Let me clarify, to all the people who are offended by shit I say about religion or a specific religion. When I address one or another, I am talking about the leadership and the spokespeople of said religion. You can believe what you want to believe and I'll support you, this is still America. But, listen to me, this is still America and the minute religious folk start running their yaps about government policy, they're gonna get it with both barrels.
The combination of religion and government have done more to fuck things up on this planet than any other, since time immemorial. Idiots like Bill Donohue and Frank Gaffney, the Pope, the American Jesus freak pastors, the crazy rabbis, and the militant imams have no place in our political discourse. In my book, religion lost its usefulness somewhere around the time of Cromwell, but I don't gather up like-minded individuals and try to run the rest of you outta Dodge.
Keep your crap for your congregations and you won't hear a peep out of me. The minute you try and tell me how to live my life (or tell people who to hire because of a percieved 'offense') we're gonna have problems.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Confidence ...
Not!
Nobody thinks the surge will work except the mouth-breathing wingnuts who believe everything that comes out of the Chimp's blowhole or the 'pundits' who are paid to. I just hope we can fix this mess in my lifetime.
Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of U.S. incapacity and incompetence. [my em]
...
Nobody thinks the surge will work except the mouth-breathing wingnuts who believe everything that comes out of the Chimp's blowhole or the 'pundits' who are paid to. I just hope we can fix this mess in my lifetime.
Great thanks to Cdr. Huber for the link.
Before her time ...
She died yesterday too.
Out of sight ... she'll be mourned by her family, her friends, maybe her town, and the old vets who mourn every death in this illegal occupation. A sad statement on the attitude of this nation when we pay more attention to the death of a money-grubbing porn star than we do to the deaths (or lives for that matter) of people sent into harm's way on our behalf.
Update:
A bit of advice for young ladies from one who's been there, also the newest member of the 'Rogues Gallery' otherwise known as the American Patriot Institute.
Yes, people die every day, and too many do so before their time. But this woman was special, and the things that she did made an impact on all of us.
Oh, there were many things that this woman, so deserving of our undivided attention tonight, did not do. No, she didn't take off her clothes for a men's magazine for a big payday, work as "an exotic dancer" or marry a billionaire customer who was 63 years older than her. Nor did she spend most of her adult life pursuing that billionaire's estate in courtrooms from Texas to Washington, D.C., or record her life for a reality TV show, or abuse drugs, or give birth to a child whose paternity is the focus of a legal battle.
...
Her name is Jennifer M. Parcell. She was just 20 years old, and she graduated in 2004 from Fallston High School in near her hometown, Bel Air, Md.
A couple of years ago, Jennifer Parcell went to Parris Island and watched the Marine graduation services for her older brother, Joseph. She decided that she, too, wanted to join the Marines, and eventually both Jennifer Parcell and her brother were sent to Iraq, even serving at the same post for a time.
But then, they separated. Yesterday, Jennifer Parcell was supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province when she was killed in action. If we had more information about her death, we would provide it. But here at Attytood, we don't have the millions of dollars in resources or the extra manpower that they have at CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox News.
...
Out of sight ... she'll be mourned by her family, her friends, maybe her town, and the old vets who mourn every death in this illegal occupation. A sad statement on the attitude of this nation when we pay more attention to the death of a money-grubbing porn star than we do to the deaths (or lives for that matter) of people sent into harm's way on our behalf.
Update:
A bit of advice for young ladies from one who's been there, also the newest member of the 'Rogues Gallery' otherwise known as the American Patriot Institute.
Big tip o' the Brain to Nicole @ C & L.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Spine
I believe it's getting contagious:
Hallelujah! I have seen the promised land!
When Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of "aiding the enemy," the Democratic senators gathered around him yesterday did not wince. Nor did Democrats object when Soltz, the chairman of a group called VoteVets.org, called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "draft dodgers."
...
Democrats said they will not muzzle the veterans. In many ways, the former soldiers and Marines are expressing sentiments the lawmakers want broadcast, and they help inoculate Democrats against Republican claims that opposing the president's plan undermines the troops. [my ems]
...
Hallelujah! I have seen the promised land!
