What Are We Doing Here?
Freedom's Nightmare
2/1/06
Yesterday the President gave his State of the Union Address. I did not watch it but I read the transcript this morning and I haven’t felt this disgusted with the actual state of the union since November of 2004.
Besides all the “We’re winning the war on terror” and “Death to all lawyers who do not protect corporations,” I was a tad surprised at the muted tone of the whole speech. I have to commend him on his attempt at reconciliation but, in all honesty, the Republican Party has been running things for a long time now so if he was serious about all these positive things that he supposedly envisions (He mentioned alternative fuel sources and AIDS research) they would have been put in place already.
If his speech was more honest he would have said something like, "We are going to work hard to stop gun control, ban abortion and give outrageous tax breaks to any one with a lot of money...and I don't mean just 'alot of money' I am talking about some one who has real money 70 to 100 million dollars...liquid. Oh...and we're going to start a war too."
Of course, the preceding was a fictitious quote. All others in this post are real and my source is www.whitehouse.gov.)
But, in that vain, one statement HE DID make which was kind of ridiculous was, “We will pass along to our children all the freedom we enjoy and chief among them is freedom from fear.”
Is he kidding? These are the guys who have been working the fear angle for years now. I think this mother-fucker is urinating down my back again.
He also said quite succinctly, “I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.” His position is no surprise really but what exactly does marriage need protection from? This is not a rhetorical flip question. I am completely serious. I hear this phrase pretty regularly but yet have no idea what it means. Somebody out there…ANYBODY…please give me an answer.
In that same bullet point, he also used another non-sensical chestnut that has become very popular in the ongoing systematic murder of our language: the term “activist judges.” Again, I do not understand what is meant by this. Sure I hear it all the time on these talking-head Sunday political shows. And sometimes I even hear a co-worker/acquaintance use it to explain whatever they are trying to explain but what does it mean? Is an “activist” some one who has an opinion or makes a decision? In other words, someone who actually judges? If that is the case, aren't all judges "activists"? Isn’t that their job description? Someone please give me an answer.
He devoted several paragraphs of the speech to the reform of Social Security, an institution which, he described as, “…a symbol of the trust between generations…” and “…a great moral success of the 20th Century.” He claimed that the program is in bad need of reform because it will be insolvent in forty years or so. I am not an economist so I will take his word for it.
But the administration’s plan is to dismantle not reform.
”As we fix Social Security, we also have a responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today’s retirees. If you’re a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.”
Which, of course, is the exact opposite of the reason why the, “Great Moral Success of the 20th Century” was started in the first place. The concept of Social Security was not so someone can "Go for mines" but it was started to help everybody. So, in theory, no one would have to die in squalor although they might have had some bad luck or have not made the best financial decisions.
Now I can’t argue with the logic being used. The suggestion is that right now Social Security (Managed by the government) is making a very low percentage in interest while private mutual funds, etc. are making a lot more so why shouldn’t the contributor have a choice? Fair enough, but besides the abandonment of a communal “safety net” concept, as anyone who has invested in the last 7 years or so knows, these funds can be volatile and these great percentage points being bandied about today can easily turn into negative numbers tomorrow.
The return rates might be variable but there is one thing that stays constant, the amount of cash the fund managers make regardless if you win or lose which, I believe, is the true motivation behind these “reforms.” The bottom line is simple. You have to ask yourself one question: Who do you trust more, the Federal Government or the asshole at Charles Schwab? I know the current crop of heroes running this government want you to believe that jack-offs like Citi-Corp do things in “our best interests” but the reality is they do things for one reason and one reason only: to make money. And if there is a choice between your (The customer) well being or making even more money, there is NO DOUBT that they will opt for the additional funds…even if the sum total of their additional profit is four dollars and sixty-two cents.
You would know that if you ever lived a day in your life.
