Tuesday, June 28, 2005

To the Times

Regarding David Sanger's review of the President's speech this evening(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/politics/29prexy.html?pagewanted=2&hp) he states at one point that, "As he has in the past, the president melded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the enemies Americans now face in Iraq." The least respect for the truth, as I'm sure you know, would require the addition of 'erroneously' into this sentence as in, "As he has in the past, the president ERRONEOUSLY melded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the enemies Americans now face in Iraq."

You know better than this. You are prostituting yourself to this warmongering, illegal regime. Have you no shame? Had you ever?

OK...

I don't have much time for this shit. If there are any of you out there who still believe that this war in Iraq is a righteous thing(including, presumably, my dumbass father) you need to sign up and get your ass over there 'cuz the recruiters have been missing their targets for 4 months now. At this point they'll probably take any fatass that comes along, so don't let that get in your way. As to the speech tonight, I find it difficult to believe that anyone listened to it without choking, crying, banging their head against a wall or drinking themselves quickly into oblivion.

But let's go to the NYTimes coverage, hot off the presses. They say, "As he has in the past, the president melded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the enemies Americans now face in Iraq."

How about an "erroneously" in there somewhere, guys? Eh? "As he has in the past, the president ERRONEOUSLY melded the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the enemies Americans now face in Iraq."

It's really not a stretch and not editorializing to say this. This is a FACT! There is NO connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. And none between 9/11 and the war we are fighting over there. except in youor insane preznit's mind.

Monday, June 13, 2005

1984 All Over Again

I have posted a couple of excerpts from "1984" on the Well and thought I'd also post them here for those who haven't read it and those who haven't read it in a long time. To wit:

"There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place.
Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once,
that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part
in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment
when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet
banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several
thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren
in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of
the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms
and a large, bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was
haranguing the crowd. A little Rumplestiltskin figure, contorted with
hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the
other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly
above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed
forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations,
lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying
propaganda, unjust agressions, broken treaties. It was almost
impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then
maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and
the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beastlike roaring that
rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells
of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding
for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried onto the platform
and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled
and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his
voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly
the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding
rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next
moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with
which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had
the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein
had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were
ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot.
The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the
rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys.
But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still
gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his
free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech.
One minute more and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from
the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the
target had been changed."

pages 184-185

Osama Hussein? No, Saddam bin Laden. Terrorism? Yes, Iraq."

and:

"I have bookmarked lots of entries before this one, but thought I'd do
this 'cuz power is one of the thinngs I am interested in. This is in
Room 101 and the speaker is O'Brien, Winston's betrayer and torturer:

"How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer", he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless
he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and
not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in
tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new
shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of
world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid,
hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear
and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled
upon, a world which will grow not less but *more* merciless as it
refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more
pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and
justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no
emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything
else we shall destroy--everything. Already we are breaking down the
habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We
have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and woman.
No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in
the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be
taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The
sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual
formality like the renewal of a ration card*. We shall abolish the
orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no
loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love,
except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the
laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no
literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no moore
need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always--do not
forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of
trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the
future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever"

Pages 276-277
*cross-reference "Brave New World" for removing the need for natural
birth/removing the parent/child bond.

Not much to say. The last line is, perhaps, where we are. Might be a
good pseud. or tattoo or watch-phrase. I'm sure that when I last read
this in '81 or so, it's one I took to heart. The ideas some people
have of what constitutes power are of grave concern to all of us. All
of us."

Friday, June 10, 2005

Foolish things

How many foolish things were said to you yesterday? Well, I remember a few that were said to me:

Someone(who apparently did some schoolinng in England) asked where I stayed last time I was in London. I said Bayswater, as one commonly uses the nearest Tube station as reference. She, "that's not very central". Um, The Bayswater Tube is in zone 1. It is on Queensway which ends at the south at Hyde Park. It is 2 stops from Kensington High Street and 4 from Oxford Circus. Of, course I would probably just walk down the street to the Queensway station and take that line so that makes it 3 stops to Oxford Circus. Why do people who have no idea of what they are speaking say things like that?

Ran into an aquaintance at the usual bar and he decides to explain to me how many much bigger things there are in the world than the information/political stuff that I spend a lot of my time on. I ask if he knows about "The Downing Street Memo". Nope, never heard of it 5 weeks after it was initially published by the Sunday Times. So, I proceed to try to explain that it is a document that seems to PROVE that this preznit lied lied lied when he was telling us in 2002 that war with Iraq would be the last resort (go here to get the full scoop if you haven't already).
His response to his proven and willful ignorance is the following(from memory): "You don't think that people were being lied to during the Crusades?" I say I have no doubt that they were. He, "So, the real question is, are we better off than we were during the Crusades."
Nope. No that is NOT the real question. The real question is why people who are too fucking lazy and/or too fucking dim to understand the world in which they live hold up this condition of blissful ignorance as something one should seek? Know what? if you haven't a fucking clue, shut the fuck up!

So, the guy on the other side of me has to chime in and I get to find out that the FBI is really doing a great job and that's why we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11. Of course when I tell him that I, in fact, believe that our government at least failed to stop an attack that they knew was coming and was probably complicit in the act(google PNAC and take a look at the document in which Donny Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others say we need a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to acheive their stated goal of a new, better armed and more powerful America), he doesn't disagree, but says, "Oh, they planned it." Crank. Fool. He then proceeds to pull some stuff out of his satchel that seems to be a design for a perpetual motion machine that will give us all the cheap power we need. I scanned it and the only blurb I remember is, "Since water can't be compressed...". Whoo boy.

BTW, my father hasn't yet bothered to reply to the email below that I sent to him. Oh well. Chickenhawk is one thing, but if you can't even defend your decisions.....Feh

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Two things....

First, for those who don't habitually read Harper's, here are scanned versions of 2 very important pieces on the Right Wing Dominionist movement that wants to convert you or kill you.

http://word-detective.com/harpers.html

And, in case you had forgotten that BushCo was screwing you
to feed the rich, the NYTimes,
loooooong after it was due has finally admitted that, yes,
those tax cuts really do benefit the
wealthy more than anyone else:

"President Bush said during the third election debate last October
that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In
fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10
percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and
would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go
just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers."(and we were WHERE
just after the 3rd election debate last October?
Perhaps dealing with another 'security crisis'?)

"From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by
the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an
additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002,
for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each
taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000. "

And

"The Bush administration says that the tax cuts have actually made
the income tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly
more to those with higher incomes. Still, an Internal Revenue Service
study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in
2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent."

Can you say 'Class War'? Start slowly, I know your middle brow American
mouth has a hard time with it.....Class.....War. Yeah, that's it. Class War.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html
 

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Further into 40

Just listening to the first "This Mortal Coil" record(check here) , called "It'll End in Tears" and struck once again by that sliver of a generation who defines their formative years by that album(circa 1984, yours truly not yet 20) and their and my ability to dance positively to a negative. A song called "Not Me" intones relentlessly, "you didn't touch me, you didn't touch me...' anthemically, driving away the ghosts of unhappy affairs or relationships and settling into being alone once again. Can't say it's specific for my sliver of a generation, but it is invariably associated with love affairs from those days. "You didn't touch me." morphing into, "you can't touch me" or "I can't touch you".