "dirty, hippie, liberals". I've watched enough episodes of 24 to know how to torture someone, and enough clips of American Idol to know what it's like to suffer.
Friday, September 22, 2006
There's a Communist in my Soup
A recent article in Child magazine listed J.K. Rowling as one of the 20 people who have changed childhood forever, stating that her Harry Potter series has entertained children and instilled a love of reading in them that extends beyond her own books. In many ways, fiction author Bill O'Reilly has done a similar service for the Fox "News" crowd, teaching them that you don't need facts or consistancy to write or enjoy a book. My dad is already camped out for the Monday release of Bill's latest yarn, "Culture Warrior" wherein he identifies all of the people that are destroying America...minus all of the people who are actually trying to destroy America such as terrorists or leaders who violate our own Constitution and civil liberties.
For instance, who is "enemy number one" according to Mr. O'Reilly? You guessed it, Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait, no, he's not an enemy to American culture. I was wrong. Enemy number one is George Soros. He's a real left-wing nut job who finances crazy, liberal initiatives like scholarships for Black students in apartheid South Africa and defeating communism in Poland and Czechoslavakia, though I'm sure those aren't the reasons he's enemy number one. It might just have to do with the fact that he's a progressive who gave a lot of money to organizations who attempted to defeat George W. Bush in the last election. Luckily, Bill O'Reilly is an "independent" and wouldn't base his decision on something so partisan.
Also high up on the list of people destroying America with their progressive secularism are the liberal press, including the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Houston Chronicle, and The Denver Post even though all three endorsed George W. Bush for president. Damn liberal newspapers, always trying to get Republicans elected to the highest office in the land. What sinister plot do they have planned? But, it's true, because it's in a book. Another new fact that Bill was kind enough to invent for us all to know is that liberal newspapers outnumber conservative papers 10 to 1. He doesn't cite any source for this
"fact", but it FEELS true, especially when I hop on the subway and everyone is reading Rupert Murdoch's liberal New York Post (oh, if you don't live in New York, you might not get the sarcasm that the New York Post is what you would get if Fox News and The National Inquirer made sweet love).
I could probably spend hours writing about all of the falsehoods in his book wherein he makes up things that people never said or takes things entirely out of context, not to mention the things he says which are just stupid, but honestly I have a broader point to make. He's not the first one to write a "book" about the "culture war", in which he tells us that George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin are trying to murder baby Jesus in his crib. The concept of the Culture War is inherently flawed and mostly a political wedge, but if you are going to talk about people destroying our wholesome, Christian, Capitalist culture, are the biggest enemies really Al Franken and Bill Moyers (who, by the way, he refers to as "fanatical" which, if you've ever seen Bill Moyers is like calling a lump of clay "fanatical")?
How about the people at his own network who have further sensationalized and polarized news like when they displayed banners such as "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?" on their broadcasts? How about the folks at American Idol who are dumbing down our children and our culture with shallow, vindictive, and cookie-cutter personas?
Who is hurting our culture more: George Clooney who makes a thoughtful movie about Edward R. Murrow that not many people see, or the people who make movies like Jackass and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which tons of people see? Well it must be George Clooney, because even though Johnny Knoxville teaches people that it's funny to watch a man take a baseball to the groin or to make fun of fat people and midgets, at least he doesn't do something horrible like talk about politics in front of people.
This isn't about people attacking American culture; it's about people attacking the Conservative movement, and those are most definitely not the same thing. When Bill O'Reilly hears someone on the radio with a liberal viewpoint, he thinks to himself "this man is a traitor and a lunatic". When I hear someone on the radio with a conservative viewpoint, I think to myself "I disagree with this person". Then, there are the people like Bill and Rush and Sean Hannity who I hear and think "these guys are liars and hypocrites and are lowering the level of public discourse." The threat to American culture and American values is not differing opinions, but blowhards who create false culture wars to distract from real issues.
Bill, I know you are "independent" and "a washington outsider" and "a journalist", but let me clear up a few things for you. First off, secular progressives are not trying to kill Christmas, and if they were, they are doing a terrible job of it because everyone I know got presents last year. Second, nobody cares about Barbara Streisand's opinion on anything, so the only way she is a threat to our culture is with her music. Third, the idea that there is a "liberal" media is laughable considering the fact that the majority of media outlets in radio, print, and television are owned by giant corportations mostly run by conservatives like your buddy Rupert, and also since for every Al Franken there is a Bill, Rush, Sean, Michael Savage, and 5 other conservative pundits. Yes, so some newspaper editors are liberals, but not every editor and the majority of newspapers do not have a liberal slant.
