How Many Times?
10/19/05
Very famously asked in 1964, this question is still relevant today.
Yesterday, I sent an e-mail out which featured this link:
It's the story, for all of those who didn't hear about it, about the latest Bush scandal involving a video conference between Bush and some soldiers stationed in Iraq that was suppose to be spontaneous but turned out to be completely staged, sort of like his "Mission Accomplished" cock piece moment.
In my e-mail, I made some comments to the effect that I found this story very disturbing. In this sorry episode, we find out that not only does the President of the United States have to have his “off the cuff” conferences scripted and rehearsed, (Think about the “Town Hall Meetings” and “Press Conferences” that he has participated in over the last five years) but he also looks so bad doing it. It is obvious that this man, the leader of the free world, does not possess the most rudimentary skills when speaking the English language. This is appalling.
Or, at the very least, embarrassing.
But let’s forget about all that trivial stuff for now because, quite frankly, Bush’s idiocy has been on display for so long there is really nothing left to say.
The thing that I found so disgusting was that this whole thing was an obviously staged dog and pony show, but it was being perpetrated to the American Public as a genuine exchange between the Commander in Chief and his loyal troops.
That is DECEPTION pure and simple.
Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton only lied about getting his cock sucked.
He was impeached.
The administration’s lies, this pathetic display being the latest in a very long line of them, have literally caused the deaths of thousands of people. THAT IS A FACT.
He is “re-elected.”
I ended yesterday’s e-mail with the declarative statement that “This is indefensible.”
Well…I was wrong.
I received several replies suggesting I was the one who was “overreacting” and “What was the big deal?”
But another young man sent me this link with the tag, “Defense is easy when you know where to look”
I read this response, which is an entry from someone’s blog, and I found it quite intriguing. Well, maybe “intriguing” isn’t the right word.
More like “sad.”
What is presented is not a defense at all, but a rationalization and I am certainly not going to go “point for point” with it for two reasons:
But I do have to comment on one segment of this “Emperor Has No Clothes” rebuttal. The author writes, after several accusations of “lefties not supporting the troops” and other such comically arcane bullshit:
The AP (Associated Press) is slanting the story!!!!!
Let’s see:
“There is no reason to think that anyone up there is lying.”
Needless to say, the gentleman who wrote this blog never saw Triumph of the Will.
I’m sorry…I just can not stop laughing thinking about this.
But I can’t stop…
Because I know if I do…
I’ll probably cry.
So I left work yesterday thinking of all these things and, I must say, it was not very comforting. My whole commute was consumed with thoughts of an apocalypse. Not the traditional religious “Armageddon” or “Rapture” sought of thing, but a much more subtle one.
An apocalypse that involves erosion, not explosion.
A society of crass materialism, spiritual bankruptcy and hopelessness.
A society totally devoid of dignity, maturity and growth created on the fertile ground of:
With all of these thoughts swimming in my head, I gazed out the window of the Number One Train as we crossed the Broadway Bridge into the Bronx. I was mesmerized by the unforgiving dilapidated images of urban squalor which hug both banks of the Harlem River. I was transfixed in thought, over powered by the very real by-product of un-tethered Capitalism, “Rugged Individualism” and “Progress.”
In that context, I sat there wondering how I should answer the petty retorts I received earlier. I started to develop in my mind a long winded argument but finally dropped it. Why should I “reinvent the wheel” for people when it is obvious they have no interest in saving our country? What is the point?
I, instead, focussed on what was coming out of my I-Pod Shuffle, which, for anyone who has been in ear shot of me for the last three weeks knows, were Bob Dylan songs. I allowed the music to wash over me like a hot bath after a long day. The cryptic lyrics coupled with the imagery out the window, made for a powerful one-two punch, painting a portrait of betrayal and failure that is as tangible as it is abstract. The experience was actually quite poignant.
How could I put into words the powerful emotions I was feeling at that moment? And, even if I could describe these emotions, how could I possibly link them to this totally disgraceful episode known as “President Bush’s Video Conference.” I know it is all inter-connected, but how can I convince someone who doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, that there is such a thing as “cause and effect”?
How do I make a land surveyor see, “The forest for the trees”?
At that exact moment of contemplation which was bordering on despair, I heard some lyrics that made it all so clear.
It was as if the Lord Himself was talking to me, guiding me, giving me the perfect words through my ten dollar Walgreen’s headphones, to answer the doubting Thomas’ of the world.
Amen.
So, today, I sit here, mouth agape, blankly staring at my beige colored, felt covered, cubical partition.
Some may call my behavior apathetic detachment.
Some may call it surrender.
I call it camouflage.
The answer my friend
Is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind
Lawrence Blanchard
How many times can a man turn his head
and pretend that he just doesn't see?
Very famously asked in 1964, this question is still relevant today.
Yesterday, I sent an e-mail out which featured this link:
Bush draws fire over Iraq soldier video conference
It's the story, for all of those who didn't hear about it, about the latest Bush scandal involving a video conference between Bush and some soldiers stationed in Iraq that was suppose to be spontaneous but turned out to be completely staged, sort of like his "Mission Accomplished" cock piece moment.
In my e-mail, I made some comments to the effect that I found this story very disturbing. In this sorry episode, we find out that not only does the President of the United States have to have his “off the cuff” conferences scripted and rehearsed, (Think about the “Town Hall Meetings” and “Press Conferences” that he has participated in over the last five years) but he also looks so bad doing it. It is obvious that this man, the leader of the free world, does not possess the most rudimentary skills when speaking the English language. This is appalling.
Or, at the very least, embarrassing.
But let’s forget about all that trivial stuff for now because, quite frankly, Bush’s idiocy has been on display for so long there is really nothing left to say.
The thing that I found so disgusting was that this whole thing was an obviously staged dog and pony show, but it was being perpetrated to the American Public as a genuine exchange between the Commander in Chief and his loyal troops.
That is DECEPTION pure and simple.
Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton only lied about getting his cock sucked.
He was impeached.
The administration’s lies, this pathetic display being the latest in a very long line of them, have literally caused the deaths of thousands of people. THAT IS A FACT.
He is “re-elected.”
I ended yesterday’s e-mail with the declarative statement that “This is indefensible.”
Well…I was wrong.
(At this time I would like to apologize to anybody who felt they were, unwantingly, caught in a “C.C. Crossfire” yesterday. There was some e-mail traffic that you might not have wanted so I decided to respond to the last volley in this way so your in-boxes would not have to suffer anymore. Once again, forgive the inclusion if you were so offended. On the other hand, this is your country too!!! Get up off your ass and do something about what the heck is going on around here!!!)
