On the Naming of a Child

On the Naming of a Child

(Poem under reconstruction -- the bones that hold it together came bent from the factory.) 

Ben Stein 2

Image by Eddi 07 via Flickrhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23every.html?em From Ben Stein, NYT
"In this situation, where fear rules, we must turn to the federal government for relief. The private sector is the patient, not the doctor. Solvency guarantees for banks that lend are a must. No more Lehmans can be allowed to happen. A truly serious stimulus package is very much in order. It has to be big enough and last long enough that Americans do not just sock it away under the mattress. We cannot nickel-and-dime our way out of this. The inflation threat is small in an economy in full credit-collapse mode. There is virtually no dose of stimulus that is too much in an economy as shellshocked as today’s."

I am very fond of Ben Stein, but do not agree with many of his solutions to economic problems. The fact that he is asking for a New Deal from the Obama presidency speaks loudly to how far we have fallen.  

 And, of course,  Bush is like an idiot in another, special room, talking jibberish about the power of the free market;  just riding the moth that brung 'em 'till he kisses the open flame.


 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Neil Cavuto in screamathon with Ben Stein over our failed economy and how to repair it
• Historian: An Obama New Deal?
• Commentary: Can Obama lead another New Deal?
• Ben Stein Watch: June 29, 2008

Bush 3

What you don't understand you can make mean anything.

CHUCK PALAHNIUK, Diary

“To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.”
part of an article from some idiot at the WSJ

Truman is remembered for containment – a pragmatic, but unpopular approach to a new and expanding danger – the Commies. Truman went to Korea as a response to an overwhelming invasion. Truman fought a limited war with limited objectives, to popular dis-appeal at home. Truman told the truth about the war and fought with a real coalition.
Bush had containment, he went for war. Bush went to war with a country using the oldest excuse of bullies – ‘they were begging for it’. Bush set objectives for war that can never be met – we are involved in an open-ended war ala 1984. (Ask – when will we be in condition green again?) Bush lied to get us into the war, and lied to keep us there. Bush fought with a coalition of the willing – paid mercenaries and England.
Truman provided adult guidance and measured responses to critical events. He is well remembered for this. A lesser President would have allowed MacArthur to nuke the Chinese on the Yalu, using bombs provided by Lemay – that’s what the public was clamoring for.
And that’s the President they would have gotten with Bush.
Truman said no when a big chunk of the population wanted to have an all night, bat-shit crazy orgy of violence to, 'end this once and for all' with the Red's.
It’s a delusional sop to take the lessons of Truman and apply them to Bush. I don't really want him or his watchers to sleep easier with the thought that it is.

Related articles by Zemanta

• George W. Bush's Disapproval Rating Now Tops Richard Nixon's
• Bush's approval rating at all-time low of 28 percent.
• Bush's Legacy: Historic Highs, Historic Lows
• George W. Bush Now Has Highest Disapproval Rating in History
• Bush presidency 'battered,' 'incompetent'

Bush and War Crimes

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. "
H.L. Mencken

From the Wall Street Journal today:
"The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House."

Let me be clear.

Bush should be sent to The Hague and tried for war crimes. Any slanderous or cruel attacks that he receives from any citizen of this country is to be applauded.

We are judged by the government we elect. If we do nothing or say nothing when confronted by evil acts committed in our name, then we are no better than him.

We owe the world an apology for the actions taken on our dime, and it is up to them to judge us for the actions of this man. (He has also damaged our country and alienated us from each other through his power mad fear based morality. That's something WE will have to live with and fix as best we can -- we elected him twice, and that's our fault and our responsibility.) The problems he has caused for the world need to be accounted for by the world --and it's our responsibility, because we can't all go, to deliver this man to the court for justice and accountability.

Preemptive war is a horror that violates the rights of all nations, and unless condemned, will be repeated and justified by nations not as full of good intentions as ourselves.

Hope that clears it up.

This is from the Onion in 2001; it marks the death of Satire. From now on, the truth will have to be funny on its own.

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

Enlarge Image

President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."

"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."

Soldiers at Ft. Bragg march lockstep in preparation for America's return to aggression.

Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.

"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.

"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."

"You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."

Bush

Bush

I am well aware that much of the country does not share my views about Bush. Living in Northern California makes me spoiled and out of touch when it comes to the nations pulse. When I was in Tampa, I remember being astonished when I saw an editorial in support of a policy decision by Bush. It was a major paper, with awards and everything.

I won’t be moving to Tampa any time soon.

In case it’s not clear: I think that Bush is an untreated alcoholic, in over his head and manipulated by people not much smarter than toads, but meaner.

