He's at it again. Just like his asinine remarks after 9/11 where he agreed with the charlatan "minister" Jerry Falwell when he said 9/11 was caused by feminists and gays, Robertson has pronounced on his scam "700 Club" show that the Haitian earthquake is the result of the Haitians having made a "pact with the devil" two centuries ago.
Here is the report:
Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal.
Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other"
This miserable Gantryite piles on the poor Haitian people by suggesting that God is punishing them for something that happened centuries ago?
While all people of compassion and good will, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, are trying to help the injured, the sick, and the dying, this jackass used his position as a "Christian" spokesman to blame the afflicted for this catastrophe.
Pat Robertson is a fool and beyond contempt and is no more a "Christian" than is the devil he stupidly believes in.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Pathologizing Dissent, or Deja Vu All Over Again
Hendrik Hertzberg, from The New Yorker magazine, whose political commentary I usually enjoy and agree with, has just added himself to the growing and not-so-illustrious line of those who mock and dismiss critics of our so-called health care reform bill, in his piece aptly titled -- because of its unintentional self-mockery -- Um, Pathetic.
To his credit, Hertzberg, somewhat reluctantly, admits that the bill has “conspicuous flaws,” but he breezily absolves our lawmakers of their responsibility for them, maintaining, rather unconvincingly, that our Congress is an inanimate entity, impervious to human feelings, thoughts, or intentions.
A curious observation, that, especially in light of the various astounding concessions our supposedly unfeeling and unthinking Senators (OK, there may be some truth to it) were able to intentionally finagle for their votes. For example, the sweet and jaw-dropping Medicaid deal for Nebraska secured by just one (allegedly unfeeling and unthinking) individual Senator, Ben Nelson. Or a mind-boggling provision giving Medicare benefits to all citizens of one town in Montana, obtained by Senator Baucus. (This begs an obvious question: if it can be done for all citizens of one whole town, why not for all citizens of our country?)
For an inanimate, unfeeling entity, the Senate members have shown remarkable, life-like nimbleness and skills in securing favorable concessions on their own behalf (because, let’s face it, they were negotiated with an eye on their upcoming elections).
Furthermore, Hertzberg does something even more unsavory in his attempt to excuse the Senate and President Obama from bearing responsibility for the "conspicuous flaws" of this bill: he joins the chorus of those who pathologize dissenting critics, even though his attempts at this untoward exercise are somewhat less heavy-handed than those done by the White House.
But Hertzberg too ridicules people like Howard Dean (whom the White House called “insane,” “irrational” and “uninformed”), Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, Ralph Nader, and others. Not that he gives any space in his column to discussing the merits of their criticisms – he dismisses them off hand, attributing to the critics' thinking a “pathetic fallacy:" that of considering our Congress to be populated by living and breathing human beings.
Hertzberg says,
The pathetic fallacy is a category mistake. It’s the false attribution of human feelings, thoughts, or intentions to inanimate objects, or to living entities that cannot possibly have such feelings, thoughts, or intentions—cruel seas, dancing leaves, hot air that “wants” to rise.
Ah, yes, cruel seas and dancing leaves. Just like our Congress.
To think of it, accusing one of cultivating a “pathetic fallacy” is only a tiny bit less offensive, if at all, than calling one “insane” (as it was done to Howard Dean). But the overall message is the same: the critics of the insurance reform must be, well - what’s the word? – crazy. Their thinking is seriously and "pathetically" compromised. That’s the diagnosis at which Hertzberg and others in his camp arrive without giving any consideration to the merits of the critics’ objections.
For some of us, this trend to pathologize dissent has the familiar aura of the way the Soviet government dealt with its critics, labeling them psychotic if they dared to voice their opposition to its policies. The next step was forced hospitalization and “treatment” – thankfully, Hertzberg et al. are not advocating that. Yet.
Instead, they issue soothing assurances from experts, like Paul Krugman who calls this massive and mandatory transfer of the American working and middle-class into the hands of private corporations “a great achievement.”
Reasonable people disagree on this. Rather than “establishing the principle that all Americans are entitled to essential health care,” as Krugman says (quoted by Hertzberg), the bill clearly establishes that all Americans are to be sacrificed like lambs on the altars of the corporate profits – or be punished if they refuse to participate in the sacrifice.
Call it what you will, but please do not call it a “great achievement,” or, even worse, a historic health care overhaul, as our grandiose and self-serving lawmakers and pundits are prone to do. That’s as offensive and possibly harmful as being diagnosed insane for pointing out the unpalatable obvious.