Great thanks to Maru for the link.
More Shakes and Amanda Part deux
Raw Story
That's an America where you can say what you want on your personal blog. Even if it offends and/or makes wingnuts snivel, moan, bitch, whine, and complain, which doesn't take much.
Bravo, Mr. Edwards. I think he realizes that even if he personally doesn't care for the tone of some of their posts, their audience eats it up. It's just one segment of the electorate - us. Maybe not the most refined or politically correct bunch, thank God, but he needs all the segments he can get.
Links and statements by Sis and Amanda at the link.
Update:
See also EssEffChron.
Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) announced today, at his blog, that two bloggers who have gotten the campaign in "hot water" would not be fired, even though he was "personally offended" by some of the things they have written in the past.
However, the Edwards campaign ended up standing behind the two bloggers, whom had become a cause célèbre in the liberal blogosphere.
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me," Edwards writes at his blog. "It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people."
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else," Edwards blogged.
"But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake," Edwards continued. "I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."
Edwards added, "We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."
That's an America where you can say what you want on your personal blog. Even if it offends and/or makes wingnuts snivel, moan, bitch, whine, and complain, which doesn't take much.
Bravo, Mr. Edwards. I think he realizes that even if he personally doesn't care for the tone of some of their posts, their audience eats it up. It's just one segment of the electorate - us. Maybe not the most refined or politically correct bunch, thank God, but he needs all the segments he can get.
Links and statements by Sis and Amanda at the link.
Update:
See also EssEffChron.
More Shakes and Amanda
Can you tell I'm pissed? Shakes has been a friend since she started blogging, a regular commenter here and then starting her own blog. We are so proud she made it 'big time', and even more proud a presidential candidate recognized her talent. The fact that a flaccid, incontinent old fool is trying to sabotage her brings me to the boiling point. Amanda has been a regular read since Jesse Taylor left Pandagon. Glenn Greenwald looks at all the outrage and hypocrisy:
Nobody cares except the wingnuts, who are getting fewer in number every day. An aside. I think Greenwald is as mad as I am because he's updated his post 6 times ... so far. A record, I think, even for him.
A side note to Mr. Edwards. If you fire Shakes and Amanda, you'll not only have zero chance of getting my vote, but I will actively work against your nomination. If you forfeit your spine on this, you certainly don't have what it takes to become President of the United States.
...
But when the Times claims that the Edwards campaign is "in hot water," what they mean is that there are complaints from right-wing bloggers and people like the right-wing Catholic League's Bill Donohue, who is an excellent arbiter of bigotry and impropriety as the author of such enlightened views as: "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it."
...
Nobody cares except the wingnuts, who are getting fewer in number every day. An aside. I think Greenwald is as mad as I am because he's updated his post 6 times ... so far. A record, I think, even for him.
A side note to Mr. Edwards. If you fire Shakes and Amanda, you'll not only have zero chance of getting my vote, but I will actively work against your nomination. If you forfeit your spine on this, you certainly don't have what it takes to become President of the United States.
Fringe Benefits of Impeachment
You get rid of people like this:
R.
" Cheney's Son-In-Law "Major Stumbling Block" For Investigations Of Homeland Security Dept."More at HuffPo
R.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Dear Bill Donohue
If you don't leave Shakes and Amanda alone I'm gonna sodimize you with a crucifix. Is that anti-Catholic enough for ya, you hypocritical old jackhole?
Fixer
Fixer
Hey, Sis - it's workin'!
I must admit to being somewhat delinquent in my reading of Shakespeare's Sister lately, but she must me doing something right.
The Carpetbagger Report
Bill Donohue is about as much of a right-wing throwback as a Catholic can get, Mel Gibson notwithstanding.
If a person is known by who their enemies are, Sis is my buddy.
I have no idea what she said to piss this clown off, but I do know that Sis is a graduate of Loyola University and you know how Liberal those Jesuits are!
She does cuss and mention private parts and bodily fluids & functions once in a while...
I'm a fallen-away Catholic ever since I figured out what an oppressive scam the Church is. Its wealth and opulence were derived, more properly stolen, by manufactured fear of eternal damnation, kinda like Bush uses on the rest of us, from their - Baa-aa-aa-aah - flock, amongst whom are some of the poorest people on Earth.
