It's Friday, and I feel I ought to post something, so I'll transfer a comment I made over at Dusty's to here.
So Scott McClellan has written a "scathing" tell-all book.
Oooooo.
Forgive me if I'm less than impressed if yet another rat from the sinking ship uses yet another book of denial to distance himself from the wreck SS BushCo.
So he made some "nasty" accusations, did he? Like what? BushCo used propaganda to advance the war? I'm pretty sure we knew that, though, didnt we. Hmmmm, Scooter Libbey and Turdblossom conspired during Plamegate? Really! What a shock! (NOT). You say the Bush White House was in constant "campaign mode", rather than worrying about real policy? As opposed to who? Congress? Constant campaigning is pretty much SOP in politics, anymore, isnt it?
Hey, Scotty! How about you bring some actual documentation to Congress, the kind of actionable evidence that we can use to nail those bastards. Then I'll be impressed (maybe your copies of the missing White House e-mails - that'd be nice). Anything leading to making impeachment seem imperative would be just peachy.
Sorry folks, but what we've got here is another accomplice trying to make a deal with the DA by ratting out the guys who "planned" the whole thing. Never mind that all those plans would have come to naught, had the "masterminds" had no one to work with.
You know what the saddest part of this tell-all is, though? That even though there's very little new information in it, there is a group of people who only now will say, "gee, maybe the white house is filled with weasels". And with each tell-all, the number of true believers will be whittled down a little more. The sad part is that it takes a tell-all from a co-conspirator in order to make people see the truth, when it's pretty much out there in plain sight. The sadder part is that there are those that still cannot see it.
So far the only administration tell-all that I've had any love for was David Kuo's (disclosure: I havent read it, I just appreciate it's existence).
Friday, May 30, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
to serve our nation
Okay, for this Memorial Day, I'd like to do something a little bit different: I'd like to call for the reinstatement of the draft.
One recurrent complaint about this war has been that the public has not really been touched by it, only that small segment (often of the lowest classes) that contribute to the military. Another complaint has been in the falling enrollment in the military (i.e., people voting against the war with their lack of enlistment in our all-volunteer armed forces). Both of these problems could be solved by bringing back National Service.
But this time, let's do it right. One of the reasons we dropped it in the first place was that by the time of the Viet Nam war, the only people actually being drafted were, for the most part, ethnic minorities and the poor. Wealthier candidates, such as our beloved Vice Tyrant, managed to weasel out of serving any time, while many other wealthy individuals managed to wrangle positions involving such burdens as flying a fighter jet in a peaceful American backwater.
So this time, NO EXCEPTIONS to National Service.
Now, that doesnt necessarily mean that everyone must serve in the military. I see no reason why we cannot make the fighting portion of the military continue to be voluntary. But how about all the support staff? How about a lot of the positions that have been farmed out to for-profit contractors? Why not man those positions with conscripts instead? It cannot cost more than contractors do, and I'm sure that there will be a lot less fraud (and if there is fraud, it might actually get prosecuted).
But what if, say, you have a loathing for the military in general, or are an avowed pacifist, or maybe you just have a love for your country that you'd like to express while dressing in some other color than green? How's about we bring back some form of the WPA?
After decades of neglect, our infrastructure is crumbling, our parks and highways are untended, our welfare recipients are both overpaid and underserved. Imagine, if you will, the amount that could be accomplished by millions of people all serving this great nation, either through simple manual labor, or tutoring of school children, or working in soup kitchens and meals-on-wheels programs, or helping to build schools and recreational facilities, or engaging in outreach programs for elderly, handicapped and disadvantaged peoples, or planting trees to combat carbon levels, or operating medical clinics in underserved areas, or, yes, through fighting, and perhaps dying, when their country calls them to.
And, as I said, EVERYONE will serve. No more Dick Cheneys (though there will certainly be George Bushes - some things you cannot change, though you dont have to elect them president). And when you serve can be left up to you, whether it's before college when you just want to get out and away from home, or after you graduate from college and are ready to use you newly-learned skills for the benefit of Americans everywhere.
At a time when the economy is tanking, and shows a distinct danger of collapsing to lows not seen in decades, the employment that such a program would provide, combined with the low cost of such services (because we all know that when budget-cutting time comes, public services are the first to go) would be a helpful boon to a hurting nation.
And the awareness that such a program might bring, that we all belong to the nation, would be invaluable. Maybe then Memorial Day would mean more than a day off and the Indy 500 for most people.
One recurrent complaint about this war has been that the public has not really been touched by it, only that small segment (often of the lowest classes) that contribute to the military. Another complaint has been in the falling enrollment in the military (i.e., people voting against the war with their lack of enlistment in our all-volunteer armed forces). Both of these problems could be solved by bringing back National Service.
But this time, let's do it right. One of the reasons we dropped it in the first place was that by the time of the Viet Nam war, the only people actually being drafted were, for the most part, ethnic minorities and the poor. Wealthier candidates, such as our beloved Vice Tyrant, managed to weasel out of serving any time, while many other wealthy individuals managed to wrangle positions involving such burdens as flying a fighter jet in a peaceful American backwater.So this time, NO EXCEPTIONS to National Service.