Hertzberg also compares the current legislation to the troubled and imperfect process of enacting Medicare under, first, Kennedy, and then Lyndon Johnson, as if forgetting that Medicare is a government-run program and not yet another corporate enterprise (which is what this health insurance reform effectively turns our health care into).
He lectures angry progressives, in the condescending manner of one who can so capably point out others' pathetic fallacies, that their indignation would be better directed at what an earlier generation of malcontents called “the system”—starting, perhaps, with the Senate’s filibuster rule, an inanimate object if there ever was one.
Curiously, or not at all, somehow Hertzberg does not seem to appreciate a possible fallacy creeping into his own reasoning -- that trying to change "the system" is only slightly more challenging than trying to change individual minds of "the system's" members.
But you know what they say: one man's fallacy is another's New Yorker's commentary.
Last but not least: Hertzberg takes exception to those who call Obama a “liar.” All right. What should we call the President then, if he has broken his major campaign and early presidential promises pertaining to the health care reform (e.g., on drug price controls and importation, public option, tax increases – you know, all those things that would make this legislation a real reform, and not just putting lipstick on the corporate pig)?
Not only that, but when recently asked about his abandonment of the public option, Obama stated that he never campaigned on it or promised it, which flies in the face of verifiable facts (i.e., his own documented statements). If these are not lies, what should we call them – terminological inexactitudes perhaps?
On one thing, however, I agree with Hertzberg: yes, it is all, um, pathetic.
Cross-posted from The Middle of Nowhere.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Who's Your Daddy?
In her Jan. 9th 2010 column entitled, “Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool,” Maureen Dowd writes something I would like to comment on. Once again, and as so often in recent years, we meet the language of the Papa Bear State, a concept I have been snorting at and stamping against for some time now. Et tu, MoDo, et tu! Then fall, Blogging Dino. (Cue heavy thud just short of impact tremor. Impact tremors are reserved for T-Rex.) We are told towards the end of the column, if I understand rightly, that President Obama, in supposedly failing to respond quickly and passionately enough to the Christmas-day near miss over Detroit, has squandered his opportunity “to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders” and who “reassures and instructs” Americans when danger threatens or disaster strikes.
The second formulation may encapsulate a reasonable expectation, but the first is unfortunate. The president is an intelligent and capable man, and I am glad I voted for him. “That hope and change thing” is still working out for me, thank you. But “strong father”? He is no more than a few years my senior, and probably several years the junior of many people reading or contributing to this blog. I didn’t vote for a National Father last November; I voted for the individual I hoped would become the 44th POTUS. What I like about Barack Obama is precisely that he seems intent on rejecting the “papafication” of the presidency, even though he can hardly be said to have diminished the powers of the office in his one year at the helm. In short, he tends to speak to the citizenry as if they were rational adults. That’s a risk, of course, because a disturbing number of Americans become terrified for their skins quicker than you can say “exploding underwear.” But I give Obama credit for taking the risk, and I find his allegedly too-aloof way of dealing with crises preferable to the tendencies of the previous administration.
Employing the language of the Daddy State, in the long run, only encourages the brutes who deny the wisdom of Ben Franklin’s dictum, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, London: Henry Colburn, 1818. 270; Franklin places the sentence in quotation marks.) The president may be the most powerful individual on the planet, and he is undeniably invested with a great deal of symbolic value; he bears some responsibility, most of us would probably agree, for keeping the country as safe as it can be while still observing the constitution he swore to uphold. He is not, however—and apparently does not want to be—“Our Father, Who Lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.” Never mind “the limits of cool”: the discursive limits or boundaries that President Obama takes into account are those required to maintain a healthy relationship between a republican citizenry and the individual they have chosen for a time to serve as their highest official.
So please, call the honorable Mr. Obama a clean and articulate communo-fascist Kenyan Muslim terrorist-fist-bumping negro-dialect-free granny-killer if you must, but not “Daddy.” We have enough outlandish descriptions for Barack already, and there is little doubt the pie will be made still higher in coming years. It's Permanent Silly-Season Revolution for this man's opponents, and evidently even some of his well-meaning supporters can't help playing the useful idiot from time to time. I will just go with “President Obama.” Simple. Dignified. Even a dinosaur can roll with that....