Luther and Cromwell may have been right, if guys like Donohue are any indication.
The Carpetbagger Report
The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare's Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions...
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, "John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots."
Bill Donohue is about as much of a right-wing throwback as a Catholic can get, Mel Gibson notwithstanding.
If a person is known by who their enemies are, Sis is my buddy.
I have no idea what she said to piss this clown off, but I do know that Sis is a graduate of Loyola University and you know how Liberal those Jesuits are!
She does cuss and mention private parts and bodily fluids & functions once in a while...
I'm a fallen-away Catholic ever since I figured out what an oppressive scam the Church is. Its wealth and opulence were derived, more properly stolen, by manufactured fear of eternal damnation, kinda like Bush uses on the rest of us, from their - Baa-aa-aa-aah - flock, amongst whom are some of the poorest people on Earth.
Luther and Cromwell may have been right, if guys like Donohue are any indication.
I put this post in draft form to go do something else for a minute, and when I went to complete it I noticed Fixer posted on the same subject. This has only happened twice in two and a half years. Great minds.
Not defeat. Just failure.
Josh Marshall on Bush's foreign "policy" or "lack thereof":
Bush's interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States, and his legacy, such as it will be, is gonna be right up there with Benedict Arnold's, except that Arnold actually had some earlier successes as a military man. The British made him a General. I wonder if al-Quaida will do the same for Bush? They should - he's their secret weapon.
But getting our policy in order is also being stymied because the political opponents of the war aren't willing to say that, yes, the policy has failed. Not 'defeated'. To be 'defeated' you need to have some other party 'defeat' you. This is just a failure. But whichever it is, that bogey is being used by the White House to scare off the opposition. It's a failure. There's no recovering it. And the unspeakable reality -- truly unspeakable, apparently -- is that it's not that bad. Horrible for the Iraqis. Horrible for the American dead. Terrible for American prestige, power and honor. All that. But not the end of the world. The future of our civilization isn't at stake. And our physical safety isn't at stake. We'll go on. We are not the brave British standing behind Winston Churchill bucking us up with the confidence that "We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender ..." Those aren't the stakes here. Put it in those words and it's almost comical. President Bush wants us to believe that it is because it serves his grandiosity and direct political interests to believe that, to believe that his political interests -- where everything, history, legacy, etc. is on the line -- are the same as ours as a country. They're not.
Bush's interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States, and his legacy, such as it will be, is gonna be right up there with Benedict Arnold's, except that Arnold actually had some earlier successes as a military man. The British made him a General. I wonder if al-Quaida will do the same for Bush? They should - he's their secret weapon.
Surging Right Into Bin Laden's Hands
Counterpunch
Al-Quaida calls, Bush answers. Thanks a pile, Chimp-o.
Lost in the "surge" debate is the unfortunate reality that escalation in Iraq, just like the invasion itself, plays into al-Qaida's ultimate strategy to eliminate America. As revealed in a 2005 strategy document, al-Qaida hopes to repeat Osama bin Laden's victory over the Soviet empire in Afghanistan by eliminating the chief obstacle in the way of establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. The goal is not, as Bush administration and right-wing pundits proclaim, to conquer or directly destroy America. Osama bin Laden wants to provoke the United States into destroying itself.
[...] "Power can be maintained only by a prudent balance between the creation of wealth and military expenditure, and great powers in decline almost always hasten their demise by shifting expenditure from the former to the latter. (my em)"
All of this time, al-Qaida's master strategists have manipulated Bush like a marionette. Instead of cutting his losses and withdrawing from Iraq or critically re-examining the failures of the American intervention in Afghanistan -- Bush continues blindly to throw more resources into battle, believing that the United States simply lacks "a will to win." Ironically, he may be partially correct. An Iraqi fighting for his country or an Arab fighting for his umma against foreign occupiers will likely show a good deal more resolve than American soldiers fighting a guerilla conflict thousands of miles away from home.
