Jesuit tells Kerry: Ignore Right-wing Bishops; Move Ahead with Grace
Being wise enough to understand the Communion debate "is a nonissue" in the Kerry campaign and simply a tool of the Republican Party, Jesuit priest Robert Drinan has advised John Kerry to clamp down on religious rhetoric and "keep cool on the Communion thing". He believes it would be far more graceful to let the Communion issue go during this campaign season. [See LINK]
I think Rev. Drinan understands that if you place the scalpel too close to the collective heart composed of the individuals who make up today's American Catholic church, that heart would have to be split in half. There are far too many divisive issues. The heart, of course, would soon stop beating after the chambers were separated.
Respectfully, though, John Kerry will not benefit by ignoring the subject of religion altogether. Kerry recently said "Catholicism is not defined by one issue," and I think he's absolutely right to continue to remind people of that fact.
What the political right-wing aims to do is to separate the chambers of Catholicism's heart from one another. The scalpel is in their hands. Certainly not in possession of the wisdom of Solomon, they'd rather see the baby cut in two.
Recent scandals involving priest-pedophelia nearly bled the heart of the church, but it did not kill it. If there is ANY issue that should be at the forefront today in the Catholic chrusch, I think it's the pedophelia issue. We know it has not been resolved to the satisfaction of most Catholics. It was smoothed over.
To see a priest deny Communion to a man like John Kerry (knowing many of those priests protected pedophiles..or perhaps had been pedophiles themselves) is nothing short of a sad and unbelievable joke.
I do hope John Kerry takes Rev Drinan's good advice, but also understand that he needs to be unafraid and unashamed to talk about the importance of religion in his own life. Americans want to hear about it. They relate to it.
Right wing ignorant evildoers should be ignored. (Anyone who would aim to split the baby in two is definitely ignorant and inherently evil).
Meanwhile, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, didn't like the fact that a Kerry aide (Mara Vanderslice) attended (and allegedly helped to organize) an IMF protest where some violence erupted. That got me wondering: What does Bill Donohue think, as a Catholic, of the war in Iraq? I did a bit of research. I saw that Donohue has defended the Catholic position for war, saying that "the pope’s position on the war was that it could be resorted to only ‘as the very last option,’ thus allowing room for a legitimate debate on whether that time had arrived."
Now, if the IMF protest sparked violence, what the hell do you call the war in Iraq?
Do you see..do you smell Bill Donohue's hypocrisy?
We can go and kill untold thousands of innocent civilians over a "religious debate of legitimacy", but a Democrat cannot legitimately speak out against injustice in our world?
Holy bullcrap!
It seems a moral shame to see Kerry's campaign allow people like Mara Vanderslice to be marginalized over such ignorant attacks.
If all that being Catholic means these days is being an automaton without the fire of Christ's mission in our hearts, then I suppose Catholic people like Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, and the Berrigan brothers are evil to men like Bill Donohue.
When it becomes "evil" to make it a little simpler for people to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves in a free and peaceful environment as God intended them to do, I might side with Bill Donohue..but right now I have to say I think his soul is dulled and corroded by politics.
Catholicism isn't defined simply by two issues..homosexuality and abortion.
The right-wing (many not even Catholic themselves) are pushing the issues of homosexuality and abortion with the goal of trying to do damage to the Democratic party. I would hope, when American Catholics see how their spiritual lives are being used and abused by those only interested in politics, that they will be spiritually strong enough not to lose their faith altogether. I hope they will stand together and say: "Get politics the hell OUT of our churches."
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Friday, June 18, 2004
Michael Moore film was only film that may have saved Disney summer
Michael Moore film was only film that may have saved Disney summer
Or: How being intimidated by Government is bad for Business
Or: The Free Market is Laughing at Michael Eisner
...the one hit film Disney could have had this summer, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," is set for a blockbuster opening a week from today from Lions Gate and IFC Films.
[LINK]
Or: How being intimidated by Government is bad for Business
Or: The Free Market is Laughing at Michael Eisner
...the one hit film Disney could have had this summer, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," is set for a blockbuster opening a week from today from Lions Gate and IFC Films.
[LINK]
Putin: American Intel was told what Russian Intel Knew--And..?!
Putin speaks:
American Intel knew what Russian Intel Knew--
And...?!
Any shock-value intended in this news article is incredibly underwhelming. [see LINK]
Russia's president Vladmir Putin says Russia warned the U.S. of Saddam's desire to attack us on our own soil. This, of course, means nothing. Why do I say that? Because it's old news. Older than our pre-emptive war on Iraq. Russian intelligence informed American intelligence at the very time the information was relevant.
America knew everything Russia knew. And.....?!
There is no "rest of the story", you see. What Russia knew didn't change Russia's mind when they opposed regime change in Iraq.
It all comes back to American intelligence and all the failures that have come back to haunt them...and the mis-leaders who knowingly used the highly questionable intelligence. There is still no proof of ties to al- Qaeda terror wrapped up in Putin's so-called "new revelation".
