I recently received an email which was a fantasy on President Bush writing a kiss-off letter to America. The core concept of this missive was that we Americans have been very unfair to Mr. Bush and that he has done an exemplary job while putting up with totally unjustified attacks from those goddamn libruls.
My own version of such a letter might be something like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear America:
I quit! No, not to avoid impeachment; it's defintely too late for that now. And anyhow, that industrial shredder van that's been parked at the vice president's house for the past 4 years has chopped up the paper trail that they'd need to make a decent case for impeachment. Not that there would be one of course.
No, I quit because I'm sick of being reviled and made fun of.
Take the Iraq war for instance: the idea that I would lie to start a war -- why that's totally erogenous. Let me tell you how the Iraq War idea came about. When my dad was president during Gulf War I, Paul Wolfowitz came to him with a proposal to finish off Saddam Hussein while we were in the neighborhood (so to speak). Dad threw this idea in the waste basket, but, fortunately, I was standing behind the door in the Oval office, and, when Dad went off to take a leak, I grabbed Wolfowitz's proposal from the trash and held on to it.
When I became president, I hired Wolfowitz because I really liked his idea of pre-emptive war; just think if you could invade everyone who was going to do harm to our great USA before they could get a chance to do it! What a great idea!
So, some of us folks in my administration (smart people like Don Rumsfeld, Richard Pearl) were trying to figure out how and when we could take Saddam out before he could attack us. Then, when Saddam told Osama ben Laden to attack the World Trade Center, it seemed like high time to get the bastard.
So where's the lie? Maybe Saddam didn't attack the World Trade Center personally, but we know he was on the phone to Osama ben Laden all the time telling him what to do. And, with thousands of weapons of mass destruction just waiting to be used against Amerika, it was only a metter of time before something worse happened.
And the economy - I'm realy sick of the whining libruls claiming I broke the economy. I just did what any red-blooded American conservative would have done: I complained loudly about the tax-and-spend libruls, then ran up the largest budget deficit in American history. Well, I mean, whose fault is that really? We had to go to war to protect precious American freedom, which we wouldn't have had to do if Bill Clinton had shown some balls and really taken out Osama bin Laden like I did.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Dear Sen. McCain
There will be plenty of monday morning quarterbacking about why you lost, but I doubt it will be as insightful as my own in-depth analysis. I say that only because of the low level of received wisdom already spewed out from the media on this subject and, frankly also because of the media-reinforced idea that the entire significance of Sen. Obama's win is that he is African-American -- as though a monkey had learned to speak, a notion reinforced by your own carefully-worded concession speech.
A few years ago, I thought you were a decent guy -- for a Republican: you had made some pointed remarks about the religious right, you were pro-stem-cell research, you would at least admit that the Iraq war was incompetently managed (if not the more significant fact that it was unjustified)
Once you decided to run for President, however, you seemed to abandon your maverick credentials as you began an uninterrupted campaign to appeal to the worst elements of your party.
For me, you committed four big offenses during your campaign:
1. First, you made a pilgrimage to the high priests of religious intolerance, hoping to add their endorsement to your coffer of support. Unlike Obama, who seemed able to appeal to Christians without having to drag a fetus into every conversation, you went whole hog for the support of people who think evolution is a hoax, gay people should be burned at the stake, and that God blesses America and curses other countries we don't agree with.
2. Second, you assserted that, in spite of 30 years of conservative economics in control of public policy, we needed MORE of same in order to restore the economy to health. It's your bad luck that the economy happened to be imploding during the campaign -- as a clear result of deregulation feeding corporate greed -- but, hey, as Joe the Plumber would undoubtedly say, "shit happens!"
3. You chose Sarah Palin as your running mate. While Barack Obama chose a seasoned, intelligent, less liberal senator as his running mate -- sending a signal of his intent to move toward the middle -- you chose someone inexperienced, more conservative than you are, with a voice like a rusty gate hinge -- sending a signal that you wanted to pander to the right wing of your party rather than move toward the center.