Americans have little knowledge about Mideast culture or international politics but feel strongly that they have been misled and betrayed by their superiors. This was true as well in Vietnam. Yet the horrors of both wars will be paltry in comparison to the horrors unleashed if we escalate in Iraq and attack Iran. The only voices aside from Bush's calling to "bring it on" are those from al-Qaida itself.
Al-Quaida calls, Bush answers. Thanks a pile, Chimp-o.
Is this news?
Who gives a fuck about the crazy astronaut lady? I certainly don't need to see hour after hour of her. She's nuts, I hope she gets help, end of story. STFU already.
Falling ...
Athenae has a good post up about the downfall of the newspaper industry and this line struck me:
Have you noticed this in other industries? I have. Every day in my business, I watch Ford and General Motors zip by my window. We see it in government too, as we watch the debacle in Iraq go from bad to worse, as we watched them drop the ball in New Orleans. Know what? The people of Ancient Greece saw the same things. So did the people of Ancient Rome, of the Ottoman Empire, of the Supreme Soviet. They would recognize present day America immediately as an empire in decline.
Empires have the curious affliction of being succeptible to stagnation. It's because Empire is an endgame. Once Empire is achieved, the impetus to innovate and explore is gone. It's evident in our infrastructure, in our political discourse, and in our lives.
Look at our infrastructure, our bridges, roads, and services. How many of you have said, 'they can't run a railroad like they used to' or something to that effect? How many have said, 'they don't make things like they used to'? These aren't just things people bitch about. They are indicators of an empire reaching its zenith and is now on the path to decline.
I remember growing up in the 60s. My parents spoke with optimism about the future, a time when the 'American Dream' could still be achieved. They were successful and assumed I would do even better. I have been successful, but that optimism for the future is gone.
Our manufacturing jobs have gone away, to people who's 'imperial star' is rising. The Indians, the Chinese, they are two of the societies who will surpass us in the next 20 - 50 years because they are on the other side. They aren't comfortable and still see the brass ring ahead instead of behind.
I remember how proud I was of my dad when he won the contract from Grumman to do testing on the Lunar Module parts before it was assembled. When Neil Armstrong took his first step onto the Moon, a part of our family went with him and the sky was the limit. It was the era of the "by the year 2000".
Remember when everybody would say 'by the year 2000' we'd have a man on Mars? Or 'by the year 2000' we will have cured cancer, or we'd fly around in our personal aircraft, or we would end pollution? The sky was the limit in 1969 and almost 40 years later, we haven't moved much farther forward.
Ironically, the 'year 2000' will be a marker as the beginning of the end of the American Empire. We have lost our abilty to remain an Empire. We are in hock up to our eyeballs, stuck in a quagmire of an imperial war for resources, and have no reason to look to the future in a hopeful manner. This nation is ruled by a handful of oligarchs who just want to grab their share before they expire or this whole thing crumbles around them.
The long-term future is not a concern anymore. The future is only as far out as the next quarterly report. Ask any CEO if he has a plan for his corporation 50 years out. He'll look at you with a blank stare. Ask him if he has any responsibility to anyone or anything except the shareholders and he'll laugh at you. And our political leaders are of the same mind. We're running the Iraq occupation with a six-month future, praying our feeble attempts will make a difference in six months. No one looks farther ahead because there's no point. The bottom could fall out by then.
... We're the optimist who jumped off a building, and every floor down, yelled, "So far, so good!" Things just keep getting worse, and we just keep acting like we're lucky to have the scraps we've got. When did we all get so helpless? ...
Have you noticed this in other industries? I have. Every day in my business, I watch Ford and General Motors zip by my window. We see it in government too, as we watch the debacle in Iraq go from bad to worse, as we watched them drop the ball in New Orleans. Know what? The people of Ancient Greece saw the same things. So did the people of Ancient Rome, of the Ottoman Empire, of the Supreme Soviet. They would recognize present day America immediately as an empire in decline.
Empires have the curious affliction of being succeptible to stagnation. It's because Empire is an endgame. Once Empire is achieved, the impetus to innovate and explore is gone. It's evident in our infrastructure, in our political discourse, and in our lives.
