fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.wcowent30/CommentStory/specialComment/home
Wake up Maggie I think we got something to say to you-
Its late September and we really should be less the fools ... You know you used to keep us amused but now we feel we're being used-
Oh Maggie we can't read you any more ... somebody should show you the door - You poisoned our hearts and that's what really hurts-
The morning sun when its in your face really shows your age-
Your sick pettiness is now all the rage... We used to laugh at all of your jokes my God you don't need to coax-
Oh, Maggie we just can't read you any more-
Your Cattiness cuts to the bone - you deserve to be all alone-
You've sucked our souls and that's a pain we can do without-
All we needed was a friend to lend a guiding hand ... But you turned into a Mother-hater, you wore us out-
All you did was wreck our guts...
And this morning kick us in the nuts
Oh Maggie we can't try anymore-
You lure us away from news with words that just give us the blues...
You pollute our minds and we couldn't hate you more if we tried-
Oh Maggie we wish we'd never seen your words-
You made a first-class fool out of us
But blind as fools there no point in us reading you any more -
Oh, Maggie give it up before - we're all upchucking at your door...
Maggie ...
we wish we'd never seen your face... without your drivel we'll get back to our happy place...
Oh Maggie,...
(Thanks Rod Stewart for the template.)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Total Depression Mr. Cohen? maybe, but let us hope it comes with lessons.
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902660_Comments.html
Mr. Cohen,
If "[a]n economic crisis is like war. It's impossible to contain. It affects everything it touches." So sir, does greed.
While indeed it may be true that the 1930s gave rise to Hitler, it should be noted that Italy's Mussolini had been in power for years. Fascism and communism may have been 'emboldened' by the crisis - but so were trade unionists, desegregation's, and a whole host of social movements intent improving equality within the polity.
Here in Canada, as well as the UK, it gave rise to the eventual introduction of our Medicare systems, unemployment insurance, family allowances, etc.,
Point is, if the current crisis precipitates a fundamental restructuring of US society that sees a more equitable deal for the American worker - it may indeed have an upside.
Nobody wants a return to the 1930s, nobody wants to see a rise in right-wing ideology and divisive fascism, nobody wants uncontrolled crisis. But rampant capitalist speculation got us here. They ran amok for too long - time for them to have a reality check and oversight.
Let the bailout pass Thursday - but let the privileged Wall St. crowd remember that their compact with the 'vox populi' has forever been altered, that their vaunted place in American culture is no longer guaranteed ... lest, next time, they will be overthrown... for good.
9/30/2008 12:50:48 AM
Mr. Cohen,
If "[a]n economic crisis is like war. It's impossible to contain. It affects everything it touches." So sir, does greed.
While indeed it may be true that the 1930s gave rise to Hitler, it should be noted that Italy's Mussolini had been in power for years. Fascism and communism may have been 'emboldened' by the crisis - but so were trade unionists, desegregation's, and a whole host of social movements intent improving equality within the polity.
Here in Canada, as well as the UK, it gave rise to the eventual introduction of our Medicare systems, unemployment insurance, family allowances, etc.,
Point is, if the current crisis precipitates a fundamental restructuring of US society that sees a more equitable deal for the American worker - it may indeed have an upside.
Nobody wants a return to the 1930s, nobody wants to see a rise in right-wing ideology and divisive fascism, nobody wants uncontrolled crisis. But rampant capitalist speculation got us here. They ran amok for too long - time for them to have a reality check and oversight.
Let the bailout pass Thursday - but let the privileged Wall St. crowd remember that their compact with the 'vox populi' has forever been altered, that their vaunted place in American culture is no longer guaranteed ... lest, next time, they will be overthrown... for good.
9/30/2008 12:50:48 AM
Bailout Failure- blame the system.
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/30/opinion/30tue1.html
September 30th, 2008 0:14 am
re: "the imperfections in this bill are the result of a democratic process that can be rethought, revisited and reworked"?
Methinks this bailout bill need never have suffered defeat on the Congressional floor had America only abandoned its antiquated two-party system years ago.
What really needs to be 'rethought, revisited' and reworked' is the fundamentally flawed assumption that two morally bankrupt political party's are all that is needed to represent the interests of 300 million people in a modern and dynamic society. Two political voices - talk about a Hobson's Choice. Without a viable and progressive third option American politics (and its economy) is destined to remain an absurdity!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 30th, 2008 0:14 am
re: "the imperfections in this bill are the result of a democratic process that can be rethought, revisited and reworked"?
Methinks this bailout bill need never have suffered defeat on the Congressional floor had America only abandoned its antiquated two-party system years ago.
What really needs to be 'rethought, revisited' and reworked' is the fundamentally flawed assumption that two morally bankrupt political party's are all that is needed to represent the interests of 300 million people in a modern and dynamic society. Two political voices - talk about a Hobson's Choice. Without a viable and progressive third option American politics (and its economy) is destined to remain an absurdity!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Brooks faults leadership - a little too late.
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30brooks.html
September 30th, 2008 0:00 am
Mr. Brooks,
Toxic politics begets toxic and weak leadership. How could it be any other way? The failure is yours- you should have recognized the downside of the inherent inbreeding between America's politicians and capitalists years ago.
Where were you then?
Ah, that's right, you were championing the causes of many of those culprits who got us here. Well done.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 30th, 2008 0:00 am
Mr. Brooks,
Toxic politics begets toxic and weak leadership. How could it be any other way? The failure is yours- you should have recognized the downside of the inherent inbreeding between America's politicians and capitalists years ago.
Where were you then?
Ah, that's right, you were championing the causes of many of those culprits who got us here. Well done.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Monday, September 29, 2008
American Thinker- wrong on Kristol
fr: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/kristol_how_mccain_wins.html
Mr. Moran,
There is simply no other way to put this. What you are proffering here is nothing more than a fine example of the excretion of egregious partisanship.
Cripes, I'm not sure who is more misguided, you, Kristol or Chuck Krautcrazy over at the Washington Post. Either way, one thing's for sure - a mind taxed by desperation is a terrible thing to lose; and it is clear that Mr. Kristol's is irrevocably lost.
Regarding Kritsol's trite offering today, nary a finer textual example of psycho-social disconnect and denial has ever been penned. To be blunt sir, I believe he no longer possess of the skill set required to grasp reality - let alone its truths.
Instead of blaming McCain's advisers for counseling "ideological timidity", Kristol should have said what he really meant: he wants John McCain to re-ignite the culture wars. He wants the election to devolve into a divisive battle rife with false moral assumptions about the 'other'. In his world, this 'other' is 'liberalism' and by raising Rev. Wright again, he is seeking to reanimate a 'bogeyman', a distraction, that will provide people of your ilk with an opportunity to twist the legitimate foundations of liberalism into a empty vessel. A vessel into which you will pour all the evils of the world. What you are really counseling by backing Kristol is that McCain/Palin to do is follow Hitler's advice "To make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they [the voters] will believe it.” My God, what price free speech.
As for Kristol's assertion that Gov. Palin is "a talented politician and communicator" - there is no evidence yet that the woman can think on her feet. While it's clear she can read a teleprompter, this is hardly a substitute for the cogent critical thought necessary to run a country. Let alone a great country. The fact she has yet to demonstrate any ability to handle unscripted complex questions seems not to influence his assessment. Moreover, his ridiculous contention that she must be 'liberated' demeans both her and the voter. This is not a 'Free Willy' movie. Had either she (or GOP strategists) really believed she was an asset to the message she would have been unleashed upon the medium long ago. That has not is telling. Ironically, Mr. Moran, you and I see eye to eye on the fallacy Kristol tries to advance on this point- except, of course, that you see this as an opportunity for Gov. Palin to capitalize on her simple-minded brashness, whereas I will be looking for substance.
In conclusion, what Mr. Kristol offered today was a form of pundit-dung indicative of the worst kind of partisanship that is blinded by a reactionary ideology intent on fostering nothing less than the telling of lies. Yet, perhaps, here again Kristol is channeling Hitler, and unfortunately you also seem to concur with the observation: “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.” The endorsement of an 'ends justifying the means' mantra is a sad reflection of the accepted values in a civil society. But again, such is the price of free speech.
Both you and Kristol need to look in the mirror and realize your true enemy is not liberalism - it is your fear and hate of the 'other'. Ask yourself, honestly, are you a truth teller? Beware the answer sir, for as Kristol may already know, as may you - the rationalization and answers of one who has lost one's mind cannot be trusted.
p.s. fully aware there is every likelihood you will refrain from posting this. I nevertheless respect your right to free speech.
Posted by: BeerBellyBuddah | September 29, 2008 12:14 PM
Mr. Moran,
There is simply no other way to put this. What you are proffering here is nothing more than a fine example of the excretion of egregious partisanship.
Cripes, I'm not sure who is more misguided, you, Kristol or Chuck Krautcrazy over at the Washington Post. Either way, one thing's for sure - a mind taxed by desperation is a terrible thing to lose; and it is clear that Mr. Kristol's is irrevocably lost.
Regarding Kritsol's trite offering today, nary a finer textual example of psycho-social disconnect and denial has ever been penned. To be blunt sir, I believe he no longer possess of the skill set required to grasp reality - let alone its truths.
Instead of blaming McCain's advisers for counseling "ideological timidity", Kristol should have said what he really meant: he wants John McCain to re-ignite the culture wars. He wants the election to devolve into a divisive battle rife with false moral assumptions about the 'other'. In his world, this 'other' is 'liberalism' and by raising Rev. Wright again, he is seeking to reanimate a 'bogeyman', a distraction, that will provide people of your ilk with an opportunity to twist the legitimate foundations of liberalism into a empty vessel. A vessel into which you will pour all the evils of the world. What you are really counseling by backing Kristol is that McCain/Palin to do is follow Hitler's advice "To make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they [the voters] will believe it.” My God, what price free speech.
As for Kristol's assertion that Gov. Palin is "a talented politician and communicator" - there is no evidence yet that the woman can think on her feet. While it's clear she can read a teleprompter, this is hardly a substitute for the cogent critical thought necessary to run a country. Let alone a great country. The fact she has yet to demonstrate any ability to handle unscripted complex questions seems not to influence his assessment. Moreover, his ridiculous contention that she must be 'liberated' demeans both her and the voter. This is not a 'Free Willy' movie. Had either she (or GOP strategists) really believed she was an asset to the message she would have been unleashed upon the medium long ago. That has not is telling. Ironically, Mr. Moran, you and I see eye to eye on the fallacy Kristol tries to advance on this point- except, of course, that you see this as an opportunity for Gov. Palin to capitalize on her simple-minded brashness, whereas I will be looking for substance.
In conclusion, what Mr. Kristol offered today was a form of pundit-dung indicative of the worst kind of partisanship that is blinded by a reactionary ideology intent on fostering nothing less than the telling of lies. Yet, perhaps, here again Kristol is channeling Hitler, and unfortunately you also seem to concur with the observation: “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.” The endorsement of an 'ends justifying the means' mantra is a sad reflection of the accepted values in a civil society. But again, such is the price of free speech.
Both you and Kristol need to look in the mirror and realize your true enemy is not liberalism - it is your fear and hate of the 'other'. Ask yourself, honestly, are you a truth teller? Beware the answer sir, for as Kristol may already know, as may you - the rationalization and answers of one who has lost one's mind cannot be trusted.
p.s. fully aware there is every likelihood you will refrain from posting this. I nevertheless respect your right to free speech.
Posted by: BeerBellyBuddah | September 29, 2008 12:14 PM
Bill Kristol- Losing his mind defending McCain
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/29/opinion/29kristol.html#postComment
September 29th, 2008 2:55 am
Mr. Kristol,
Cripes, I'm not sure who is more misguided, you or Krautcrazy over at the Washington Post. Either way, one thing's for sure - a mind taxed by desperation is a terrible thing to lose; and it is clear yours is irrevocably lost.
Regarding your trite offering today, nary a finer textual example of psycho-social disconnect and denial has ever been written. To be blunt sir, I believe you are no longer possess of the skill set required to grasp reality - let alone its truths.
Your blaming of Sen. McCain's advisers for counseling "ideological timidity" is both laughable and disingenuous. You should have said what you really meant: you want John McCain to re-ignite the culture wars. You want the election to devolve into a divisive battle rife with false moral assumptions about the 'other'. In your world, this 'other' is 'liberalism' and byy raising Rev. Wright again, you are seeking to reanimate a 'bogeyman', a distraction, that will provide people of your ilk with an opportunity to twist the legitimate foundations of liberalism into a empty vessel. A vessel which both you and McCain can pour all the evils of the world. What you are really counseling McCain/Palin to do is follow Hitler's advice "To make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they [the voters] will believe it.” In your sad defense, perhaps this is only way the GOP ticket can win? But, my God, what a cost.
As for your assertion that Gov. Palin is "a talented politician and communicator" - there is no evidence yet that the woman can think on her feet. While it's clear she can read a teleprompter, this is hardly a substitute for the cogent critical thought necessary to run a country. Let alone a great country. The fact she has yet to demonstrate any ability to handle unscripted complex questions seems not to influence your characterization. Moreover, your ridiculous contention that she must be 'liberated' demeans both her and the voter. This is not a 'Free Willy' movie. Had either she (or GOP strategists) really believed she was an asset to the message she would have been unleashed upon the medium long ago. The fact she has not is telling.
In conclusion, Mr. Kristol, your pundit-dung is the indicative of the worst kind of partisanship - blinded by a reactionary ideology you are intent on fostering nothing less than the telling of lies. Yet, perhaps, here again you are channeling Hitler, for undoubtedly you seem to concur with his observation: “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
Look in the mirror Mr. Kristol, your true enemy is not liberalism - it is your cultural hate. Ask yourself, honestly, are you a truth teller? Beware the answer sir, for as you may already know - one who has lost one's mind cannot be trusted.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 29th, 2008 2:55 am
Mr. Kristol,
Cripes, I'm not sure who is more misguided, you or Krautcrazy over at the Washington Post. Either way, one thing's for sure - a mind taxed by desperation is a terrible thing to lose; and it is clear yours is irrevocably lost.
Regarding your trite offering today, nary a finer textual example of psycho-social disconnect and denial has ever been written. To be blunt sir, I believe you are no longer possess of the skill set required to grasp reality - let alone its truths.
Your blaming of Sen. McCain's advisers for counseling "ideological timidity" is both laughable and disingenuous. You should have said what you really meant: you want John McCain to re-ignite the culture wars. You want the election to devolve into a divisive battle rife with false moral assumptions about the 'other'. In your world, this 'other' is 'liberalism' and byy raising Rev. Wright again, you are seeking to reanimate a 'bogeyman', a distraction, that will provide people of your ilk with an opportunity to twist the legitimate foundations of liberalism into a empty vessel. A vessel which both you and McCain can pour all the evils of the world. What you are really counseling McCain/Palin to do is follow Hitler's advice "To make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they [the voters] will believe it.” In your sad defense, perhaps this is only way the GOP ticket can win? But, my God, what a cost.
As for your assertion that Gov. Palin is "a talented politician and communicator" - there is no evidence yet that the woman can think on her feet. While it's clear she can read a teleprompter, this is hardly a substitute for the cogent critical thought necessary to run a country. Let alone a great country. The fact she has yet to demonstrate any ability to handle unscripted complex questions seems not to influence your characterization. Moreover, your ridiculous contention that she must be 'liberated' demeans both her and the voter. This is not a 'Free Willy' movie. Had either she (or GOP strategists) really believed she was an asset to the message she would have been unleashed upon the medium long ago. The fact she has not is telling.
In conclusion, Mr. Kristol, your pundit-dung is the indicative of the worst kind of partisanship - blinded by a reactionary ideology you are intent on fostering nothing less than the telling of lies. Yet, perhaps, here again you are channeling Hitler, for undoubtedly you seem to concur with his observation: “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
Look in the mirror Mr. Kristol, your true enemy is not liberalism - it is your cultural hate. Ask yourself, honestly, are you a truth teller? Beware the answer sir, for as you may already know - one who has lost one's mind cannot be trusted.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Income Gap and the Bailout
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html
Mr. Johnston,
Sorry to bother you.
Quick question re: your article "Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows" (Mar. 29, 2007).
The facts presented in the article on the 'gap' were very revealing. I know the original data was based on 2005 figures - any chance you could revisit the issue now by updating the 'gap' as it applies to the wealthiest stockholders (as a percentage of total population)?
I guess my question is, based on 2006-2007 date would it be possible to ascertain if the new bailout (as presently configured) will preserve the existing income gap? Or, will it see a narrowing in income disparity?
As one who views the 'income gap' as a fundamental threat to overall economic stability of the continent, I would be interested on your interpretation as to whether the bailout will have any effect on the perpetuation of the status-quo.
Understand fully if you consider this an absurd request, but I do think it would be a useful and enlightening exercise for the average reader.
Thank-you for your patience,
Sincerely,
Mr. Johnston,
Sorry to bother you.
Quick question re: your article "Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows" (Mar. 29, 2007).
The facts presented in the article on the 'gap' were very revealing. I know the original data was based on 2005 figures - any chance you could revisit the issue now by updating the 'gap' as it applies to the wealthiest stockholders (as a percentage of total population)?
I guess my question is, based on 2006-2007 date would it be possible to ascertain if the new bailout (as presently configured) will preserve the existing income gap? Or, will it see a narrowing in income disparity?
As one who views the 'income gap' as a fundamental threat to overall economic stability of the continent, I would be interested on your interpretation as to whether the bailout will have any effect on the perpetuation of the status-quo.
Understand fully if you consider this an absurd request, but I do think it would be a useful and enlightening exercise for the average reader.
Thank-you for your patience,
Sincerely,
John McCain: His ambition corrupts absolutely.
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html?s=2
September 28, 2008 4:17 am
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (Lord Acton - 1887)
In light of McCain's self-centered actions surrounding the bailout last week it's time Lord Acton's dictum was updated.
In McCain's case, perhaps it should read "Power tends to corrupt; the appetite for power corrupts one's honor absolutely. Ambition is no substitute for greatness."
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 28, 2008 4:17 am
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (Lord Acton - 1887)
In light of McCain's self-centered actions surrounding the bailout last week it's time Lord Acton's dictum was updated.
In McCain's case, perhaps it should read "Power tends to corrupt; the appetite for power corrupts one's honor absolutely. Ambition is no substitute for greatness."
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Friday, September 26, 2008
Brooks Goes to Far
from: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/26/opinion/26brooks.html
September 26th, 2008 3:27 am
Mr. Brooks,
"If McCain is elected"[?] - Surely you jest!