4. Last -- and definitely not least -- you ran the most negative campaign I've ever witnessed. This is not just my opinion; you even alienated members of your own party and Republican political operatives, who thought your unrelenting (and mostly grossly exaggerated) attacks on Obama were a tactical mistake, if not a downright insult to the political process. And, even when you seemed to be toning down the nasty rhetoric, your running mate seemed all too eager to ramp it up.
This is one of the most pusszling things about your campaign, considering that you were the recipient of the same kind of treatment from the Karl Rove machine in 2000 and were angered, hurt, and repelled by it. Apprently, based on the current campaign, only because you hadn't thought of it first.
Last, you lost because Sen. Obama was clearly superior -- not because he was African-American -- but because he is intelligent, disciplined, charismatic, knowledgeable and, perhaps, most important, was willing to "stick to his guns" about what he thinks is right and not simply pander to the worst fears, worst tendencies, and worst people of his base.
A few years ago, I thought you were a decent guy -- for a Republican: you had made some pointed remarks about the religious right, you were pro-stem-cell research, you would at least admit that the Iraq war was incompetently managed (if not the more significant fact that it was unjustified)
Once you decided to run for President, however, you seemed to abandon your maverick credentials as you began an uninterrupted campaign to appeal to the worst elements of your party.
For me, you committed four big offenses during your campaign:
1. First, you made a pilgrimage to the high priests of religious intolerance, hoping to add their endorsement to your coffer of support. Unlike Obama, who seemed able to appeal to Christians without having to drag a fetus into every conversation, you went whole hog for the support of people who think evolution is a hoax, gay people should be burned at the stake, and that God blesses America and curses other countries we don't agree with.
2. Second, you assserted that, in spite of 30 years of conservative economics in control of public policy, we needed MORE of same in order to restore the economy to health. It's your bad luck that the economy happened to be imploding during the campaign -- as a clear result of deregulation feeding corporate greed -- but, hey, as Joe the Plumber would undoubtedly say, "shit happens!"
3. You chose Sarah Palin as your running mate. While Barack Obama chose a seasoned, intelligent, less liberal senator as his running mate -- sending a signal of his intent to move toward the middle -- you chose someone inexperienced, more conservative than you are, with a voice like a rusty gate hinge -- sending a signal that you wanted to pander to the right wing of your party rather than move toward the center.
4. Last -- and definitely not least -- you ran the most negative campaign I've ever witnessed. This is not just my opinion; you even alienated members of your own party and Republican political operatives, who thought your unrelenting (and mostly grossly exaggerated) attacks on Obama were a tactical mistake, if not a downright insult to the political process. And, even when you seemed to be toning down the nasty rhetoric, your running mate seemed all too eager to ramp it up.
This is one of the most pusszling things about your campaign, considering that you were the recipient of the same kind of treatment from the Karl Rove machine in 2000 and were angered, hurt, and repelled by it. Apprently, based on the current campaign, only because you hadn't thought of it first.
Last, you lost because Sen. Obama was clearly superior -- not because he was African-American -- but because he is intelligent, disciplined, charismatic, knowledgeable and, perhaps, most important, was willing to "stick to his guns" about what he thinks is right and not simply pander to the worst fears, worst tendencies, and worst people of his base.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Real Meaning of Christianity
I received an email today -- one of those that's been around the world several times, passed on by the well-intentioned for the edification of others of their ilk, but occasionally received by someone like me.
It contained photos of various presidents with the question, asked by a hypothetical mother, "Why did my son have to die in..." (supply the president and country of your favorite war.)
It ends with the following
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Heavenly Father .. why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem ?'
The answer is always the same... 'So that others may live and dwell in peace, happiness, and freedom.'
This was emailed to me with no author. I thought the magnitude and the simplicity were awesome.
If you are not willing to stand BEHIND our troops,
Please, please feel free to stand in front of them....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm really grateful to the person who passed this on to me; being only a Christmas and Easter Christian myself (and half a Jew to boot) I can always stand to have my religious knowledge updated.