Then there is the argument that we must trust…or have “faith”…in that magical state of grace called “the free market.” If only, the theory states, we allowed “the market” to operate completely unencumbered, I.E. no federal, state or local regulations, then all of our needs and wants would be taken care of. Supply and demand would magically regulate production and prices. People would have the best of everything; The best products, the best wages, the best choices. I think it was Adam Smith who came up with this theory.
But there is only one problem with this euphoric love affair certain groups have with the Holy Grail of materialism. This point of view does not take into account that conditions were totally deplorable and working people’s status was a half notch above slave prior to the government regulations which are now being characterized as evil. When Laissez-Faire economics (At that time called “Liberal”) slowly replaced the centralized controlled commerce (At that time called “conservative”), creating the industrial revolution, a large underclass of workers was created whose wretched conditions and horrible existence could be considered intolerable.
When I think of the social history of the world or, at the very least, this country I find it very hard to imagine anybody sitting in a cube, driving a bus, working an assembly line or mixing cement declaring, “We got to get the government off our backs.” And yet I do hear those very words being said by people who do not realize that without the “Government on their back” they would be literally working sixty-hour weeks and getting paid in company script. To think how we constantly piss on ourselves depresses me to no end.
Of course the irony is that these same people have no problem with the brutal assault that has been waged on our civil rights. And they hardly, if ever, mention all the Kafa-esque shit that has been going on over the past five years.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not want to turn the clock back to a pre-industrial revolution world where people shat out of windows and ignorance ran rampant. A time period when natural occurrences and diseases were explained in terms of magic and curses. The industrial revolution created a lot of evil and suffering but it also produced great creature comforts and inventions that have dramatically benefitted mankind. I suppose you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
The Great Depression of the 1930s made painfully clear that this Laissez-Faire approach needed to be revised. People started to embrace the idea that the government should not stand by and do nothing while its citizens starved in the streets. To corect this inherent flaw, FDR's New Deal was born.
The Republican Party has been trying to dismantle it ever since.
With that being said ask yourself, why do the current crop of movers and shakers want to turn back the clock and make like we had no social evolution or “moral successes” in the last 100 years? Here is an exact quote,
“So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but should never undermine them.”
I have to admit that whoever wrote this line knew what he was doing. The way it is worded, it appears that there is nothing to object to and if you do you’re a scumbag. To me, it is a folksy, almost poetic, way to proudly embrace conformity, passivity and willful ignorance, pretending that the toothpaste never came out of the tube.
As I mentioned before I did not watch the speech live for two reasons. First of all I just plain forgot that it was on. Besides, even if I did remember, there was a dynamite episode of Mannix on opposite it. Second, and most importantly, I can’t even look at this guy anymore without becoming spiritually and emotionally ill. But I did happen to catch some of the “Democratic Response” afterwards.
I say I saw some of it because the image was so off putting that I had to immediately turn it off. In the middle of this library/office looking place stands this chump from Virginia with a sleazy suit and an even sleazier smile. After a few remarks about Coretta Scott King, he starts talking. His words sounded awfully scripted delivered in tones that betrayed no sign of passion or conviction. He put me into such a hypnotic trance that, rather rapidly, I completely lost tract of what he was saying. After a (short) while, I became convinced that this guy was not a leader of an opposition party outraged about what has been happening to our hopes and ideals, but some guy who was introducing the next episode of Masterpiece Theatre.
And, after the last five years, the best the Democrats can do is have a passionless fool read lines off a teleprompter with all the urgency of sap coming out of a tree?
It is completly disheartening and disgusting.
Fuck them all.
Larry
posted by Larry B | 3:14 PM
3 Comments:
I'm telling you, Moneygrip...
We're in the hands of a bunch of lunatics.
Great post!
I too did not see Bush's SOTU speech. I knew it was on but my stomach wouldn't have been able to take it. I read the transcript like you and we could probably talk for hours about how much bullshit was in there. But there were a couple of things that really made me angry.
When he talked about Iraq, again saying how much progress we have made, he said this in reference to criticism:
"Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second guessing is not a strategy."