I received several replies suggesting I was the one who was “overreacting” and “What was the big deal?”
But another young man sent me this link with the tag, “Defense is easy when you know where to look”
I read this response, which is an entry from someone’s blog, and I found it quite intriguing. Well, maybe “intriguing” isn’t the right word.
More like “sad.”
What is presented is not a defense at all, but a rationalization and I am certainly not going to go “point for point” with it for two reasons:
1) The entry represents this gentleman’s personal opinion and we are all entitled to an opinion, except, of course, if people like the author allow the current political party to maintain political power. The author’s opinion is, if I am reading it correctly, that the most recent Bush fiasco was OK because “everybody else does it” and the example he uses is the preparations for some kind of corporate pitch and/or board meeting. Of course, the author fails to mention that the “board meeting” he is excusing as bussiness as usual, is a propaganda event whose sole purpose is to convince everyday hard working Americans to keep supporting an Imperialistic War. And I also doubt that CEO’s, before going into board meetings, rehearse “ad-libs” WITH THE PARTICIPANTS. I saw the tape so, the question is “Who do I trust…You or my lying eyes.”
2) It is a complete waste of time.
But I do have to comment on one segment of this “Emperor Has No Clothes” rebuttal. The author writes, after several accusations of “lefties not supporting the troops” and other such comically arcane bullshit:
Does that mean that the soldiers' comments were insincere? No. There is no reason to believe anyone was up there lying. But that is what the AP would like to imply.
The AP (Associated Press) is slanting the story!!!!!
Let’s see:
There is a videotape of some Whitehouse Flunky running through the “impromptu” questions and answers about a war that IS losing support from all walks of life with a multi-racial group of handpicked soldiers who all give glowing endorsements of the current Administration with ridiculously phony smiles on their faces.
“There is no reason to think that anyone up there is lying.”
Needless to say, the gentleman who wrote this blog never saw Triumph of the Will.
I’m sorry…I just can not stop laughing thinking about this.
But I can’t stop…
Because I know if I do…
I’ll probably cry.
So I left work yesterday thinking of all these things and, I must say, it was not very comforting. My whole commute was consumed with thoughts of an apocalypse. Not the traditional religious “Armageddon” or “Rapture” sought of thing, but a much more subtle one.
An apocalypse that involves erosion, not explosion.
A society of crass materialism, spiritual bankruptcy and hopelessness.
A society totally devoid of dignity, maturity and growth created on the fertile ground of:
Short attention spans due to the well over fifty years of television and the advent of even more powerful media whose primary purpose is TO SELL. Be it Ivory Soap or some corporate/government agenda.
Fear of an unseen enemy that could be ANYONE or anything. A few weeks ago, here in New York City, we were supposed to be…I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP…on the look out for “Mothers with baby carriages who are going to blow up the trains because, they hate us for our freedom.” After this warning, coincidentally issued on the same day as the Mayoral Debate at the Apollo Theatre which the Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg was receiving criticism for for not planning on attending, a slight panic ensued including the managing partner at my firm sending out an “All Employee” e-mail announcing that, “We should not take the subway home.” Of course, it was later revealed that the whole thing was a false alarm. I am sure someone out there reading this feels that this kind of COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP is also justifiable, but I don’t.
The vilification and abandonment of Reason, which has been the guiding philosophy of western culture since the first Italian Renaissance of the early 1500s, in favor of “faith” which, as even true believers well know, is accountable to nobody but God. This is a beautiful way to run one’s personal life, especially when it comes to morality, but it has NO PLACE in representative democracy which, by definition, means accountability.
The vilification of the Intellect, due to well over twenty-five years of right wing propaganda that taught us not to think about anything and, most importantly, do not trust anyone who sounds like they do.
With all of these thoughts swimming in my head, I gazed out the window of the Number One Train as we crossed the Broadway Bridge into the Bronx. I was mesmerized by the unforgiving dilapidated images of urban squalor which hug both banks of the Harlem River. I was transfixed in thought, over powered by the very real by-product of un-tethered Capitalism, “Rugged Individualism” and “Progress.”
In that context, I sat there wondering how I should answer the petty retorts I received earlier. I started to develop in my mind a long winded argument but finally dropped it. Why should I “reinvent the wheel” for people when it is obvious they have no interest in saving our country? What is the point?
I, instead, focussed on what was coming out of my I-Pod Shuffle, which, for anyone who has been in ear shot of me for the last three weeks knows, were Bob Dylan songs. I allowed the music to wash over me like a hot bath after a long day. The cryptic lyrics coupled with the imagery out the window, made for a powerful one-two punch, painting a portrait of betrayal and failure that is as tangible as it is abstract. The experience was actually quite poignant.
How could I put into words the powerful emotions I was feeling at that moment? And, even if I could describe these emotions, how could I possibly link them to this totally disgraceful episode known as “President Bush’s Video Conference.” I know it is all inter-connected, but how can I convince someone who doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, that there is such a thing as “cause and effect”?
How do I make a land surveyor see, “The forest for the trees”?
At that exact moment of contemplation which was bordering on despair, I heard some lyrics that made it all so clear.
Now the roving gambler he was very bored
He was trying to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before, but
yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61.
It was as if the Lord Himself was talking to me, guiding me, giving me the perfect words through my ten dollar Walgreen’s headphones, to answer the doubting Thomas’ of the world.
Amen.
So, today, I sit here, mouth agape, blankly staring at my beige colored, felt covered, cubical partition.
Some may call my behavior apathetic detachment.
Some may call it surrender.
I call it camouflage.
The answer my friend
Is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind
Lawrence Blanchard
posted by Larry B | 9:26 AM
20 Comments:
When I read that "Defense is easy when you know where to look” response, I immediately felt sad. Is every screw up by the shrub going to be automatically excused, regardless of how incompetent or irrational or deceitful it is? When the does the line get drawn? (Will it EVER? This blogger can't possibly equate our current state of the nation with one of grace.) Just wondering.
Thanks for the critique.
I think you make several unjustified leaps of logic. Chiefly, you have not established that the soldiers in the piece were saying anything other than their own honest opinions.
Calling their smiles "phony" does nothing to advance that because A.) Even if true, it's irrelevant to your claim, and B.) You are not in a position to know whether those smiles are phony or not.
You also do not know what criteria was used to select these people. As someone who has selected soldiers to appear on similar VIP panels, for example, I do not pick the soldier I can predict, nor do I pick the soldier who tends to agree with me.