Now, that doesnt necessarily mean that everyone must serve in the military. I see no reason why we cannot make the fighting portion of the military continue to be voluntary. But how about all the support staff? How about a lot of the positions that have been farmed out to for-profit contractors? Why not man those positions with conscripts instead? It cannot cost more than contractors do, and I'm sure that there will be a lot less fraud (and if there is fraud, it might actually get prosecuted).
But what if, say, you have a loathing for the military in general, or are an avowed pacifist, or maybe you just have a love for your country that you'd like to express while dressing in some other color than green? How's about we bring back some form of the WPA? After decades of neglect, our infrastructure is crumbling, our parks and highways are untended, our welfare recipients are both overpaid and underserved. Imagine, if you will, the amount that could be accomplished by millions of people all serving this great nation, either through simple manual labor, or tutoring of school children, or working in soup kitchens and meals-on-wheels programs, or helping to build schools and recreational facilities, or engaging in outreach programs for elderly, handicapped and disadvantaged peoples, or planting trees to combat carbon levels, or operating medical clinics in underserved areas, or, yes, through fighting, and perhaps dying, when their country calls them to.
And, as I said, EVERYONE will serve. No more Dick Cheneys (though there will certainly be George Bushes - some things you cannot change, though you dont have to elect them president). And when you serve can be left up to you, whether it's before college when you just want to get out and away from home, or after you graduate from college and are ready to use you newly-learned skills for the benefit of Americans everywhere.
At a time when the economy is tanking, and shows a distinct danger of collapsing to lows not seen in decades, the employment that such a program would provide, combined with the low cost of such services (because we all know that when budget-cutting time comes, public services are the first to go) would be a helpful boon to a hurting nation.
And the awareness that such a program might bring, that we all belong to the nation, would be invaluable. Maybe then Memorial Day would mean more than a day off and the Indy 500 for most people.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
daveaway jones
If you been jonesing for some Davewriting, well, I've been away from home, spilling my mental seed on someone else's blog...
Is that gross? Sorry.
Is that gross? Sorry.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
sunday funny
I dont know if you watch Reaper or not, but two of the characters were having an argument on it about which was better, Garfield or Heathcliff. A quarter century ago, I would have said Garfield, which I recall being really funny once upon a time. Alas, no more.
On the other hand, had they been arguing Garfield Minus Garfield, there would have been no contest whatsoever, because the strip is sheer genius. Okay, sorry, massive hyperbole there, my bad. But it is pretty damn funny.
It's also an example of how really cool things just pop out of the internets faucets from time to time, this one courtesy of a comment by Steve Ely. Thanks, Steve!
On the other hand, had they been arguing Garfield Minus Garfield, there would have been no contest whatsoever, because the strip is sheer genius. Okay, sorry, massive hyperbole there, my bad. But it is pretty damn funny.
It's also an example of how really cool things just pop out of the internets faucets from time to time, this one courtesy of a comment by Steve Ely. Thanks, Steve!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
sunday at the movies
If you grew up with Kermit the Frog and the Muppets (and you probably did) and your soul hasnt been twisted by carefully studied "coolness", then they've probably left some sort of rainbow and daffodil presence in your heart of hearts. Go on, admit it.
Well, this will either feed that a shot of cheap gin, or kill it outright.
Dont say you werent warned.
There's more Sad Kermit here.
Props to Everybody Cares, Everybody Understands.
Well, this will either feed that a shot of cheap gin, or kill it outright.
Dont say you werent warned.
There's more Sad Kermit here.
Props to Everybody Cares, Everybody Understands.
Friday, May 09, 2008
musings
Why do people believe that Republicans are going to do anything about illegal immigration? If anything is true about the Republican Party, it is that it is first and foremost the party of Capitalism, and that means money. It doesnt take much vision to see that whatever walk they may walk, their "social" legislation never gets in the way of those with money making more money, and illegal immigration makes money. In fact, to the pure Capitalist, anything that does not make a maximum profit is considered unethical, which is why corporate buyouts often occur even when said buyout is bad for everybody but the stockholders.
Okay, I've got a question: In a polygamist society, it seems like you'd have a lot of disaffected unmarried men, since in all of them that I've heard of, it's only good for the gander, not the goose. This means that if the practice were widespread, you'd either have a lot of lonely, angry, single men or a lot of cheating. Seems to me that polygamy only works if the practicing group is small and has an adjacent society to siphon women-folk off from.
Or maybe it works just like money, wherein the guys with all the money get all the girls, (in addition to everything else). When you come right down to it, Republicans ought to be in favor of polygamy, since it's really just sexual capitalism. To insist on "One Man/One Woman" smacks a bit of socialism, doesnt it?
Can you see a time in the future when governments such as Burmas are charged with crimes against humanity, and world powers step in to eliminate the problem? No? Me neither. Seems like a good idea, though. I mean, if there was a city in your state being run by a criminal gang, you'd expect the state cops, if not the FBI, to bust up the gang and return the city to the people's control (Hey! Stop that snickering! Dont think I dont hear you). Call it humanitarian colonialism, where instead of invading a country to steal its resources, we do so to eliminate human suffering.