Your punditry suffers when old habits (and allegiances) die hard. Your saying McCain lacks the depth of "a sophisticated conceptual thinker" but is, nevertheless, "a good judge of character" rings false. The candidate's recent actions actually lead one to believe he no longer has any concept of what constitutes 'good character'. Neither in a Veep, nor in himself.
Blaming the campaign silly season for not allowing us to see that McCain is "above all ... a serious man prone to serious things" will not wash. For this is precisely the season, more than any other, when a candidate's true character must shine through. There are no 'do-overs'. And on this account, John Sidney McCain has failed miserably. To pretend otherwise, or aver we are not now seeing the 'real McCain' is beneath you.
Mr. Brooks, if it is true that "old soldiers never die - they just fade away"; better sir for all concerned with preserving their dignity, to abandon old allegiances, and allow this particular old soldier, this GOP candidate, to mercifully fade away.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 26th, 2008 3:27 am
Mr. Brooks,
"If McCain is elected"[?] - Surely you jest!
Your punditry suffers when old habits (and allegiances) die hard. Your saying McCain lacks the depth of "a sophisticated conceptual thinker" but is, nevertheless, "a good judge of character" rings false. The candidate's recent actions actually lead one to believe he no longer has any concept of what constitutes 'good character'. Neither in a Veep, nor in himself.
Blaming the campaign silly season for not allowing us to see that McCain is "above all ... a serious man prone to serious things" will not wash. For this is precisely the season, more than any other, when a candidate's true character must shine through. There are no 'do-overs'. And on this account, John Sidney McCain has failed miserably. To pretend otherwise, or aver we are not now seeing the 'real McCain' is beneath you.
Mr. Brooks, if it is true that "old soldiers never die - they just fade away"; better sir for all concerned with preserving their dignity, to abandon old allegiances, and allow this particular old soldier, this GOP candidate, to mercifully fade away.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Thursday, September 25, 2008
NYT Palin exceptionalism
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/25/opinion/25Cohen.html
September 25, 2008 6:25 am
Link
Palin's Republican Neo-Exceptionalism in incapable of looking critically at how America's efforts to project unilateral power under Bush is viewed by the rest of the world: as willful arrogance or, at best, as blind ignorance. As such, anybody like Palin who clings to her guns & religion world view it is fated neither to succeed nor alleviate global tensions.
In the end, a Palin presidency would bring nothing but the second fall of Rome to American soil.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada Recommended by 322 Readers
September 25, 2008 6:25 am
Link
Palin's Republican Neo-Exceptionalism in incapable of looking critically at how America's efforts to project unilateral power under Bush is viewed by the rest of the world: as willful arrogance or, at best, as blind ignorance. As such, anybody like Palin who clings to her guns & religion world view it is fated neither to succeed nor alleviate global tensions.
In the end, a Palin presidency would bring nothing but the second fall of Rome to American soil.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada Recommended by 322 Readers
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
NYT version of Will critique
from: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/24/opinion/24wed1.html?s=2&pg=3
September 24th, 2008 10:48 am
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson
Today in the Washington Post George Will observed "The essence of this crisis is lack of knowledge, including the inability to know who owes what to whom, and where risk resides." Of course this is the same pundit who once observed: "The future has a way of arriving unannounced." Well, the future is here. The American economy is in tatters. Congressional oversight, always a dream, is soon to be a nightmare. And the 'free market' is but a corrupt joke.
The brand of political and economic freedom prized so dearly by the likes of G. Will and W. Kristol has failed. Its potential sold short. Sold on the cheap. Sold on the backs of the American public.
George Will once opined: "Americans are overreaching; overreaching is the most admirable and most American of the many American excesses." Now with capitalist excess rotting the foundation of the once "shining house on a hill" its time he recanted.
The incestuous relationship long championed by the right wing mouth pieces turns out to have been built on nothing but a sick symbiotic relationship between the goals of power and greed. The perverse troika of amoral politician, complicit regulator, and abetting banker has borne America a bazturd child. One that threatens all the pillars of American Democracy.
I wonder if in Rome's waning days its recalcitrant pundits were trying to rationalize the irrational?
Empire, always fleeting, is never defeated from without - it is always from within. And in this case one need look no further than the Conservative mirror to see the culprit. Reaganomics, thy name is mud. The only trickle down you ever bring is abuse of power.
Wishing the likes of Kristol and Will no ill-will, I pray they fare better than Shakespeare's 'Cinna, the Poet' from "Julius Caesar", who you may recall "a mob, eager for blood" kills using the "excuse that they never liked his poems much anyway". Such is the fate of facile mouthpieces. Beware the mob Kristol and Will! Brooks, you be careful too.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 24th, 2008 10:48 am
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson
Today in the Washington Post George Will observed "The essence of this crisis is lack of knowledge, including the inability to know who owes what to whom, and where risk resides." Of course this is the same pundit who once observed: "The future has a way of arriving unannounced." Well, the future is here. The American economy is in tatters. Congressional oversight, always a dream, is soon to be a nightmare. And the 'free market' is but a corrupt joke.
The brand of political and economic freedom prized so dearly by the likes of G. Will and W. Kristol has failed. Its potential sold short. Sold on the cheap. Sold on the backs of the American public.
George Will once opined: "Americans are overreaching; overreaching is the most admirable and most American of the many American excesses." Now with capitalist excess rotting the foundation of the once "shining house on a hill" its time he recanted.
The incestuous relationship long championed by the right wing mouth pieces turns out to have been built on nothing but a sick symbiotic relationship between the goals of power and greed. The perverse troika of amoral politician, complicit regulator, and abetting banker has borne America a bazturd child. One that threatens all the pillars of American Democracy.
I wonder if in Rome's waning days its recalcitrant pundits were trying to rationalize the irrational?
Empire, always fleeting, is never defeated from without - it is always from within. And in this case one need look no further than the Conservative mirror to see the culprit. Reaganomics, thy name is mud. The only trickle down you ever bring is abuse of power.
Wishing the likes of Kristol and Will no ill-will, I pray they fare better than Shakespeare's 'Cinna, the Poet' from "Julius Caesar", who you may recall "a mob, eager for blood" kills using the "excuse that they never liked his poems much anyway". Such is the fate of facile mouthpieces. Beware the mob Kristol and Will! Brooks, you be careful too.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Jane Taber- Useless orifice!
fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.WBTaber20080923183450/WBStory/WBTaber/#commentLatest
You (BeerBelly Buddah, from Wpg, Canada) wrote: Okay.
Fair enough automated moderators. I am redacting my term "talking" that was paired with the word that began with T-W-A (and ended in T) and replacing it with "orating orifice". Will this do?
Jane,
Whatsamatta? Couldn't you get us more insight into his film critiques than just one movie?
What about "Deep Throat"? Wouldn't he have an apt critical take on a orating orifice?
What about "Bambi"? Wouldn't he belie a dislike for usury hunters?
What about "Network"? No insight into his views on the empty messy media maven - devoid of substance - who will sell her soul at any cost? Can't you tell us what Dion thinks of this movie?
C'mon, Enquiring Minds Wanna Know!
You useless mammary! * Posted 24/09/08 at 2:43 AM EDT
You (BeerBelly Buddah, from Wpg, Canada) wrote: It's one thing to critique a candidates platform - entirely another to spin gobs of garbage.
Does anyone aside from me want to start a petition to CTV to get this vapid vacuous quasi-intellect fired? * Posted 24/09/08 at 2:51 AM EDT
You (BeerBelly Buddah, from Wpg, Canada) wrote: Okay.
Fair enough automated moderators. I am redacting my term "talking" that was paired with the word that began with T-W-A (and ended in T) and replacing it with "orating orifice". Will this do?
Jane,
Whatsamatta? Couldn't you get us more insight into his film critiques than just one movie?
What about "Deep Throat"? Wouldn't he have an apt critical take on a orating orifice?
What about "Bambi"? Wouldn't he belie a dislike for usury hunters?
What about "Network"? No insight into his views on the empty messy media maven - devoid of substance - who will sell her soul at any cost? Can't you tell us what Dion thinks of this movie?
C'mon, Enquiring Minds Wanna Know!
You useless mammary! * Posted 24/09/08 at 2:43 AM EDT
You (BeerBelly Buddah, from Wpg, Canada) wrote: It's one thing to critique a candidates platform - entirely another to spin gobs of garbage.
Does anyone aside from me want to start a petition to CTV to get this vapid vacuous quasi-intellect fired? * Posted 24/09/08 at 2:51 AM EDT
re: George Will's WaPo Article 09/24/08
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092302325_Comments.html
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson
Georgie Boy,
You once said: "The future has a way of arriving unannounced."
Well, the future is here. The American economy is in tatters. Congressional oversight, once a dream, is soon to be a nightmare. And the 'free market' is but a corrupt joke.
The brand of political and economic freedom you prize so dearly has failed. Its potential sold short. Sold on the cheap. Sold on the backs of the American public.
You once wrote: "Americans are overreaching; overreaching is the most admirable and most American of the many American excesses." Now with capitalist excess rotting the foundation of the once "shining house on a hill" I beseech you to recant.
The incestuous relationship you have long championed was built on nothing but a sick symbiotic relationship between the ideals of power and greed. The perverse troika of amoral politician, complicit regulator, and abetting banker has borne America a bazturd child. One that threatens all the pillars of American Democracy.
I wonder if Rome's recalcitrant pundits in its waning days also tried, like you, to rationalize the irrational?
Empire, always fleeting, is never defeated from without - it is always from within. And in your case one need look no further than the Conservative mirror to see the culprit. Reaganomics, thy name is mud. The only trickle down you ever bring is abuse of power.
Georgie, wishing no ill-will, I pray you fare better than Shakespeare's 'Cinna, the Poet' from "Julius Caesar". You may recall "a mob, eager for blood" kills him using the "excuse that they never liked his poems much anyway". Such is the fate of the facile poet- beware the mob Georgie Boy!
9/24/2008 1:27:51 AM
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson
Georgie Boy,
You once said: "The future has a way of arriving unannounced."
Well, the future is here. The American economy is in tatters. Congressional oversight, once a dream, is soon to be a nightmare. And the 'free market' is but a corrupt joke.
The brand of political and economic freedom you prize so dearly has failed. Its potential sold short. Sold on the cheap. Sold on the backs of the American public.
You once wrote: "Americans are overreaching; overreaching is the most admirable and most American of the many American excesses." Now with capitalist excess rotting the foundation of the once "shining house on a hill" I beseech you to recant.
The incestuous relationship you have long championed was built on nothing but a sick symbiotic relationship between the ideals of power and greed. The perverse troika of amoral politician, complicit regulator, and abetting banker has borne America a bazturd child. One that threatens all the pillars of American Democracy.
I wonder if Rome's recalcitrant pundits in its waning days also tried, like you, to rationalize the irrational?
Empire, always fleeting, is never defeated from without - it is always from within. And in your case one need look no further than the Conservative mirror to see the culprit. Reaganomics, thy name is mud. The only trickle down you ever bring is abuse of power.
Georgie, wishing no ill-will, I pray you fare better than Shakespeare's 'Cinna, the Poet' from "Julius Caesar". You may recall "a mob, eager for blood" kills him using the "excuse that they never liked his poems much anyway". Such is the fate of the facile poet- beware the mob Georgie Boy!
9/24/2008 1:27:51 AM
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
re: David Brooks "The Establishment Lives!"
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/23/opinion/23brooks.html
September 23rd, 2008 8:24 am
Mr. Brooks,
One must be careful for what they wish. A la Dr. Frankenstein you are right about the establishment - "It Lives!" The question of course is what kind of beast will it morph into? With Bush as Igor, and with Paulson as the good mad Doctor - one can see a future narrative fraught with problems.
As Marx one said: "Men's ideas are the most direct emanations of their material state." Problem is, when one's material state is threatened it often gives rise to reactionary ideas. Beware the conjurers of such ideas, as rarely do they have anyone's interests but their own at heart!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 23rd, 2008 8:24 am
Mr. Brooks,
One must be careful for what they wish. A la Dr. Frankenstein you are right about the establishment - "It Lives!" The question of course is what kind of beast will it morph into? With Bush as Igor, and with Paulson as the good mad Doctor - one can see a future narrative fraught with problems.
As Marx one said: "Men's ideas are the most direct emanations of their material state." Problem is, when one's material state is threatened it often gives rise to reactionary ideas. Beware the conjurers of such ideas, as rarely do they have anyone's interests but their own at heart!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Monday, September 22, 2008
Adler, Free Speech, and his bias
fr: http://cfmjam.corusradionetwork.com/emmis/BlogAdler.cfm?bid=25358&sc=1
Adler,
Listening in to today's show I heard you characterize the 'left' as believing: "If you hate the right people - you're a good guy?"
Absurd! Untrue! Do you really believe all those with a political worldview 'left' of your own condone hate?
Using your forum to lambaste the the Liberal Ad on food safety as an example of 'hate' reveals your thin skin. Is it inflammatory political rhetoric? For sure. Is it 'Hate' propagation? No. Grow up little man. If you are going to dissect political ads, then have gonadal integrity to dissect them all - regardless of political stripe. I think you'll find there are no innocents here. All parties are employing the same tactics.
Apparently any opinion at odds with yours is falls into one of three categories:
a: Elitist/educated tree huggers.
b: Self-serving lefty.
c: Hater.
Ah, the beauty of free speech? Even an narrow minded ideological peon like you is allowed to distort and inflame with no obligation to discuss.
Well done Sir.
Adler,
Listening in to today's show I heard you characterize the 'left' as believing: "If you hate the right people - you're a good guy?"
Absurd! Untrue! Do you really believe all those with a political worldview 'left' of your own condone hate?
Using your forum to lambaste the the Liberal Ad on food safety as an example of 'hate' reveals your thin skin. Is it inflammatory political rhetoric? For sure. Is it 'Hate' propagation? No. Grow up little man. If you are going to dissect political ads, then have gonadal integrity to dissect them all - regardless of political stripe. I think you'll find there are no innocents here. All parties are employing the same tactics.
Apparently any opinion at odds with yours is falls into one of three categories:
a: Elitist/educated tree huggers.
b: Self-serving lefty.
c: Hater.
Ah, the beauty of free speech? Even an narrow minded ideological peon like you is allowed to distort and inflame with no obligation to discuss.
Well done Sir.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
NYT Censorship of Post
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/21/opinion/21rich.html
September 21st, 2008 12:15 am
Dear NYT,
re: My the editing of my post #262 (12:04)
Evidently some observations that go out of their way not to be abusive are nevertheless censored for the 'idea' they express. Is this the reason the concluding statement to my post was redacted?
I think you should have included my post's closing paragraph that read:
"Unfortunately, the last time a troubled democracy in the midst of an economic crisis witnessed a Party Ideology with such an unreasonably strong sway over its followers was in 1930s Germany. Then, as now, many party members were inclined to look beyond facts, were intent on silencing any and all opposing voices, and they too were blindly committed to a patriotic 'mission': ready, willing, and able they were bereft of a moral political center. ... Frightful."
Was this really an unfit observation given the discussion at hand?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
September 21st, 2008 12:15 am
Dear NYT,
re: My the editing of my post #262 (12:04)
Evidently some observations that go out of their way not to be abusive are nevertheless censored for the 'idea' they express. Is this the reason the concluding statement to my post was redacted?
I think you should have included my post's closing paragraph that read:
"Unfortunately, the last time a troubled democracy in the midst of an economic crisis witnessed a Party Ideology with such an unreasonably strong sway over its followers was in 1930s Germany. Then, as now, many party members were inclined to look beyond facts, were intent on silencing any and all opposing voices, and they too were blindly committed to a patriotic 'mission': ready, willing, and able they were bereft of a moral political center. ... Frightful."
Was this really an unfit observation given the discussion at hand?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
McCain's Contempt for the Truth
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/21/opinion/21rich.html?s=2
Mr. Rich,
"Truthiness"? Afraid there are darker forces at work here than just 'The Colbert Reports" ironic label.
The shameless disdain for and rejection of the truth in this campaign has reached epic proportions. While Obama's camp is not entirely blameless; but at least it has been transparent as to its goals and purpose and has made itself available to the media. McCain has not.
In the New Republic article "Liar's Poker", by Johnathan Chait, he cites many of the same examples you use. The evidence is irrefutable, John McCain has willfully embraced a strategy that is predicated on using lies to make his case to the American people. More disturbing is what we are to make of this development?
In Mr. Chait's piece, like yours, the facts presented about John McCain's "postmodern disdain for truth" are unsettling. Yet, McCain's strategy can hardly be said to be a 'thin air' creation. Its roots may be traced to the reactionary Goldwater positions some forty-four years ago; and in 2004 this truth-be-damned approach netted its first tangible results with the re-election of G.W. Bush. For the first time in American political history, the presidency was secured by mobilizing a political base largely through the presentation of half-truths and outright lies. The die was cast and the US was saddled with a Commander in Chief who is widely recognized by many of its citizens as a liar. Obviously, Bush's re-election offers abject lessons in how deception can pay political dividends. These lessons haunt us now.
It is not hard to 'speculate' as to why McCain has opted to show such contempt for the role of truth in the political sphere. McCain has decided he cannot win a fair fight. Thus, faced with impossible odds he has resorted to the now tried and true method used by George Bush four years ago to secure the Oval Office: lies. lies, and more damned lies. A la Bush, McCain has opted to forgo the normative untruths common to all campaign's. Instead, has chosen to mobilize the GOP political base by betting that, once again, it's loyalty will not waver in the face of media reports he is lying. He is wagering the GOP base will back him no matter what, despite his telling of 'big whoppers'. So fragile is the republican brand that its faithful are willing to embrace any strategy that promises victory via empty discourse and innuendo. Aware history and conventional wisdom are on the other side- they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal.
The anti-media taint cultivated by the GOP Rovian apparatchiks in 2004 runs deep among the party's grassroots. As a result, they accept there is nothing wrong with McCain's faux indictment of the media's intentions and they accept he need not engage the US public through this prism. Easily swayed by McCain's claims that the Republican doctrine is the only true doctrine for America, they are readily mobilized. The attendant symbolism associated with the GOP's message (whether it be patriotism, guns, God, etc.,) is so simple and visceral in its construct it can only but invite a form of hyper-partisanship and instill a grassroots loyalty that is willing to look beyond 'truth'.
Unfortunately, the last time a troubled democracy in the midst of an economic crisis witnessed a Party Ideology with such an unreasonably strong sway over its followers was in 1930s Germany. Then, as now, many party members were inclined to look beyond facts, were intent on silencing any and all opposing voices, and they too were blindly committed to a patriotic 'mission': ready, willing, and able they were bereft of a moral political center.