So I guess that means you can't call him a lying sack of shit. I'm outraged at hindsight alone is not wisdom statement. There were plenty of people at the time who said it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, that they didn't have WMDs, that a civil war might break out, that we would be resented. It's not hindsight if you're telling someone what the deal is as it's happening. Also, Bush and his administration not only said that Iraq (Saddam) had WMDs and there would be mushroom clouds but they also said he was seeking uranium from Africa and tried to link him to al- Qaeda and 9/11. In addition to telling us of what a great and immediate threat Iraq posed they also said it would be easy once we did invade. We would be treated as liberators and Iraq would be able to fund there own construction.
None of this turned out to be the case. You can't complain that someones hindsight is 20/20 when the results are the opposite of what you initially had said. We should be outraged.
Citizens and some elected officials are pissed about what the real situation is. There's the possibility that this war will end up costing The US over 2 trillion dollars , there is a huge resentment towards us from Iraqis and the Muslim and Arab world for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed as well as all the Abu Grab torture scandel. Iraq is now a haven for terrorists and we helped their recruitment. Over 2,200 US soldiers have been killed and over 16,000 wounded.
We have to second guess because any kind of plan or strategy that Bush had come up with was wrong so what makes anyone think that any current plan by him is in the best interest of the average US citizen or Iraqi. But Halliburton and Exxon are doing swell.
More Bullshit was this:
"It is said that prior to the attacks of Sept. 11 our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to Al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack, based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute, I have authorized a terrorist-surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority."
You see if only this were in place before 9/11 we would have had a 9/11. What crap. Again he is using fear. Bush is saying just give me control or they'll be another 9/11. Here's what the Washington Post said about that:
Even without the warrantless domestic spying program, however, the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies had important clues about the Sept. 11 plot and the hijackers before the attacks, according to media reports and findings by Congress and the commission.
For example, the NSA intercepted two electronic messages on Sept. 10, 2001, that warned of the attacks -- but the agency failed to translate them until Sept. 12. The Arabic-language messages said "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour," intelligence officials said.
U.S. intelligence sources have said that NSA analysts were unsure who was speaking on the intercepts but that they were considered a high enough priority for translation within two days.
Cheney's apparent reference to Alhazmi and Almihdhar is also incomplete, leaving out the fact that several government agencies had compiled significant information about the duo but had bungled efforts to track them.
According to the Sept. 11 commission's report, released in 2004, the NSA first identified Alhazmi and Almihdhar in December 1999, passing the information to the CIA but conducting no further research.
In 2000, the CIA failed to place Alhazmi and Almihdhar on a watch list despite their ties to a terrorist summit in Malaysia. The CIA also mishandled efforts to follow them after the summit and failed to share information about them with the FBI, including the crucial fact that both men had U.S. visas, the commission found.
By late August 2001, the FBI finally had information that Almihdhar had recently entered the United States. But the search for the suspected al Qaeda operative was treated as routine and assigned to a rookie agent, according to the commission report.
Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said it is unclear what communications could have been intercepted if the FBI and other agencies did not know where Alhazmi and Almihdhar were.
Hoffman also said Cheney's comments ignore the breadth of the government failures before the attacks, which were due to structural problems rather than a single missed lead.
"It's not that legislation was lacking; it was a systemic failure," he said.
The LA Times does a good job on debunking the rest of this ridiculous paragraph:
Defending the surveillance program as crucial in a time of war, Bush said that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority" that he did. "And," he added, "federal courts have approved the use of that authority." [...]
However, warrantless surveillance within the United States for national security purposes was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 -- long after Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt stopped issuing orders. That led to the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Bush essentially bypassed in authorizing the program after the Sept. 11 attacks. [...]
Bush's historical reference on domestic spying marked one of several points in his speech in which he backed up assertions with selective uses of fact, or seemed to place a positive spin on his own interpretation. [...]
The president also seemed to ignore Supreme Court precedent when he called for Congress to give him the "line item veto." But Congress did that once, in 1996, and it was used once, by former President Clinton. But in 1998, a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. That was affirmed by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court.