Look at our infrastructure, our bridges, roads, and services. How many of you have said, 'they can't run a railroad like they used to' or something to that effect? How many have said, 'they don't make things like they used to'? These aren't just things people bitch about. They are indicators of an empire reaching its zenith and is now on the path to decline.
I remember growing up in the 60s. My parents spoke with optimism about the future, a time when the 'American Dream' could still be achieved. They were successful and assumed I would do even better. I have been successful, but that optimism for the future is gone.
Our manufacturing jobs have gone away, to people who's 'imperial star' is rising. The Indians, the Chinese, they are two of the societies who will surpass us in the next 20 - 50 years because they are on the other side. They aren't comfortable and still see the brass ring ahead instead of behind.
I remember how proud I was of my dad when he won the contract from Grumman to do testing on the Lunar Module parts before it was assembled. When Neil Armstrong took his first step onto the Moon, a part of our family went with him and the sky was the limit. It was the era of the "by the year 2000".
Remember when everybody would say 'by the year 2000' we'd have a man on Mars? Or 'by the year 2000' we will have cured cancer, or we'd fly around in our personal aircraft, or we would end pollution? The sky was the limit in 1969 and almost 40 years later, we haven't moved much farther forward.
Ironically, the 'year 2000' will be a marker as the beginning of the end of the American Empire. We have lost our abilty to remain an Empire. We are in hock up to our eyeballs, stuck in a quagmire of an imperial war for resources, and have no reason to look to the future in a hopeful manner. This nation is ruled by a handful of oligarchs who just want to grab their share before they expire or this whole thing crumbles around them.
The long-term future is not a concern anymore. The future is only as far out as the next quarterly report. Ask any CEO if he has a plan for his corporation 50 years out. He'll look at you with a blank stare. Ask him if he has any responsibility to anyone or anything except the shareholders and he'll laugh at you. And our political leaders are of the same mind. We're running the Iraq occupation with a six-month future, praying our feeble attempts will make a difference in six months. No one looks farther ahead because there's no point. The bottom could fall out by then.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Heartwarming Image
A bit of Photoshop work that warms the cockles of my heart. ;) Accompanies a fascinating article about the case for impeachment. At Progressive Daily Beacon.
R.
"If the President of the United States knew that his or the government's failure to act could reasonably be expected to lead to the misery, impoverishment, or death of scores of Americans and/or other innocent people all around the world and he did nothing to prevent it - wouldn't that be an impeachable offense? How would that not be an impeachable offense? And, what does this President and administration's tendency to ignore, bury, censor, and cover up realities it doesn't want to acknowledge say about the way in which terrorists were able to be so successful in their attacks on September 11, 2001?"
R.
Inspiration Lacking
I'm uninspired today, but the world seems to tick on anyway, so I'll just ramble a bit. Bush lied in his budget, but what are a couple of lies about money after you've lied and caused the death of thousands. The Libby trial goes on and Jane and the gang at Firedoglake are doing a bang-up job of keeping us informed, maybe the smoking gun that will trigger impeachment proceeding will finally pop up. The Republicans voted against debating the way the war is being conducted, if you follow their logic, a war can be a complete disaster but you don't challenge the President because that encourages the enemy. It seems to me that the total incompetence of the Bush team is providing more aid and comfort to the enemy than any opponent of the war. All this going on and the lead story at cnn.com is about an astronaut that allegedly attempted to kidnap and murder a rival for the affections of another astronaut. Our priorities have really gotten screwed up. I, for one, won't be satisfied until Bush and Cheney are lead from the White House in shackles on their way to be tried for crimes against humanity. Impeachment is too good for them.
R.
R.
It's the OIL. Never forget that.
There's a really good summary of just exactly why Bush felt the need to fuck up the Middle East, and the political machinations involved, at AlterNet. It's quite long, but very good. What I find most interesting is the oil connection to Afghanistan. Today's 'must read'.
Like a desert bike at speed, I just hit the high spots with those quotes. You owe it to yourself to not miss this one.
Immediately upon taking office, the new Bush Administration actively took up negotiating with the Taliban once more, seeking still to have the Bridas contract vacated, in exchange for a tidy package of foreign aid. The parties met three times, in Washington, Berlin, and Islamablad, but the Taliban wouldn't budge.