I pick the most articulate griper.
A lot of commanders do the same thing.
Third, you have not established that rehearsing the format of the event equals the production of a fraud.
Your choice of argument is an ad homineim attack against the credibility of the soldiers, not a substantive response to the content of their comments. Indeed, the successful elections and the prevention of large-scale attacks during the election actually confirms that their optimistic outlook was entirely warranted, reasonable, and justified, wrt the elections themselves.
Thanks again for the critique. Do visit again.
Jason
I think I should throw my two cents in because there seems to be a misunderstanding.
My comments and/or criticisms in this sorry episode are not directed at the troops at all. I could see why a military man like yourself might take what I said that way but the reality is they’re just doing their jobs. Attacking these soldiers would be like blaming the marionette for the dialogue. If they were “sincere” or not is beside the point. You can not possibly be suggesting that these particular soldiers could have said anything they wanted to say. I simply don’t believe it.
After all, doesn’t “G.I.” stand for “Government Issue?”
No. My disdain is directed squarely at an administration that is directing this country down a road that is diametrically opposed to the principles that we once held very dear.
Separation of church and state.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Republic over Empire
I guess the question that we have to ask ourselves, individually and as a nation, is;
Do we view the concept and philosophy of Militarism, as a way of life and as the future ideal for a society whose foundation word is Freedom?
My answer is no.
Thanks for visiting and thanks for the comments.
My god your mind is seriously flawed.
Of course my mind is flawed!!! Whose isn't?
I take it you believe that your own personal God gave you a flawless mind? Are you really George W?
C'mon between you and me...I wont tell anyone.
Here we are again, being faced with yet another scandal propagated by the George W. Bush administration. Of course I am being very facetious in making this statement, as how else is one to feel? As usual, everything and anything that has to do with the Bush adminstration is considered a scandal. It's difficult to know where to begin when making retorts, or comments, to this Blogger's remarks over the American Soldier video, but one has to start somewhere. I, at first, will make one comment about the first response posted to this Blogger's latest entry. This response being from an anonymous poster. One might wonder why one posts anonymously, just as I'm doing, as if one feels strongly about the way that they feel, one would surely not want to hide behind an anonymous tag, but there is reason for this; reason that doesn't need to be rectified, or rather, justified, in this posting. Let me just get to the point of my comments. The first poster of a comment uses the word "sad," when describing his/her point of view on a particular part of the Blogger's post. This word, "sad," also being used by the Blogger himself. Please tell me, what is so "sad" about certain events that take place? Is this sadness something that you feel as a human being because what you are "hearing" about, and not knowing first-hand about, is a feeling that comes to you? Is this "sad" feeling one of the human emotions that you feel a majority of others are feeling as well? If the latter is true, then you really must be someone who totally relys on whatever you hear that is negative/going against the present adminstration. No matter what, there is no good in this present administration, only bad, according to your words in your Blog, (I refer to the Blogger himself now...I totally am off thought with the first comment posted, as there just is no retort to what he/she has said. She/he is obviously just towing the line when it comes to anything "anti-present administration). I actually "dug" a little more into this particular Blogger's website, and as soon as I saw one of the "favorites" being "anything Michael Moore," this just about said it all. Quite an individual for someone to look up to and get their "factual" information from. And I am sure thatI can speak for many others, (well, I shouldn't say that I can speak for many others, for to do so, would put me in the same league as these anti-Bush individuals), when I say that it will only be a matter of time before this Moore bloke makes another spurious, misleading, motion picture in order for him to eschew that he is informing the viewing public about what is really going on. Again I am being facetious with my last sentence.
So, where to begin? Well, let's just make a few comments about this latest Blog entry. "The latest Bush scandal." How the Blogger equates this video with being a scandal, is open to interpretation. He goes on to say how this "supposed spontanteous" video "turned out to be completely staged." And to this I reply, So what? There was absolutely nothing that was suppose to be spontaneous about this video exchange, and for one to think that this was suppose to be spontaneous, well, I don't know what to comment on this person's intellect. How could this have been spontaneous? And what video exchanges have you seen in the past, with something as important as this, as uplifting, that was spontaneous as you say?
All of these types of exchanges are always "rehearsed," "staged," etc. If they weren't, then it would be a video such as one that would have someone just holding a camcorder and spontaneously filming what they are seeing. This video piece of the President was to be shown throughout the world, United States, or whereever, and something like this you think should be spontaneous? Not happening. In your words about the way Bush appeared, "but he also looks so bad doing it. It is obvious that this man, the leader of the free world, does not possess the most rudimentary skills when speaking the English language. This is appalling." So now what? Is this man, the President of the United States, suppose to be an actor? Is he suppose to be someone who has incredible acting skills so as to put forth the appearance so he doesn't "look bad?" If this was the case, then someone such as yourself would say that the man is just acting. And when he doesn't have the appearance of being someone who "appears" to "look good," he is accused of "not possessing the most rudimentary skills when speaking the English language." But, yet again, you feel that this should be spontaneous. Well, if spontaneous is what you feel it should be, spontaneous it was. I think the main objective here is that because President Bush says and does what he feels at the moment, he is accused of being uneducated, has no people skills, etc. What has to be remembered is that this man is the President of the United States, and one doesn't become President by being stupid, no matter how hard others such as yourself try to say otherwise. So, the man speaks "funny," has body mannerisms that lend themselves to be ridiculed by comedians and others,
but yet this is the individual who is leading this "free world" and continues to allow persons such as yourself to spew forth whatever vile you can think of to go against the present adminstration.
" The thing that I found so disgusting was that this whole thing was an obviously staged dog and pony show, but it was being perpetrated to the American Public as a genuine exchange between the Commander in Chief and his loyal troops." Your disgust level obviously is, by what you said above, at a very low level. That this was a staged dog and pony show, as you call it, again, so what? This was a genuine exchange between the Commander in Chief and the troops, even though it had to be rehearsed. How can you say otherwise? There was nothing fake about what one saw, and surely there was nothing fake about what was being said. Would you prefer to have soldiers shown who said nothing but negative things to the President? Let me answer that one, as yes, this is what is preferred by those with probably the same political agenda as yours; a prime example of this is the propaganda being spewed forth by Cindy Sheehan, and her being a woman who is being used to hopefully further the political agendas of those who are "backing" her., etc. Except, in her case, as has been in other cases as well, a backfiring has been eventuating.