Finally, it's not only Bush that's the problem but the reporters, talking heads and pundits that also contribute to the lies. This is how Chris Matthews summed up part of Bush's Speech:
"We saw the president tonight make a number of strong statements. One defending the war in Iraq, saying it's necessary to go after failed tyrannies, repressive states, because they're the states that harbor terrorists and attacked us on 9-11."
See how he linked Iraq and 9/11. Iraq didn't harbour terrorists and was not responsible for 9/11. These bastards are being totally irresponsible...or... maybe they're just on the payroll.
As long as Bush is in power and the republicans control congress, we're fucked.
Have a nice day.
Hey Mr. Tannenbaum, I am not sure the word "lunatic" actually applies in this case. The administration seems to have a specific goal/agenda in mind as POC pointed out. I think the words that would more aptly describe the current crop of hypocrites would be “anti-American” ”fascist” "inept” ‘sexually repressed” “spiritually bankrupt” or “assholes.” But I do not think they are crazy and, for the most part, are not really stupid. (Of course the exception to that last claim, judging by the OVERWHELMING empirical evidence, would be the President himself.)
What was also creepy about reading the transcript was the way the transcriber would put in (Applause) whenever the Senators and/or Congressman applauded a particular point was said. (Paraphrase)
We need to expand HIV research. (Applause)
We will be at the forefront of Medical research. (Applause)
We need to have equal justice under the law. (Applause)
We need to explore alternative fuel sources. (Applause)
What, exactly, were these people clapping about? The ideas are great but coming from Bush it is downright insulting. Again, if he was serious about ANY of these things, they would have been done already. This speech is the textbook definition of the phrase “lip service” and these jerks clapping are the official rubber stamp to the charade. THANK GOD I did not watch this thing live. I might have had a stroke on the spot.
One line I DID NOT SEE in the transcript was:
This speech is a mockery of a healthy representative democracy and the antithesis of intelligent thought and planning. (Applause)
And yes. That “hindsight” line elevated my Irish as well and I am glad you pointed it out. The statement is so obviously false and is a prime example of this administration’s tactic of changing the past whenever questioned about the multitude of their own disastrous policies and/or choices they have made since getting to the White House.
There really is nothing new here. Governments have been doing that for years. When this practice is done subtly, the public probably doesn’t even know about it. What makes these guys so repugnant is that they are pushing some serious boundaries. Their Orwellian moves are so obvious. Nobody with any reason can say…
“Hey…The President’s right!!! Nobody thought that the Iraqi invasion was going to turn out like this!!! These cry baby liberals root for failure and have twenty-twenty hindsight.”
…for the simple fact that MANY, MANY people predicted EXACTLY what has actually happened. From high up officials and generals (Who were fired for their “hindsight”) and ordinary jokers like myself who showed up by the thousands in Manhattan streets and in cities ALL AROUND THE WORLD before and directly after the invasion of Iraq, to voice their “hindsight” pretty loud and clear. But according to the Commissars at the Duma, these events and thoughts never occurred.
The same exact excuse was used after the ridiculous performance of FEMA during Hurricaine Katrina. Do you remember Bush saying
“No one expected that the Levees would break.”
Patently absurd and I would reiterate that anyone who still has the capacity to think and form some kind of idea, no matter how diminished by societal indoctrination, can not see this statement and agree. It really is that simple.
Isn’t funny that this guy ran for President (in 2000) with the slogans, “I’m a Uniter, Not a Divider” and “I will bring personal responsibility back to the White House”?
Yet, in 2006 we are, without a doubt the most divided we have ever been since the Civil War and through the crisis’ of his Presidency (9/11, Katrina, Ill-Conceived War…just to name a few) he ran as far away as he possibly could from personal responsibility, blaming anyone he could for his administration’s own failure.
Never mind, Dennis Miller is on HBO right now with a new stand-up special about how fucked up Bill Clinton is. (Applause)
Thanks for the comments!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home