And, just to round this off, stop telling tales out of school, because no one is buying.
This past week on his show, Bill O'reilly mentioned how his publisher prevented liberal news organizations from getting advance copies of his book, but guess where I read excerpts of your book? That's right, liberal news organizations. This week he also mentioned on air that the FBI came to Fox "News" headquarters to inform him personally that he was on al Qaeda's hitlist, a "fact" that was then disputed by other people at Fox and the FBI who said he's not on any list and that the FBI never went to Fox News and told him anything. So, if you want to give us your opinions about why The Passion of The Christ is better for our country than The New York Times, go right ahead. But try not to make up so many lies and try not to insult people for being name-callers and then call them "cowards" and "far-left zombies".
You really are making our culture glitter like a diamond.
For instance, who is "enemy number one" according to Mr. O'Reilly? You guessed it, Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait, no, he's not an enemy to American culture. I was wrong. Enemy number one is George Soros. He's a real left-wing nut job who finances crazy, liberal initiatives like scholarships for Black students in apartheid South Africa and defeating communism in Poland and Czechoslavakia, though I'm sure those aren't the reasons he's enemy number one. It might just have to do with the fact that he's a progressive who gave a lot of money to organizations who attempted to defeat George W. Bush in the last election. Luckily, Bill O'Reilly is an "independent" and wouldn't base his decision on something so partisan.
Also high up on the list of people destroying America with their progressive secularism are the liberal press, including the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Houston Chronicle, and The Denver Post even though all three endorsed George W. Bush for president. Damn liberal newspapers, always trying to get Republicans elected to the highest office in the land. What sinister plot do they have planned? But, it's true, because it's in a book. Another new fact that Bill was kind enough to invent for us all to know is that liberal newspapers outnumber conservative papers 10 to 1. He doesn't cite any source for this
"fact", but it FEELS true, especially when I hop on the subway and everyone is reading Rupert Murdoch's liberal New York Post (oh, if you don't live in New York, you might not get the sarcasm that the New York Post is what you would get if Fox News and The National Inquirer made sweet love).
I could probably spend hours writing about all of the falsehoods in his book wherein he makes up things that people never said or takes things entirely out of context, not to mention the things he says which are just stupid, but honestly I have a broader point to make. He's not the first one to write a "book" about the "culture war", in which he tells us that George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin are trying to murder baby Jesus in his crib. The concept of the Culture War is inherently flawed and mostly a political wedge, but if you are going to talk about people destroying our wholesome, Christian, Capitalist culture, are the biggest enemies really Al Franken and Bill Moyers (who, by the way, he refers to as "fanatical" which, if you've ever seen Bill Moyers is like calling a lump of clay "fanatical")?
How about the people at his own network who have further sensationalized and polarized news like when they displayed banners such as "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?" on their broadcasts? How about the folks at American Idol who are dumbing down our children and our culture with shallow, vindictive, and cookie-cutter personas?
Who is hurting our culture more: George Clooney who makes a thoughtful movie about Edward R. Murrow that not many people see, or the people who make movies like Jackass and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which tons of people see? Well it must be George Clooney, because even though Johnny Knoxville teaches people that it's funny to watch a man take a baseball to the groin or to make fun of fat people and midgets, at least he doesn't do something horrible like talk about politics in front of people.
This isn't about people attacking American culture; it's about people attacking the Conservative movement, and those are most definitely not the same thing. When Bill O'Reilly hears someone on the radio with a liberal viewpoint, he thinks to himself "this man is a traitor and a lunatic". When I hear someone on the radio with a conservative viewpoint, I think to myself "I disagree with this person". Then, there are the people like Bill and Rush and Sean Hannity who I hear and think "these guys are liars and hypocrites and are lowering the level of public discourse." The threat to American culture and American values is not differing opinions, but blowhards who create false culture wars to distract from real issues.