"The administration’s lies, this pathetic display being the latest in a very long line of them, have literally caused the deaths of thousands of people. THAT IS A FACT." Again, you quote something as a fact, but where do you get your information for these facts? If this administration is so full of lies; lies that have ACTUALLY caused the death of thousands, then why is this adminstration still in "power?" If the majority of the American people felt the way that you do, (and this is a FACT, as one always hears how the majority of the American people are against this war in Iraq), then why is there still a Bush adminstration? Surely the American people can't be that lackadaisical that they would allow an administration that is so "bad," to remain in power. But I have heard that this President was re-elected. How can that be if his adminstration is so bad, is so corrupt? This stands beyond reason. I would surely think that if a President of the United States was constantly doing things that was harming others, then how is he still the President? And this does not mean that since he is already President that there is nothing that can be done, as this man was already in office once, so the American people had ample time to decide not to re-elect this supposed "bad" man, but he WAS re-elected.
"On the other hand, this is your country too!!! Get up off your ass and do something about what the heck is going on around here!!!)" What is going on? Can I be accused of being blind as to "what is going on?" If there was really something "going on," then why isn't something being done about it? If, as you say, there is a majority of the American people who are against this Bush administration, then wouldn't it be plausible that something would be done? Something that would be a "positive" thing in your mind? And other of these "majority" minds as well?
"I received several replies suggesting I was the one who was “overreacting” and “What was the big deal?”" I will, in my opinion, agree with these people.
"There is a videotape of some Whitehouse Flunky running through the “impromptu” questions and answers about a war that IS losing support from all walks of life with a multi-racial group of handpicked soldiers who all give glowing endorsements of the current Administration with ridiculously phony smiles on their faces." So what? So what that they are giving a "glowing endorsement" of the current adminstration? What are you "looking" for? It seems you would prefer that the American public only hear negative things. Hearing negative things would surely lift the morale of the people. The comment you make about this "glowing endorsement" being phony, (or you try to convey this message), shows that you must surely think that everyone who watches this is stupid. No one can think on their own; whatever one sees and hears must be true, therefore "we the people" are very slight minded. Well, this can be assumed anyway by what you write, as you are obviously just as "guilty" as the individuals who are on the opposing side of your views. The meaning of this being that you are just as "guilty" of believing what you want to beleive, and since your view of the Bush administration is so negative, whatever you hear that seems to be negative of the Bush adminstration, you seem to take as the "truth." No, I'm not picking you out as the only one "guilty" of this, as the opposing viewpointed individuals do the same thing. There is no right or wrong. Going back in history, there are always opposing views on everything; it's just a matter of what side you want to believe, and the rest is taken from there. It's just that it seems so much more prevalent nowadays, under the Bush administration, that the anti-Bush individuals do and say whatever they can to try and prove to the American public that this adminsration is so bad for them. But obviously this tactic is not working. If it is so bad to live here in the U.S., then why be here? Well, I can also answer that, as any follower of Michael Moore will surely follow his creed of why leave? Let's stay here and "change" things...and "change" things for the better. Albeit, at first we heard how "we will leave the U.S. if Bush is re-elected," to a new mantra of, "Let's stay and make things right," upon defeat. I think it is obvious to anyone with any sort of intelligence, to be able to overtly interpret these farcical rantings and ravings.
"Short attention spans due to the well over fifty years of television and the advent of even more powerful media whose primary purpose is TO SELL. Be it Ivory Soap or some corporate/government agenda." Once again blaming television for all the world's "ills." And once again conveying the notion that people are stupid and can't think for themselves. Yes, the media's primary purpose is to sell, so what is wrong with this? It is always up to the individual to make the decision whether or not to BUY, so laying the blame anywhere else but at an individual's own doorstep, is taking the weak way out. Perhaps I should give credit where credit is due, and applaud you for stating the facts and actually laying blame for the world's ills on the media. It is probably more obvious that this is the esential thinking of the people who have the same viewpoints as yourself, and this is why the three branches of the federal government are "controlled" by the party that you so much abhore.
“We should not take the subway home.” Of course, it was later revealed that the whole thing was a false alarm. I am sure someone out there reading this feels that this kind of COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP is also justifiable, but I don’t." Someone out there reading this will "feel that this kind of IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP is also justifiable..." Someone? No, I beg to differ. It's a whole lot more than just a "someone." It is more like many. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Whining and crying because they are being "scared" and "warned," and then whining and crying because they weren't warned should something actually occur. If you remember correctly, the same people who complained about the city government being too overly cautious, were the same people who then complained that the city government had this information long before they warned the people, and "demanded" answers as to why the people weren't warned way before the day they were actually warned. And then, as previously mentioned, complained that they shouldn't have been "scared" with such a warning. Just what do you consider "responsible" leadership?
"Fear of an unseen enemy that could be ANYONE or anything. A few weeks ago, here in New York City, we were supposed to be…I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP…on the look out for “Mothers with baby carriages who are going to blow up the trains because, they hate us for our freedom.”" Why would anyone in their right mind think you made this up? If a "tip" was given that women with baby carriages were going to have bombs in those carriages, what makes this so difficult to believe? It has happend elsewhere, so why can't it happen here? Let the first bomb blow up, being disguised in such a way, and people with your viewpoint will be the FIRST to whine and cry about why they weren't warned about something like this being possible. So, your starting out your comment with, "I'm not making this up," makes no sense. It surely is not something that someone thinks was "made up."
Let me end this for now. There's just too much to explain, both pro and con of this present adminstration. But living in reality is what has to be done, not living in a world in which we "rely" on interpreting the lyrics of a musician, and then living in a world where we think these lyrics actually are the "reality" of the world in which we live. As is always sayed about the corporate world, the bottom line being about money, the same is true of all entertainers. Put forth is what is known that certain people want to hear, and is this "hearing" that sells, sells, sells.
I post anonymously because I don't have a blogger account, or a website to promote.
What difference does it make to anyone, also known as Anonymous, since you seem to have "no retort" yet go on for several paragraphs.
I don't tow the line of any political party, but I certainly do think for myself. And if the actions of this president, or any president who dares act so incompetently are not taken seriously or questioned, I find it incredibly "sad." Pathetic, that we can't see things reasonably. Talk about living in reality, we instead want to pretend everything is great! Are things personally great for you? Just curious, cause that is how most people view the world, from how well or how crappy they are particularly doing. (Ever hear the saying, when your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession. When YOU lose your job, it's a depression.)
What will it take for the shrub apologists to realize that this is not leadership? His gross mistakes affect our nation, not just now, but for many years to come, domestically and abroad. That these are not "scandals" to read about on Page Six, but drastic problems affecting our country?