Behind the negotiations, however, planning was underway to take military action if necessary. In the spring of 2001 the State Department sought and gained concurrence from both India and Pakistan to do so, and in July of 2001, American officials met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence agents to inform them of planned military strikes against Afghanistan the following October. A British newspaper told of the U.S. threatening both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden -- two months before 9/11 -- with military strikes.
According to an article in the UK Guardian, State Department official Christina Rocca told the Taliban at their last pipeline negotiation in August of 2001, just five weeks before 9/11, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."
President Bush formally established the PNAC's prescription for pre-emptive, premeditated war as U.S. policy when he signed a document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" early in his first term.
Still nothing illegal or unconstitutional had been done.
But the rationale and the planning for attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq were in place. The preparations had all been done secretly, wholly within the executive branch. The Congress was not informed until the endgame, when President Bush, making his dishonest case for the "war on terror" asked for and was granted the discretion to use military force. The American people were equally uninformed and misled. Probably never before in our history was such a drastic and momentous action undertaken with so little public knowledge or Congressional oversight: the dispatch of America's armed forces into four years of violence, at horrendous costs in life and treasure.
9/11 was a shocking event of unprecedented scale, but it was simply not an invasion of national security. It was a localized criminal act of terrorism, and to compare it, as the Bush Administration immediately did, to Pearl Harbor was ludicrous: The hijacked airliners were not the vanguard of a formidable naval armada, an air force, and a standing army ready to engage in all out war, as the Japanese were prepared to do and did in 1941.
By equating a criminal act of terrorism with a military threat of invasion, the Bush Administration consciously adopted fear mongering as a mode of governance. It was an extreme violation of the public trust, but it served perfectly their need to justify warfare.
Why, then, was a "war" declared on "terrorists and states that harbor terrorists?"
The pre-planned attack on Afghanistan, as we have seen, was meant to nullify the contract between the Taliban and the Bridas Corporation. It was a matter of international energy policy. It had nothing to do, as designed, with apprehending Osama bin Laden -- a matter of security policy.
The objective of the first premeditated war was now achieved. The Bush Administration stood ready with financing to build the pipeline across Afghanistan, and with a permanent military presence to protect it.
Within two months President Bush sent the armed might of America sweeping into Iraq.
The oil wars are abject failures. The Project for a New American Century wanted, in a fantasy of retrograde imperialism, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. President George Bush launched an overt act of military aggression to do so, at a cost of more than 3,000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and half a trillion dollars. In the process he has exacerbated the threats from international terrorism, ravaged the Iraqi culture, ruined their economy and their public services, sent thousands of Iraqis fleeing their country as refugees, created a maelstrom of sectarian violence, dangerously destabilized the Middle East, demolished the global prestige of the United States, and defamed the American people.
Like a desert bike at speed, I just hit the high spots with those quotes. You owe it to yourself to not miss this one.
Shhh ... you're emboldening the enemy
What's going on in the Senate is pure and utter horseshit and if the American people can't see it for what it is at this point, they don't deserve to live in a free and democratic republic. Ladies and germs, when debate is squelched, the prime tenets of our society are being ignored.
This nation was founded on debate. The Continental Congress is known for nothing if not argument and discourse. There were well known arguments over the issues as this nation was founded, John Adams and Stephen Rutlege having some of the best. The Bostonian, Adams, denouncing the institution of slavery with South Carolina's Rutlege fighting back to save the economy of his people and the American South. They would go round for hours, days, parrying, thrusting, each defending his position. Adams lost that fight and we are paying the price to this day, but it was debated.
Today, many are of the opinion that debate is somehow unAmerican. That talking about something, namely stopping the bloodshed being wrought in our name, will somehow hurt the troops, undermine them in some way. Ladies and gentlemen, the right of free debate is the reason they are supposedly 'fighting to preserve our freedoms'. As for undermining our troops, please pardon me but it doesn't matter what the troops think. It's their responsibility to follow their orders, regardless of the debate taking place in Washington. The only thing that undermines the troops is turning our backs on them when they return injured and maimed, and we've done a hell of a lot of that since this disaster began.