The second formulation may encapsulate a reasonable expectation, but the first is unfortunate. The president is an intelligent and capable man, and I am glad I voted for him. “That hope and change thing” is still working out for me, thank you. But “strong father”? He is no more than a few years my senior, and probably several years the junior of many people reading or contributing to this blog. I didn’t vote for a National Father last November; I voted for the individual I hoped would become the 44th POTUS. What I like about Barack Obama is precisely that he seems intent on rejecting the “papafication” of the presidency, even though he can hardly be said to have diminished the powers of the office in his one year at the helm. In short, he tends to speak to the citizenry as if they were rational adults. That’s a risk, of course, because a disturbing number of Americans become terrified for their skins quicker than you can say “exploding underwear.” But I give Obama credit for taking the risk, and I find his allegedly too-aloof way of dealing with crises preferable to the tendencies of the previous administration.
Employing the language of the Daddy State, in the long run, only encourages the brutes who deny the wisdom of Ben Franklin’s dictum, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, London: Henry Colburn, 1818. 270; Franklin places the sentence in quotation marks.) The president may be the most powerful individual on the planet, and he is undeniably invested with a great deal of symbolic value; he bears some responsibility, most of us would probably agree, for keeping the country as safe as it can be while still observing the constitution he swore to uphold. He is not, however—and apparently does not want to be—“Our Father, Who Lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.” Never mind “the limits of cool”: the discursive limits or boundaries that President Obama takes into account are those required to maintain a healthy relationship between a republican citizenry and the individual they have chosen for a time to serve as their highest official.
So please, call the honorable Mr. Obama a clean and articulate communo-fascist Kenyan Muslim terrorist-fist-bumping negro-dialect-free granny-killer if you must, but not “Daddy.” We have enough outlandish descriptions for Barack already, and there is little doubt the pie will be made still higher in coming years. It's Permanent Silly-Season Revolution for this man's opponents, and evidently even some of his well-meaning supporters can't help playing the useful idiot from time to time. I will just go with “President Obama.” Simple. Dignified. Even a dinosaur can roll with that....
Monday, January 11, 2010
Stop Texas from Rewriting History
As a retired Philadelphia Public School teacher and member of a family blessed with European/Latina/African/Navajo/Chinese ethnicity, I find omitting historical facts related to any human being of any ancestry totally unacceptable. Therefore, I am outraged that the Texas State Board of Education is even considering taking a vote on January 13 that would, for all intents and purposes, erase Cesar Chavez and all Latino historical figures from the state’s public school textbooks.
Since most public school students inTexas Europe , and the beauty of American democracy is that we try not to do that with our children. It is important that our children learn about all historical figures, European, Latino, Native American, Asian, African and more.
My grandfather migrated fromAustria-Hungary in a region now part of Poland
Texas should not let its status as a powerful state in this great United States
Since most public school students in
My grandfather migrated from
For more information, see: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/10/texas-conservatives-closer-to-banning-cesar-chavez-from-school-textbooks/
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Ruminations on a cold morning
App - app app app - app app! No, it's not the AFLAC duck, or a farmyard full of turkeys a week before Thanksgiving. It's not your neighbor's nasty little Lhasa Apso, it's the sound of consumers quacking away in consumer-speak in the American night. The malls are full of it, the AT&T and Verizon stores should hand out earplugs because of it --APP APP APP! Getcher apps here -- apps! Apps, apps.
So what happens when you want to apply for something? Do you app on some sunscreen at the beach? So what ever happened to "application" in the sense of software designed to perform some function? I guess it got teenagerized into a form more easily entered on a telephone keypad derived from the dial phones that began to go out of fashion around 1960. Most people indeed. So I guess for the newspeak speaker it's now silly to talk of developing computer applications and ridiculous all the more if we shorten it to "app." To me it's all something that springs most rhymingly to mind. Two craps for Mr. App.
Yeah, yeah, it's more "evolution" only it's not - it's intelligent design because language now is a consumer product which changes to suit corporate sales, not our communications needs. That's why we have "realtor" for real estate broker, why they sell "homes" and not houses or apartments, why we have "mobile estates" rather than trailers and why health is now "wellness." It's why we have pre-owned cars on the used car lots, patriot acts and worse.
Of course it's not all bad. We now have "tweet" which is easier to type than "mind-numbing and narcissistic banality" although "blog" works almost as well there; which brings me to the point at which I'd better rest my case.