The first step in changing a problem is acknowledging it exists. If you want to label every Bush mistake a mere scandal, which downplays the seriousness of such events, what do you honestly consider a "problem?"
Bush might still be in office, but it's irrational to think the nation as a whole still wants him there. Not sure what you are expecting of a public who doesn't like where their country is going. Immediate action? Storming the White House gates?
(I mean, how long did it take to get Karl Rove summoned to the grand jury? Not related to this argument, but that was a two year investigation! Was that considered swift?)
By the way, the death toll for military deaths in Iraq is now 2,000. Would you care to predict what the "magic number" is?
Maybe it's all part of a plan, but I think it got away from them. This administration is so dishonest, that they don't know how to come clean and let us know that they "fucked up!"
I found this link to an early 2001 story from The Onion to be quite telling.
http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html
As far as questioning the honesty of the troops, I find it quite ironic that the administration removed General Shinseki from his position after he told the truth about the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq and how long it would take. Do you honestly believe that the administration would have placed "gripers" on this panel for some impromptu comments?
Also, if memory serves, Captain is the first rank in which politics comes into play. Your political connections develop. You are recognized by those above. The soldiers on that panel (Iraqi excluded) were all Captains.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here.
This is to the poster who says he/she doesn't tow the line of any political party. Far be it for me to point out that this is exactly what this person is doing, whether or not he/she believe this to be true. Saying, "I think for myself," doesn't hide the fact that this "thinking" is certainly derived from the negative things that are said about the present adminstration.
"Bush might still be in office, but it's irrational to think the nation as a whole still wants him there." Does it matter if the nation as a whole, as you say, wants him there or not? The plain fact is, is that he is there, duly elected for a second time; an election that it seems the diehard anti-Bush fanatics can't seem to get over. "Over" meaning the fact that their "party" is not in political power. So, since they couldn't get their own people into the highest office in the land, "let's continue to harp about" about "bad" things are going on with this adminstration. But, as usual, these negative tactics are not working, hence, more and more negative things are brought about to continue in the effort to discredit the Bush adminstration in anything that is done. And this includes the most mundane things as making comments on the President's intelligence, his mannerisms, etc. Very childish, in my opinion, but then again, look where these types of comments are coming from.
"And if the actions of this president, or any president who dares act so incompetently are not taken seriously or questioned, I find it incredibly "sad." No one is saying that that the actions of this president are not questioned, but this seems like the defense people like yourself like to use when anyone butts up against your opinions. And a total opinion is what you are actually offering when you say that this is a president who "dares act so incompetently." Is there anything in your repetoire that is positive about the Bush presidency? I think the really "sad" part of all of this, is that you, yourself, feel so "sad" due to the Bush presidency. What a way to have to live. Are you always in this "sad" state of mind? Perhaps if you were to look for the positive things instead of always looking for the negative, you wouldn't feel so "sad."
"Pathetic, that we can't see things reasonably. Talk about living in reality, we instead want to pretend everything is great!" Just who are you referring to when you say, "...it's pathetic that we can't see things resonably?" Are you of the mindset that what you opine is the real reason? Meaning, that "we can't see things reasonably," means that what you are saying is really reasonable? And do you really think that people are pretending that "everything" is great? You must be trying to add hubris to this remark of yours, as I don't think the majority of people go around thinking that everything is "great." If such was the case, then these people would be "living" in a world that was a total utopia; utopia,I might add, being what it seems that people of your thinking are searching for. It is not that others are going around thinking everything is great, but rather people such as yourself, with your thinking, who "wish" we lived in a utopic world. This, and I'm sorry to have to inform you of this reality check, is not going to happen.
"What will it take for the shrub apologists to realize that this is not leadership? His gross mistakes afect our nation, not just now, but for many years to come, both domestically and abroad." Can you please give your definition of what a "shrub apologist" is? You seem to tend to use this term a few times in your writings. And what knowledge, (and, please, inform us all), do you possess that confirms that gross mistakes have been made? Are you getting your information from any and all anti-Bush sites, any and all anti-Bush writings, etc? When you read something positive that the Bush administration has done, do you totally negate these positive accomplishments, and feel the negative, (what you consider negative), far outweighs anything positive that you just may spew forth and admit?
"The first step in changing a problem is acknowledging that it exists. If you want to label every Bush mistake a mere scandal, which downplays the seriousness of such events, what do you honestly consider a "problem." This statement you have totally lost me with. It's plainly common sense that to change a problem is to first acknowledge that a problem exists. I may not understand correctly what you are implying, but I think you may have mistaken me for calling these things "scandals." You stated, "...if you want to label every Bush mistake a mere scandal...," and this is not what I had said. I was quoting from the original Blogger's entry when he described the video conference as, "...the latest Bush scandal." And when you ask what do I really consider a problem, there really is no correct answer to this query from you. As it appears, from what your opinions are, that everything is a problem with the Bush administration.
“(I mean, how long did it take to get Karl Rove summoned to the grand jury? Not related to this argument, but that was a two year investigation! Was that considered swift?)” Yeah, I realize that this is not related to this "argument," but why even mention it? Karl Rove summoned to the grand jury? So what? Again, something negative that gives people who think your way, something to "gloat" about. And you're right, this is a totally different subject, but I could get into that "argument" as well, and meaning the total ridiculousness of this whole CIA supposed "scandal," etc. Pick pick pick...keep nibbling at the heels of your government with the hopes of bringing it down; you can be sure that the terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, who are against anything to do with the United States, are just sitting back and getting a good laugh when they see that the people, (and by the "people," I am only referring to those with your mindset), United States citizens, are displaying so much factionalism within their own government. Besides their laughter, it is also providing "ammunition" for whatever evil deeds thay may be planning against the United States. Oh, wait, let me not say that, for to do so is: putting fear into the American public, and this is the way, (according to the dissenters), that this present adminstration "runs" things, and this "fear" is just oh so powerful, actually "dictating" the way the American public "runs" their lives. Complete hubris and not worth making further comment on. And the typical retort to this will be the usual, "Well, without dissension, then what kind of free society are we living in?" And anyone who makes this statement is absolutely correct. Hence, the reason we are able to go back and forth on this subject matter.