Frightful.
Mr. Rich,
"Truthiness"? Afraid there are darker forces at work here than just 'The Colbert Reports" ironic label.
The shameless disdain for and rejection of the truth in this campaign has reached epic proportions. While Obama's camp is not entirely blameless; but at least it has been transparent as to its goals and purpose and has made itself available to the media. McCain has not.
In the New Republic article "Liar's Poker", by Johnathan Chait, he cites many of the same examples you use. The evidence is irrefutable, John McCain has willfully embraced a strategy that is predicated on using lies to make his case to the American people. More disturbing is what we are to make of this development?
In Mr. Chait's piece, like yours, the facts presented about John McCain's "postmodern disdain for truth" are unsettling. Yet, McCain's strategy can hardly be said to be a 'thin air' creation. Its roots may be traced to the reactionary Goldwater positions some forty-four years ago; and in 2004 this truth-be-damned approach netted its first tangible results with the re-election of G.W. Bush. For the first time in American political history, the presidency was secured by mobilizing a political base largely through the presentation of half-truths and outright lies. The die was cast and the US was saddled with a Commander in Chief who is widely recognized by many of its citizens as a liar. Obviously, Bush's re-election offers abject lessons in how deception can pay political dividends. These lessons haunt us now.
It is not hard to 'speculate' as to why McCain has opted to show such contempt for the role of truth in the political sphere. McCain has decided he cannot win a fair fight. Thus, faced with impossible odds he has resorted to the now tried and true method used by George Bush four years ago to secure the Oval Office: lies. lies, and more damned lies. A la Bush, McCain has opted to forgo the normative untruths common to all campaign's. Instead, has chosen to mobilize the GOP political base by betting that, once again, it's loyalty will not waver in the face of media reports he is lying. He is wagering the GOP base will back him no matter what, despite his telling of 'big whoppers'. So fragile is the republican brand that its faithful are willing to embrace any strategy that promises victory via empty discourse and innuendo. Aware history and conventional wisdom are on the other side- they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal.
The anti-media taint cultivated by the GOP Rovian apparatchiks in 2004 runs deep among the party's grassroots. As a result, they accept there is nothing wrong with McCain's faux indictment of the media's intentions and they accept he need not engage the US public through this prism. Easily swayed by McCain's claims that the Republican doctrine is the only true doctrine for America, they are readily mobilized. The attendant symbolism associated with the GOP's message (whether it be patriotism, guns, God, etc.,) is so simple and visceral in its construct it can only but invite a form of hyper-partisanship and instill a grassroots loyalty that is willing to look beyond 'truth'.
Unfortunately, the last time a troubled democracy in the midst of an economic crisis witnessed a Party Ideology with such an unreasonably strong sway over its followers was in 1930s Germany. Then, as now, many party members were inclined to look beyond facts, were intent on silencing any and all opposing voices, and they too were blindly committed to a patriotic 'mission': ready, willing, and able they were bereft of a moral political center.
Frightful.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Rex Murphy- Wrong again Pt II.
fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.wcomurph20/BNStory/specialComment/home
Dear Rex,
Exemplary Pundit-Dung!
Well done! Thanks so much. Frees me from having to read the National Post in order to get my daily dose.
By proffering more text borne of partisan purpose you confirm my suspicion you are now slumming with formerly lesser mudslingers such as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and Micheal Gerson who also exhibit the basest of political instincts. Like them, you are seemingly prone to penning empty analysis dressed up as commentary. Reasoned observations seem to be at a premium this silly-season and you clearly have succumbed to the dark side.
Supposedly erudite, you are now little more than a mimic of the Republican partisans. Just another chattering-blatherer seeking to advance the specious tenets of the GOP's anti-Obama doctrine south of the border. Moreover, your need to denigrate America's Democratic nominee belies your conflicted and tangled Tory root structure. Predisposed to eschewing change, your insecurities prevent you from looking deeper into the substance Obama offers. Too bad you didn't make a real effort to "drill, drill, drill" down a little deeper past the facile interpretations offered by the tired frightened US right-wing. Apparently the one's you really think are 'empty vessels' are we, the readers.
Is Obama perfect? No.
Does he need to simplify his message? Yes.
But does this mean his message is empty? Certainly not.
Had your criticism attempted to juxtapose the meat of Obama's platform against that offered by his rival John McCain you may have been more persuasive. As it is, you are just another tired scribe devoid of objectivity and given to cynicism. A sad mind capable of better things.
Again, well done.
p.s. Looking forward to 'Cross Country' tomorrow - anticipate your droning monologue that will preface the issue of the day will once again suck up all the oxygen in my vicinity and force me out-of-doors to mow my lawn.
Dear Rex,
Exemplary Pundit-Dung!
Well done! Thanks so much. Frees me from having to read the National Post in order to get my daily dose.
By proffering more text borne of partisan purpose you confirm my suspicion you are now slumming with formerly lesser mudslingers such as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and Micheal Gerson who also exhibit the basest of political instincts. Like them, you are seemingly prone to penning empty analysis dressed up as commentary. Reasoned observations seem to be at a premium this silly-season and you clearly have succumbed to the dark side.
Supposedly erudite, you are now little more than a mimic of the Republican partisans. Just another chattering-blatherer seeking to advance the specious tenets of the GOP's anti-Obama doctrine south of the border. Moreover, your need to denigrate America's Democratic nominee belies your conflicted and tangled Tory root structure. Predisposed to eschewing change, your insecurities prevent you from looking deeper into the substance Obama offers. Too bad you didn't make a real effort to "drill, drill, drill" down a little deeper past the facile interpretations offered by the tired frightened US right-wing. Apparently the one's you really think are 'empty vessels' are we, the readers.
Is Obama perfect? No.
Does he need to simplify his message? Yes.
But does this mean his message is empty? Certainly not.
Had your criticism attempted to juxtapose the meat of Obama's platform against that offered by his rival John McCain you may have been more persuasive. As it is, you are just another tired scribe devoid of objectivity and given to cynicism. A sad mind capable of better things.
Again, well done.
p.s. Looking forward to 'Cross Country' tomorrow - anticipate your droning monologue that will preface the issue of the day will once again suck up all the oxygen in my vicinity and force me out-of-doors to mow my lawn.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Gerson- Ideological Apologist and Whore
Gerson,
Like your ideological doppleganger, Krautcrazy, you spin Fairy Tales.
Your efforts to mislead reflects all that is rotten in the insular rose coloured world inhabited by Bush apologists. Yet another example of Republican Neo-Exceptionalism that refuses to see how its efforts to project unilateral power is viewed by the rest of the world. As willful arrogance and blind ignorance at its best.
Around the world the meaning of the "Bush Doctrine" is not in doubt. Moreover, to we outside the US your characterization of its import rings false. We are under no illusions. We know that at its core the Bush Doctrine represents a profound threat to Global stability.
As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004), there is a finite way to understand the 'doctrine' and it reflects a commitment on the part of the administration to misuse and abuse its foreign policy tools. As for your assertion that aid to Africa constitutes a pillar of this doctrine- well, you can wrap that in a used condom. Humanitarian aid is a noble goal - but nobody believes it is an important facet of the Bush Doctrine.
Like your demented twin, Krautcrazy, you apparently take pride in believing you have played a central role in the formulation of this flawed theory. Yet, one gets the sense that you, like Krautcrazy, are little more than petty cogs in the Cheer-leading Cabal of 'hangers-on' who gleefully and non-critically tied their fortunes to an insecure leader.
In another time, another place, amid those advancing another flawed doctrine (Lebensraum) you would be just a poor man's Propaganda Minister, a blathering Goebbles, blindly signing on to and leading the band of true believers in its sad sorry tune. But this is not another time, another place, and such makes you all the much sadder. Further, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to the realpolitik results of the last eight failed years of American foreign policy.
You can try to dress up the connotative definition of the Bush Doctrine anyway you like, but to the rest of the world its dangers are clear. The concept of a Bush Doctrine and its nascent roots had been established long before you and Krautcrazy stumbled across the terminology. At best the role played by your ilk is that of minor scribes among the inks of greater pens.
Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian - none of us ever mistake the 'Bush Dick-trine' for anything other than what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.
If you wish, dress it up, give it make-up, try to pass it off in its historical context as something more than what it really is: "But a whore is still a whore."
The world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...
Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! meant illusions] about its import. The fact you now try to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".
Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans) are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you, as I have asked Krautcrazy, to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?
Next time you pick up a pen, try to write like a man. You know, with honesty?
Failing that, like Krautcrazy, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.
Like your ideological doppleganger, Krautcrazy, you spin Fairy Tales.
Your efforts to mislead reflects all that is rotten in the insular rose coloured world inhabited by Bush apologists. Yet another example of Republican Neo-Exceptionalism that refuses to see how its efforts to project unilateral power is viewed by the rest of the world. As willful arrogance and blind ignorance at its best.
Around the world the meaning of the "Bush Doctrine" is not in doubt. Moreover, to we outside the US your characterization of its import rings false. We are under no illusions. We know that at its core the Bush Doctrine represents a profound threat to Global stability.
As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004), there is a finite way to understand the 'doctrine' and it reflects a commitment on the part of the administration to misuse and abuse its foreign policy tools. As for your assertion that aid to Africa constitutes a pillar of this doctrine- well, you can wrap that in a used condom. Humanitarian aid is a noble goal - but nobody believes it is an important facet of the Bush Doctrine.
Like your demented twin, Krautcrazy, you apparently take pride in believing you have played a central role in the formulation of this flawed theory. Yet, one gets the sense that you, like Krautcrazy, are little more than petty cogs in the Cheer-leading Cabal of 'hangers-on' who gleefully and non-critically tied their fortunes to an insecure leader.
In another time, another place, amid those advancing another flawed doctrine (Lebensraum) you would be just a poor man's Propaganda Minister, a blathering Goebbles, blindly signing on to and leading the band of true believers in its sad sorry tune. But this is not another time, another place, and such makes you all the much sadder. Further, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to the realpolitik results of the last eight failed years of American foreign policy.
You can try to dress up the connotative definition of the Bush Doctrine anyway you like, but to the rest of the world its dangers are clear. The concept of a Bush Doctrine and its nascent roots had been established long before you and Krautcrazy stumbled across the terminology. At best the role played by your ilk is that of minor scribes among the inks of greater pens.
Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian - none of us ever mistake the 'Bush Dick-trine' for anything other than what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.
If you wish, dress it up, give it make-up, try to pass it off in its historical context as something more than what it really is: "But a whore is still a whore."
The world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...
Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! meant illusions] about its import. The fact you now try to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".
Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans) are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you, as I have asked Krautcrazy, to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?
Next time you pick up a pen, try to write like a man. You know, with honesty?
Failing that, like Krautcrazy, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Dear George Will- Why Are We to Believe You Now.
Oh, Georgie Boy,
"Unless McCain is president..."?!!!
Clearly, you are the only one here in the "iron grip of cognitive dissonance."
Would have chimed in sooner, but your pundit-dug today has my bile duct working overtime to accommodate my unending spasms of reflexive retching. Liars always make me puke! Especially the boldfaced kind.
Your inane Yeats quote intended to hoodwink the reader with your erudite approbation, lacks both forethought and taste.
Georgie, if you must quote poetry, at least quote an apt remark. Better the 'maverick' Byron than the yawning Yeats.
As Byron remarked in 1816: “Hard is his fate upon whom the public gaze”. Indeed, and for columnists too.
Today's column gives lie to your entire existence. A body of work that is quickly denigrating into disingenuous discourse and outright lies.
YES, GEORGIE, I AM CALLING YOU BOTH A PROPAGATOR OF DISINGENUOUS DISCOURSE AND A BOLD FACED LIAR OF CONVENIENCE.
Your contempt for the reader is beyond the pale.
Apparently you think all readers are context free idiots, fast food drive-thru freaks, incapable of seeing through bunk you proffer.
Are we to believe that the man you once referred to as man "intent on limiting political speech" ("Soft Thinking On Soft Money" Oct. 8, 1999)is best suited to occupy the Oval office?
Are we to believe that the man you once accused of wanting to enlarge "the government in the most dangerous direction, as regulator of political advocacy" is best suited to lead the American people? Are you saying the one you characterized as committed to "limiting political speech" is to be America's logical choice?
In, "McCain's Distortions" (Feb. 14, 2000) you opined that "McCain stresses his character, and his passion for campaign finance reform is supposed to serve as a token of good character" and that he "consistently misrepresents not only his position but current law."
Is such a man really your choice for President in 2008?
Characterizing his 2000 campaign as a "protracted snarl" ("And Now Back to Republican Business" March 9, 2000)that laid bare his "whole" "an angry man" - you added "It is not clear what McCain's philosophy is, other than disdain for "interests" of the "special" sort, but it certainly is not summarized in a smile." Equating him with the angriest president ever elected, Andrew Jackson, you then said he would bring to the "presidency ... brittle temperament". Moreover, while acknowledging "McCain was the most entertaining candidate in memory" you correctly noted that "perhaps there should be some limit to the sovereignty of entertainment values in politics." Plus, as you pointed out, there was the niggling fact that: "ideologically his campaign has been much more a recrudescence of late 19th-century populism than a rethinking of late 20th-century conservatism." And, that his "capacious anger, the targets of which include a substantial portion of his party, is just one reason why Bush will be a stronger general election candidate than McCain would have been."
AHHHH, THE IRONY, - PROVING YOUR OBSERVATIONS TO BE ABSURD ON TWO COUNTS IN ONE QUOTE!
Of course Georgie Boy you didn't stop there in 2000. No you claimed ("Conservatives in a Changing Market" Feb. 2, 2000) that: "It is passing strange to construe McCain's insurgency as an eruption of true conservatism .... McCain's great goal is an unprecedented and probably ... unconstitutional regulation of political speech by individuals, candidates and independent groups. McCain wishes that much criticism of the political class were illegal: "If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads."
In "A Party to Prosperity" (August 18, 2000) you said of Bush: "His conservative goals will be pursued by a strong state, using the tax code to promote particular behaviors..."
WELL, THE LAST FEW DAYS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 'PARTICULAR BEHAVIOUR' HAS ITS DOWNSIDE....
Later that season ("The case for Bush" Nov. 6, 2000) you fawned "The economic case for the [tax] cut is that Bush's advisers, who fortunately include some people capable of bearish thoughts," were not afraid to unleash private capital without restraints. Further, you postulated that; "Bush would work at both ends of the problem to fix the disjunction between the military's declining strength and its increasing tempo of operations." (God, I'm glad that worked out.) "Bush is a modest man with much to be modest about, and that he lacks complexity. But modesty is a political virtue and is especially desirable in the next president,..." MY HOW TIME HAS PROVED YOUR CASE-
But, I digress.
Back to Mccain - Just because you wrong the last time you endorsed a Republican in the midst of an election campaign doesn't mean your wrong this time- does it?
In 2004, you said ("For Bush, it's game time" Feb. 9, 2004) "Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances." What has changed?
In light of present circumstances, how can you say McCain best suited to be POTUS?
Especially given that you once accused his desire to win in 2008 ("McCain's media unmasking" April 10, 2006) of inevitably being "bound to require tactics inconsistent with his carefully cultivated reputation for unexampled authenticity" -- to wit your observation: "McCain says, 'I've never voted for a tax increase.' Well, never, if you ignore the huge — $516 billion over 25 years — tax increase in his 1998 tobacco bill. But that was less a revenue measure than an exercise of the McCainian righteousness that has so enchanted many of the people who are now becoming disenchanted" YET "hitherto unenthralled Republicans might suddenly consider McCain as virtuous as he considers himself. For the politically nervous, "virtuous" is a synonym for "electable."
Later that year ("McCain's actions undercut the Constitution"- May 11, 2006) you opined, "Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator. - McCain seems to regard unregulated political speech as an inherent invitation to corruption. - If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?"
IS THIS REALLY THE MAN YOU ARE BACKING FOR PRESIDENT NOW???
DOES YOUR FAUX ANALYSIS KNOW NO DIGNITY GEORGIE BOY?
The list of textual "Will-ism's" below hardly leads one to believe that today's column could be founded on anything more than blind ADHERENCE TO PARTISANSHIP:
("For McCain, a Surplus of Irony" May 28, 2006) "In 2008, Republican and Democratic aspirants who depend on taxpayer funding in the primaries will be seen, correctly, as second-tier and likely losers. McCain is neither. He is, however, the person most responsible for the perverse consequences of the government's multiplying intrusions into what should be a free market for political speech."
("Three good options for the Right -March 8, 2007) - "when McCain, who opposed Bush's tax cuts, concludes on the basis of the humming economy that they should be made permanent, this is called pandering." HOW RIGHT YOU WERE!
("Fact-Checking McCain's Straight-Talk" Jan. 18, 2008)- "There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream." - "McCainian intolerance of disagreement"
("McCain in a glass house" Feb. 27, 2008) "McCain, a situational ethicist" whose "certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers."
Well GEORGIE BOY! Are you trying to tell us that now, all you have said in spewed in the past was wrong. An error in judgment? A 'Will-ian' oversight?
Surely, you must think us idiots!
Again, "“Hard is his fate upon whom the public gaze” - harder still when one's own words give lie to their credibility!
YOU SIR, ARE WITHOUT CREDIBILITY ... DEVOID OF SHAME ... and, WITHOUT INTEGRITY!
Spare us all, so I for one may stop retching.
"Unless McCain is president..."?!!!
Clearly, you are the only one here in the "iron grip of cognitive dissonance."
Would have chimed in sooner, but your pundit-dug today has my bile duct working overtime to accommodate my unending spasms of reflexive retching. Liars always make me puke! Especially the boldfaced kind.
Your inane Yeats quote intended to hoodwink the reader with your erudite approbation, lacks both forethought and taste.
Georgie, if you must quote poetry, at least quote an apt remark. Better the 'maverick' Byron than the yawning Yeats.
As Byron remarked in 1816: “Hard is his fate upon whom the public gaze”. Indeed, and for columnists too.
Today's column gives lie to your entire existence. A body of work that is quickly denigrating into disingenuous discourse and outright lies.
YES, GEORGIE, I AM CALLING YOU BOTH A PROPAGATOR OF DISINGENUOUS DISCOURSE AND A BOLD FACED LIAR OF CONVENIENCE.
Your contempt for the reader is beyond the pale.
Apparently you think all readers are context free idiots, fast food drive-thru freaks, incapable of seeing through bunk you proffer.