I had been operating under the false impression that Jesus said "blessed are the peace-makers" but, thanks to this email, I now know he actually said "blessed are the warmongers" and it was simply mis-translated. After all, from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Olde Englishe to Middle English to Modern English, he might have been giving a recipe for blintzes for all we know!
Clearly, modern American Christians know a lot more about what Jesus and the heavenly father have in mind than I do. For instance, it would never occur to me to say "God Bless America." Perhaps this comes from the Jewish side of my personality; in the Jewish faith, one doesn't petition God for new blessings so much as thank God for blessings already received.
In other words, Jews don't generally view God as a wish-granting ATM, but I'm beginning to think they are just behind the times. After all, when you live in a Christian country (as we have been told this is) and it is obvious that Christians have a direct line to the Almighty, what's wrong with using that special relationship to get a little something extra for the country we love?
And, when you understand that, although God is infinite and eternal, he has a special place in his heart for this one country that has existed for, what, 230 years, it only makes sense to claim him for ourselves and to hell with the rest of the world. Nya nya, God likes us best.
It contained photos of various presidents with the question, asked by a hypothetical mother, "Why did my son have to die in..." (supply the president and country of your favorite war.)
It ends with the following
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Heavenly Father .. why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem ?'
The answer is always the same... 'So that others may live and dwell in peace, happiness, and freedom.'
This was emailed to me with no author. I thought the magnitude and the simplicity were awesome.
If you are not willing to stand BEHIND our troops,
Please, please feel free to stand in front of them....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm really grateful to the person who passed this on to me; being only a Christmas and Easter Christian myself (and half a Jew to boot) I can always stand to have my religious knowledge updated.
I had been operating under the false impression that Jesus said "blessed are the peace-makers" but, thanks to this email, I now know he actually said "blessed are the warmongers" and it was simply mis-translated. After all, from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Olde Englishe to Middle English to Modern English, he might have been giving a recipe for blintzes for all we know!
Clearly, modern American Christians know a lot more about what Jesus and the heavenly father have in mind than I do. For instance, it would never occur to me to say "God Bless America." Perhaps this comes from the Jewish side of my personality; in the Jewish faith, one doesn't petition God for new blessings so much as thank God for blessings already received.
In other words, Jews don't generally view God as a wish-granting ATM, but I'm beginning to think they are just behind the times. After all, when you live in a Christian country (as we have been told this is) and it is obvious that Christians have a direct line to the Almighty, what's wrong with using that special relationship to get a little something extra for the country we love?
And, when you understand that, although God is infinite and eternal, he has a special place in his heart for this one country that has existed for, what, 230 years, it only makes sense to claim him for ourselves and to hell with the rest of the world. Nya nya, God likes us best.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Cuban Missile Crisis Redux
Just read that the Russians are planning Naval exercises with Venezuela in the Caribbean later this year, in what seems to me to be a predictable response to US meddling in Eastern Europe.
This is reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which at the time was presented here at home as Soviet aggression in Cuba, but which was actually a reaction to US placement of missiles in Turkey. What finally ended the crisis was not, as popularly thought, simply the threat of nuclear war ("Kruschev blinked") but was rather a quiet agreement for us to remove our missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Russians removing theirs in Cuba.
I can predict that we will read a slew of self-righteous articles in the right-wing press about the Russian insult to the USA (how dare they meddle in our hemisphere!) along with ominous threats from the Bush administration. And, of course, a supporting chorus will be provided by FOX News and other organs of the national stupidity. No doubt, Mssrs. O'Reilly and Limbaugh will demand that we nuke Moscow or something equally helpful.
Kennedy was a hawk, but not as stupid a hawk as Bush is. If Bush were Kennedy, we might see a gradual reversal of our policy of courting the Georgians and the Poles and trying to put missile technology on Russia's border. But, since Bush is Bush, we're more likely to see Ms. Rice sent on a a so-called goodwill tour of other countries on Russia's borders to let them know of our committment to "freedom and democracy," while getting them to sign onto missile (defense) systems for their own countries.