If Barack Obama loses the nomination and/or the election, it will be because he's played the gentleman card, and in America, the concept of gentlemanly behavior is dead. We've decided that gentlemen are "elitists" and would rather have oafs and bullies make our decisions. Take that England!
Okay, I've got a question: In a polygamist society, it seems like you'd have a lot of disaffected unmarried men, since in all of them that I've heard of, it's only good for the gander, not the goose. This means that if the practice were widespread, you'd either have a lot of lonely, angry, single men or a lot of cheating. Seems to me that polygamy only works if the practicing group is small and has an adjacent society to siphon women-folk off from.
Or maybe it works just like money, wherein the guys with all the money get all the girls, (in addition to everything else). When you come right down to it, Republicans ought to be in favor of polygamy, since it's really just sexual capitalism. To insist on "One Man/One Woman" smacks a bit of socialism, doesnt it?
Can you see a time in the future when governments such as Burmas are charged with crimes against humanity, and world powers step in to eliminate the problem? No? Me neither. Seems like a good idea, though. I mean, if there was a city in your state being run by a criminal gang, you'd expect the state cops, if not the FBI, to bust up the gang and return the city to the people's control (Hey! Stop that snickering! Dont think I dont hear you). Call it humanitarian colonialism, where instead of invading a country to steal its resources, we do so to eliminate human suffering.
If Barack Obama loses the nomination and/or the election, it will be because he's played the gentleman card, and in America, the concept of gentlemanly behavior is dead. We've decided that gentlemen are "elitists" and would rather have oafs and bullies make our decisions. Take that England!
You Are Punk Music |
 You've thought long and hard about what mainstream society has to offer... And you've pretty much decided that most normal things aren't for you. You're creative, expressive, and likely to do things yourself. You are a rebel and a fighter. You'll defend your point of view to anyone. |
props to Lydia
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
quick note
Sunday, May 04, 2008
sunday night at the movies
glumbert - He's Dead Jim
You know, I surely loves me some Star Trek (as you may recall).
props to Pooby
Saturday, May 03, 2008
change
Is it just me, or is nobody reading this thing anymore? Sitemeter is discouraging, seems that if it werent for my I-pod post of a while back, and that one about popsicle stick trebuches, I'd hardly get any hits at all.
Maybe it's the time of year... Nope, just checked, and last year was chock full'o comments.
sigh. Listen to me, feelin' all sorry for myself.
Maybe if I wrote something remotely interesting from time to time.
Anyway, a new header for the current reality.
Maybe it's the time of year... Nope, just checked, and last year was chock full'o comments.
sigh. Listen to me, feelin' all sorry for myself.
Maybe if I wrote something remotely interesting from time to time.
Anyway, a new header for the current reality.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
musings
Lately I've been too busy (or too tired) to post, but here are some random thoughts that might make the cut to formal post stage someday:
1) Isnt it funny that Republicans seem to hate Muslims so much? Because, in all the world, is there anyplace more conservative than the Muslim part of it? They seems like natural allies.
2) Christianity basically says that God sent his only child to earth to be tortured to death for the purpose of providing a portal for humans to enter Heaven through. This they believe to be true, and yet so many of them resist the idea that millions of years worth of buried CO2, pulled from the earth and burned into the atmosphere, is causing the planet to warm up. Which is the crazier story?
3) Maybe it should be no surprise that religion is involved in national politics. After all, isnt pretty much everything that we know about the national scene second-hand information, at best. We personally witness very little, and so have to take the word of others on what's happening. How does that differ from religion?
4) All anyone has are a few facts gathered in the now. Everything else has been colored by memory or has been recieved second-hand (at best). Truly, even things you witness right now are filtered through your own prejudices and beliefs, and so will be seen differently by someone else. The point here is that we all have merely a shadowy idea of what's going on that's only half-informed. Everything else is filled in by our imagination. It is myth-making. We tell ourselves stories, and believe them to be truth.
Feel free to agree or to tear into me.
1) Isnt it funny that Republicans seem to hate Muslims so much? Because, in all the world, is there anyplace more conservative than the Muslim part of it? They seems like natural allies.
2) Christianity basically says that God sent his only child to earth to be tortured to death for the purpose of providing a portal for humans to enter Heaven through. This they believe to be true, and yet so many of them resist the idea that millions of years worth of buried CO2, pulled from the earth and burned into the atmosphere, is causing the planet to warm up. Which is the crazier story?
3) Maybe it should be no surprise that religion is involved in national politics. After all, isnt pretty much everything that we know about the national scene second-hand information, at best. We personally witness very little, and so have to take the word of others on what's happening. How does that differ from religion?
4) All anyone has are a few facts gathered in the now. Everything else has been colored by memory or has been recieved second-hand (at best). Truly, even things you witness right now are filtered through your own prejudices and beliefs, and so will be seen differently by someone else. The point here is that we all have merely a shadowy idea of what's going on that's only half-informed. Everything else is filled in by our imagination. It is myth-making. We tell ourselves stories, and believe them to be truth.
Feel free to agree or to tear into me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