All I can say is that I can clearly see the Bushites are desperate. They've been forced to defend their weak charge that there had been links between Saddam and al Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. Now they rely on Putin to bolster their lies to the American public.
Russia...the same country right-wingers have berated for their ulterior motives in the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal..the same country whose companies the Pentagon barred from bidding on Iraq reconstruction contracts because they'd totally opposed the regime change in Iraq.
I repeat--totally opposed the regime change in Iraq.
UPDATE: June 20, 2004: Zev Chafets writes about the Putin statement (and its odd timing):
American Intel knew what Russian Intel Knew--
And...?!
Any shock-value intended in this news article is incredibly underwhelming. [see LINK]
Russia's president Vladmir Putin says Russia warned the U.S. of Saddam's desire to attack us on our own soil. This, of course, means nothing. Why do I say that? Because it's old news. Older than our pre-emptive war on Iraq. Russian intelligence informed American intelligence at the very time the information was relevant.
America knew everything Russia knew. And.....?!
There is no "rest of the story", you see. What Russia knew didn't change Russia's mind when they opposed regime change in Iraq.
It all comes back to American intelligence and all the failures that have come back to haunt them...and the mis-leaders who knowingly used the highly questionable intelligence. There is still no proof of ties to al- Qaeda terror wrapped up in Putin's so-called "new revelation".
All I can say is that I can clearly see the Bushites are desperate. They've been forced to defend their weak charge that there had been links between Saddam and al Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. Now they rely on Putin to bolster their lies to the American public.
Russia...the same country right-wingers have berated for their ulterior motives in the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal..the same country whose companies the Pentagon barred from bidding on Iraq reconstruction contracts because they'd totally opposed the regime change in Iraq.
I repeat--totally opposed the regime change in Iraq.
UPDATE: June 20, 2004: Zev Chafets writes about the Putin statement (and its odd timing):
Bush argues that no responsible post-9/11 President would shrug off such warnings..The GOP will ask: What would President Kerry have done with the Russian warning? One answer is that there was no warning, that Putin is lying to curry favor with Bush.
Looking Forward to Tomorrow
Looking Forward to Tomorrow
One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "I look forward to seeing you tomorrow, Sir!"
One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "I look forward to seeing you tomorrow, Sir!"
Childish Cheney Lashes Out at N.Y. Times for Headline Truth
Childish Cheney Lashes Out at NY Times for Headline Truth
FOX News fan Dick Cheney lashed out at the N.Y. Times yesterday for reporting the news that the 9-11 Commission found absolutely no link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists. He called the NY Times reporting headlines "outrageous" and commenced spreading the same tired garbage about Saddam's "general" connections to "terror" all over again in an interview with Gloria Borger on CNBC's Capitol Report.
And you'll never guess who Cheney wanted to expound upon to try and make his case: The one---the ONLY---Abu Masab al-Zarqawi. (The Bogeyman! What did I tell you just hours ago? al-Zarqawi's the only hook these misleaders have to hang their liar's hats on these days.)
In today's N.Y.Times, Maureen Dowd has a delicious description of Cheney's unbelieveably stubborn insistence that his war was justified by the connections that were never there....
Mr. Cheney did it again on Monday in Florida speaking at — where else? — a conservative think tank; he said Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." This claim, used by the White House to justify its gallop to war, was once more flatly contradicted by the 9/11 panel's report yesterday: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The report says Osama did seek help from Saddam in the 90's, "despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime." But aside from sending an official to meet with Osama in Sudan, Saddam stiffed his request for weapons and training-camp space.
Mr. Cheney isn't programmed to process evidence that shows he was wrong; he simply keeps repeating the same nonsensical claims as if he has a microchip malfunction.
Unfortunately, there's no spouse to give him a knock on the head, as the Stepford husbands do when their Farrah fem-bots go haywire and keep repeating things like, "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe. . . . I'll just die if I-I-I [bop!] don't get that recipe. . . ."
Cheney-bot just keeps going and going: "He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. . . . He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda-a-a. . . . He-he-e-e—— brzzzrrrp!"
[LINK]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATES:
--See Center For American Progress for discussion of this topic
--See David Corn's take on the subject
FOX News fan Dick Cheney lashed out at the N.Y. Times yesterday for reporting the news that the 9-11 Commission found absolutely no link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists. He called the NY Times reporting headlines "outrageous" and commenced spreading the same tired garbage about Saddam's "general" connections to "terror" all over again in an interview with Gloria Borger on CNBC's Capitol Report.
And you'll never guess who Cheney wanted to expound upon to try and make his case: The one---the ONLY---Abu Masab al-Zarqawi. (The Bogeyman! What did I tell you just hours ago? al-Zarqawi's the only hook these misleaders have to hang their liar's hats on these days.)