It seems that, in the last few months of his lame-duck presidency, Bush wants to add to his legacy of pissing off the middle east and our former allies in western europe, by bringing back the cold (and maybe not so cold) war as well.
This is reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which at the time was presented here at home as Soviet aggression in Cuba, but which was actually a reaction to US placement of missiles in Turkey. What finally ended the crisis was not, as popularly thought, simply the threat of nuclear war ("Kruschev blinked") but was rather a quiet agreement for us to remove our missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Russians removing theirs in Cuba.
I can predict that we will read a slew of self-righteous articles in the right-wing press about the Russian insult to the USA (how dare they meddle in our hemisphere!) along with ominous threats from the Bush administration. And, of course, a supporting chorus will be provided by FOX News and other organs of the national stupidity. No doubt, Mssrs. O'Reilly and Limbaugh will demand that we nuke Moscow or something equally helpful.
Kennedy was a hawk, but not as stupid a hawk as Bush is. If Bush were Kennedy, we might see a gradual reversal of our policy of courting the Georgians and the Poles and trying to put missile technology on Russia's border. But, since Bush is Bush, we're more likely to see Ms. Rice sent on a a so-called goodwill tour of other countries on Russia's borders to let them know of our committment to "freedom and democracy," while getting them to sign onto missile (defense) systems for their own countries.
It seems that, in the last few months of his lame-duck presidency, Bush wants to add to his legacy of pissing off the middle east and our former allies in western europe, by bringing back the cold (and maybe not so cold) war as well.
Friday, September 5, 2008
It's all over for the special interests
Oh really? I think McCain must mean grassroots groups like MoveOn or People for the American Way, since he likes to bash those sorts of pesky libruls.
As for the special interests that have been in charge of the country for decades, those are his buddies -- I can hardly imagine he is going to repudiate them. And how could he, running, as he does, under the banner of the party that owes everything to the rich and powerful? And why is he complaining about special interests anyhow? After all, in the past 28 years Republicans have controlled Congress, the Presidency, or both quite a bit of the time. Is he dissatisfied with the job they did? Then why not run as an independant or a Democrat or a socialist (haha)? You certianly can't repudiate the direct consequences of Republican leadership while running as a Republican.
Oh, but, here in America, where politics are entertainment, you can do just that. You can espouse the principles of the Republican party, while pretending to condemn all the problems that lead from the application of those principles.
What does this say for the claim that "it's all over for the special interests"? As my mother would say, it's just a lot of hot air.
As for the special interests that have been in charge of the country for decades, those are his buddies -- I can hardly imagine he is going to repudiate them. And how could he, running, as he does, under the banner of the party that owes everything to the rich and powerful? And why is he complaining about special interests anyhow? After all, in the past 28 years Republicans have controlled Congress, the Presidency, or both quite a bit of the time. Is he dissatisfied with the job they did? Then why not run as an independant or a Democrat or a socialist (haha)? You certianly can't repudiate the direct consequences of Republican leadership while running as a Republican.
Oh, but, here in America, where politics are entertainment, you can do just that. You can espouse the principles of the Republican party, while pretending to condemn all the problems that lead from the application of those principles.
What does this say for the claim that "it's all over for the special interests"? As my mother would say, it's just a lot of hot air.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Beating the Repubs at their own game
My friend Michael sent me a link to an article about why Sarah Palin shouldn't be under-estimated. The aritcle discusses George Lakoff's assessment of Republican strategy. My reading of his argument is that , while the Democrats may have a better grasp of reality, the Republicans are able to connect to the hearts and minds of voters.
I think it's a brilliant analysis, but with fatally flawed conclusion, it seems to me. Having correctly I think diagnosed that the campaign is not about reality but rather about symbolism, he then posits what is essentially a reality-based response, which is encapsulated in his sentence --
Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney.