Are we to believe that the man you once referred to as man "intent on limiting political speech" ("Soft Thinking On Soft Money" Oct. 8, 1999)is best suited to occupy the Oval office?
Are we to believe that the man you once accused of wanting to enlarge "the government in the most dangerous direction, as regulator of political advocacy" is best suited to lead the American people? Are you saying the one you characterized as committed to "limiting political speech" is to be America's logical choice?
In, "McCain's Distortions" (Feb. 14, 2000) you opined that "McCain stresses his character, and his passion for campaign finance reform is supposed to serve as a token of good character" and that he "consistently misrepresents not only his position but current law."
Is such a man really your choice for President in 2008?
Characterizing his 2000 campaign as a "protracted snarl" ("And Now Back to Republican Business" March 9, 2000)that laid bare his "whole" "an angry man" - you added "It is not clear what McCain's philosophy is, other than disdain for "interests" of the "special" sort, but it certainly is not summarized in a smile." Equating him with the angriest president ever elected, Andrew Jackson, you then said he would bring to the "presidency ... brittle temperament". Moreover, while acknowledging "McCain was the most entertaining candidate in memory" you correctly noted that "perhaps there should be some limit to the sovereignty of entertainment values in politics." Plus, as you pointed out, there was the niggling fact that: "ideologically his campaign has been much more a recrudescence of late 19th-century populism than a rethinking of late 20th-century conservatism." And, that his "capacious anger, the targets of which include a substantial portion of his party, is just one reason why Bush will be a stronger general election candidate than McCain would have been."
AHHHH, THE IRONY, - PROVING YOUR OBSERVATIONS TO BE ABSURD ON TWO COUNTS IN ONE QUOTE!
Of course Georgie Boy you didn't stop there in 2000. No you claimed ("Conservatives in a Changing Market" Feb. 2, 2000) that: "It is passing strange to construe McCain's insurgency as an eruption of true conservatism .... McCain's great goal is an unprecedented and probably ... unconstitutional regulation of political speech by individuals, candidates and independent groups. McCain wishes that much criticism of the political class were illegal: "If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads."
In "A Party to Prosperity" (August 18, 2000) you said of Bush: "His conservative goals will be pursued by a strong state, using the tax code to promote particular behaviors..."
WELL, THE LAST FEW DAYS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 'PARTICULAR BEHAVIOUR' HAS ITS DOWNSIDE....
Later that season ("The case for Bush" Nov. 6, 2000) you fawned "The economic case for the [tax] cut is that Bush's advisers, who fortunately include some people capable of bearish thoughts," were not afraid to unleash private capital without restraints. Further, you postulated that; "Bush would work at both ends of the problem to fix the disjunction between the military's declining strength and its increasing tempo of operations." (God, I'm glad that worked out.) "Bush is a modest man with much to be modest about, and that he lacks complexity. But modesty is a political virtue and is especially desirable in the next president,..." MY HOW TIME HAS PROVED YOUR CASE-
But, I digress.
Back to Mccain - Just because you wrong the last time you endorsed a Republican in the midst of an election campaign doesn't mean your wrong this time- does it?
In 2004, you said ("For Bush, it's game time" Feb. 9, 2004) "Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances." What has changed?
In light of present circumstances, how can you say McCain best suited to be POTUS?
Especially given that you once accused his desire to win in 2008 ("McCain's media unmasking" April 10, 2006) of inevitably being "bound to require tactics inconsistent with his carefully cultivated reputation for unexampled authenticity" -- to wit your observation: "McCain says, 'I've never voted for a tax increase.' Well, never, if you ignore the huge — $516 billion over 25 years — tax increase in his 1998 tobacco bill. But that was less a revenue measure than an exercise of the McCainian righteousness that has so enchanted many of the people who are now becoming disenchanted" YET "hitherto unenthralled Republicans might suddenly consider McCain as virtuous as he considers himself. For the politically nervous, "virtuous" is a synonym for "electable."
Later that year ("McCain's actions undercut the Constitution"- May 11, 2006) you opined, "Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator. - McCain seems to regard unregulated political speech as an inherent invitation to corruption. - If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?"
IS THIS REALLY THE MAN YOU ARE BACKING FOR PRESIDENT NOW???
DOES YOUR FAUX ANALYSIS KNOW NO DIGNITY GEORGIE BOY?
The list of textual "Will-ism's" below hardly leads one to believe that today's column could be founded on anything more than blind ADHERENCE TO PARTISANSHIP:
("For McCain, a Surplus of Irony" May 28, 2006) "In 2008, Republican and Democratic aspirants who depend on taxpayer funding in the primaries will be seen, correctly, as second-tier and likely losers. McCain is neither. He is, however, the person most responsible for the perverse consequences of the government's multiplying intrusions into what should be a free market for political speech."
("Three good options for the Right -March 8, 2007) - "when McCain, who opposed Bush's tax cuts, concludes on the basis of the humming economy that they should be made permanent, this is called pandering." HOW RIGHT YOU WERE!
("Fact-Checking McCain's Straight-Talk" Jan. 18, 2008)- "There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream." - "McCainian intolerance of disagreement"
("McCain in a glass house" Feb. 27, 2008) "McCain, a situational ethicist" whose "certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers."
Well GEORGIE BOY! Are you trying to tell us that now, all you have said in spewed in the past was wrong. An error in judgment? A 'Will-ian' oversight?
Surely, you must think us idiots!
Again, "“Hard is his fate upon whom the public gaze” - harder still when one's own words give lie to their credibility!
YOU SIR, ARE WITHOUT CREDIBILITY ... DEVOID OF SHAME ... and, WITHOUT INTEGRITY!
Spare us all, so I for one may stop retching.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Recent WaPo posts - the good with the bad.
Comment on: McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition at 9/17/2008 11:23 AM EDT
"A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries..." NOW he is for "reform"?
Clearly his growing penchant for flip-flopping is indicative of one suffering from 'schizophrenic policy syndrome' (SPS) - the man needs to find a couch and an analyst to help him overcome this terrible affliction.
Godspeed Mr. McCain, may you get the help you need.
Comment on: Obama's Panic at 9/17/2008 1:15 AM EDT
mavisdarling wrote: "Can't you be a little more creative and critical in your thinking, Gerson? You are pulling rabbits out of your hat now!"
With respects, I believe you are mistaken. i believe he is pulling his thoughts out of a completely different orifice. Not only does it show - it smells!
Comment on: Obama's Panic at 9/17/2008 1:08 AM EDT
Gerson, rather than wasting your time trying to deconstruct Obama's decsions... which are measured ... why don't you deconstruct why you even bother getting up each day.
Is it for the express purpose of polluting our atmosphere with even more unnecessary gases?
Do us all a favour, stay in bed until November 5th - - your tripe is tiring. You have nothing to offer - - stay mute - - don't pollute!
Comment on: The Ugly New McCain at 9/16/2008 5:13 AM EDT
Well said.
Now if only McCain could look into a mirror and say it to himself.
Won't hold my breathe on this though. All the GOP's mirrors seem to have been assigned to Gov. Palin who keeps staring at them (unblinking) and chanting "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most unqualified of us all?"
Problem is, poor girl can't figure out why the mirror keeps given her the wrong answer: "You Sarah, you Sarah, are the most unqualified of them all!"
Comment on: Running on a Lie at 9/16/2008 4:11 AM EDT
Re: Palin's Lying Eyes - look no further than the Eagles to explain the pathology - they captured it perfectly in 1975 and it is apt still:
"My, oh my, you sure know how to arrange things.
You set it up so well, so carefully
Ain't it funny how your new life didn't change things
You're still the same old girl you used to be
You can't hide your lyin eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes
There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes
Honey, you can't hide your lyin' eyes"
Maybe at Palin's next choreographed appearance it can be used as the entrance theme?
Comment on: Standing Up to Angler at 9/16/2008 3:55 AM EDT
Is the evidence Gellman presents not enough for a prima facie case to be brought against Vice-President Cheney for violating his oath.
Upon taking office did Cheney not take an oath that read, in part, that he would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" Clearly, he has violated this oath.
Abuse of power? Absolutely.
Jail time?
Absolutely.
Anything less would illustrate that America's time honoured democratic principles are no more protected than those in a garden variety Banana Republic.
Comment on: Whose Elitism Problem Now? at 9/16/2008 3:30 AM EDT
Nothing focuses the mind like a crisis. That it should befall the US economy at this juncture is both unfortunate and fortuitous.
Unfortunate because some innocent, well-meaning investors are going to suffer.
Fortuitous because it will give lie to McCain's craven position on tax cuts for the rich. The policies of the aging would-be emperor are being stripped of their adornments and one and all can see it with the naked eye. Hollow and vague pledges 'to reform' will follow.
Believe them not, for the McPalin Ticket 'speaks with forked tongue'.
None of this makes Mr. Obama's task and easy one - but it gives him an opportunity to demonstrate he can lead the way in policy formulation, that he can speak to the real issues, that he can show all that what he is offers (unlike the Republicans)is "Change We Need"!
Comment on: Advantages for Ms. Palin to Share? at 9/15/2008 1:28 AM EDT
Q: "...what will she do for working women who do not have the advantages she has?"
A: Precious little!
Comment on: Yes for an Answer at 9/14/2008 4:16 EDT
Does anyone else, other than myself, see the sadness?
The paucity of posts expressing real concern about this story only proves the current election campaign is undercutting a good solution that is in the best interest of America's long-term success.
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 3:51 EDT
cat111719. GREAT POST! (see: 9/14/2008 2:54:14 PM).
Unfortunately, because you actually bothered used a factual cite as the basis for you argument it will necessarily stir the dung out of those ideological right-wing cultists who routinely disparage the use of facts.
Expect no constructive feedback to a salient posting borne of critical analysis. Usually, the right`s posting pathology exhibits a predictable path.
a) In the face of a well researched articulated point that lays to waste the honesty of one of their own: George Will - - they will either display collective mute impudence and not respond -OR-
b) they will respond with an invective buttressed by insecurity, anger, and an holistic ignorance that overlooks your point and, instead, invokes labels such as: lefty, liberal, Obama-bot, commie, Demigot, elitist, educated, urban, cosmopolitan, Obamaian, etc.,
However, you may take solace in the paucity of quality in their attacks as it usually helps one prove one`s point.
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 2:15 EDT
theduke89 wrote: "The ad is true. Obama supports an intrusive, comprehensive, parents-be-damned concept of sex education."
Of course, he was trying to defend the indefensible - the McCain ad from earlier this week.
By using the divisive words "intrusive","parents-be-damned" he shows his negativism and hyper-partisan colours.
Yet, he does so despite the fact there is no evidence Obama was endorsing a 'parents-be-damned' approach. Rather, he was embracing an 'ignorance-be-damned' approach. Favouring 'an age appropriate' curriculum to provide the innocent with the knowledge and tools to protect themselves from those who would do them harm can hardly be deemed 'intrusive'.
Intimating that Mr. Obabma's position on the issue is part of a larger plot to bring "doctrinaire liberalism" to American politics simply belies his clinging myopic worldview. One that is often accompanied by adherence to the "abstinence approach" to sex education.
Of course, one need only look at that poor pregnant 17-year old child who became her mother's convenient convention victimization media prop to see how well one's reactionary and ignorant support for 'abstinence' really works?
In this, and many other cases, a little 'age appropriate' sex education might have gone a long way? But you don't see Obama making this point in his ads? No, instead what we see is a concerted GOP effort to depict him as a debased interventionist more interested in transmitting Sexual knowledge than literacy? Absurd and untrue.
Of course, I am responding to a poster who said in another thread today: "sex ed... [is more] a symbolic issue, one that represents the worse kind of liberal meddling in family life." He will not understand that unplanned teenage pregnancies that lead to marriage at age 17 and the introduction of another beautiful innocent into the world are more than 'symbolic' developments -they are real outcomes that need to be addressed. They involve children and teens in need of a good education - sex and all.
In the end, my post here is a pointless exercise, for as our reactionary 'duke' once wrote (see: What's Fair Game With Sarah Palin? at 9/7/2008 12:50 PM EDT): "Resentments on the left toward Repblicans have a fascist intensity to them." Undoubtedly, that is how he will characterize my post- unaware that it is not resentment I am expressing; but it is pity for yet another myopic thinking, paranoid and emotionally fragile voter.
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 11:41 AM EDT
Georgie Boy,
Just caught your weekly disingenuous parroting session on This Week.
By aping Mr. Krautcrazy and expressing support for McCain's false ads surrounding Obama's stance on Sex Ed for school children you came across as both partisan puppet and a liar.
You kiss your wife with that mouth?
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 6:37 AM EDT
Georgie Boy,
You hit the nail on the head.
Without doubt, your fully realized sentence: "People, communities and countries often make costly mistakes because they don't know what it is that they don't know." - is, perhaps, the most honest thing you have ever written.
It explains so much about America.
It explains how Bush could be elected not once, but twice; it explains how the WMD argument gained populist purchase; and, it explains why some look upon Gov. Palin as a qualified candidate for Veep.
Undoubtedly, McCain is truly hoping that America continues 'not knowing what it is they don't know' until it is too late come November.
p.s. can you tell us when your one on one interview with Palin is scheduled for - will it be before or after the Apocalypse?
Comment on: Gov. Palin's Interview at 9/14/2008 5:59 AM EDT
"Frustrating"?
Well, I guess that one way of looking at it. But it does not capture the essence of the problem.
What insight did we really gain from the Palin interviews? Not much.
I think any of the following terms could be also be applied to the how the objective viewer saw the interview: as disturbing, disquieting, unnerving, faux, simple, - or - sickening.
With a population of over 300 million is this really the second most qualified American that McCain could find to sit one erratic heartbeat away from the Oval Office? Me thinks not.
It is not so much that she can't perform in an interview, admittedly she passed with a grade of C+ - But is a C+ good enough for this job?
Hardly!
By itself, the ability to regurgitate 'talking points' does not qualify one to hold the highest office in the land. There has to be more. Doesn't there?
Please be-to-Buddha, tell me there's more to it than that?
Comment on: As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood at 9/14/2008 5:17 AM EDT
Well, there you have it.
The executive experience this story details clearly proves Palin has what it takes to deal with Congress, direct a foreign affairs agenda, and have her finger next to the nuclear button.
Whew!
I am so relieved.
Comment on: Campaign, and Complaints, Heat Up at 9/13/2008 3:10 AM EDT
Dear Mrs. Howell,
Firstly, allow me to say I respect your views both in text and on the tube. Also please know that I do truly try to keep my posts 'on point' so to speak.
But, but.... I'm sorry...maybe I'm overtired? ... But I cannot stop laughing!
(Maybe its Krauthammer's fault as I just finished reading his delirious fantasy column.)
Wait, no that's not it... I still can't stop laughing ... really I'm sorry, and the fault is all my own, must be my shortcomings but, .... seriously, do you have any idea how your lead in to today's column reads?
I mean, ... sorry I am still laughing (not cravenly mind you)... but: "frenzy is at full pitch; incoming partisan fire was smoking in my inbox" is just too rich to pass up!
The double-entendre imagery this lead-in evokes is just too funny to ignore.
Trusting you didn't mean to make me laugh, I apologize ... but don't you see the (albeit juvenile) potential play on words here? I mean, c'mon - "frenzy", "full pitch", "smoking", "my inbox". Sorry, but I am still laughing... enjoyed the column ... please have a good and wonderful weekend.
Sincerely,
Comment on: Yes for an Answer at 9/13/2008 2:46 AM EDT
Time for the Democrats in Congress to step up to the plate.
Politics aside (ha,ha,ha,...), it sure would be nice to hear Obama come out in favour of this agreement and pressure Congress to facilitate its passage forthwith?
Comment on: Charlie Gibson's Gaffe at 9/13/2008 1:46 AM EDT
Krautauthor,
You hapless ogre! Just read your article. You spin a nice Fairy Tale.
Your pitiable attempt to query Gibson's understanding of the true meaning of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not just petty - it is wrong.
Again, ignorant arrogance at its best.
True, in June 2001, you undeniably did scribble the phrase 'Bush Doctrine'.
But your characterization neither contributed to the foundation of its true 'construct' nor its subsequent manifestation.
As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004) there indeed exists a global and common understanding of what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine".
Although referenced once in the piece, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to its evolution. Really nothing but part of a chattering class holding regular cluster orgies of like-minded neo-con individuals. To wit, see pp.4 of essay wherein it is recognized there is an "assortment of ultra-conservative columnists and authors such as Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Ann Coulter. Rounding out the side are Fox News anchor Brit Hume and radio talkmeisters Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to name but three" who served as the blowhard boosters for Bush's policies.
Nice company you keep?
In your mirror, please be clear: admit you were never instrumental in either the formulation of the doctrine or its accepted connotative definition.
You did not give wings to the concept of a Bush Doctrine - its nascent roots had been established long before you stumbled across the terminology. At best your role was (as usual) that of a minor scribbler among the inks of greater pens.
Moreover, it must be said that we non-Americans are keenly aware of "what" constitutes the Bush Doctrine. How could Palin not be?
Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian - none of us ever erroneously ascribe to the 'Bush Dictrine' four different nuanced visages. We know it for what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.
As a global citizen I dismiss your article as 'inside-baseball' of the worst kind - petty and irrelevant - only intended to further misplace the doctrine in its historical context.
Which of your baby words did you try to apply to Gibson? Ah, yes, "snobbery", "condescension", "chattering classes".
Well, Monsieur Krautauthor, I view your drivel, your partisan snobbery, condescension, and chattering-blathering as further evidence that you are a liar. The whole world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...
Mr. Gibson's attempt to get Gov. Palin to recognize its importance and pronounce her views on it should have elicited an immediate understanding of what was being asked. Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! slip-of-the-text; meant illusions] about its import. The fact you now try to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".
Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans)are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?
Maybe it is time you picked up a pen and tried to write like a man. You know, with honesty?
Failing that, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.
p.s. Fellow Posters, while I could include a 12 pg. bib on the evolution and meaning of the Bush Doctrine - I'll spare you. BUT for those interested in the Mantho essay please see: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0404mantho.pdf
Comment on: Obama's Altitude Sickness at 9/12/2008 8:06 AM EDT
July_4th_1776 wrote (in part): "not a bad try at using the race card, but ... copy and paste anything in my post that is untrue. We won't see you do that, as everything I posted is truth..."
You must be kidding, do you have any idea how long it would take to itemize all your falsehoods and 1/2 truths? I gotta job I have to go to. Furthermore, we here in the Canadian bush have a saying: "Leave the rabid dog alone."