In today's N.Y.Times, Maureen Dowd has a delicious description of Cheney's unbelieveably stubborn insistence that his war was justified by the connections that were never there....
Mr. Cheney did it again on Monday in Florida speaking at — where else? — a conservative think tank; he said Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." This claim, used by the White House to justify its gallop to war, was once more flatly contradicted by the 9/11 panel's report yesterday: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The report says Osama did seek help from Saddam in the 90's, "despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime." But aside from sending an official to meet with Osama in Sudan, Saddam stiffed his request for weapons and training-camp space.
Mr. Cheney isn't programmed to process evidence that shows he was wrong; he simply keeps repeating the same nonsensical claims as if he has a microchip malfunction.
Unfortunately, there's no spouse to give him a knock on the head, as the Stepford husbands do when their Farrah fem-bots go haywire and keep repeating things like, "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe. . . . I'll just die if I-I-I [bop!] don't get that recipe. . . ."
Cheney-bot just keeps going and going: "He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. . . . He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda-a-a. . . . He-he-e-e—— brzzzrrrp!"
[LINK]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATES:
--See Center For American Progress for discussion of this topic
--See David Corn's take on the subject
Dubya Unchained!
Dubya Unchained!
At The Hill, Bill Press says we can't afford another four years of G.W. ("My Way or the Highway") Bush. Give him four more years and he'll bring you more war, more extremist judges (including as many as three on the Supreme Court), bigger and bigger deficits, more environmental destruction, more anti-Americanism around the world, and less freedom at home.
[LINK]
At The Hill, Bill Press says we can't afford another four years of G.W. ("My Way or the Highway") Bush. Give him four more years and he'll bring you more war, more extremist judges (including as many as three on the Supreme Court), bigger and bigger deficits, more environmental destruction, more anti-Americanism around the world, and less freedom at home.
[LINK]
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography ... to assist Iraqi bombing raids".
Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.
Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.
On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.
[LINK]
Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq....
....On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.
Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.
On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.
[LINK]
Christian Version of American Idol Set to Debut
Christian Version of American Idol Set to Debut
I hear William Hung will be coming back to perform "She Hangs".
-SHE HANGS! SHE HANGS!-
[LINK]
I hear William Hung will be coming back to perform "She Hangs".
-SHE HANGS! SHE HANGS!-
[LINK]
Thursday, June 17, 2004
New book: "Bush on the Couch"
New book: "Bush on the Couch"
Inside the Mind of the President
Here at Iddybud, I'll soon be reviewing this new book by Dr. Justin Frank. It's already generating a lot of conversation. Dr. Frank, 35 years in practice as a psychoanalyst, is a clinical professor at George Washington University Medical Center. He traces the development of George W. Bush's character from childhood to the present day and relates this development to Bush's hampered ability to manage his emotions. His psyche, according to Dr. Frank, is charged with restless anxiety. Dr. Frank shows how Bush's life-charted psychological development has conditioned him to view the world in the black-and-white terms that have so evidently shaped his administration (and our nation's ultimate destiny).
For the past four years, there has been a record of violence and cruelty which has seemed to be increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center.
Dr. Frank begs the all-important question (too-often unspoken) in this book:
Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?
I cannot wait to read this book and share my thoughts with my readers.
Related sites:
Official Site-Harper Collins
Salon
Washington Post
Sify.com
Daily Kos
Anonymoses
Billmon
NOTE:
You may wish to read Dr. Frank's unforgettable satirical piece on Kenneth Starr
Inside the Mind of the President
Here at Iddybud, I'll soon be reviewing this new book by Dr. Justin Frank. It's already generating a lot of conversation. Dr. Frank, 35 years in practice as a psychoanalyst, is a clinical professor at George Washington University Medical Center. He traces the development of George W. Bush's character from childhood to the present day and relates this development to Bush's hampered ability to manage his emotions. His psyche, according to Dr. Frank, is charged with restless anxiety. Dr. Frank shows how Bush's life-charted psychological development has conditioned him to view the world in the black-and-white terms that have so evidently shaped his administration (and our nation's ultimate destiny).
For the past four years, there has been a record of violence and cruelty which has seemed to be increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center.
Dr. Frank begs the all-important question (too-often unspoken) in this book:
Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?
I cannot wait to read this book and share my thoughts with my readers.
Related sites:
Official Site-Harper Collins
Salon
Washington Post
Sify.com
Daily Kos
Anonymoses
Billmon
NOTE:
You may wish to read Dr. Frank's unforgettable satirical piece on Kenneth Starr
The Rumor: Howard Dean as VP
The Rumor: Howard Dean as VP
O.K.
I'll play the gossiping little blogger.
Word is, on Blogdom Boulevard, that Howard Dean helps neutralize potential dissatisfaction with the Democratic party's left and might be on the V.P. A-List.
See Daily Kos.
Pass it on.
O.K.
I'll play the gossiping little blogger.