Bill, I know you are "independent" and "a washington outsider" and "a journalist", but let me clear up a few things for you. First off, secular progressives are not trying to kill Christmas, and if they were, they are doing a terrible job of it because everyone I know got presents last year. Second, nobody cares about Barbara Streisand's opinion on anything, so the only way she is a threat to our culture is with her music. Third, the idea that there is a "liberal" media is laughable considering the fact that the majority of media outlets in radio, print, and television are owned by giant corportations mostly run by conservatives like your buddy Rupert, and also since for every Al Franken there is a Bill, Rush, Sean, Michael Savage, and 5 other conservative pundits. Yes, so some newspaper editors are liberals, but not every editor and the majority of newspapers do not have a liberal slant.
And, just to round this off, stop telling tales out of school, because no one is buying.
This past week on his show, Bill O'reilly mentioned how his publisher prevented liberal news organizations from getting advance copies of his book, but guess where I read excerpts of your book? That's right, liberal news organizations. This week he also mentioned on air that the FBI came to Fox "News" headquarters to inform him personally that he was on al Qaeda's hitlist, a "fact" that was then disputed by other people at Fox and the FBI who said he's not on any list and that the FBI never went to Fox News and told him anything. So, if you want to give us your opinions about why The Passion of The Christ is better for our country than The New York Times, go right ahead. But try not to make up so many lies and try not to insult people for being name-callers and then call them "cowards" and "far-left zombies".
You really are making our culture glitter like a diamond.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Something to Talk About
The other day, Wednesday to be precise, I was up far earlier than any person need be, especially one who has the entire day off with nothing to do. Given that my options at that point were watching Matt Lauer's sexual discomfort with his new co-host or watching the Fox morning gang giggling about whatever it is that those darned celebrities are up to, I put on C-SPAN while I ate breakfast and then when I sat down to read (and since this all makes me sound like a grandparent, I then bought a cat and knitted an afghan throw). Sometimes its interesting to see the day-to-day process of governing that most people don't hear about because it doesn't involve aborting immigrant emryos with burning flags at a gay wedding.
Anyway, during this day of varied debates including issues of disclosure of federal funding and "Indian" gaming (and isn't it stupid that centuries after we realized this wasn't India as Columbus thought, we still refer to them in legal Congressional records as "Indians"?) there was extensive debate on HR 994.
What exactly is House Resolution 994, you might ask? Well, for those in the know, not only does the House of Representatives vote on things like bills and appropriations, but they sometimes vote on Resolutions that simply make a statement, such as showing support for Black History Month or the color Green and its importance in American history. In that way, HR 994 was a resolution recognizing "that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day, will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists."
And they spent hours debating that. I'll quickly jump past the fact that its fool hardy to think (or in this case imply) that without the House of Representatives on top of this that Americans might actually forget the significance of Sept. Eleventh, or might in fact decide to invite the terrorists over to America to take over and maybe have a spot of tea with us. Also, imagine listening to hours of debate in which most of it was Congressmen recounting the facts we already knew and finding new ways to add adjectives to the word "tragedy". It was a terrible day, we all remember that, and we don't need you repeating it over and over which will, as they say, "wear it out". The more you mine it for political gold, the more desensitized we become.
The reason there was so much debate was because wedged in the middle of this Resolution, which no one in their right mind would vote against because then it looks like they are personally saying "screw you" to each and every widow and parentless child, were some incredibly partisan and manipulative statements. Namely, apart from recognizing the valiant efforts of rescue workers and the terrible sacrifice of ordinary Americans, this resolution recognizes legislative acts such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. So, unless you want to vote against recognizing the heroism of Americans who died on September 11, you also have to vote to recognize all the wonderful things Republicans are doing to make us "safer" while those damn Democrats are selling nuclear secrets to Osama.
Republicans know that Democrats have problems with some of these bills which allow people to be held without trial or have their phones tapped, so they put it in this resolution in order to force Democrats to show support for them. If ever their was a sick, election-year ploy, this is one of them (don't worry, there are more to come). The resolution essentially states that the House of Representatives will support everything the President has done and will do to fight the "War on Terror". Oh, and did I mention that the resolution also refers to the war in Iraq as being on the "frontlines of the global war on terrorism", which is funny since most of the terrorists in Iraq showed up AFTER we invaded the country and dismantled their army and infrastructure. I guess it is now on the frontline, a frontline we created.