“By the way, the death toll for military deaths in Iraq is now 2,000. Would you care to predict what the "magic number" is?” One more comment before I end my lengthy vituperation. I asbolutely abhore when all I hear in the media, and from the likes of people with your mindset, is this number of U.S. soldiers killed during the war in Iraq. Yes, you'll come back at me, and others with my own mindset, with the notion that, like you said prevously, that we "live" in a world where we want to "pretend" that everything is "great," and that we just don't want to hear about the actual death toll. But what else can one expect when one goes against your negative spewings of all things bad? Yesterday it was the "somber" reporting of the deathtoll reaching the 2000 mark, and today it is the reporting that the deathtoll has now surpassed the 2000 mark. It obviously seems that people with your thoughts and opinions get a "thrill" each time this deathtoll number goes up. It's as if your're saying, "You see, I told you so...nananananananah....," more and more soldiers are dying. Do you actually think that you "bragging" about this deathtoll is going to change the current policies on the way this combat is being egaged in at the present time in Iraq? You mention that the deathtoll has now reached 2000, and then you complete your sentence with the question of, "Would you care to predict what the "magic" number is" WHAT "magic" number are you talking about? Is this what it has come down to? That you are actually thinking that there is a "magic" number in regards to this deathtoll? And if this is your honest thinking, what "magic" number are YOU looking for? And when this "magic" number is reached, then what? If you want to call something pathetic, it is pathetic thinking about anyone talking about a "magic" number when it comes to discussing the U.S. soldiers who have lost their lives during this battle in Iraq.
One final comment, sort of off this subject. And this comment has to do with the way in which President Bush is the pun of jokes when it comes to his "command" of the English language, his mannerisms, etc. One doesn't have to go far back in U.S. history to remember when Harry S. Truman became president after the death of FDR. Truman also was the subject of a good amount of ribbing, derision, mockery, repartee, etc. Truman's nondescript appearance, his shoot-from-the-hip diatribes, (exactly what the anti-Bushies hate about George W. Bush) - his taste for medicore cronies, (sound vaguely familiar?) - all the old cavils against him have faded over the years, as Americans realize he inherited a world's worth of tough problems and reacted decisively and wisely.
Even FDR was, at the same time, the most loved and most hated president of the 20th century. He was loved because, though patrician by birth, upbringing and style, he believed in and fought for plain people - for the "forgotten man and woman," for the third of the nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. He was loved because he radiated personal charm, joy in his work, optimism for the future. Even Charles de Gaulle, who knew extremelly well that FDR despised him, succumbed to the 'glittering personality," as he put it, of "that artist, that seducer." "Meeting him," said Winston Churchill, "was like uncorking a bottle of champagne." And we all know how Churchill liked his drink! On the other hand, FDR was much hated as well - hated because he called for change, and the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income, and self-esteem of those who profited from the old order. Hatred is happily more fleeting than love. The men who sat in their clubs denouncing "that man in the White House," that "traitor to his class," have died off. Their children and grandchildren mostly find the New Deal reforms familiar, benign and beneficial.
The three greatest presidents, according to the most recent polls, are considered to be George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Do you think we should add George W. Bush to this list? I am, of course, being very facetious in saying this; just bringing a little humor to break up the seriousness of our comments, and the comments of the world at large, when discussing the current political atmosphere in which we are a part of.
So you want to respond to my post in a point for point diatribe? I will respond to yours then in an equally anal retentive fashion.
This is to the poster who says he/she doesn't tow the line of any political party. Far be it for me to point out that this is exactly what this person is doing, whether or not he/she believe this to be true. Saying, "I think for myself," doesn't hide the fact that this "thinking" is certainly derived from the negative things that are said about the present adminstration."
Please tell me what you are talking about. My opinions are based on EVERYTHING said about the current administration, both positive AND negative. How on earth do YOU form your opinions of events? By only looking at the sunny side of life? Well, great. But I choose to take in all sides and then decide. And I don't vote for any political party.
Does it matter if the nation as a whole, as you say, wants him there or not? The plain fact is, is that he is there, duly elected for a second time; an election that it seems the diehard anti-Bush fanatics can't seem to get over.
Well, since I'm not an Anti-Bush fanatic, and I don't belong to ANY political party, (hard for you to fathom I take it) I didn't have an opinion of him being re-elected and "got over" the fact pretty quickly. However, after a series of fuck ups on behalf of our country, eggregious mistakes I just can not ignore, I would say that now I, along with millions of other citizens, have a problem with him being in office. And newsflash, yeah it matters if the nation "as a whole" does not want him there. Why? His approval rating is abysmal, in the toilet. Does that tell you anything?
But, as usual, these negative tactics are not working, hence, more and more negative things are brought about to continue in the effort to discredit the Bush adminstration in anything that is done.
What things have been done? WHAT? IF you want "proof" of fuckups, stop watching Fox News as your only source of info and turn to the many available options.
And this includes the most mundane things as making comments on the President's intelligence, his mannerisms, etc. Very childish, in my opinion, but then again, look where these types of comments are coming from.
Where are they coming from, may I ask? Because I don't make fun of the president's mannerisms, use of English or speech.
No one is saying that that the actions of this president are not questioned, but this seems like the defense people like yourself like to use when anyone butts up against your opinions.
Actually, I think this is your defense. I don't care if you agree with my opinion. But the questions should AT LEAST be addressed. You seem to want to sweep the problems our nation faces with whiny "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POSITIVE THINGS" nonsense. Ugh. I mean, just look at your response:
"Perhaps if you were to look for the positive things instead of always looking for the negative, you wouldn't feel so "sad."
And you say this several times! You're telling me that the questions "can" be addressed, but in the same paragraph no less, ask why I can't look for the positive?
Just who are you referring to when you say, "...it's pathetic that we can't see things resonably?"
Obviously I am referring to someone like you. According to your stated logic, we can only look for the positive things in life.
Meaning, that "we can't see things reasonably," means that what you are saying is really reasonable?
It means I choose to gather information from all sides, while you're just looking at the giant lolliipop in your hands.
...as I don't think the majority of people go around thinking that everything is "great." If such was the case, then these people would be "living" in a world that was a total utopia...
Nope, can't say I spend my days searching for utopia. But again, coming from someone who only sees the positive in this administration and probably life in general, wouldn't this statement apply to YOU?
Can you please give your definition of what a "shrub apologist" is?
That would be you.
And what knowledge,(and, please, inform us all), do you possess that confirms that gross mistakes have been made? Are you getting your information from any and all anti-Bush sites, any and all anti-Bush writings, etc?
I watch CNN, MSNBC, primarily. Are these liberal bastions? Perhaps to you.
When you read something positive that the Bush administration has done, do you totally negate these positive accomplishments, and feel the negative, (what you consider negative), far outweighs anything positive that you just may spew forth and admit?
Nope. I never negate something positive. So, to answer your question again, NO.