Word is, on Blogdom Boulevard, that Howard Dean helps neutralize potential dissatisfaction with the Democratic party's left and might be on the V.P. A-List.
See Daily Kos.
Pass it on.
Move Over, Osama: It's al-Zarqawi-The Bushites' New Bogeyman
Move Over, Osama: It's al-Zarqawi-The Bushites' New Bogeyman
It seems that Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is the last man the Bushites can try to use as the Saddam-connection-to-terror "bogeyman" link. They love to summon up his fear-producing name. His terrorist moniker makes us shudder.
The name al-Zarqawi pops up everywhere..his fingerprints are allegedly on every act of Iraqi terror, according to the Bush administration. He was allegedly present at the beheading of Nicholas Berg (although, strangely, the person alleged to be al-Zarqawi didn't have the identifiable al-Zarqawi ill-fitting wooden leg). He is alleged to have been the mastermind behind every defiant act against the U.S. in Iraq, it seems...even the one that occurred today.
The Bushites do not like to talk about Iraqi nationalist insurgents fighting the Western power they perceive behind the new Iraqi government. They want you to believe all the terror is coming from outside Iraq. It looks better for their war.
To infer that some of these people are fighting for their own version of national identity undermines the fact that we're trying to "free them".
Have you ever walked into a lion's cage and tried to explain that you were there only to set them free? Why, they'd tear at your limbs, then proceed to eat you alive. After you were digested, they'd seek their own level of freedom and would claim to have never needed you to give it to them. I don't see this war as any different. This nation, Iraq, was a wild land. Saddam Hussein had not fostered a civil society among these poor people. We entered as savages dropping bombs over civilian's heads rather than utilizing every possible bit of diplomacy with our friends around the world. There was never a heart or a mind to be won by attacking an already-weakened country while killing the ones we didn't like (and, indiscriminately, the ones unlucky enough to be in the way).
The 9/11 Commission reports are revealing the folly of Bush's shock and awe upon Iraq. In a recent CPA poll, just 2% (that's TWO percent) of Iraqis believe we came as liberators.
Only 1 (that's ONE) man with any possible connection to "terror" in Iraq in recent years was...guess who? You've got it!
Abu Masab al-Zarqawi.
The bogeyman.
It seems that Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is the last man the Bushites can try to use as the Saddam-connection-to-terror "bogeyman" link. They love to summon up his fear-producing name. His terrorist moniker makes us shudder.
The name al-Zarqawi pops up everywhere..his fingerprints are allegedly on every act of Iraqi terror, according to the Bush administration. He was allegedly present at the beheading of Nicholas Berg (although, strangely, the person alleged to be al-Zarqawi didn't have the identifiable al-Zarqawi ill-fitting wooden leg). He is alleged to have been the mastermind behind every defiant act against the U.S. in Iraq, it seems...even the one that occurred today.
The Bushites do not like to talk about Iraqi nationalist insurgents fighting the Western power they perceive behind the new Iraqi government. They want you to believe all the terror is coming from outside Iraq. It looks better for their war.
To infer that some of these people are fighting for their own version of national identity undermines the fact that we're trying to "free them".
Have you ever walked into a lion's cage and tried to explain that you were there only to set them free? Why, they'd tear at your limbs, then proceed to eat you alive. After you were digested, they'd seek their own level of freedom and would claim to have never needed you to give it to them. I don't see this war as any different. This nation, Iraq, was a wild land. Saddam Hussein had not fostered a civil society among these poor people. We entered as savages dropping bombs over civilian's heads rather than utilizing every possible bit of diplomacy with our friends around the world. There was never a heart or a mind to be won by attacking an already-weakened country while killing the ones we didn't like (and, indiscriminately, the ones unlucky enough to be in the way).
The 9/11 Commission reports are revealing the folly of Bush's shock and awe upon Iraq. In a recent CPA poll, just 2% (that's TWO percent) of Iraqis believe we came as liberators.
Only 1 (that's ONE) man with any possible connection to "terror" in Iraq in recent years was...guess who? You've got it!
Abu Masab al-Zarqawi.
The bogeyman.
In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.
Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.
*Sketchy..always sketchy...*
[LINK]
Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.
*Sketchy..always sketchy...*
[LINK]
Walter Shapiro Dismisses Moore Film as Snide, Immature
Walter Shapiro Dismisses Moore Film as Snide, Immature
[LINK]
I found Walter Shapiro's review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be intellectally insulting.
Shapiro asks:
Primarily? When did Moore say "primarily"? These are Mr. Shapiro's words.
I think this is dissemination on Mr. Shapiro's part. We'd be pretty naive to think a new free market in Afghanistan would not benefit us greatly when it came to opening a go-ahead path to the pipeline. Like most of us, Moore wasn't born in a turnip patch. The very name of his film, containing the numbers 9/11 make it quite obvious why we began a campaign in Aghanistan. It would also be very naive of us to believe Halliburton did not benefit greatly from this war in Iraq. One look at a factual breakdown of DOD contracts made for Iraq reconstruction will tell you they received sweet corporate welfare from U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Shapiro seems to miss the "joke" entirely as Moore places a French product in his pre-9/11 scenario:
Huh?!