I stand by my first post- you are a repressed and diseased individual. As to my "using the race card"; my lily white derrier wouldn't know what to do with it.
Your decision to re-post all your drivel only demonstrates that indeed you 'doth protest too much'.
Living with so much insecurity must be a horrible burden. I'm sure I am not the only one to pity you.
Get help you neo-Orwellian construct.
Comment on: Obama's Altitude Sickness at 9/12/2008 6:50 AM EDT
July_4th_1776 wrote to disparage vance1's support for Obama and then said: "I have always lived by this simple tenet, you can judge a person by the friends the hang out with and their associates."
Well I too have a guiding 'tenet' to pass along to July_4_1776: the shriller the attack the weaker the man.
His efforts to try to label Obama as a "racist who says whitey are greedy" is just poor form. Continuing the tirade by attributing to him the use of the "pejorative Whitey" is not just wrong - it belies a deeper darkness.
Is July_4_1776 not really just opining for a era when no slave could be 'uppity' without suffering the consequences of the whip?
I believe this poster is the true 'racist' - I believe this poster is the one who has accomplished "nothing" in his life. I believe this poster knows no shame, lives in perpetual fear, and rues the passing of the days of "Ozzie and Harriet" and the introduction of the Civil Rights Act. I believe this poster has no "friends or associates".
In short, I believe this poster is sick and diseased with hate.
"A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries..." NOW he is for "reform"?
Clearly his growing penchant for flip-flopping is indicative of one suffering from 'schizophrenic policy syndrome' (SPS) - the man needs to find a couch and an analyst to help him overcome this terrible affliction.
Godspeed Mr. McCain, may you get the help you need.
Comment on: Obama's Panic at 9/17/2008 1:15 AM EDT
mavisdarling wrote: "Can't you be a little more creative and critical in your thinking, Gerson? You are pulling rabbits out of your hat now!"
With respects, I believe you are mistaken. i believe he is pulling his thoughts out of a completely different orifice. Not only does it show - it smells!
Comment on: Obama's Panic at 9/17/2008 1:08 AM EDT
Gerson, rather than wasting your time trying to deconstruct Obama's decsions... which are measured ... why don't you deconstruct why you even bother getting up each day.
Is it for the express purpose of polluting our atmosphere with even more unnecessary gases?
Do us all a favour, stay in bed until November 5th - - your tripe is tiring. You have nothing to offer - - stay mute - - don't pollute!
Comment on: The Ugly New McCain at 9/16/2008 5:13 AM EDT
Well said.
Now if only McCain could look into a mirror and say it to himself.
Won't hold my breathe on this though. All the GOP's mirrors seem to have been assigned to Gov. Palin who keeps staring at them (unblinking) and chanting "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most unqualified of us all?"
Problem is, poor girl can't figure out why the mirror keeps given her the wrong answer: "You Sarah, you Sarah, are the most unqualified of them all!"
Comment on: Running on a Lie at 9/16/2008 4:11 AM EDT
Re: Palin's Lying Eyes - look no further than the Eagles to explain the pathology - they captured it perfectly in 1975 and it is apt still:
"My, oh my, you sure know how to arrange things.
You set it up so well, so carefully
Ain't it funny how your new life didn't change things
You're still the same old girl you used to be
You can't hide your lyin eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes
There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes
Honey, you can't hide your lyin' eyes"
Maybe at Palin's next choreographed appearance it can be used as the entrance theme?
Comment on: Standing Up to Angler at 9/16/2008 3:55 AM EDT
Is the evidence Gellman presents not enough for a prima facie case to be brought against Vice-President Cheney for violating his oath.
Upon taking office did Cheney not take an oath that read, in part, that he would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" Clearly, he has violated this oath.
Abuse of power? Absolutely.
Jail time?
Absolutely.
Anything less would illustrate that America's time honoured democratic principles are no more protected than those in a garden variety Banana Republic.
Comment on: Whose Elitism Problem Now? at 9/16/2008 3:30 AM EDT
Nothing focuses the mind like a crisis. That it should befall the US economy at this juncture is both unfortunate and fortuitous.
Unfortunate because some innocent, well-meaning investors are going to suffer.
Fortuitous because it will give lie to McCain's craven position on tax cuts for the rich. The policies of the aging would-be emperor are being stripped of their adornments and one and all can see it with the naked eye. Hollow and vague pledges 'to reform' will follow.
Believe them not, for the McPalin Ticket 'speaks with forked tongue'.
None of this makes Mr. Obama's task and easy one - but it gives him an opportunity to demonstrate he can lead the way in policy formulation, that he can speak to the real issues, that he can show all that what he is offers (unlike the Republicans)is "Change We Need"!
Comment on: Advantages for Ms. Palin to Share? at 9/15/2008 1:28 AM EDT
Q: "...what will she do for working women who do not have the advantages she has?"
A: Precious little!
Comment on: Yes for an Answer at 9/14/2008 4:16 EDT
Does anyone else, other than myself, see the sadness?
The paucity of posts expressing real concern about this story only proves the current election campaign is undercutting a good solution that is in the best interest of America's long-term success.
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 3:51 EDT
cat111719. GREAT POST! (see: 9/14/2008 2:54:14 PM).
Unfortunately, because you actually bothered used a factual cite as the basis for you argument it will necessarily stir the dung out of those ideological right-wing cultists who routinely disparage the use of facts.
Expect no constructive feedback to a salient posting borne of critical analysis. Usually, the right`s posting pathology exhibits a predictable path.
a) In the face of a well researched articulated point that lays to waste the honesty of one of their own: George Will - - they will either display collective mute impudence and not respond -OR-
b) they will respond with an invective buttressed by insecurity, anger, and an holistic ignorance that overlooks your point and, instead, invokes labels such as: lefty, liberal, Obama-bot, commie, Demigot, elitist, educated, urban, cosmopolitan, Obamaian, etc.,
However, you may take solace in the paucity of quality in their attacks as it usually helps one prove one`s point.
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 2:15 EDT
theduke89 wrote: "The ad is true. Obama supports an intrusive, comprehensive, parents-be-damned concept of sex education."
Of course, he was trying to defend the indefensible - the McCain ad from earlier this week.
By using the divisive words "intrusive","parents-be-damned" he shows his negativism and hyper-partisan colours.
Yet, he does so despite the fact there is no evidence Obama was endorsing a 'parents-be-damned' approach. Rather, he was embracing an 'ignorance-be-damned' approach. Favouring 'an age appropriate' curriculum to provide the innocent with the knowledge and tools to protect themselves from those who would do them harm can hardly be deemed 'intrusive'.
Intimating that Mr. Obabma's position on the issue is part of a larger plot to bring "doctrinaire liberalism" to American politics simply belies his clinging myopic worldview. One that is often accompanied by adherence to the "abstinence approach" to sex education.
Of course, one need only look at that poor pregnant 17-year old child who became her mother's convenient convention victimization media prop to see how well one's reactionary and ignorant support for 'abstinence' really works?
In this, and many other cases, a little 'age appropriate' sex education might have gone a long way? But you don't see Obama making this point in his ads? No, instead what we see is a concerted GOP effort to depict him as a debased interventionist more interested in transmitting Sexual knowledge than literacy? Absurd and untrue.
Of course, I am responding to a poster who said in another thread today: "sex ed... [is more] a symbolic issue, one that represents the worse kind of liberal meddling in family life." He will not understand that unplanned teenage pregnancies that lead to marriage at age 17 and the introduction of another beautiful innocent into the world are more than 'symbolic' developments -they are real outcomes that need to be addressed. They involve children and teens in need of a good education - sex and all.
In the end, my post here is a pointless exercise, for as our reactionary 'duke' once wrote (see: What's Fair Game With Sarah Palin? at 9/7/2008 12:50 PM EDT): "Resentments on the left toward Repblicans have a fascist intensity to them." Undoubtedly, that is how he will characterize my post- unaware that it is not resentment I am expressing; but it is pity for yet another myopic thinking, paranoid and emotionally fragile voter.
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 11:41 AM EDT
Georgie Boy,
Just caught your weekly disingenuous parroting session on This Week.
By aping Mr. Krautcrazy and expressing support for McCain's false ads surrounding Obama's stance on Sex Ed for school children you came across as both partisan puppet and a liar.
You kiss your wife with that mouth?
Comment on: In Chicago, Discipline That Builds Dreams at 9/14/2008 6:37 AM EDT
Georgie Boy,
You hit the nail on the head.
Without doubt, your fully realized sentence: "People, communities and countries often make costly mistakes because they don't know what it is that they don't know." - is, perhaps, the most honest thing you have ever written.
It explains so much about America.
It explains how Bush could be elected not once, but twice; it explains how the WMD argument gained populist purchase; and, it explains why some look upon Gov. Palin as a qualified candidate for Veep.
Undoubtedly, McCain is truly hoping that America continues 'not knowing what it is they don't know' until it is too late come November.
p.s. can you tell us when your one on one interview with Palin is scheduled for - will it be before or after the Apocalypse?
Comment on: Gov. Palin's Interview at 9/14/2008 5:59 AM EDT
"Frustrating"?
Well, I guess that one way of looking at it. But it does not capture the essence of the problem.
What insight did we really gain from the Palin interviews? Not much.
I think any of the following terms could be also be applied to the how the objective viewer saw the interview: as disturbing, disquieting, unnerving, faux, simple, - or - sickening.
With a population of over 300 million is this really the second most qualified American that McCain could find to sit one erratic heartbeat away from the Oval Office? Me thinks not.
It is not so much that she can't perform in an interview, admittedly she passed with a grade of C+ - But is a C+ good enough for this job?
Hardly!
By itself, the ability to regurgitate 'talking points' does not qualify one to hold the highest office in the land. There has to be more. Doesn't there?
Please be-to-Buddha, tell me there's more to it than that?
Comment on: As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood at 9/14/2008 5:17 AM EDT
Well, there you have it.
The executive experience this story details clearly proves Palin has what it takes to deal with Congress, direct a foreign affairs agenda, and have her finger next to the nuclear button.
Whew!
I am so relieved.
Comment on: Campaign, and Complaints, Heat Up at 9/13/2008 3:10 AM EDT
Dear Mrs. Howell,
Firstly, allow me to say I respect your views both in text and on the tube. Also please know that I do truly try to keep my posts 'on point' so to speak.
But, but.... I'm sorry...maybe I'm overtired? ... But I cannot stop laughing!
(Maybe its Krauthammer's fault as I just finished reading his delirious fantasy column.)
Wait, no that's not it... I still can't stop laughing ... really I'm sorry, and the fault is all my own, must be my shortcomings but, .... seriously, do you have any idea how your lead in to today's column reads?
I mean, ... sorry I am still laughing (not cravenly mind you)... but: "frenzy is at full pitch; incoming partisan fire was smoking in my inbox" is just too rich to pass up!
The double-entendre imagery this lead-in evokes is just too funny to ignore.
Trusting you didn't mean to make me laugh, I apologize ... but don't you see the (albeit juvenile) potential play on words here? I mean, c'mon - "frenzy", "full pitch", "smoking", "my inbox". Sorry, but I am still laughing... enjoyed the column ... please have a good and wonderful weekend.
Sincerely,
Comment on: Yes for an Answer at 9/13/2008 2:46 AM EDT
Time for the Democrats in Congress to step up to the plate.
Politics aside (ha,ha,ha,...), it sure would be nice to hear Obama come out in favour of this agreement and pressure Congress to facilitate its passage forthwith?
Comment on: Charlie Gibson's Gaffe at 9/13/2008 1:46 AM EDT
Krautauthor,
You hapless ogre! Just read your article. You spin a nice Fairy Tale.
Your pitiable attempt to query Gibson's understanding of the true meaning of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not just petty - it is wrong.
Again, ignorant arrogance at its best.
True, in June 2001, you undeniably did scribble the phrase 'Bush Doctrine'.
But your characterization neither contributed to the foundation of its true 'construct' nor its subsequent manifestation.
As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004) there indeed exists a global and common understanding of what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine".
Although referenced once in the piece, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to its evolution. Really nothing but part of a chattering class holding regular cluster orgies of like-minded neo-con individuals. To wit, see pp.4 of essay wherein it is recognized there is an "assortment of ultra-conservative columnists and authors such as Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Ann Coulter. Rounding out the side are Fox News anchor Brit Hume and radio talkmeisters Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to name but three" who served as the blowhard boosters for Bush's policies.
Nice company you keep?
In your mirror, please be clear: admit you were never instrumental in either the formulation of the doctrine or its accepted connotative definition.
You did not give wings to the concept of a Bush Doctrine - its nascent roots had been established long before you stumbled across the terminology. At best your role was (as usual) that of a minor scribbler among the inks of greater pens.
Moreover, it must be said that we non-Americans are keenly aware of "what" constitutes the Bush Doctrine. How could Palin not be?
Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian - none of us ever erroneously ascribe to the 'Bush Dictrine' four different nuanced visages. We know it for what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.
As a global citizen I dismiss your article as 'inside-baseball' of the worst kind - petty and irrelevant - only intended to further misplace the doctrine in its historical context.
Which of your baby words did you try to apply to Gibson? Ah, yes, "snobbery", "condescension", "chattering classes".
Well, Monsieur Krautauthor, I view your drivel, your partisan snobbery, condescension, and chattering-blathering as further evidence that you are a liar. The whole world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...
Mr. Gibson's attempt to get Gov. Palin to recognize its importance and pronounce her views on it should have elicited an immediate understanding of what was being asked. Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! slip-of-the-text; meant illusions] about its import. The fact you now try to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".
Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans)are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?
Maybe it is time you picked up a pen and tried to write like a man. You know, with honesty?
Failing that, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.
p.s. Fellow Posters, while I could include a 12 pg. bib on the evolution and meaning of the Bush Doctrine - I'll spare you. BUT for those interested in the Mantho essay please see: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0404mantho.pdf
Comment on: Obama's Altitude Sickness at 9/12/2008 8:06 AM EDT
July_4th_1776 wrote (in part): "not a bad try at using the race card, but ... copy and paste anything in my post that is untrue. We won't see you do that, as everything I posted is truth..."
You must be kidding, do you have any idea how long it would take to itemize all your falsehoods and 1/2 truths? I gotta job I have to go to. Furthermore, we here in the Canadian bush have a saying: "Leave the rabid dog alone."
I stand by my first post- you are a repressed and diseased individual. As to my "using the race card"; my lily white derrier wouldn't know what to do with it.
Your decision to re-post all your drivel only demonstrates that indeed you 'doth protest too much'.
Living with so much insecurity must be a horrible burden. I'm sure I am not the only one to pity you.
Get help you neo-Orwellian construct.
Comment on: Obama's Altitude Sickness at 9/12/2008 6:50 AM EDT
July_4th_1776 wrote to disparage vance1's support for Obama and then said: "I have always lived by this simple tenet, you can judge a person by the friends the hang out with and their associates."
Well I too have a guiding 'tenet' to pass along to July_4_1776: the shriller the attack the weaker the man.
His efforts to try to label Obama as a "racist who says whitey are greedy" is just poor form. Continuing the tirade by attributing to him the use of the "pejorative Whitey" is not just wrong - it belies a deeper darkness.
Is July_4_1776 not really just opining for a era when no slave could be 'uppity' without suffering the consequences of the whip?
I believe this poster is the true 'racist' - I believe this poster is the one who has accomplished "nothing" in his life. I believe this poster knows no shame, lives in perpetual fear, and rues the passing of the days of "Ozzie and Harriet" and the introduction of the Civil Rights Act. I believe this poster has no "friends or associates".
In short, I believe this poster is sick and diseased with hate.
ABC is for Me!
fr: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/16/williams-elections-cnd.html#socialcomments
Here in Winnipeg I am shaking my head at the Harperistas - so much venom.
Those calling Premier Williams a 'traitor' etc., are just lending credence to the notion that Harper is standing on an empty platform. Otherwise why are they be so upset by this turn of events?
Surely one fiery Newf's crusade to prevent Harper from forming a majority doesn't really pose a real threat to the Conservative machine? Does it?
Maybe, deep down, the Harperistas are protesting so vehemently against Williams because they know their exalted leader's policies amount to nothing more than a hill of gaseous beans. Maybe they know the vision of the country Harper is offering us is a borrowed bag of tricks - already been discredited south of the border. Maybe they know he intends to construct along the bank's of the river in Ottawa a Potemkin Parliamentary Village while he guts the federal government of all its powers. Maybe they are afraid that Danny Williams will shed light on Harper's faux face.
If Danny Williams truly believes Stephen Harper poses an ongoing threat to the welfare of this country, his province and our futures, then let him say so. He has the same rights as any of us and yes, more balls than most. He's willing to 'put his money where his mouth is' - so let him speak. After all, if Danny Williams is indeed as inconsequential as many of the CONposters are professing where's the harm?
Unless, ... unless, of course, he his speaking the truth?
Godspeed Mr. Williams.
p.s. you'll note that few of the CONposters are disputing Danny's claim that Harper is, in fact, a liar. In and off itself this speaks volumes - let Danny now speak his.
Here in Winnipeg I am shaking my head at the Harperistas - so much venom.
Those calling Premier Williams a 'traitor' etc., are just lending credence to the notion that Harper is standing on an empty platform. Otherwise why are they be so upset by this turn of events?
Surely one fiery Newf's crusade to prevent Harper from forming a majority doesn't really pose a real threat to the Conservative machine? Does it?
Maybe, deep down, the Harperistas are protesting so vehemently against Williams because they know their exalted leader's policies amount to nothing more than a hill of gaseous beans. Maybe they know the vision of the country Harper is offering us is a borrowed bag of tricks - already been discredited south of the border. Maybe they know he intends to construct along the bank's of the river in Ottawa a Potemkin Parliamentary Village while he guts the federal government of all its powers. Maybe they are afraid that Danny Williams will shed light on Harper's faux face.
If Danny Williams truly believes Stephen Harper poses an ongoing threat to the welfare of this country, his province and our futures, then let him say so. He has the same rights as any of us and yes, more balls than most. He's willing to 'put his money where his mouth is' - so let him speak. After all, if Danny Williams is indeed as inconsequential as many of the CONposters are professing where's the harm?
Unless, ... unless, of course, he his speaking the truth?
Godspeed Mr. Williams.
p.s. you'll note that few of the CONposters are disputing Danny's claim that Harper is, in fact, a liar. In and off itself this speaks volumes - let Danny now speak his.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Globe not what it used to be.
"But there's also been a revival of pride in ideas and entities that conservatives have traditionally backed, Mr. Harper said,..."