But that sort of reality-based, truth-invested approach is what he says doesn't work --- and it clearly doesn't where the populace is asleep in a shared dream of Reagan's hometown Amerika.
I don't think people like Lakoff or people like us can really accept what is necessary to nullify the Repubs -- and that is to be as dirty, unprincipled, dishonest, manipulative, sleazy, and generally uncaring about anything but winning as they are. And I don't advocate it either, because I think if you decide you can borrow the Devil as a kind of hired thug -- just for a short while -- the next thing you know you are the Devil.
What I realized last night -- just from hearing second-hand about the Repub convention -- I couldn't bear to watch it -- is that Amerikan conservatism, especially since Reagan, makes me feel ambivalent about the right of free speech and makes me empathize with how authoritarian governments can get themselves into the no-win battle of suppressing dissidents, sending them off to gulags, confiscating their writings, etc. What we have in the Repubs is what the Russkies used to call reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. I can't help feeling from time to time that a Jacobin-style purge would be a good thing. Much as I know it's wrong (do I?) there would be something at least temporarily satisfying about sending them all to the guillotine. But, then, of course, see my comment about the Devil above.
I think it's a brilliant analysis, but with fatally flawed conclusion, it seems to me. Having correctly I think diagnosed that the campaign is not about reality but rather about symbolism, he then posits what is essentially a reality-based response, which is encapsulated in his sentence --
Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney.
But that sort of reality-based, truth-invested approach is what he says doesn't work --- and it clearly doesn't where the populace is asleep in a shared dream of Reagan's hometown Amerika.
I don't think people like Lakoff or people like us can really accept what is necessary to nullify the Repubs -- and that is to be as dirty, unprincipled, dishonest, manipulative, sleazy, and generally uncaring about anything but winning as they are. And I don't advocate it either, because I think if you decide you can borrow the Devil as a kind of hired thug -- just for a short while -- the next thing you know you are the Devil.
What I realized last night -- just from hearing second-hand about the Repub convention -- I couldn't bear to watch it -- is that Amerikan conservatism, especially since Reagan, makes me feel ambivalent about the right of free speech and makes me empathize with how authoritarian governments can get themselves into the no-win battle of suppressing dissidents, sending them off to gulags, confiscating their writings, etc. What we have in the Repubs is what the Russkies used to call reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. I can't help feeling from time to time that a Jacobin-style purge would be a good thing. Much as I know it's wrong (do I?) there would be something at least temporarily satisfying about sending them all to the guillotine. But, then, of course, see my comment about the Devil above.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
All pandering, all the time
There's plenty of equine excrement flowing from the propaganda organs of both parties as the 2008 election grinds along. But honestly, what emanates from the Republicans seems to be nothing but pandering. There's not an original idea nor anything that smells like risk-taking (if you don't count McCain's choice for VP, which seems rather risky to me) in their various pronouncements.
Their ideas on foreign policy?
The war in Iraq was a good idea. We need more foreign policy based on waving the national dick in the air.
Their ideas on the economy?
* Americans are taxed too much. Even though, since 1980, American economic policy has been in the hands of neocon economists and the politicians who venerate them. Taxes on the rich have gone down steadily in that time and the economy has gotten weaker and weaker as our national debt has gotten larger and larger. Yet the Republicans still think taxes should be lower.
Their ideas on energy policy?
* Have a gas tax holiday. Even though this would encourage consumption and not make much difference to real people. And, even if it did, how come the public has to take a hit by losing gas tax revenue while the oil companies continue to rake in record profits? Instead of an 18c/gal gas tax holiday, why not an 18c/gal oil company discount? Why is big oil's "right" to make record profits protected by plundering the American people's tax revenue stream? After all, if lowering the cost of gasoline is such good policy, then let the oil companies chip in something, too.