I wonder if Mr. Shapiro simply didn't "get it" or worse..if he's feigning disgust at Michael Moore's so-called "snide" commentary to keep his cushy job with USA Today?
Oh!
You mean, like, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh?
Actually, Jon Stewart betrays 50 times as much truth in 30 minutes than FOX News in a whole day. Saturday Night Live is politically irrelevant these days. Jay Leno is a Bush-man. FOX News is a comedy every time they claim to be balanced. The big-lipped blonde FOXette Laurie Dhue knows how the world works? Give me a break!
I think Mr. Shapiro has given Moore a very unfair shake, considering the deep sh*t we have to wade through every single day in the world of right-wing talk radio and cable TV news.
[LINK]
I found Walter Shapiro's review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be intellectally insulting.
Shapiro asks:
Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?
Primarily? When did Moore say "primarily"? These are Mr. Shapiro's words.
I think this is dissemination on Mr. Shapiro's part. We'd be pretty naive to think a new free market in Afghanistan would not benefit us greatly when it came to opening a go-ahead path to the pipeline. Like most of us, Moore wasn't born in a turnip patch. The very name of his film, containing the numbers 9/11 make it quite obvious why we began a campaign in Aghanistan. It would also be very naive of us to believe Halliburton did not benefit greatly from this war in Iraq. One look at a factual breakdown of DOD contracts made for Iraq reconstruction will tell you they received sweet corporate welfare from U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Shapiro seems to miss the "joke" entirely as Moore places a French product in his pre-9/11 scenario:
A single sentence captures the filmmaker's cheap-shot style. Describing George W. Bush's trip to Florida on Sept. 10, 2001, Moore gleefully declares in his voice-over, "He went to bed that night in a bed made with fine French linens." The way Moore presents this tiny detail conveys the impression that stalwart Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton slept only on the cheapest sheets available from Wal-Mart. Maybe Moore and his fans can call this hitherto unreported Bush scandal "Linen-closet-gate."
Huh?!
I wonder if Mr. Shapiro simply didn't "get it" or worse..if he's feigning disgust at Michael Moore's so-called "snide" commentary to keep his cushy job with USA Today?
At a time when the nation's problems seem so daunting, it is tempting for voters to derive nourishment from moviemakers and radio personalities who offer entertaining theories about how the world really works.
Oh!
You mean, like, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh?
But it does raise troubling questions about the ability of voters to render mature judgments about America's role in a hostile international environment. What does it say about our democracy when Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live are regarded as respected sources of political commentary?
Actually, Jon Stewart betrays 50 times as much truth in 30 minutes than FOX News in a whole day. Saturday Night Live is politically irrelevant these days. Jay Leno is a Bush-man. FOX News is a comedy every time they claim to be balanced. The big-lipped blonde FOXette Laurie Dhue knows how the world works? Give me a break!
I think Mr. Shapiro has given Moore a very unfair shake, considering the deep sh*t we have to wade through every single day in the world of right-wing talk radio and cable TV news.
Bill Clinton's Very Personal Reflections
Bill Clinton's Very Personal Reflections
In '60 Minutes' Interview, Ex-President Calls Affair 'Terrible Moral Error'
By Howard Kurtz/Washington Post
[LINK]
Clinton's greatest accomplishment, in his opinion, was the creation of 22 million jobs.
Dan Rather said Clinton was "supportive" of President Bush on Iraq and that "it will surprise some people."
I don't plan to be overwhelmed or impressed by the "support" Clinton will throw to Bush. Anything he offers will probably be a security blanket for Hillary's political future. Iraq was an unnecessary war and the American public was used badly by a lying administration. Bush alienated our nation from the respect of many of our allies. His Iraq folly drew resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda. The Iraq war caused an increase in membership to terror groups and probably will for years to come. We've only succeeded in spending hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security. More than seven hundred Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured.
If Bill Clinton says he clearly supports any of those things, I'll eat my hat and howl at the moon.
In '60 Minutes' Interview, Ex-President Calls Affair 'Terrible Moral Error'
By Howard Kurtz/Washington Post
[LINK]
Clinton's greatest accomplishment, in his opinion, was the creation of 22 million jobs.
Dan Rather said Clinton was "supportive" of President Bush on Iraq and that "it will surprise some people."
I don't plan to be overwhelmed or impressed by the "support" Clinton will throw to Bush. Anything he offers will probably be a security blanket for Hillary's political future. Iraq was an unnecessary war and the American public was used badly by a lying administration. Bush alienated our nation from the respect of many of our allies. His Iraq folly drew resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda. The Iraq war caused an increase in membership to terror groups and probably will for years to come. We've only succeeded in spending hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security. More than seven hundred Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured.