As it appears, from what your opinions are, that everything is a problem with the Bush administration.
Perhaps that is how it "appears" to you. But I don't feel that way.
Yeah, I realize that this is not related to this "argument," but why even mention it? Karl Rove summoned to the grand jury? So what? Again, something negative that gives people who think your way, something to "gloat" about.
I mentioned it as an example...to show how things do not move swiftly. I'm certainly not gloating, but for you to feel that I am points to insecurity on your part.
Pick pick pick...keep nibbling at the heels of your government with the hopes of bringing it down; you can be sure that the terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, who are against anything to do with the United States, are just sitting back and getting a good laugh when they see that the people, (and by the "people," I am only referring to those with your mindset), United States citizens, are displaying so much factionalism within their own government.
And outing a CIA operative is helping our country how?
But this is what I'm talking about, you don't want to even acknowledge that the problems exist. You want to use an excuse that "terrorists are laughing at us" while our own government officials leak security information...that compromised a CIA agent and all of her work. Rather you consider this just another "ridiculous scandal" that should be ignored. Why? Cause it's "negative" story and kind of puts a damper on all the positive things going on?
It obviously seems that people with your thoughts and opinions get a "thrill" each time this deathtoll number goes up. It's as if your're saying, "You see, I told you so... nananananananah....," more and more soldiers are dying.
I think you're just more afraid of being wrong. Why you choose to view my statements as "bragging" seems like a person who needs to validate their existence. I certainly wasn't bragging, that is such a disturbing thought. The "magic number" is what the hell number it takes before the country demands our soldiers return. I was being "facetious" as you claim yourself to be in paragraphs too long to be humourous.
"My god your mind is seriously flawed."
This is classic. Attack the speaker, not the idea. I wonder, you leave me no choice, do have a retort to the points brought up by the Sixth Army's.
The thesis is simple, really. After being brought into this war under false pretenses (WMDs...I mean FREEDOM for the poor Iraqis), should this sort of prepared endorsement be tolerated.
Especially when you consider this administrations record for dubious use of media (WMDs, Jeff Gannon, Valerie Plame to name a few) to attempt to pass this conference as "off-the-cuff" is certainly worth close scrutiny.
I've got to say I still don't understand what ws "..seriously flawed" about LB's statement. It seemed to underscore the founding fathers and their ideals chapter and verse.
love,
Robespierre
With 2,000 American troops gone, with 25,000-100,000 Iraqi civilians gone, it is now time for those who have thus far supported the Bush regime to reconsider. Some of us are hip to the five-year legacy of electoral fraud, and some of us aren't. But an understanding of the 2000 and 2004 travesties is no longer prerequisite to the understanding that the U.S. is currently led by a criminal cabal. This opinion is anything but exclusive to the liberal left; foreign policy hawks from the first Bush administration (Lawrence Wilkerson, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker) have said the same thing. Nobody I know on the left -- the author of this blog included -- thinks the staged "conversation" reflects badly on the troops involved. Of course not. They're innocents in this mess; they're doing their job; they're following orders. It reflects badly, as Lawrence so aptly says, on George W. Bush -- a man barely qualified to put two words together, let alone to govern the most powerful nation on Earth. A fake event like this isn't a crime unto itself, but to those who would defend it -- how fake do you want the administration to be? Is there an unacceptable level of deception, or does anything go? A fake war declared on fake pretenses based on fake documents has now yielded more real deaths than the first four years of Vietnam. Returning to the pump of democratic rhetoric to defend the Bush regime just won't work anymore. The pump don't work, 'cause the vandals took the handles.
A well constructed argument, Noah. That's all I ask for.
love
Robespierre
Please name me one past president, (and maybe you have a list of them), whose ratings have not been abysmal, (or in the toilet as you stated), at one point or another during their term(s) in office? Especially during a second term.
And to the poster called, Noah, I say the following: "Some of us are hip to the five-year legacy of electoral fraud, and some of us aren't." What electoral fraud are you talking about? Yes, one can argue from both sides, about the first election in 2000,(which, by the way, no fraud was proven), but you seem to put the 2004 election in the cateogry of fraud as well. What fraud was committed in the 2004 presidential election? If the United States was in such a very, very "bad" way back in 2004, then WHY was George W. Bush elected for a second term in office? I am sure you remember back to the days leading to the last presidential election...when the "masses" were out in force spewing forth their message of how Bush had to go. Demonstrations that were considered "unprecedented" during any presidential election, but yet the incumbent president won anyway.
By your statement that, "Some of us are hip to the five-year legacy of electoral fraud," then you are clearly stating that the 2004 presidential election was a fraud as well. I do not question your saying this, as it is your opinion, but I will ask, forthright, do you honestly beleive that Bush won re-election by fraudulent means? And if this is your thinking, then what "proof" do you have that this fraud actually took place? If you could prove something such as this, then surely you would make the news all over the nation.
Anonymous, the story of official misconduct in the 2004 presidential election has made "news all over the nation" (and the world), though admittedly it's been virtually absent from American television. Two good places to start are the House Judiciary Committee's report on the Ohio election and the National Election Data Archive Project's Analysis of Exit Poll Discrepancies (sometimes referred to as the Edison/Mitofsky report). Once informed -- even those unwilling to confront the theft of the 2004 election cannot reasonably deny the intent to steal it, nor the proven theft of tens of thousands of votes in Ohio and Florida. But even this is peripheral. You're quite wrong when you say that "no fraud was proven" in 2000. Four years later, Bush ran on an incumbency which was not legitimate.
I'm back in the pool baby!!
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their responses because I believe opposing views are important.
They bring clarity.
Agreeing with one of the Anonymous’ up there, I am not going to go "tit for tat" with any of the posters. I have done that in the past and I find the larger argument gets lost in the details. You end up debating things like what "is" is.
There are bigger picture concepts to consider.
Afterall, with five years under their belt, the current administration has a track record, so we can draw our own conclusions as far as job performance. The bottom line is that you think the current group in charge is doing a good job and I don’t.
Let us agree to disagree.
With that being said, it seems I need to make some declarative statements. I am not part of any political organization. I am not an ideologue. And most of all I am not a stooge for anybody, at least not mentally. I take everything as it comes and I don’t censor myself.
(Here is a tip on how to spot someone who is an ideologue. Whenever you say something the least bit provocative, BEFORE processing the information they ask you, "WHO said that?" AND THEN respond as if the source is the important thing and the thought is meaningless. Of course, this is a valid approach AFTER processing but the individuals I speak of do their judging before.