* Drill for more oil in the few places we haven't raped and pillaged yet. Scientists and resource economists have been warning for decades that -- wonder of wonders -- petroleum is not an unlimted resource. Yet Republicans have blocked every effort at conservation or alternative energy development. Now that the stark reality of what should have been obvious for years is smacking them in the ballot box, their brilliant new idea is to drill for more and more of what we will have less and less of as time goes on.
* Improve automobile efficiency. A good idea finally - why then have Republicans blocked every effort over the past 50 years to force Detroit to build more efficient cars? Only when we are in the middle of a crisis do they grudgingly admit that maybe we might be able to have a fleet average mileage above 25 mpg. And, were the price of oil to drop suddenly, they would be back leading the fight against conservation and efficiency.
* Subsidize fuel-efficient cars with tax credits. A good idea, but one that has already been in place for several years.
* Build more nuclear power plants. I'm personally not averse to this, but the Republicans blithely refuse to acknowledge that there might be any risks or problems to solve (such as waste disposal) in doing this.
Their ideas on the unravelling of the American family?
* More religion, less abortion
What is worse than the low-brow, grinding stupidity of their ideas is the sanctimonious manner in which they are presented; any questioning is greeted with "You don't you care about the American family?!"
Do Republicans have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they say these things? Are they so cynical that they know it's all nonesense, but it's what's needed to motivate their voters? Or are they so stupid as to truly believe that ideas which have proven resoundingly to be bad public policy in the past are great ideas now?
I don't know which is worse -- the notion that the Republican party has been hijacked by cynical sleazebags or simply that they are well-meaning idiots.
Their ideas on foreign policy?
The war in Iraq was a good idea. We need more foreign policy based on waving the national dick in the air.
Their ideas on the economy?
* Americans are taxed too much. Even though, since 1980, American economic policy has been in the hands of neocon economists and the politicians who venerate them. Taxes on the rich have gone down steadily in that time and the economy has gotten weaker and weaker as our national debt has gotten larger and larger. Yet the Republicans still think taxes should be lower.
Their ideas on energy policy?
* Have a gas tax holiday. Even though this would encourage consumption and not make much difference to real people. And, even if it did, how come the public has to take a hit by losing gas tax revenue while the oil companies continue to rake in record profits? Instead of an 18c/gal gas tax holiday, why not an 18c/gal oil company discount? Why is big oil's "right" to make record profits protected by plundering the American people's tax revenue stream? After all, if lowering the cost of gasoline is such good policy, then let the oil companies chip in something, too.
* Drill for more oil in the few places we haven't raped and pillaged yet. Scientists and resource economists have been warning for decades that -- wonder of wonders -- petroleum is not an unlimted resource. Yet Republicans have blocked every effort at conservation or alternative energy development. Now that the stark reality of what should have been obvious for years is smacking them in the ballot box, their brilliant new idea is to drill for more and more of what we will have less and less of as time goes on.
* Improve automobile efficiency. A good idea finally - why then have Republicans blocked every effort over the past 50 years to force Detroit to build more efficient cars? Only when we are in the middle of a crisis do they grudgingly admit that maybe we might be able to have a fleet average mileage above 25 mpg. And, were the price of oil to drop suddenly, they would be back leading the fight against conservation and efficiency.
* Subsidize fuel-efficient cars with tax credits. A good idea, but one that has already been in place for several years.
* Build more nuclear power plants. I'm personally not averse to this, but the Republicans blithely refuse to acknowledge that there might be any risks or problems to solve (such as waste disposal) in doing this.
Their ideas on the unravelling of the American family?
* More religion, less abortion
What is worse than the low-brow, grinding stupidity of their ideas is the sanctimonious manner in which they are presented; any questioning is greeted with "You don't you care about the American family?!"
Do Republicans have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they say these things? Are they so cynical that they know it's all nonesense, but it's what's needed to motivate their voters? Or are they so stupid as to truly believe that ideas which have proven resoundingly to be bad public policy in the past are great ideas now?
I don't know which is worse -- the notion that the Republican party has been hijacked by cynical sleazebags or simply that they are well-meaning idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)