Astounded and dumbfounded I feel like the Globe's insecurities have reached a point that it is no longer really a "newspaper". Rather, it can now lay claim to being Canada`s largest and most inconsequential Blog. No better than one of those "E-entertainment" rags/shows that blithely generate hype without ever reflecting on the merit of the 'hype'. In short, a tabloid mentality has seemingly come to substitute for news.
Years ago a story like this would never have been published without context and balance.
Now, in a misguided effort to be first "past the post" with any and all developments (no matter how spurious), you seemingly will sensationalize anything in a lame effort to "beat the blogs". Would'a been nice had you taken the time to analyze the voting stats since 1993 to see in Mr. Harper`s assertion was based on anything more than wishful thinking!
Is their any merit to his claim? Do the facts bear out his words? Well, of course, this story- much like a half-baked pie will remain unfit for reader consumption until somebody who actually cares about 'news' takes the time to look!
Well done you T.O. twerps!
Astounded and dumbfounded I feel like the Globe's insecurities have reached a point that it is no longer really a "newspaper". Rather, it can now lay claim to being Canada`s largest and most inconsequential Blog. No better than one of those "E-entertainment" rags/shows that blithely generate hype without ever reflecting on the merit of the 'hype'. In short, a tabloid mentality has seemingly come to substitute for news.
Years ago a story like this would never have been published without context and balance.
Now, in a misguided effort to be first "past the post" with any and all developments (no matter how spurious), you seemingly will sensationalize anything in a lame effort to "beat the blogs". Would'a been nice had you taken the time to analyze the voting stats since 1993 to see in Mr. Harper`s assertion was based on anything more than wishful thinking!
Is their any merit to his claim? Do the facts bear out his words? Well, of course, this story- much like a half-baked pie will remain unfit for reader consumption until somebody who actually cares about 'news' takes the time to look!
Well done you T.O. twerps!
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Krautauthor Fails Test Again.
re: "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe" Wapo, Sept 13, 2008. By Charles Krauthammer
Krautauthor,
You hapless ogre! Just finished watching a football game and then I read your article.
You spin a nice Fairy Tale.
Your pitiable attempt to query Gibson's understanding of the true meaning of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not just petty - it is wrong.
Again, ignorant arrogance at its best.
True, in June 2001, you undeniably did scribble the phrase 'Bush Doctrine'.
But your characterization neither contributed to the foundation of its true 'construct' nor its subsequent manifestation.
As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004) there indeed exists a global and common understanding of what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine".
Although referenced once in the piece, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to its evolution. Really nothing but part of a chattering class holding regular cluster orgies of like-minded neo-con individuals. To wit, read page 4 of essay wherein it is recognized there is an "assortment of ultra-conservative columnists and authors such as Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Ann Coulter. Rounding out the side are Fox News anchor Brit Hume and radio talkmeisters Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to name but three" who served as the blowhard boosters for Bush's policies. Nice company you keep?
In your mirror, please be clear - admit you were never instrumental in either the formulation of the doctrine or its accepted connotative definition.
You did not give wings to the concept of a Bush Doctrine - its nascent roots had been established long before you stumbled across the terminology. Your role was at best (as usual) that of a minor scribbler among the inks of greater pens.
Moreover, for we who aren't Americans we are keenly aware of "what" constitutes the Bush Doctrine. How could Palin not be?
Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian ever erroneously ascribe to the 'Bush Dictrine' four different nuanced visages. We know it for what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.
As a global citizen I dismiss your article as 'inside-baseball' of the worst kind - petty and irrelevant - only intended to further misplace the doctrine in its historical context.
Which of your baby words did you try to apply to Gibson? Ah, yes, "snobbery", "condescension", "chattering classes".
Well, Monsieur Krautauthor, I view your drivel, your partisan snobbery, condescension, and chattering-blathering as further evidence that you are a liar. The whole world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...
Mr. Gibson's attempt to get Gov. Palin to recognize its importance and pronounce her views on it should have elicited an immediate understanding of what was being asked. Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! slip-of-the-text; meant illusions] about its import. The fact you tried to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".
Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans)are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?
Maybe it is time you picked up a pen and tried to write like a man. You know, with honesty. Failing that, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.
p.s. Fellow Posters, while I could include a 12 pg. bib on the evolution and meaning of the Bush Doctrine - I'll spare you. BUT for those interested in the Mantho essay please see: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0404mantho.pdf
Krautauthor,
You hapless ogre! Just finished watching a football game and then I read your article.
You spin a nice Fairy Tale.
Your pitiable attempt to query Gibson's understanding of the true meaning of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not just petty - it is wrong.
Again, ignorant arrogance at its best.
True, in June 2001, you undeniably did scribble the phrase 'Bush Doctrine'.
But your characterization neither contributed to the foundation of its true 'construct' nor its subsequent manifestation.
As M.G. Manthro pointed out in "The Bush Doctrine: Origins, Evolutions, Alternatives" (April 2004) there indeed exists a global and common understanding of what constitutes the "Bush Doctrine".
Although referenced once in the piece, it's clear you were/are relatively insignificant to its evolution. Really nothing but part of a chattering class holding regular cluster orgies of like-minded neo-con individuals. To wit, read page 4 of essay wherein it is recognized there is an "assortment of ultra-conservative columnists and authors such as Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Ann Coulter. Rounding out the side are Fox News anchor Brit Hume and radio talkmeisters Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to name but three" who served as the blowhard boosters for Bush's policies. Nice company you keep?
In your mirror, please be clear - admit you were never instrumental in either the formulation of the doctrine or its accepted connotative definition.
You did not give wings to the concept of a Bush Doctrine - its nascent roots had been established long before you stumbled across the terminology. Your role was at best (as usual) that of a minor scribbler among the inks of greater pens.
Moreover, for we who aren't Americans we are keenly aware of "what" constitutes the Bush Doctrine. How could Palin not be?
Make no mistake, none of us, be we Arab, be we Mexican, or like myself, be we Canadian ever erroneously ascribe to the 'Bush Dictrine' four different nuanced visages. We know it for what it is - President G.W. Bush's foreign policy operating principle of unilateralism married to the concept of military preemption.
As a global citizen I dismiss your article as 'inside-baseball' of the worst kind - petty and irrelevant - only intended to further misplace the doctrine in its historical context.
Which of your baby words did you try to apply to Gibson? Ah, yes, "snobbery", "condescension", "chattering classes".
Well, Monsieur Krautauthor, I view your drivel, your partisan snobbery, condescension, and chattering-blathering as further evidence that you are a liar. The whole world knows what is meant by the Bush Doctrine. Don't try to tell us otherwise...
Mr. Gibson's attempt to get Gov. Palin to recognize its importance and pronounce her views on it should have elicited an immediate understanding of what was being asked. Here in Canada, we have no oillusions [oops! slip-of-the-text; meant illusions] about its import. The fact you tried to obsfucate its true meaning for strictly partisan purposes just perpetuates the false myth of the "Ugly American".
Given so many of your fellow citizens (yes, even some Republicans)are trying to conduct themselves with dignity this season in an effort to debate the 'real issues' would it be too much if I asked you to put down your florid-yet-foul crayons?
Maybe it is time you picked up a pen and tried to write like a man. You know, with honesty. Failing that, your disquieting adolescent insecurity will remain on display: forever disturbing to one and all.
p.s. Fellow Posters, while I could include a 12 pg. bib on the evolution and meaning of the Bush Doctrine - I'll spare you. BUT for those interested in the Mantho essay please see: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0404mantho.pdf
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Mice, Elephants and Dung.
post sent to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/12/sarahpalin.feminism
Dear Mrs. Valenti,
I could not agree more with your assessment of the perverse place feminism has found itself in since Sen. Palin's anointment as McCain's Veep.
Here in Canada we too are being bombarded by the uneven news coverage surrounding her contrived selection as the "war hero's" running mate. From the mundane, to the absurd, the stories keep coming. Problem is, 5 days ago our opportunistic and predatory Prime-Minister decided to dissolve his minority government and called an election!
Now, just when we should be worried about the fate of our own polity, we find ourselves adrift in the flotsam attached to the US election. More of us are probably aware of the spurious issues surrounding Mrs. Palin than we are of the real policy differences between our two major party's.
To paraphrase a former Canadian PM; "When you are a Mouse living next to an Elephant" the dung of the pachyderm often obscures your path to enlightenment. Such is the situation we now face, our own political process is being adversely effected and subsumed by events south of our border.
Pray for us.
And pray for Obama.
Because if the Republicans win and our PM gets a the parliamentary majority he is seeking we are going to be awash on this continent in reactionary (and anti-feminist)dung!
Dear Mrs. Valenti,
I could not agree more with your assessment of the perverse place feminism has found itself in since Sen. Palin's anointment as McCain's Veep.
Here in Canada we too are being bombarded by the uneven news coverage surrounding her contrived selection as the "war hero's" running mate. From the mundane, to the absurd, the stories keep coming. Problem is, 5 days ago our opportunistic and predatory Prime-Minister decided to dissolve his minority government and called an election!
Now, just when we should be worried about the fate of our own polity, we find ourselves adrift in the flotsam attached to the US election. More of us are probably aware of the spurious issues surrounding Mrs. Palin than we are of the real policy differences between our two major party's.
To paraphrase a former Canadian PM; "When you are a Mouse living next to an Elephant" the dung of the pachyderm often obscures your path to enlightenment. Such is the situation we now face, our own political process is being adversely effected and subsumed by events south of our border.
Pray for us.
And pray for Obama.
Because if the Republicans win and our PM gets a the parliamentary majority he is seeking we are going to be awash on this continent in reactionary (and anti-feminist)dung!
Mississippi Thieving - a base response.
re: Mississippi Thieving and a base response.
One of the perils of our age and its instant access to news is the visceral, immediate, and unbalanced rage some items can evoke in the unsuspecting reader. It now appears that even normally lucid and reflective people can succumb to the most baseless forms of expression after being struck by an offending piece. Not a lame 'lipstick' on a ungulate type of debate- but a piece that really, and truly, offends the senses.
Waking up this morn' at 1:30am I came across this 'Hosemann' article which I saw as a Machiavellian machination beyond the pale because it clearly seeks to cut US democratic principles to their very core. And, I am now ashamed to admit; I quite simply lost it.
Below is a copy of the admittedly profane and unreasoned(?) email I sent to Mississippi's Secretary of State Mr. Hosemann.
My worry is, that by giving into my instinctively primal reaction to immediately start typing, that I went too far?
But, is there really such a thing as 'too far' anymore?
Does an outburst rife with frank profane expression have a place in our digital discourse? Especially when one feels as if their core beliefs have been affronted and 'digitally violated'?
Currently, I am conflicted on the matter- would appreciate feedback.
In the meantime, I think I will stop reading anymore news today.
Below is a copy of email sent via http://www.sos.state.ms.us/about_sos/staff_email_webform.asp?ID=479
"Mr. Hosemann,
Re: today's NYT article on your insistence on placing the names for the second senate race at the bottom of the ballot.
A pox on your in-bred myopic Republican hut you _ucking bespectacled _unt-turd.
Who do you think you are to flout the American Voting Rights Act? Mugabe?
It's people like you who give the US democratic system in general, and Mississippi in particular, a bad name.
Don't bother responding - I'm sure you are too busy trying to figure out how to _ist-_uck the underclass out of their rights at the polls this coming November.
If you have progeny, I shall pray they never contract your 'hyper-partisan' disease. And, while I wish you no physical ill will- it would be nice if you had psychic break and found yourself in a nut house full of disenfranchised Democrats!
Karma's a funny thing Mr. Hosemann, but don't worry about the impending night sweats - it's just your conscience trying to escape its sick, sad, prison.
Sincerely,
Upurass Upartisan"
p.s. Of course, I didn't sign my real name. But would it have mattered?
Posted: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/11/opinion/11thu1.html#postComment
One of the perils of our age and its instant access to news is the visceral, immediate, and unbalanced rage some items can evoke in the unsuspecting reader. It now appears that even normally lucid and reflective people can succumb to the most baseless forms of expression after being struck by an offending piece. Not a lame 'lipstick' on a ungulate type of debate- but a piece that really, and truly, offends the senses.
Waking up this morn' at 1:30am I came across this 'Hosemann' article which I saw as a Machiavellian machination beyond the pale because it clearly seeks to cut US democratic principles to their very core. And, I am now ashamed to admit; I quite simply lost it.
Below is a copy of the admittedly profane and unreasoned(?) email I sent to Mississippi's Secretary of State Mr. Hosemann.
My worry is, that by giving into my instinctively primal reaction to immediately start typing, that I went too far?
But, is there really such a thing as 'too far' anymore?
Does an outburst rife with frank profane expression have a place in our digital discourse? Especially when one feels as if their core beliefs have been affronted and 'digitally violated'?
Currently, I am conflicted on the matter- would appreciate feedback.
In the meantime, I think I will stop reading anymore news today.
Below is a copy of email sent via http://www.sos.state.ms.us/about_sos/staff_email_webform.asp?ID=479
"Mr. Hosemann,
Re: today's NYT article on your insistence on placing the names for the second senate race at the bottom of the ballot.
A pox on your in-bred myopic Republican hut you _ucking bespectacled _unt-turd.
Who do you think you are to flout the American Voting Rights Act? Mugabe?
It's people like you who give the US democratic system in general, and Mississippi in particular, a bad name.
Don't bother responding - I'm sure you are too busy trying to figure out how to _ist-_uck the underclass out of their rights at the polls this coming November.
If you have progeny, I shall pray they never contract your 'hyper-partisan' disease. And, while I wish you no physical ill will- it would be nice if you had psychic break and found yourself in a nut house full of disenfranchised Democrats!
Karma's a funny thing Mr. Hosemann, but don't worry about the impending night sweats - it's just your conscience trying to escape its sick, sad, prison.
Sincerely,
Upurass Upartisan"
p.s. Of course, I didn't sign my real name. But would it have mattered?
Posted: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/11/opinion/11thu1.html#postComment
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
WHAT WE NEED - humble suggestions for changing the channel
remitted to NYT September 10, 2008 5:24 am
see: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/10/opinion/10friedman.html?s=2
Mr. Friedman,
Your overview is apt.
The observation that "Obama will need to find another way to connect his ideas — clearly, crisply and passionately" is prescient.
Changing the channel now seems advisable. Perhaps it is time he went with the slogan "WHAT WE NEED". To my mind a winning strategy could be developed around this concept. Not only is it succinct, but it revolves around a basic concept to which all voters can immediately relate. Because:
WHAT WE NEED in America is government you can trust. WHAT WE NEED in America is to better the education for our young. WHAT WE NEED in America is health care for our sick. WHAT WE NEED is economic policy that puts people first. WHAT WE NEED is foreign policy that works. WHAT WE NEED is a White House we can be proud of. WHAT WE NEED is straight-talk without the anger. WHAT WE NEED is promises that will be kept. WHAT WE NEED is a president who doesn't wrap old ideas in paper marked 'change'. WHAT WE NEED is new blood. WHAT WE DON'T NEED is a repeat of the divisive politics being practiced by JOHN MCCAIN. WHAT WE DON"T NEED is more of the same. WHAT WE NEED is a new start. WHAT WE NEED is a democrat in the White House. Ladies and Gentleman, Joe Biden and I are prepared to give you what you need!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
see: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/10/opinion/10friedman.html?s=2
Mr. Friedman,
Your overview is apt.
The observation that "Obama will need to find another way to connect his ideas — clearly, crisply and passionately" is prescient.
Changing the channel now seems advisable. Perhaps it is time he went with the slogan "WHAT WE NEED". To my mind a winning strategy could be developed around this concept. Not only is it succinct, but it revolves around a basic concept to which all voters can immediately relate. Because:
WHAT WE NEED in America is government you can trust. WHAT WE NEED in America is to better the education for our young. WHAT WE NEED in America is health care for our sick. WHAT WE NEED is economic policy that puts people first. WHAT WE NEED is foreign policy that works. WHAT WE NEED is a White House we can be proud of. WHAT WE NEED is straight-talk without the anger. WHAT WE NEED is promises that will be kept. WHAT WE NEED is a president who doesn't wrap old ideas in paper marked 'change'. WHAT WE NEED is new blood. WHAT WE DON'T NEED is a repeat of the divisive politics being practiced by JOHN MCCAIN. WHAT WE DON"T NEED is more of the same. WHAT WE NEED is a new start. WHAT WE NEED is a democrat in the White House. Ladies and Gentleman, Joe Biden and I are prepared to give you what you need!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Rex Murphy- Wrong again.
fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080906.wxcomurph06/CommentStory/specialComment/home#commentLatest
Rex,
Three days ago I decided this article wasn't worth weighing in on.
I have reconsidered.
Your assertion that collectively we (nice of you to speak for all of us?), "see him, in the main, as competent and determined" should not go unchallenged.
Your presumption is wrong. A great many of us do indeed feel otherwise.
Would I be censored were I to say, point blank, that opinions such as yours are better left where they belong - as gassy ruminations worthy only of the out-house - but not fit for general consumption? Surely not.
* Posted 09/09/08 at 3:20 PM EDT
Rex,
Three days ago I decided this article wasn't worth weighing in on.
I have reconsidered.
Your assertion that collectively we (nice of you to speak for all of us?), "see him, in the main, as competent and determined" should not go unchallenged.
Your presumption is wrong. A great many of us do indeed feel otherwise.
Would I be censored were I to say, point blank, that opinions such as yours are better left where they belong - as gassy ruminations worthy only of the out-house - but not fit for general consumption? Surely not.
* Posted 09/09/08 at 3:20 PM EDT
An email to Jack
posted at: http://www.ndp.ca/contact
Respectfully,
re: Layton's cowardice
His threat to boycott the the televised debates if Ms. May was permitted to attend belies a gutlessness that leaves me feeling ashamed of my erstwhile political affiliation.
As one who would never vote Green, all I can say is that, after voting NDP in the last nine federal elections, I shall never do so again.
Excuse my french, but can you please give Jack my name and let him know I think he is a gutless-fuck. Better yet, give him my phone number so I can tell him in person.
Regards,
Respectfully,
re: Layton's cowardice
His threat to boycott the the televised debates if Ms. May was permitted to attend belies a gutlessness that leaves me feeling ashamed of my erstwhile political affiliation.
As one who would never vote Green, all I can say is that, after voting NDP in the last nine federal elections, I shall never do so again.
Excuse my french, but can you please give Jack my name and let him know I think he is a gutless-fuck. Better yet, give him my phone number so I can tell him in person.
Regards,
More proof our Media has no balls.
re: G&M story "A Club without..."