If Bill Clinton says he clearly supports any of those things, I'll eat my hat and howl at the moon.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The Simple Wisdom of Mad Kane
The Simple Wisdom of Mad Kane
Mad Kane was so pleased last week to see that Bush wasn't exploiting and politicizing former President Ronald Reagan's death. So pleased was Mad that she was inspired to write this lovely poem in his honor:
Dubya Takes The High Road
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Reflected glory Dubya seeks
From Reagan's mourned demise.
Too bad that next to Forty-Three
Ron's statesmanlike and wise.
[LINK]
Mad Kane was so pleased last week to see that Bush wasn't exploiting and politicizing former President Ronald Reagan's death. So pleased was Mad that she was inspired to write this lovely poem in his honor:
Dubya Takes The High Road
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Reflected glory Dubya seeks
From Reagan's mourned demise.
Too bad that next to Forty-Three
Ron's statesmanlike and wise.
[LINK]
Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Kerry Before Nomination Accepted
Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Kerry Before Nomination Accepted
It's very unusual to see an endorsement of this kind in the pre-election season. I wanted to share it with you because it is so politically unique. They explain that this endorsement is being made now, when the election is months away, because this race promises to be close and Pennsylvania is one of 18 swing states that can go to either candidate. I'm not sure if this is the first time in American history that such a strong endorsement is made this early, but it certainly stands out as significant and indicative of an expected tough contest to come this fall.
The endorsement is titled:
"KERRY FOR PREZ:
Why Him, Why Now-
And How To Put Him In The White House"
An excerpt:
The Case Against Bush
George W. Bush received - and deserved - praise for his leadership during the dark days immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
But since then, the Bush administration has been marked by failure - failure to shepherd the country through a tough economic downturn, failure to keep the nation focused on the true enemies to our security.
He has failed in even the one challenge he set out for himself at the beginning of his administration - to bring the country together. His has been one of the most ideologically driven and divisive administrations in recent times.
Instead of moving forward, the country has been on the wrong track. These last four years have been wasted.
Bush wasted the opportunity to lead an international movement against al Qaeda, the real terrorist threat. Instead he has led us, with false intelligence, into a senseless war. In less than two weeks, the United States will hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis. But our troops will remain - and will have to remain for years to come.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, there was a sense of national unity. Bush wasted the moment by deciding to appease the most strident in his conservative base, opposing gay marriages, gagging abortion information and giving comfort to the more irresponsible voices in the National Rifle Association...
The Case For Kerry
Kerry acknowledges that his privileges left him with a responsibility to serve and an ambition to lead. And he has - from combat in the Navy, then as the cleancut (and therefore highly effective) leader of the Vietnam veterans' anti-war movement, as a prosecutor in Boston, and in four terms in the U.S. Senate.
He is not the indecisive waffler the Bush team would have you believe. Instead, he is offering a concrete, pragmatic direction for the nation.
On the issue of high unemployment he is proposing changing the tax laws that give U.S. companies incentives to outsource jobs to India and China.
Kerry promises to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 to help cut the federal deficit and help pay for his health-care program, which seeks to expand coverage. He will withdraw the special privileges given to polluting industries and the oil companies as we work toward freeing ourselves from dependence on oil from the Middle East.
On homeland security, Kerry understands that if we are attacked again, the first to respond will be firefighters and emergency medical teams, which have been largely ignored by the Bush administration. Kerry is proposing recruiting an additional 100,000 firefighters. Bill Clinton did the same with police during his term. Afterward, crime went down across the country. Coincidence? Hardly.
On Iraq, there's little evidence that Bush can enlist the international help necessary to bring more of our troops home. There's reason to believe that Kerry, who understands the human cost of war, will.....
Because he respects the intelligence of the American people, he rarely talks in sound bites.
He understands that sound bites aren't solutions.....
[LINK]
It's very unusual to see an endorsement of this kind in the pre-election season. I wanted to share it with you because it is so politically unique. They explain that this endorsement is being made now, when the election is months away, because this race promises to be close and Pennsylvania is one of 18 swing states that can go to either candidate. I'm not sure if this is the first time in American history that such a strong endorsement is made this early, but it certainly stands out as significant and indicative of an expected tough contest to come this fall.
The endorsement is titled:
"KERRY FOR PREZ:
Why Him, Why Now-
And How To Put Him In The White House"
An excerpt:
The Case Against Bush
George W. Bush received - and deserved - praise for his leadership during the dark days immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
But since then, the Bush administration has been marked by failure - failure to shepherd the country through a tough economic downturn, failure to keep the nation focused on the true enemies to our security.
He has failed in even the one challenge he set out for himself at the beginning of his administration - to bring the country together. His has been one of the most ideologically driven and divisive administrations in recent times.
Instead of moving forward, the country has been on the wrong track. These last four years have been wasted.