"To most people, an "app" is something you download on your smartphone to help you do a specific task."says CNN.com this morning. I guess most people now means airheaded and hysterically eager to buy consumers between the ages of 13 and 24. Those are the people most retailers are interested in and the most likely to speak the language of consumerism, invented to make it difficult to speak without advertising a product or concept thereby.
So what happens when you want to apply for something? Do you app on some sunscreen at the beach? So what ever happened to "application" in the sense of software designed to perform some function? I guess it got teenagerized into a form more easily entered on a telephone keypad derived from the dial phones that began to go out of fashion around 1960. Most people indeed. So I guess for the newspeak speaker it's now silly to talk of developing computer applications and ridiculous all the more if we shorten it to "app." To me it's all something that springs most rhymingly to mind. Two craps for Mr. App.
Yeah, yeah, it's more "evolution" only it's not - it's intelligent design because language now is a consumer product which changes to suit corporate sales, not our communications needs. That's why we have "realtor" for real estate broker, why they sell "homes" and not houses or apartments, why we have "mobile estates" rather than trailers and why health is now "wellness." It's why we have pre-owned cars on the used car lots, patriot acts and worse.
Of course it's not all bad. We now have "tweet" which is easier to type than "mind-numbing and narcissistic banality" although "blog" works almost as well there; which brings me to the point at which I'd better rest my case.
Why Are Liberals So Timid?
It must have happened in the 1980’s….
That was when those who profess to be liberals started talking above the buzz; when they started having conversations among themselves that were above the heads of the average citizen.
Historically, Liberals or Progressives were at the forefront of the issues that mattered the most and made the greatest change to our standard of living: Education, health care, unionized labor and civil rights for example.
After the last administration and the greatest financial meltdown this country has seen since the Great Depression the only movement that has any pulse whatsoever is a bunch of anarchists parading under the banner of “Teabaggers.”
These malcontents even claim a direct link to the Founding Fathers!
The Founding Fathers were LIBERALS!
They were directed by, “…A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.” This is also the classical definition of LIBERALISM!
Because the concepts of liberty or freedom change in different historical periods the specific programs of liberalism also change. The final aim of liberalism, however, remains fixed, as does its characteristic belief not only in essential human goodness but also in human rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition. Often opposed to liberalism is the doctrine of conservatism, which, simply stated, supports the maintenance of the status quo. Liberalism, which seeks what it considers to be improvement or progress, necessarily desires to change the existing order.
The Teabaggers represent nothing more than a populist movement that is focused on the concept of statist; where sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.
If you really think about it they are actually voicing what should be an anger that should be heard from the left. This anger, against what is now obvious to everyone, the unveiling of what 25 years of supply side economics created: The United States of Wall Street!
It was the same anger that drove so many Americans to the polls in November last year to vote for HOPE and CHANGE!
Its time for Liberals to get behind such grassroots campaigns as Move Your Money and the 3/50 Project. Its time for the Liberals to stand up and protest and to do so on the one issue that effects all of us and effects everything: Economic Justice.
That was when those who profess to be liberals started talking above the buzz; when they started having conversations among themselves that were above the heads of the average citizen.
Historically, Liberals or Progressives were at the forefront of the issues that mattered the most and made the greatest change to our standard of living: Education, health care, unionized labor and civil rights for example.
After the last administration and the greatest financial meltdown this country has seen since the Great Depression the only movement that has any pulse whatsoever is a bunch of anarchists parading under the banner of “Teabaggers.”
These malcontents even claim a direct link to the Founding Fathers!
The Founding Fathers were LIBERALS!
They were directed by, “…A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.” This is also the classical definition of LIBERALISM!
Because the concepts of liberty or freedom change in different historical periods the specific programs of liberalism also change. The final aim of liberalism, however, remains fixed, as does its characteristic belief not only in essential human goodness but also in human rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition. Often opposed to liberalism is the doctrine of conservatism, which, simply stated, supports the maintenance of the status quo. Liberalism, which seeks what it considers to be improvement or progress, necessarily desires to change the existing order.
The Teabaggers represent nothing more than a populist movement that is focused on the concept of statist; where sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.
If you really think about it they are actually voicing what should be an anger that should be heard from the left. This anger, against what is now obvious to everyone, the unveiling of what 25 years of supply side economics created: The United States of Wall Street!
It was the same anger that drove so many Americans to the polls in November last year to vote for HOPE and CHANGE!