Yesterday's decision is nothing if not an example of collective cowardice.
"... broadcasters say their hands were tied, that other leaders would have boycotted the debates if Ms. May had been included."
More proof that moral failings abound in our polity.
In light of the NDP and CPC threats to boycott if the Green's are allowed to participate, the broadcasters should simply walk away from the entire process. Of course, that would require something sorely lacking in our mainstream media - principled cojones.
As for the argument that the broadcasters hands are tied because of Layton's and Harper's stance - that dog won't hunt. Their efforts to hold the democratic process hostage could easily be undone; all the broadcasters had to do to ensure May's participation in the debates was to threaten to not cover the CPC or NDP campaign's in the lead up to debates. Had they done so, one can be certain that neither 'Achieve Steve' or Slick Jack would have stayed away.
The fault here rests squarely on the shoulders of the broadcasters. No one expects a petulant politician to make the moral decision in this regard. Ergo, the decision should be taken out of their hands.
In this case, cowardice is a poor excuse for caving in to the whims of our petty insecure pols. Shame.
Yesterday's decision is nothing if not an example of collective cowardice.
"... broadcasters say their hands were tied, that other leaders would have boycotted the debates if Ms. May had been included."
More proof that moral failings abound in our polity.
In light of the NDP and CPC threats to boycott if the Green's are allowed to participate, the broadcasters should simply walk away from the entire process. Of course, that would require something sorely lacking in our mainstream media - principled cojones.
As for the argument that the broadcasters hands are tied because of Layton's and Harper's stance - that dog won't hunt. Their efforts to hold the democratic process hostage could easily be undone; all the broadcasters had to do to ensure May's participation in the debates was to threaten to not cover the CPC or NDP campaign's in the lead up to debates. Had they done so, one can be certain that neither 'Achieve Steve' or Slick Jack would have stayed away.
The fault here rests squarely on the shoulders of the broadcasters. No one expects a petulant politician to make the moral decision in this regard. Ergo, the decision should be taken out of their hands.
In this case, cowardice is a poor excuse for caving in to the whims of our petty insecure pols. Shame.
Monday, September 8, 2008
An email to Jason Kenny
fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080908.welexspin0908/CommentStory/politics#comments
Apparently the moderators viewed my first post as unworthy.
Below is copy email I sent Mr. Kenny.
Is this one unworthy as well?
To: kennej@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:14 AM
Subject: Dion Integrity?
Mr. Kenny,
Heard your news conference this morning.
As one fat ____ to another, I'm curious: What does it feel like to sell your integrity so cheaply?
If anything, your repeated denunciations of Dion gives voters such as myself pause.
Should I really vote for the CPC again if all you are going to do is launch one facile attack after another?
Tell me how you are going to improve the lives of my family of six.
Stop playing the parliamentary bully.
Now, as when I was a schoolboy, I find it repulsive when the bully cannot control himself and insists on beating up on the weakest kid on the playground again and again.
Dion is not a threat- he will implode all by himself.
But, if you don't start telling us what you are going to do for the country longterm- I am going to park my vote elsewhere.
Sincerely,
* Posted 08/09/08 at 11:40 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Apparently the moderators viewed my first post as unworthy.
Below is copy email I sent Mr. Kenny.
Is this one unworthy as well?
To: kennej@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:14 AM
Subject: Dion Integrity?
Mr. Kenny,
Heard your news conference this morning.
As one fat ____ to another, I'm curious: What does it feel like to sell your integrity so cheaply?
If anything, your repeated denunciations of Dion gives voters such as myself pause.
Should I really vote for the CPC again if all you are going to do is launch one facile attack after another?
Tell me how you are going to improve the lives of my family of six.
Stop playing the parliamentary bully.
Now, as when I was a schoolboy, I find it repulsive when the bully cannot control himself and insists on beating up on the weakest kid on the playground again and again.
Dion is not a threat- he will implode all by himself.
But, if you don't start telling us what you are going to do for the country longterm- I am going to park my vote elsewhere.
Sincerely,
* Posted 08/09/08 at 11:40 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Query on Kristol comment
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/08/opinion/08kristol.html?s=2
Dear Moderator,
re: the comment pasted below I tried to post earlier. Was it deemed unworthy because I called Mr. Kristol a 'pompous priss'? If it was, my profuse apologies. At least I choose not to characterize him as a desperate intellectual master-bator.
If, on the other hand, the issue was my lack of a 'real name' - my name is _____ _______ of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
*** original post ***
Mr. Kristol,
Kudos! Obsfucation par excellence!
Granted there may be a few spurious media stories concerning Palin and her qualifications. Yet, for the most part the media is only asking one thing of Gov. Palin - forthright transparency on the issues.
Curiously, writers of your ilk see no problem with the fact that she refuses to speak for herself in an uncontrolled media setting?
What would you be saying if Biden was unavailable to one and all - save 'staged' events?
Doubt you would be so understanding you pompous priss!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Dear Moderator,
re: the comment pasted below I tried to post earlier. Was it deemed unworthy because I called Mr. Kristol a 'pompous priss'? If it was, my profuse apologies. At least I choose not to characterize him as a desperate intellectual master-bator.
If, on the other hand, the issue was my lack of a 'real name' - my name is _____ _______ of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
*** original post ***
Mr. Kristol,
Kudos! Obsfucation par excellence!
Granted there may be a few spurious media stories concerning Palin and her qualifications. Yet, for the most part the media is only asking one thing of Gov. Palin - forthright transparency on the issues.
Curiously, writers of your ilk see no problem with the fact that she refuses to speak for herself in an uncontrolled media setting?
What would you be saying if Biden was unavailable to one and all - save 'staged' events?
Doubt you would be so understanding you pompous priss!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Bill Kristol- Pompous Priss
from: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/08/opinion/08kristol.html?s=2
September 08, 2008 10:59 am
Mr. Kristol,
Kudos! Obsfucation par excellence!
Granted there may be a few spurious media stories concerning Palin and her qualifications. Yet, for the most part the media is only asking one thing of Gov. Palin - forthright transparency on the issues.
Curiously, writers of your ilk see no problem with the fact that she refuses to speak for herself in an uncontrolled media setting?
What would you be saying if Biden was unavailable to one and all - save 'staged' events?
Doubt you would be so understanding you pompous priss!
September 08, 2008 10:59 am
Mr. Kristol,
Kudos! Obsfucation par excellence!
Granted there may be a few spurious media stories concerning Palin and her qualifications. Yet, for the most part the media is only asking one thing of Gov. Palin - forthright transparency on the issues.
Curiously, writers of your ilk see no problem with the fact that she refuses to speak for herself in an uncontrolled media setting?
What would you be saying if Biden was unavailable to one and all - save 'staged' events?
Doubt you would be so understanding you pompous priss!
Harper's Family- so he loves them? Don't we all.
from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080907.welxnfamily08/CommentStory/politics/home#comment2472359
"Harper... is being painted as a father and a patriot."
Just because Mr. Harper has offspring which he loves does not preclude the fact that he may me wrong on all the big issues.
I too have progeny; but as my better-half keeps reminding me- it doesn't mean I am always right.
Better Mr. Harper should keep his family and their intimate loving and supportive relations out of the political spotlight and focus instead on the issues.... oh, I forgot, that's the one thing he doesn't want!
* Posted 08/09/08 at 10:22 AM EDT
"Harper... is being painted as a father and a patriot."
Just because Mr. Harper has offspring which he loves does not preclude the fact that he may me wrong on all the big issues.
I too have progeny; but as my better-half keeps reminding me- it doesn't mean I am always right.
Better Mr. Harper should keep his family and their intimate loving and supportive relations out of the political spotlight and focus instead on the issues.... oh, I forgot, that's the one thing he doesn't want!
* Posted 08/09/08 at 10:22 AM EDT
Sunday, September 7, 2008
George Will: "Feelings are facts"?
Georgie Boy!
Oh, Georgie Boy!
Here you go again, trying to obsfucate the obvious issue by proffering yet more blithe bafflegab. In the end, the result is always the same: more litter, more 'faux constructs', ... more pundit dung.
Seemingly, you will not be happy until you have covered the entire political discourse landscape with your fetid inanities. Again you have foisted upon us a potpourri of epic marginal value.
"But feelings are fact."???
Your assertion that individual 'feelings' are the empirical equivalent of hard data is absurd. Of course, one's 'beliefs' and 'feelings' are key indicators to how they will vote!
Egad! How did you manage to ferret out this wisdom nugget without divine inspiration?
To state that 'feelings' are an appropriate substitute for hard 'facts' is simply absurd.
We all know what you are really trying to do. You are trying to the convince the voter it is okay if they 'feel' like voting Republican - even if the 'facts' of the past eight years dispute the veracity of this inclination.
What you are really doing is counseling 'group-think' and ignorance. You want the 'feelings' of erstwhile Bushies to substitute for reason.
Clearly when you ask: "...are you better off than you were four years ago? That depends. On what? That, too, depends" - - you are talking out of an orifice usually reserved for other purposes. Only an Obsfucator such as yourself could possibly manage to get the orifice in question to perform double-duty as an oracle. Well done. But my 'feeling' is, it's time you wiped it clean.
Your column today reminds me of a movie review I read that characterized a 'Star Wars' installment as: "Turgid dialogue performed with faux emotion and a woodenness that wouldn't look out of place in the National Forest."
As Stan Lee used to say- 'nuff said'
Oh, Georgie Boy!
Here you go again, trying to obsfucate the obvious issue by proffering yet more blithe bafflegab. In the end, the result is always the same: more litter, more 'faux constructs', ... more pundit dung.
Seemingly, you will not be happy until you have covered the entire political discourse landscape with your fetid inanities. Again you have foisted upon us a potpourri of epic marginal value.
"But feelings are fact."???
Your assertion that individual 'feelings' are the empirical equivalent of hard data is absurd. Of course, one's 'beliefs' and 'feelings' are key indicators to how they will vote!
Egad! How did you manage to ferret out this wisdom nugget without divine inspiration?
To state that 'feelings' are an appropriate substitute for hard 'facts' is simply absurd.
We all know what you are really trying to do. You are trying to the convince the voter it is okay if they 'feel' like voting Republican - even if the 'facts' of the past eight years dispute the veracity of this inclination.
What you are really doing is counseling 'group-think' and ignorance. You want the 'feelings' of erstwhile Bushies to substitute for reason.
Clearly when you ask: "...are you better off than you were four years ago? That depends. On what? That, too, depends" - - you are talking out of an orifice usually reserved for other purposes. Only an Obsfucator such as yourself could possibly manage to get the orifice in question to perform double-duty as an oracle. Well done. But my 'feeling' is, it's time you wiped it clean.
Your column today reminds me of a movie review I read that characterized a 'Star Wars' installment as: "Turgid dialogue performed with faux emotion and a woodenness that wouldn't look out of place in the National Forest."
As Stan Lee used to say- 'nuff said'
Saturday, September 6, 2008
"Dad, you're just another Harperista!"
Rick,
Just finished reading your column after sending kids to bed- here's the trancript.
Me: "Okay guys, that's enough of this... time for bed."
Child 1: "But Dad, we're having such a good time playing cards and calling each other names- besides, it's early - today you said we could stay up later- why can't we stay up another hour?"
Me: "Cause I said so."
Child 1: "Daddy you sound like Harper."
Me: "What-da-ya-mean ... like Harper?"
Child 1: "Well, you're being bossy, petulant, beady-eyed, and dictatorial. And your bringing our card game to an untimely dissolution despite the fact you said we could stay up late."
Me; "Am not, like Harper, you guys are just getting too goofy and taking too much delight in my inability to win this game outright."
Child 2: "See Dad, you are too like Harper, you're mad cause you can't exert your will upon us."
Me: "No, I am not like Harper..."
Child 1: "True, he has lost weight recently... you haven't!"
Me: "Watch it!"
Child 2: "And, its the arrogance too, ..."
Me: "Hey, watch your mouth, I've told you before to keep your opinions to yourself..."
Child 1: "See Daddy... just like Harper...."
Me: "That's it. I know what's best for both you - I know when the time has come."
Child 2: "There you go again... your way or the highway!!!"
Me: "There you go again unfairly characterizing me!"
Child 1: "Geez, Dad, don't you get it? Your Steve's doppleganger! That's exactly what he's gonna be saying for the next five weeks!"
Child 2: "Yeah, Dad... what's up with that... who are you anyway?"
Me: "Do I have to get your mother?"
Child 1: "What is she? Your G.G.? Will her support make it okay for you to go back on your word."
Me: "That's enough, our household is not a democracy -its a benevolent dictatorship dammit!"
Child 1: "Oh Dad, you are sooo Harper. C'mon Stephane let's go... we can beat him at Go Fish tomorrow. Good night you old grump!"
Child 2: "Haper-ista!"
Just finished reading your column after sending kids to bed- here's the trancript.
Me: "Okay guys, that's enough of this... time for bed."
Child 1: "But Dad, we're having such a good time playing cards and calling each other names- besides, it's early - today you said we could stay up later- why can't we stay up another hour?"
Me: "Cause I said so."
Child 1: "Daddy you sound like Harper."
Me: "What-da-ya-mean ... like Harper?"
Child 1: "Well, you're being bossy, petulant, beady-eyed, and dictatorial. And your bringing our card game to an untimely dissolution despite the fact you said we could stay up late."
Me; "Am not, like Harper, you guys are just getting too goofy and taking too much delight in my inability to win this game outright."
Child 2: "See Dad, you are too like Harper, you're mad cause you can't exert your will upon us."
Me: "No, I am not like Harper..."
Child 1: "True, he has lost weight recently... you haven't!"
Me: "Watch it!"
Child 2: "And, its the arrogance too, ..."
Me: "Hey, watch your mouth, I've told you before to keep your opinions to yourself..."
Child 1: "See Daddy... just like Harper...."
Me: "That's it. I know what's best for both you - I know when the time has come."
Child 2: "There you go again... your way or the highway!!!"
Me: "There you go again unfairly characterizing me!"
Child 1: "Geez, Dad, don't you get it? Your Steve's doppleganger! That's exactly what he's gonna be saying for the next five weeks!"
Child 2: "Yeah, Dad... what's up with that... who are you anyway?"
Me: "Do I have to get your mother?"
Child 1: "What is she? Your G.G.? Will her support make it okay for you to go back on your word."
Me: "That's enough, our household is not a democracy -its a benevolent dictatorship dammit!"
Child 1: "Oh Dad, you are sooo Harper. C'mon Stephane let's go... we can beat him at Go Fish tomorrow. Good night you old grump!"
Child 2: "Haper-ista!"
NDP must step aside.
The NDP has always been the problem. A supporter for decades, it took me decades to realize it was doomed to remain the perennial third wheel in Canadian politics.
I now see it as an unprincipled shell of its former self. If the ghosts of Tommy Douglas or Mr. Lewis were to pass Slick Jack on the street they would shudder. Bluster is no substitute for coherent policy.
Until the NDP can articulate their platform into a digestible article of faith that voters can recognize immediately as a realistic alternative to the other two major parties they are fated to remain little more than the sorry rump of our political dysfunction.
By repeatedly trying to finesse their way into the hearts of Canadians via opportunistic proclamations alternating between abject outrage and earnest concern they do themselves a disservice. Time for them to either Stand & Deliver a meaningful message backed with substance- or sit this one out.
Anything less will be but another farce that nets them 14-17 seats.
Stand aside NDP- come back when you've found your groove.
* Posted 06/09/08 at 5:12 PM EDT
see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080902.wcomartin03/CommentStory/specialComment/#commentLatest
I now see it as an unprincipled shell of its former self. If the ghosts of Tommy Douglas or Mr. Lewis were to pass Slick Jack on the street they would shudder. Bluster is no substitute for coherent policy.
Until the NDP can articulate their platform into a digestible article of faith that voters can recognize immediately as a realistic alternative to the other two major parties they are fated to remain little more than the sorry rump of our political dysfunction.
By repeatedly trying to finesse their way into the hearts of Canadians via opportunistic proclamations alternating between abject outrage and earnest concern they do themselves a disservice. Time for them to either Stand & Deliver a meaningful message backed with substance- or sit this one out.
Anything less will be but another farce that nets them 14-17 seats.
Stand aside NDP- come back when you've found your groove.
* Posted 06/09/08 at 5:12 PM EDT
see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080902.wcomartin03/CommentStory/specialComment/#commentLatest
G&M post- musing on Harper Majority
The easiest way for the opposition to undercut the chances of a Harper majority is to make the CPC's lack of a clearly articulated "social platform" an issue.
By drawing attention to Conservative's penchant for offering Canadians little in the way of a forward looking social road map they may rouse enough suspicions to make the difference.
How do the CPC expect to rationalize their future budget items with the existing social safety status-quo?
If, the CPC claim the current status-quo is in need of alteration; fine, force them to identify what changes they plan on making.
Will Harper allow Medicare to be further eroded in a new term? will he do something about Big-Pharma? Will arts and culture funding be, yet again, slashed or hogtied to unreasonable regulations? Will he honour Canada's commitment to improve First Nations health? Will he expand support programs for new immigrants? Will he protect gender rights? Will he.... ?
The list, properly structured, could exploit the (not too unreasonable?) fears many voters have regarding life under a CPC majority. Further, use his own economic plan against him by placing it against the current social obligations the Government of Canada has with its citizens. Find the inconsistencies, highlight them and then expound upon them daily.
The economy, the environment, and 'leadership' are all players this year. But if one wishes to avoid a CPC majority- comparing and contrasting the differences on the social issues will pay the greatest dividends.
Humour.
An injection of humour and satire by the oppositions into their TV ads might also work. If Dion or the Green's could figure out the right mix they could have a field day poking fun at the staid CPC policies. One thing that won't work is if they predicate all their ads alarmist scenarios.
Finally, someone needs to lie to Jack Layton and tell him he must go campaign in Narnia to get the elf & fairy vote. Hopefully, he doesn't get back until after Oct. 14.
By drawing attention to Conservative's penchant for offering Canadians little in the way of a forward looking social road map they may rouse enough suspicions to make the difference.
How do the CPC expect to rationalize their future budget items with the existing social safety status-quo?
If, the CPC claim the current status-quo is in need of alteration; fine, force them to identify what changes they plan on making.
Will Harper allow Medicare to be further eroded in a new term? will he do something about Big-Pharma? Will arts and culture funding be, yet again, slashed or hogtied to unreasonable regulations? Will he honour Canada's commitment to improve First Nations health? Will he expand support programs for new immigrants? Will he protect gender rights? Will he.... ?