Bush wasted the opportunity to lead an international movement against al Qaeda, the real terrorist threat. Instead he has led us, with false intelligence, into a senseless war. In less than two weeks, the United States will hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis. But our troops will remain - and will have to remain for years to come.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, there was a sense of national unity. Bush wasted the moment by deciding to appease the most strident in his conservative base, opposing gay marriages, gagging abortion information and giving comfort to the more irresponsible voices in the National Rifle Association...
The Case For Kerry
Kerry acknowledges that his privileges left him with a responsibility to serve and an ambition to lead. And he has - from combat in the Navy, then as the cleancut (and therefore highly effective) leader of the Vietnam veterans' anti-war movement, as a prosecutor in Boston, and in four terms in the U.S. Senate.
He is not the indecisive waffler the Bush team would have you believe. Instead, he is offering a concrete, pragmatic direction for the nation.
On the issue of high unemployment he is proposing changing the tax laws that give U.S. companies incentives to outsource jobs to India and China.
Kerry promises to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 to help cut the federal deficit and help pay for his health-care program, which seeks to expand coverage. He will withdraw the special privileges given to polluting industries and the oil companies as we work toward freeing ourselves from dependence on oil from the Middle East.
On homeland security, Kerry understands that if we are attacked again, the first to respond will be firefighters and emergency medical teams, which have been largely ignored by the Bush administration. Kerry is proposing recruiting an additional 100,000 firefighters. Bill Clinton did the same with police during his term. Afterward, crime went down across the country. Coincidence? Hardly.
On Iraq, there's little evidence that Bush can enlist the international help necessary to bring more of our troops home. There's reason to believe that Kerry, who understands the human cost of war, will.....
Because he respects the intelligence of the American people, he rarely talks in sound bites.
He understands that sound bites aren't solutions.....
[LINK]
Plundered/Sabotaged: Iraq losing oil revenue all around
Plundered/Sabotaged: Iraq losing oil revenue all around
Is it any wonder there is so much anger amongst the people of Iraq?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Despite Allawi's words of assurance, the scene on the street suggested that popular revulsion against the U.S. occupation and the government is growing...."
--From a news report describing Monday's rioting in Baghdad's Tahrir Square, the worst since Baghdad fell in 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plundered by the Ones They See As Occupiers
Our Coalition Provisional Authority is positively scrambling to beat the June 30th date to give away $2 billion of Iraq's oil revenues in reconstruction bids to private contractors. The Bush administration knows the new Iraqi government is going to take the reins in just 14 days and they will then have a rightful claim on how their own oil revenues are used. It's ethically disgusting for the CPA (ie: Bush admin/Pentagon) to commit the money to their preferred contractors now. It's really no wonder they're despised and mistrusted by so many Iraqis. The money will come out of the Development Fund for Iraq. The UN Security Council resolution (passed on June 8) requires the new Iraqi government to satisfy all outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq made before June 30, leaving the new interim Iraqi government with no choice but to honor these questionable expenditures by the CPA.
Just as bad as robbing the Iraqi people's revenues, the business of the State subsidizing corporations through the use of these private contractors (far out of the realm of the "free market") is little more than State-sponsored theft from the People of the U.S. America is providing the capital necessary to undertake Iraq's reconstruction projects. The organization known as the Program Management Office Concept of Operations has the responsibility to ensure Americans receive the best value possible from their investment into the Iraqi infrastructure for the benefit of the Iraqi people. What are they doing? Are you paying attention?
The whole story of the pre-emptive attack upon Iraq is nearly pornographic...one of the most obscene moral tales you could ever hear.
Sabotaged By Those Who Fight Occupation
Iraq's oil exports have been hurt badly by the Basra sabotage. It would take about $30 billion a year in income for the Iraqi state to run the country properly and repair everything that needs to be repaired, as well as servicing its debts and paying reparations. In the past year, Iraq has only been able to generate about $10 billion from petroleum. This is a real kick to Iraq "sovereignty's" credibility-kiester since the direct hit to oil-revenue will be an economy-buster for the new government. Reviving petroleum exports is the key to restoring Iraq's economy after decades of war, international sanctions and Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
If the instability-trend in Iraq spreads to Saudi Arabia (which it seems to be doing right quickly), prices at the pump are soon going to be devastating to us.
American citizens..have you considered that you are being robbed alongside the citizens of the new Iraq? Do you see where your tax-dollars are going?
Is it any wonder there is so much anger amongst the people of Iraq?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Despite Allawi's words of assurance, the scene on the street suggested that popular revulsion against the U.S. occupation and the government is growing...."
--From a news report describing Monday's rioting in Baghdad's Tahrir Square, the worst since Baghdad fell in 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plundered by the Ones They See As Occupiers
Our Coalition Provisional Authority is positively scrambling to beat the June 30th date to give away $2 billion of Iraq's oil revenues in reconstruction bids to private contractors. The Bush administration knows the new Iraqi government is going to take the reins in just 14 days and they will then have a rightful claim on how their own oil revenues are used. It's ethically disgusting for the CPA (ie: Bush admin/Pentagon) to commit the money to their preferred contractors now. It's really no wonder they're despised and mistrusted by so many Iraqis. The money will come out of the Development Fund for Iraq. The UN Security Council resolution (passed on June 8) requires the new Iraqi government to satisfy all outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq made before June 30, leaving the new interim Iraqi government with no choice but to honor these questionable expenditures by the CPA.