Though aware that other people have a different opinion I not only think that they are wrong – I think they are idiots as well. We have had eight years of Bush land and every single indicator of national well being is worse off now than it was when he started.

And then I read the neo-cons seem to think that the problem is we didn’t go far enough.

It’s not possible for me to hear a person support Bush without socially rubbing them out in my mind. Nothing they can say to me about anything else – movie reviews, dinner spots, sexual positions – nothing gets through to me after they voice support for Bush.

It’s not intolerance, though I believe that tolerance is just learning to put up with other peoples shit until you get used to it, it’s more – it’s a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of life.

I try not to talk politics with people I like in case they say something about Bush and ruin it.

The funny thing is I started feeling that way about people who wanted Hillary to win the democratic nomination…

This is from the Onion in 2001 -- it doesn't read as satire now-- it could have come from the Tampa Tribunes Monday edition.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784?utm_source=EMTF_Onion

Related articles by Zemanta

• Laugh To Keep From Crying
• National Debt When Jimmy Carter ...
• A great example of double standarts

Guantanamo

We, the Coalition, got authority from the United Nations to go to Afghanistan and oust the Taliban . Anyone who fought against us was considered a illegal enemy combatant.

Many of them are in Guantanamo, held without charges, without rights.

Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001."Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on 20 December 2001

The Security Council,

As you may notice , if you check out the link, the resolution doesn't actually say anything about 'illegal enemy combatant,' or make a case against people defending the country they live in. That's all us -- and they way we chose to see it.

This is our new standard for war and the way we treat those who fight against us -- and like any standard, it can and will be used against us in the future.We no longer have the moral high ground to point to as our justification or rationale for anything. The only way we are allowed to complain about how our people are treated in other counties is by the use of force.

What we can do, others can do,-- unless we are bigger than they are and are willing to beat them if they don't cooperate with us.

As a nation we have always believed that might does not make right, rather that it is the force of our ideals and good intentions that made us great -- and democracy, as we practiced it, was always something others should want to emulate.

In a war that can almost by definition never end, perhaps it is time to put away the things of our youth and act like the bad motherfuckers we are. Maybe the problem is we are apologizing too much.

I just hope my grand kids don't have to pay for this, too.

Is satire elitism if it's just annoying?

I struggled with political correctness for years until I decided that being polite was probably a good goal for a developed civilization, and all the craziness that came with it was just the cost of doing business. Today, I'm OK with the concept and have worked it in, except sometimes I don't because, fuck-em.

I'm not so sure that making satire a bad thing will be as easy to get used to.

When I write policies and procedures at work I always try to write them so that they can be read two ways -- the straight and the not so straight. I try to add words or phrases that change meanings or, even better, load meanings with either exaggeration or importance that they don't really have. I do this because I think it's funny, it makes the procedures more interesting, and it makes my employees read it more carefully -- but mostly because I think it's funny.

It's also a variation of satire.

If we lived in a world when cause and effect were more straightforward, reason led to legislation and self-interest were more enlightened, satire might find itself an dying art in a land of puppies and bee's without stingers. We don't -- look around -- most of the news and half of the commentary is pure Swiftian in its bite.

The Jessie Helm's aides bill? Homeland security?

Good satire is priceless. When Swift proposed eating Irish babies it worked on two levels. Because the English were doing the equivalent damage to the Irish that eating babies would have anyway, and to some, it actually seemed a sensible solution to the Irish problem.

It also made people think, argue, question, debate and have real emotions over a real life event.

It probably changed some stuff too.

But, back to the question, if people are offended by, or uncomfortable with satire, Maye it's because they confuse it with sarcasm.

I have a rule to never make fun of things people can't change -- big nose, eyes too far apart -- that sort of thing. Anything else evolves to a meanness that can be seen as aggressive sarcasm.

I think that satire should work with that philosophy as well -- make no fun of global warming, the war in Iraq, or Presidential immunity -- all things that really aren't going to change -- so attacking them under the table is just a recipe for pissing off good people.

People see satire as another way of smart people, like Hollywood celebrities, to make fun of them -- that it's mean goes against a belief they don't really feel a need to argue, question, debate about.

Like God, or Bush-- if you know your belief is true and absolute and based on faith instead of reason-- why would you want to listen to someone fuck with the thing in your head that's not going to change anyway? I mean -- what's so funny about that?

If you are only buying one thing in the marketplace anyway -- why think about it?

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's The End Of The World...As You Know It
• Oliver Stone's Verdict on George W.
• All Neocons Use The Same Talking Points, Mr. Rae