The list, properly structured, could exploit the (not too unreasonable?) fears many voters have regarding life under a CPC majority. Further, use his own economic plan against him by placing it against the current social obligations the Government of Canada has with its citizens. Find the inconsistencies, highlight them and then expound upon them daily.
The economy, the environment, and 'leadership' are all players this year. But if one wishes to avoid a CPC majority- comparing and contrasting the differences on the social issues will pay the greatest dividends.
Humour.
An injection of humour and satire by the oppositions into their TV ads might also work. If Dion or the Green's could figure out the right mix they could have a field day poking fun at the staid CPC policies. One thing that won't work is if they predicate all their ads alarmist scenarios.
Finally, someone needs to lie to Jack Layton and tell him he must go campaign in Narnia to get the elf & fairy vote. Hopefully, he doesn't get back until after Oct. 14.
Palin must speak- for herself.
Until Sarah Palin submits to unscripted media interviews we'll never find out what she really thinks - or knows.
Until Gov. Palin actually displays the same kind of unvarnished courage Sen. Clinton did during the primary season and makes herself available to the media on a regular basis, she will remain little more than an enigma - a GOP caricature of historic proportions.
The entire debate over her 'vetting' by McCain is now a moot point. The real 'vetting procedure' American voters are rightfully entitled to see carried out is her unqualified consent to submit to honest, open and unscripted interviews.
They need to see how she performs on her own before November's fateful decision in upon them. Otherwise, Gov. Palin will remain little more than an empty vessel. One into which the Republican base will continue to pour all its partisan hype and drivel leaving the rest of us to wonder if she is truly qualified to sit one heart beat away from the Oval Office.
Failure on her part to engage the American people via the media will simply foster an environment of suspicion. Moreover, it will give ditch-dwelling partisan pundits an opening to cast all sorts of unfounded aspersions on her character. Better she were to give them real substance to assess. More importantly, it would ensure voters did not remain ignorant of not just her social policy positions, and her grasp on international affairs - it would leave them with a basis upon which to make an informed choice.
I call upon the GOP's Mesmer's and backroom Geppetto's to cut her strings in order to give her a chance to prove she is a fully articulated politician like Hillary. Jiminy McCricket may not wish to see this happen - but it is time. What's the worse that could happen? Surely, her nose will not grow?
After all, if one is running for the second highest office in the land they must, by default, be considered 'fair game' for one and all.
Time she anted up to the podium- after all this isn't some fairy tale. She's in the big show now.
Until Gov. Palin actually displays the same kind of unvarnished courage Sen. Clinton did during the primary season and makes herself available to the media on a regular basis, she will remain little more than an enigma - a GOP caricature of historic proportions.
The entire debate over her 'vetting' by McCain is now a moot point. The real 'vetting procedure' American voters are rightfully entitled to see carried out is her unqualified consent to submit to honest, open and unscripted interviews.
They need to see how she performs on her own before November's fateful decision in upon them. Otherwise, Gov. Palin will remain little more than an empty vessel. One into which the Republican base will continue to pour all its partisan hype and drivel leaving the rest of us to wonder if she is truly qualified to sit one heart beat away from the Oval Office.
Failure on her part to engage the American people via the media will simply foster an environment of suspicion. Moreover, it will give ditch-dwelling partisan pundits an opening to cast all sorts of unfounded aspersions on her character. Better she were to give them real substance to assess. More importantly, it would ensure voters did not remain ignorant of not just her social policy positions, and her grasp on international affairs - it would leave them with a basis upon which to make an informed choice.
I call upon the GOP's Mesmer's and backroom Geppetto's to cut her strings in order to give her a chance to prove she is a fully articulated politician like Hillary. Jiminy McCricket may not wish to see this happen - but it is time. What's the worse that could happen? Surely, her nose will not grow?
After all, if one is running for the second highest office in the land they must, by default, be considered 'fair game' for one and all.
Time she anted up to the podium- after all this isn't some fairy tale. She's in the big show now.
"Fair Game"
Any comparison between Clinton's treatment at the hands of the media to the Palin Paradox is like comparing apples to oranges.
Until Sarah Palin submits to unscripted media interviews we'll never find out what she really knows - or thinks.
"Fair game" is only a useful comparative construct when the criteria used to measure the answer applies to both parties.
Until Gov. Palin actually displays the same kind of unvarnished courage Sen. Clinton did during the primary season and makes herself available to the media on a regular basis, she will remain little more than an enigma - a GOP caricature of historic proportions.
The entire debate over her 'vetting' by McCain is now a moot point. The real 'vetting procedure' American voters are rightfully entitled to see carried out is her unqualified consent to submit to honest, open and unscripted interviews. They need to see how she performs on her own before November's fateful decision in upon them. Otherwise, Gov. Palin will remain little more than an empty vessel. One into which the Republican base will continue to pour all its partisan hype and drivel leaving the rest of us to wonder if she is truly qualified to sit one heart beat away from the Oval Office.
Failure on her part to engage the American people via the media will, of course, leave the 'fair game' conundrum unresolved. Yet, more importantly, it will leave voters ignorant of not just her social policy positions and her grasp on international affairs - it will leave them without a basis upon which to make an informed choice.
To fix this problem, the backroom GOP Geppetto's must cut her strings and give her a chance to prove she is a fully articulated politician like Hillary. Jiminy McCricket may not wish to see this happen - but it is time.
After all, if one is running for the second highest office in the land they must, by default, be considered 'fair game' for one and all.
Until Sarah Palin submits to unscripted media interviews we'll never find out what she really knows - or thinks.
"Fair game" is only a useful comparative construct when the criteria used to measure the answer applies to both parties.
Until Gov. Palin actually displays the same kind of unvarnished courage Sen. Clinton did during the primary season and makes herself available to the media on a regular basis, she will remain little more than an enigma - a GOP caricature of historic proportions.
The entire debate over her 'vetting' by McCain is now a moot point. The real 'vetting procedure' American voters are rightfully entitled to see carried out is her unqualified consent to submit to honest, open and unscripted interviews. They need to see how she performs on her own before November's fateful decision in upon them. Otherwise, Gov. Palin will remain little more than an empty vessel. One into which the Republican base will continue to pour all its partisan hype and drivel leaving the rest of us to wonder if she is truly qualified to sit one heart beat away from the Oval Office.
Failure on her part to engage the American people via the media will, of course, leave the 'fair game' conundrum unresolved. Yet, more importantly, it will leave voters ignorant of not just her social policy positions and her grasp on international affairs - it will leave them without a basis upon which to make an informed choice.
To fix this problem, the backroom GOP Geppetto's must cut her strings and give her a chance to prove she is a fully articulated politician like Hillary. Jiminy McCricket may not wish to see this happen - but it is time.
After all, if one is running for the second highest office in the land they must, by default, be considered 'fair game' for one and all.
Friday, September 5, 2008
A Speech not be forgotten.
My God, what a powerful acceptance speech the world witnessed.
Reflecting on the nominee’s RNC speech before the party faithful, one cannot but be stirred by the promise to deliver “change” and “usher in an era of responsibility.” Only a man with such a distinguished record could possibly “lead this nation to a responsibility era, [in which] a president himself must be responsible.” Moreover, it must be admitted that the pledge “to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect”, is long overdue. All voters need take heart in the Republican candidate’s firm promise “to confront problems, not pass them on to others.”
The integrity of the man and his qualifications are, of course, beyond reproach. He has every right to tell us he is “proud” of his record. We must believe him when he says he is “prepared for the work ahead.” He is deserving of our “trust”; if we give him a “mandate” we can be sure he will “honor it” and “use it” to the best of his abilities. Take him at his word, give him “the opportunity to lead this nation” and we can rest assured that he “will lead”.
Finally, in the face of pressing economic challenges, his deep conviction in the need to change the status-quo resonates. His subsequent pledge to, “renew our values” in order “to restore our country” its dignity must be accorded respect. The voters would be well advised to put their trust in a man such as this.
His courage in saying the taint of the previous eight years must not be allowed to stand and the steely determination in his eyes cannot be discounted. We must believe him when he says: “My fellow citizens, we can begin again. After all of the shouting, and all of the scandal. After all of the bitterness and broken faith. We can begin again.”
Too bad, all of the quoted material above came from G.W. Bush's RNC acceptance speech on August 3, 2000?
Oh the irony!
“Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice....”
Reflecting on the nominee’s RNC speech before the party faithful, one cannot but be stirred by the promise to deliver “change” and “usher in an era of responsibility.” Only a man with such a distinguished record could possibly “lead this nation to a responsibility era, [in which] a president himself must be responsible.” Moreover, it must be admitted that the pledge “to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect”, is long overdue. All voters need take heart in the Republican candidate’s firm promise “to confront problems, not pass them on to others.”
The integrity of the man and his qualifications are, of course, beyond reproach. He has every right to tell us he is “proud” of his record. We must believe him when he says he is “prepared for the work ahead.” He is deserving of our “trust”; if we give him a “mandate” we can be sure he will “honor it” and “use it” to the best of his abilities. Take him at his word, give him “the opportunity to lead this nation” and we can rest assured that he “will lead”.
Finally, in the face of pressing economic challenges, his deep conviction in the need to change the status-quo resonates. His subsequent pledge to, “renew our values” in order “to restore our country” its dignity must be accorded respect. The voters would be well advised to put their trust in a man such as this.
His courage in saying the taint of the previous eight years must not be allowed to stand and the steely determination in his eyes cannot be discounted. We must believe him when he says: “My fellow citizens, we can begin again. After all of the shouting, and all of the scandal. After all of the bitterness and broken faith. We can begin again.”
Too bad, all of the quoted material above came from G.W. Bush's RNC acceptance speech on August 3, 2000?
Oh the irony!
“Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice....”
Thursday, September 4, 2008
THIS JUST IN ... EMBARGOED DRAFT OF JOHN MCCAIN’s ACCEPTANCE SPEECH!!!!
*** To be delivered before the RNC at 10:15pm EST***
JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you! Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you! No really, thank you... [Note to self: wait for applause to subside- keep smiling- don’t get impatient- careful- don’t look too eager.]
Really thank you. Thank you ... [Note to self: keep smiling - wave awkwardly- blow a kiss or two - only to the women of course.]
First I would like to thank, Generic Talker, for that very wonderful introduction, and I'm very pleased to be here tonight despite the bias of the media and their unending efforts to obscure and under-report the true nature of our gathering. I am, of course, widely known for my discretion, and as such, I will not stoop to their bottom feeding level by unleashing another blistering tirade against all those elite pundits who sit behind these hundreds of camera’s pointing at me right now. Instead, let me say this: the liberal media is not giving our convention the attention it deserves, but when I become president I’ll fix this problem once and for all.
[insane applause]
My whole life I have fought against the power of the biased press.
[more insane applause- amid shouts of 'Patriot, Patriot, Patriot']
Nobody in the GOP party knows better than I the prison like atmosphere in the media Green Rooms across this land. I am speaking, of course, of shows like: Face the Nation, MTP, This Week, CNN, SNL, Hardball, The View, Leno, Letterman, Conan, Colbert, and, of course, the Daily Show. Only via years of stealthy undercover research have I been able to uncover the duplicitous nature of the judgmental evil that feeds these prejudiced productions. And as your president I will send all those prying, mambi-pambi, Ivy League, big cable sucking, think-their-smart-and-not-so-funny elitists to Gitmo. I know I promised to close it - but, hard times call for harsh measures! Those preening, well read, well spoken, holier-than-thou, crypto-liberal JOURNALISTAS who pollute our political landscape with opinions, balance, insight, and analysis they dare call ‘The News’ must realize their time of privilege in our America is over, ... yeah, that’s right, ... in a John McCain America they will have no place - their skills no longer required.
[absolutely insane applause]
Our democracy is strong, our foundation is good. We must put an end to this bias before it does our country any further harm.
As that great political thinker, Chauncey Gardner, once said, “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.” And I say to you this night that all is good in our garden! Our garden no longer needs ‘press-pests’ who only bring us only the disease of discourse. Our garden is fertile, our garden is glorious “we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature,” and while currently “upset by the seasons of our economy” – it is no reason we must suffer at the hands of these sly media-minions. “Growth has it seasons” and with me as your leader I will ensure that under my sustained tax cuts for the highest fruit in our garden there will be no need to tend to the soil. You will see, ... just wait, “There will be growth in the spring!” and the soil, the soil will take care of itself.
[psychotic applause]
As POTUS I will see to it that every red-blooded American gets his news from where God intended: Rush Limbaugh, FOX and reality television.....err... Hey what’s going on? ... Hey, ... hey,...
HEY, wait a minute, where do you think you guys are going with those cameras? Hey? What? What?... What do you mean you don’t have play in my garden if you don’t want to? Hey... come back, ... come back,... stop them... come back herrrreee.... “
[FADE TO BLACK]
JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you! Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you! No really, thank you... [Note to self: wait for applause to subside- keep smiling- don’t get impatient- careful- don’t look too eager.]
Really thank you. Thank you ... [Note to self: keep smiling - wave awkwardly- blow a kiss or two - only to the women of course.]
First I would like to thank, Generic Talker, for that very wonderful introduction, and I'm very pleased to be here tonight despite the bias of the media and their unending efforts to obscure and under-report the true nature of our gathering. I am, of course, widely known for my discretion, and as such, I will not stoop to their bottom feeding level by unleashing another blistering tirade against all those elite pundits who sit behind these hundreds of camera’s pointing at me right now. Instead, let me say this: the liberal media is not giving our convention the attention it deserves, but when I become president I’ll fix this problem once and for all.
[insane applause]
My whole life I have fought against the power of the biased press.
[more insane applause- amid shouts of 'Patriot, Patriot, Patriot']
Nobody in the GOP party knows better than I the prison like atmosphere in the media Green Rooms across this land. I am speaking, of course, of shows like: Face the Nation, MTP, This Week, CNN, SNL, Hardball, The View, Leno, Letterman, Conan, Colbert, and, of course, the Daily Show. Only via years of stealthy undercover research have I been able to uncover the duplicitous nature of the judgmental evil that feeds these prejudiced productions. And as your president I will send all those prying, mambi-pambi, Ivy League, big cable sucking, think-their-smart-and-not-so-funny elitists to Gitmo. I know I promised to close it - but, hard times call for harsh measures! Those preening, well read, well spoken, holier-than-thou, crypto-liberal JOURNALISTAS who pollute our political landscape with opinions, balance, insight, and analysis they dare call ‘The News’ must realize their time of privilege in our America is over, ... yeah, that’s right, ... in a John McCain America they will have no place - their skills no longer required.
[absolutely insane applause]
Our democracy is strong, our foundation is good. We must put an end to this bias before it does our country any further harm.
As that great political thinker, Chauncey Gardner, once said, “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.” And I say to you this night that all is good in our garden! Our garden no longer needs ‘press-pests’ who only bring us only the disease of discourse. Our garden is fertile, our garden is glorious “we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature,” and while currently “upset by the seasons of our economy” – it is no reason we must suffer at the hands of these sly media-minions. “Growth has it seasons” and with me as your leader I will ensure that under my sustained tax cuts for the highest fruit in our garden there will be no need to tend to the soil. You will see, ... just wait, “There will be growth in the spring!” and the soil, the soil will take care of itself.
[psychotic applause]
As POTUS I will see to it that every red-blooded American gets his news from where God intended: Rush Limbaugh, FOX and reality television.....err... Hey what’s going on? ... Hey, ... hey,...
HEY, wait a minute, where do you think you guys are going with those cameras? Hey? What? What?... What do you mean you don’t have play in my garden if you don’t want to? Hey... come back, ... come back,... stop them... come back herrrreee.... “
[FADE TO BLACK]
Dion's Wpg Speech
fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080903.wcomartin04/CommentStory/specialComment/home
Watched Dion's address today on TV.
Oddly, I was pleasantly, surprised by his performance.
No, really... seriously, ... c'mon, stop laughing!
True, his command of English is still horrific. True, when he talks too fast he elides over so many syllables that he becomes virtually unintelligible. True, his skinny neck and slim head remind me of an ET-esque character. But, when he took his time speaking today, I could understand him - - and maybe, ... just maybe, there is a method to his linguistically challenged madness.
The argument he advanced against renewing Harper's mandate was cogent. If one's a Lib (I am not) then they may take some solace.
I suppose if you read the speech in text form and looked solely at its construct and thematic development then a case could be made that the Liberal narrative has possibilities.
In fact, it may even be capable of giving our PM 'Achieve Steve' a run for his ... ah, ... there I go again, ... dreaming in techno-colour.
Oh well, better a dream than another Orwellian nightmare inspired by the very thought a Harper majority.
Blessed-Buddha, is there nothing we can do to avoid this fate?
As for the NDP, can't Slick Jack be imposed upon not to split the anti-Harper vote?
Maybe he could ally his party with the Green's? Of course, Elizabeth May would necessarily have to be the leader of any new coalition. As Jack is pathologically incapable of doing little more in an election campaign than generating empty nauseating bluster.
p.s. Am I the only one who worries that one day, as Slick Jack beats his chest in indignation (over this, that, or the other thing) in a media scrum that one of those odd veins on the side of his temple is suddenly just going to explode? Just curious?
Watched Dion's address today on TV.
Oddly, I was pleasantly, surprised by his performance.
No, really... seriously, ... c'mon, stop laughing!
True, his command of English is still horrific. True, when he talks too fast he elides over so many syllables that he becomes virtually unintelligible. True, his skinny neck and slim head remind me of an ET-esque character. But, when he took his time speaking today, I could understand him - - and maybe, ... just maybe, there is a method to his linguistically challenged madness.
The argument he advanced against renewing Harper's mandate was cogent. If one's a Lib (I am not) then they may take some solace.
I suppose if you read the speech in text form and looked solely at its construct and thematic development then a case could be made that the Liberal narrative has possibilities.
In fact, it may even be capable of giving our PM 'Achieve Steve' a run for his ... ah, ... there I go again, ... dreaming in techno-colour.
Oh well, better a dream than another Orwellian nightmare inspired by the very thought a Harper majority.
Blessed-Buddha, is there nothing we can do to avoid this fate?
As for the NDP, can't Slick Jack be imposed upon not to split the anti-Harper vote?
Maybe he could ally his party with the Green's? Of course, Elizabeth May would necessarily have to be the leader of any new coalition. As Jack is pathologically incapable of doing little more in an election campaign than generating empty nauseating bluster.
p.s. Am I the only one who worries that one day, as Slick Jack beats his chest in indignation (over this, that, or the other thing) in a media scrum that one of those odd veins on the side of his temple is suddenly just going to explode? Just curious?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