Or another way to tell is when an individual dismisses everything you say because you like Michael Moore or anybody else for that matter. After all that is really all you need to know about me, right? Besides the fact that Moore has been saying things for twenty years that the "liberal media" has been ignoring outright, such as Corporate Corruption and Media Consolidation, you also think I am a simpleton, waiting to be told and promote the next talking point, simply because I like his movies. That is outrageous to say the least. It is also revealing.)
And I certainly do not cheer when our soldiers get killed. That particular accusation is downright offensive. But I understand why you make such ludicrous statements.
It is called slight of hand.
Why blame the people who put the soldiers in the predicament they are in when you can blame a fat slob in a cube who has absolutely no power, capital or social standing to control anything.
Yeah, only if the fat guy with the no shave in the cube supported the war more, our situation in Iraq would become less like the situation it is and more like Shang-gri-la.
That is called being completely deluded.
I also want to stress that I am not trying to convince you, or anybody else, of my view. My writings, musings and rants are all my own. I only speak for myself. My blog is for the purpose of self-expression and any of you following it and commenting on it (Thanks again for visiting…most appreciative) please feel free to do so more often, I LOVE the company.
But, I am not going to pretend to know what people want nor will I tailor my thoughts because I think it is what they want to hear. The minute I start doing that in my writing is the exact minute I put down the pen and crawl into a bottle of Old Harper and never come out because to be so intellectually dishonest would be blasphemy.
Read the banner above my blog. I didn’t write that because I thought it sounded pretty. I wrote it because I meant it.
The hot button topic seems to be sadness. If I remember correctly someone questioned why I was sad. The poster suggested my feelings of sadness were manufactured by the media or inauthentic or whatever. (Please don’t bother to correct me if I got the quote wrong)
I want to tell you WHY I am sad.
In 1914, as Britain prepared to dispatch troops to counter the German invasion of Belgium, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Edward Grey, said,
"The lights are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."
Europe marched off to war that August enthusiastically. There were very few voices to challenge the rampant Militarism and Nationalism that was sweeping the continent. Soldiers of all nations were given flowers as they went to the front.
To the machine guns and the gas canisters; to the trenches and the artillery; to their maiming and their deaths.
What followed this giddy jubilation were two World Wars and hardcore depressions that lasted at least into the 1980s.
European dominance of the globe, which lasted a few hundred years and created such fabulous wealth and decadence for many of its citizens, not to mention the advances in science, economics, philosophy and culture, came to a crashing halt with the millions of dead left in Flanders Fields.
In other words, Lord Edward Grey was right.
I felt the same way when the current Administration, with the President of the United States as main front man, whipped the nation up into a militaristic frenzy.
Months of jingoistic madness, fear mongering and suspicion of intellectualism and reason preceded a show down ultimatum with Iraq which led to...you know the rest.
I remember specifically the eve of the invasion being treated like "New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Dick Clark."
I was sad when I realized that we have learned nothing since The Guns of August.
I watched as the citizenry of our great nation forgot about our principles, our values, and our culture. I saw the people of the United States embrace practices that were more in tune with a police state then one of a democracy. I witnessed people give up and discredit hope and love and live lives of fear and hate.
I remember being in a bar around that time and actually seeing two 25-year old girls high fiving each other because we killed the 6 of clubs or whoever.
I was sad when I researched this New World Order as devised by The Project for the New American Century through some of their "open letters" and thesis’ they have posted on their web site. These papers were well written and intelligent, which was refreshing, and they were also fundamentally wrong.
Expansion through invasion will not ultimately work no matter what kind of words you associate with it.
You can say "Freedom" and "Democracy," but, in reality, what they mean is "Empire."
I know of no Empire in history that has ever lasted, from Babylon to the Soviet Union, so there is no reason to think we would be any different.
And then I became sadder when it was revealed that all of this transformation I was witnessing on the trains, around the office and in the bars was based primarily on a pack of lies, constructed and perpetrated by an administration completely infiltrated by this way of thinking.
This was not the country I was brought up in anymore.
I am sad that we are rejecting science in favor of "faith." That we are actually discussing the idea of teaching "intelligent design" over evolution because they are both "theories" disregarding the fact that one is based on research, experiment and observation and the other is based on a book that was written over a thousand years ago.
It is incomprehensible to me.
I think of a quote from Roger Ebert in 1997:
We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence.
I think of these words and feel comforted
And then I feel sad again because I realize that the people in charge right now stand directly opposed to such ideas by their petty two-dimensional thinking and total lack of curiosity.
I am sad when I think of the potential of the human being and the heights that can be reached if they were truly free and not shackled to an existence of materialism and primal thoughts fostered and encouraged by the current administration.
Those are some of things that are making me sad.
The feeling is genuine.
I didn't need to be told.
I will end with a quote from the brilliant Republican President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861.
Lincoln has the interesting distinction, as a previous poster pointed out, as being probably one of our greatest Presidents ever and yet the most hated in his own time. I doubt any were hated any more than him because the South actually seceded from the union as a direct result of his election which, in turn, led to the bloodiest four years in our history known as The Civil War (Or "The War of Northern Aggression" if you live south of the Mason-Dixon line.)
With the devil at the doorstep, at the most crucial point in our history, this is what that great man had to say:
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
No sir, I am not a stooge.
Maybe, I’m a dreamer
That is NOT a bad thing.
Larry
Please name me one past president, (and maybe you have a list of them), whose ratings have not been abysmal, (or in the toilet as you stated), at one point or another during their term(s) in office?
That would be John F. Kennedy, who never went below 56 percent.
Especially during a second term.
That would be Dwight D. Eisnehower, I believe. His lowest approval rating ever was 49%. Which I don't consider toilet.
Since the rating polls only started with Truman, the most unpopular president ever at 23%, we can't exactly gauge ALL of our past presidents.
But are you saying that it's acceptable to have low approval ratings cause hey, everyone else has at some time or another? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Speaking of only modern day presidents, Carter, with his low point of 28% was NOT re-elected nor was George H. Bush (29%). Ford was never elected (37%); and Johnson chose not to run (35%).
It would seem that their low ratings had some repercussions.
In contrast, both Reagan and Clinton had their lowest approval ratings during their first terms (37% and 35% respectively), and were able to bounce back. Their second term low points were still higher than today's Bush.
Here's an excerpt from the New York Times article on the recent indict of "Scooter" Libby:
"This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. "It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq, and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."
This is why you have to "red flag" the falseness of that "town hall meeting" with the troops.
love,
Robespierre
What incredible nonsense.
Post a Comment
<< Home