When I see guys like McConnell, McCain, and Lieberman stand up there and say debate will ruin the troops' morale, I laugh. Being stuck on your third or fourth tour in the meatgrinder is demoralizing. Seeing your buddies being blown away, wholly or in part, from an IED that you have no defense for is demoralizing. Insurgents impersonating your people and walking onto your base, capturing four of your mates, and walking out again is demoralizing. Listening to the justification for this war change more often than they can get a shower, that's demoralizing. I don't think they can be any more demoralized short of us just giving up on them altogether and leaving them there. Go ask the troops since you're so concerned about what they think, Messrs McConnell, McCain, and Lieberman, and they'll tell you, to a man, what they want most is to go home.
This is America, ladies and gentlemen, and America is tough stuff. It is about preserving the rights of people you strongly disagree with. It is about being able to say what you want and respect the right of your opponent to do the same. Stifling debate is as American as borscht; if you want easy, go live in some dictatorship. They'll tell you what to eat, what to think, and who to fight without requiring any thought on your part. Of course, thinking for yourself could be deadly. That's why America is difficult, because you are allowed to think for yourself, to voice your opinion, and elect people to represent your views.
Ladies and gentlemen, the enemy is emboldened when we don't debate. If we are now fighting the 'War on Terror', Osama bin Laden won the first battle because he has caused us to stray from the principles this mighty nation was founded on. If we stifle debate, usurping more of the 'inalienable rights' we (well, most of us, thank you Mr. Rutlege) have taken for granted for two centuries, he will have won another.
This nation was founded on debate. The Continental Congress is known for nothing if not argument and discourse. There were well known arguments over the issues as this nation was founded, John Adams and Stephen Rutlege having some of the best. The Bostonian, Adams, denouncing the institution of slavery with South Carolina's Rutlege fighting back to save the economy of his people and the American South. They would go round for hours, days, parrying, thrusting, each defending his position. Adams lost that fight and we are paying the price to this day, but it was debated.
Today, many are of the opinion that debate is somehow unAmerican. That talking about something, namely stopping the bloodshed being wrought in our name, will somehow hurt the troops, undermine them in some way. Ladies and gentlemen, the right of free debate is the reason they are supposedly 'fighting to preserve our freedoms'. As for undermining our troops, please pardon me but it doesn't matter what the troops think. It's their responsibility to follow their orders, regardless of the debate taking place in Washington. The only thing that undermines the troops is turning our backs on them when they return injured and maimed, and we've done a hell of a lot of that since this disaster began.
When I see guys like McConnell, McCain, and Lieberman stand up there and say debate will ruin the troops' morale, I laugh. Being stuck on your third or fourth tour in the meatgrinder is demoralizing. Seeing your buddies being blown away, wholly or in part, from an IED that you have no defense for is demoralizing. Insurgents impersonating your people and walking onto your base, capturing four of your mates, and walking out again is demoralizing. Listening to the justification for this war change more often than they can get a shower, that's demoralizing. I don't think they can be any more demoralized short of us just giving up on them altogether and leaving them there. Go ask the troops since you're so concerned about what they think, Messrs McConnell, McCain, and Lieberman, and they'll tell you, to a man, what they want most is to go home.
This is America, ladies and gentlemen, and America is tough stuff. It is about preserving the rights of people you strongly disagree with. It is about being able to say what you want and respect the right of your opponent to do the same. Stifling debate is as American as borscht; if you want easy, go live in some dictatorship. They'll tell you what to eat, what to think, and who to fight without requiring any thought on your part. Of course, thinking for yourself could be deadly. That's why America is difficult, because you are allowed to think for yourself, to voice your opinion, and elect people to represent your views.
Ladies and gentlemen, the enemy is emboldened when we don't debate. If we are now fighting the 'War on Terror', Osama bin Laden won the first battle because he has caused us to stray from the principles this mighty nation was founded on. If we stifle debate, usurping more of the 'inalienable rights' we (well, most of us, thank you Mr. Rutlege) have taken for granted for two centuries, he will have won another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)