Nancy Pelosi gave a great speech that day about how we should be coming together across party lines to recognize the tragedy and to come up with real solutions for making us safer, which we certainly are not (despite what the resolution states). She even points out while she's speaking that "of course" the Democrats will vote in favor of this resolution (and nearly all of them did), but that they did so to recognize the heroes who died that day, and not the accomplishments of this administration which has put us in greater danger, not less. And I agree.
Growing up near the end of the Cold War, there was always a palpable feeling of threat and destruction. People were paranoid; annihilation seemed plausible. And then the Cold War ended and, for a brief while, things seemed to be getting better. In the past five years, that palpable feeling has returned, and every action taken has not made us feel more secure or decreased the terrorist threat, it's increased it. Even progress we were making, such as the toppling of the Taliban and improvements in Airport security, have been rolled back. Afghanistan is still not a stable country, and the Taliban is making inroads every day, and as you can learn by watching just about any special report on any news station, contraband still gets through at airports. Five years later, and we're not safer, and yet our Government is wiping away a tear with one hand and patting itself on the back with the other. I cannot wait until midterm elections.
Anyway, during this day of varied debates including issues of disclosure of federal funding and "Indian" gaming (and isn't it stupid that centuries after we realized this wasn't India as Columbus thought, we still refer to them in legal Congressional records as "Indians"?) there was extensive debate on HR 994.
What exactly is House Resolution 994, you might ask? Well, for those in the know, not only does the House of Representatives vote on things like bills and appropriations, but they sometimes vote on Resolutions that simply make a statement, such as showing support for Black History Month or the color Green and its importance in American history. In that way, HR 994 was a resolution recognizing "that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day, will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists."
And they spent hours debating that. I'll quickly jump past the fact that its fool hardy to think (or in this case imply) that without the House of Representatives on top of this that Americans might actually forget the significance of Sept. Eleventh, or might in fact decide to invite the terrorists over to America to take over and maybe have a spot of tea with us. Also, imagine listening to hours of debate in which most of it was Congressmen recounting the facts we already knew and finding new ways to add adjectives to the word "tragedy". It was a terrible day, we all remember that, and we don't need you repeating it over and over which will, as they say, "wear it out". The more you mine it for political gold, the more desensitized we become.
The reason there was so much debate was because wedged in the middle of this Resolution, which no one in their right mind would vote against because then it looks like they are personally saying "screw you" to each and every widow and parentless child, were some incredibly partisan and manipulative statements. Namely, apart from recognizing the valiant efforts of rescue workers and the terrible sacrifice of ordinary Americans, this resolution recognizes legislative acts such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. So, unless you want to vote against recognizing the heroism of Americans who died on September 11, you also have to vote to recognize all the wonderful things Republicans are doing to make us "safer" while those damn Democrats are selling nuclear secrets to Osama.
Republicans know that Democrats have problems with some of these bills which allow people to be held without trial or have their phones tapped, so they put it in this resolution in order to force Democrats to show support for them. If ever their was a sick, election-year ploy, this is one of them (don't worry, there are more to come). The resolution essentially states that the House of Representatives will support everything the President has done and will do to fight the "War on Terror". Oh, and did I mention that the resolution also refers to the war in Iraq as being on the "frontlines of the global war on terrorism", which is funny since most of the terrorists in Iraq showed up AFTER we invaded the country and dismantled their army and infrastructure. I guess it is now on the frontline, a frontline we created.
Nancy Pelosi gave a great speech that day about how we should be coming together across party lines to recognize the tragedy and to come up with real solutions for making us safer, which we certainly are not (despite what the resolution states). She even points out while she's speaking that "of course" the Democrats will vote in favor of this resolution (and nearly all of them did), but that they did so to recognize the heroes who died that day, and not the accomplishments of this administration which has put us in greater danger, not less. And I agree.
Growing up near the end of the Cold War, there was always a palpable feeling of threat and destruction. People were paranoid; annihilation seemed plausible. And then the Cold War ended and, for a brief while, things seemed to be getting better. In the past five years, that palpable feeling has returned, and every action taken has not made us feel more secure or decreased the terrorist threat, it's increased it. Even progress we were making, such as the toppling of the Taliban and improvements in Airport security, have been rolled back. Afghanistan is still not a stable country, and the Taliban is making inroads every day, and as you can learn by watching just about any special report on any news station, contraband still gets through at airports. Five years later, and we're not safer, and yet our Government is wiping away a tear with one hand and patting itself on the back with the other. I cannot wait until midterm elections.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