Its time for Liberals to get behind such grassroots campaigns as Move Your Money and the 3/50 Project. Its time for the Liberals to stand up and protest and to do so on the one issue that effects all of us and effects everything: Economic Justice.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
EARTH: THE BIG BLUE ICEBALL?
I live in the South where cold, unrelenting temperatures are very rare and when it lasts over two weeks, it is almost unheard of. There are still patches of snow and ice around my yard from the storm before Christmas! The sun is shining today so there is that.I hate the cold, I really do. I don't bundle up and go out in it or even stick one hand out the door. Mostly, I sit near the woodstove that my husband so considerately keeps stoked because he knows how much I hate being cold and I try to stay busy doing indoor things.
While perusing the various news feeds, it occurred to me that much of the world is seeing record breaking temperatures, snow, ice and wind. Here are just a few examples:
“Irish province Munster's Celtic League match against Welsh region the Scarlets was called off on Saturday, a day before Sunday's kick-off, due to the freezing weather sweeping Britain and Ireland.” The heartiness of these Celtic people is legendary but this weather has even defeated them!
“Irish province Munster's Celtic League match against Welsh region the Scarlets was called off on Saturday, a day before Sunday's kick-off, due to the freezing weather sweeping Britain and Ireland.” The heartiness of these Celtic people is legendary but this weather has even defeated them!
“Frozen Europe: 100s of flights canceled in Germany.” Planes are skidding off runways and numerous car accidents have caused cancellations and long delays.
And from the upper tier states to the Florida orange groves, there is cold, ice and accidents. It would seem that the only places in the US where you might be able escape the cold is Southern California or Hawaii.
Until the temperatures rise, I'll be holed up in my warm, little burrow, dreaming of sunny skies and warm breezes. Stay warm and stay safe!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Cry Havoc -- please!
Adis Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay were arrested very early this morning in New York as part of an investigation into a foiled plot to explode a bomb on the 8th anniversary of 9/11/2001. Najibullah Zazi and two other men are already in custody on charges related to this attempt. The evidence against the men seems substantial and we can expect that he won't be the only one to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Of course this is an outrage. If we had a real Republican he-man in office we wouldn't be calling this a foiled plot or talking about trials and convictions, we'd be screaming Terrorist attack - terrorist attack and the cruise missiles would already be on course for somewhere.
So, I'm sure it won't be long before Snarlin' Dick is back on TV explaining to us that our educated and therefore unmanly President is pretending, by not running naked through the streets screaming TERRORIST ATTACK, that "we are not at war." Of course it takes considerable screaming and snarling to keep the discussion away from what a real war really is -- especially one in which victory is nearly impossible to define much less than to achieve.
Like our valiant war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime and war on pornography, this one resembles a struggle against human nature; that nature including religion, nationalism and the tendency to hate people we see as exploiting and manipulating us. Fail to make that all change and you fail to win. In saner times and amongst saner people the eternal struggle against crime has usually been seen as the job of law enforcement and indeed this failed plot was foiled by good police work and a little luck. To men like Cheney, the danger in foiling plots and prosecuting the criminals who attempt to carry them out is precisely that we have a harder time crying war and without a war, we have to conduct ourselves more in accordance with the law and indeed with reasonableness and sanity.
That the terrorist acts carried out in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center resulted in the perpetrators being caught, imprisoned and even executed will remain a thorn in the paws of people like Cheney for whom the system needs to be shown as not working when it's under a Democratic administration and working well when under a Republican. So what if it results in hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties, the destruction of countries, the exile of its citizens and of course, the creation of vastly increased anti-American hatred. In this respect, Cheney's objectives, being aided by every attack and thwarted by every foiled attack or captured terrorist, are often congruent with the objectives of al Qaeda and similar groups. In other words, America's success -- Obama's success and Clinton's successes in finding and capturing terrorists hurts Cheney and Associates; hurts their chances of defaming the Democrats, returning the berserkers to power and keeping those huge Halliburton checks rolling in.
If you're following this line of reasoning, you won't be surprised that I'm concluding that Snarlin' Dick wants more than anything to keep us all crying "terrorist attack" and to keep them coming. By the way, isn't being on the side of terrorists treason?
Of course this is an outrage. If we had a real Republican he-man in office we wouldn't be calling this a foiled plot or talking about trials and convictions, we'd be screaming Terrorist attack - terrorist attack and the cruise missiles would already be on course for somewhere.
So, I'm sure it won't be long before Snarlin' Dick is back on TV explaining to us that our educated and therefore unmanly President is pretending, by not running naked through the streets screaming TERRORIST ATTACK, that "we are not at war." Of course it takes considerable screaming and snarling to keep the discussion away from what a real war really is -- especially one in which victory is nearly impossible to define much less than to achieve.
Like our valiant war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime and war on pornography, this one resembles a struggle against human nature; that nature including religion, nationalism and the tendency to hate people we see as exploiting and manipulating us. Fail to make that all change and you fail to win. In saner times and amongst saner people the eternal struggle against crime has usually been seen as the job of law enforcement and indeed this failed plot was foiled by good police work and a little luck. To men like Cheney, the danger in foiling plots and prosecuting the criminals who attempt to carry them out is precisely that we have a harder time crying war and without a war, we have to conduct ourselves more in accordance with the law and indeed with reasonableness and sanity.
That the terrorist acts carried out in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center resulted in the perpetrators being caught, imprisoned and even executed will remain a thorn in the paws of people like Cheney for whom the system needs to be shown as not working when it's under a Democratic administration and working well when under a Republican. So what if it results in hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties, the destruction of countries, the exile of its citizens and of course, the creation of vastly increased anti-American hatred. In this respect, Cheney's objectives, being aided by every attack and thwarted by every foiled attack or captured terrorist, are often congruent with the objectives of al Qaeda and similar groups. In other words, America's success -- Obama's success and Clinton's successes in finding and capturing terrorists hurts Cheney and Associates; hurts their chances of defaming the Democrats, returning the berserkers to power and keeping those huge Halliburton checks rolling in.
If you're following this line of reasoning, you won't be surprised that I'm concluding that Snarlin' Dick wants more than anything to keep us all crying "terrorist attack" and to keep them coming. By the way, isn't being on the side of terrorists treason?
BRRR …
As the water in my aquarium clears from my recent ink-fit, perhaps I should close the week on a lighthearted note. In case you missed it, here is a hilarious send-up of arch-climate denier munchkin-in-chief, Lord Christopher Monckton, complements of Bouphonia: The Habitual Dirigisme of Etatistes.
About this record-breaking winter, the jealous among you might note that it is bitter cold in Florida too. When parking the car, our normal strategy is to play for shade so you don’t burn your fingers on the steering wheel. This week, we play for sunshine so our fingers don’t stick to the steering wheel. As I looked from my window this morning at the yard below, the birds were using mittens to pull worms from the ground. Here is more cold comfort for you:
About this record-breaking winter, the jealous among you might note that it is bitter cold in Florida too. When parking the car, our normal strategy is to play for shade so you don’t burn your fingers on the steering wheel. This week, we play for sunshine so our fingers don’t stick to the steering wheel. As I looked from my window this morning at the yard below, the birds were using mittens to pull worms from the ground. Here is more cold comfort for you:
Something in the water
New York City water tastes like turpentine
Lord, Lord
And I ain't gonna drink it any more
-from an old blues song-
There must be something in the water if former New York Mayor Ed Koch is insisting that "hundreds of millions" of Muslims are terrorists, but that we're all too afraid to mention it for fear of offending. I don't think it's turpentine.
He didn't give Foxman Neil Cavuto any source for this magic number yesterday or for any other part of his assertion or did he attempt to explain why anyone would feel we're afraid to offend countries we're bombing, maintaining sanctions on, or already occupying. Is it true what they say about New Yorkers if not blowing someone to bits is considered timidity or perhaps an excess of politeness?
And then there's Rudy "9/11" Giuliani who announced to ABC's George Stephanopoulos today that there were no domestic terrorist attacks during George W. Bush's watch.
" . . . we had no domestic attacks under Bush; we had one under Obama."There must be a lot of something in the water. Between 9/11 and the Anthrax bio-attack, there were over 3000 victims of domestic terrorism. To think there were people who wanted to elect this putz president!
The real agenda of course, is to find fault with the president for not running down the street screaming "terror - terror" which the victims of Republimentia feel is the best way to deal with an unsuccessful suicide bombing. He needs to be more theatrical, to talk more of fear than of courage, to scream and yell and look for bogey men rather than calmly to get on with the business of improving our defenses. Sadly it's not just ex-mayors of New York drinking from this well. They're hardly alone in their hatred of Democrats of color and they're hardly alone in their desire to make the government so dysfunctional that they can slither back into control amidst the chaos. There are millions of them, you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)