Just as bad as robbing the Iraqi people's revenues, the business of the State subsidizing corporations through the use of these private contractors (far out of the realm of the "free market") is little more than State-sponsored theft from the People of the U.S. America is providing the capital necessary to undertake Iraq's reconstruction projects. The organization known as the Program Management Office Concept of Operations has the responsibility to ensure Americans receive the best value possible from their investment into the Iraqi infrastructure for the benefit of the Iraqi people. What are they doing? Are you paying attention?
The whole story of the pre-emptive attack upon Iraq is nearly pornographic...one of the most obscene moral tales you could ever hear.
Sabotaged By Those Who Fight Occupation
Iraq's oil exports have been hurt badly by the Basra sabotage. It would take about $30 billion a year in income for the Iraqi state to run the country properly and repair everything that needs to be repaired, as well as servicing its debts and paying reparations. In the past year, Iraq has only been able to generate about $10 billion from petroleum. This is a real kick to Iraq "sovereignty's" credibility-kiester since the direct hit to oil-revenue will be an economy-buster for the new government. Reviving petroleum exports is the key to restoring Iraq's economy after decades of war, international sanctions and Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
If the instability-trend in Iraq spreads to Saudi Arabia (which it seems to be doing right quickly), prices at the pump are soon going to be devastating to us.
American citizens..have you considered that you are being robbed alongside the citizens of the new Iraq? Do you see where your tax-dollars are going?
And you thought IRAQ was terror-connected?
And you thought IRAQ was terror-connected?
The Bush administration and the right-wingers who love them have been desperately attempting to tie Saddam with 9/11 terrorists. VP Dick Cheney constantly tells us there was a connection while offering no proof. We just found out that Osama was rebuffed by Saddam, matter-of-fact. While the Bushites continue to lie (bald-faced) to us and then dig and dig for more fake proof of the slightest coincidental connection, we see stories like these from Saudi Arabia that SCREAM 'terror-harboring'.
We understand that Saudi Arabia knowingly harbors terrorists (voluntarily or not, it's sure terrorists exist fairly openly amongst them).
We understand that Saudi Arabia is a dangerous place for Americans.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has appeased terror-abiding Saudi Arabia by pulling our military bases out.
We've warned American citizens to leave the country.
Yet---
Saudi Arabia has promised George W Bush a re-election campaign boost by manipulating oil prices at the 'right time'.
This leads me to believe that if a government will cooperate with the U.S., it doesn't matter what their terror connections are.
If Saddam had played the U.S. game, he may have been sitting pretty still today. He was not a 9/11 terrorist nor was he "connected". He was a rebellious ex-friend of the Reagan era.
If American contractor Paul Johnson is murdered by these terrorists who hold him captive, we'd better get ruthlessly tough on Saudi Arabia if we're going to be consistent and credible. Saudi Arabia is no less than infested with terrorists and the Saudi government is not firm enough in their resolve. They are too bloody afraid of their own populace.
Why are we allowing them to get away with their inadequate responses? Why aren't we chasing Prince Bandar into a spider-hole?
The hypocrisy of our foreign policy is astounding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: If you think chasing Prince Bandar into a spider-hole seems a ludicrous idea for a civilized nation to propose, think about the proportion of 9/11 terrorists who were citizens of Saudia Arabia compared to the number that were from Iraq. The Bush administration has made a hypocritical circus of this war on terror...attacking a nation who played no part in killing so many of our citizens in NYC in 2001.
The Bush administration and the right-wingers who love them have been desperately attempting to tie Saddam with 9/11 terrorists. VP Dick Cheney constantly tells us there was a connection while offering no proof. We just found out that Osama was rebuffed by Saddam, matter-of-fact. While the Bushites continue to lie (bald-faced) to us and then dig and dig for more fake proof of the slightest coincidental connection, we see stories like these from Saudi Arabia that SCREAM 'terror-harboring'.
We understand that Saudi Arabia knowingly harbors terrorists (voluntarily or not, it's sure terrorists exist fairly openly amongst them).
We understand that Saudi Arabia is a dangerous place for Americans.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has appeased terror-abiding Saudi Arabia by pulling our military bases out.
We've warned American citizens to leave the country.
Yet---
Saudi Arabia has promised George W Bush a re-election campaign boost by manipulating oil prices at the 'right time'.
This leads me to believe that if a government will cooperate with the U.S., it doesn't matter what their terror connections are.
If Saddam had played the U.S. game, he may have been sitting pretty still today. He was not a 9/11 terrorist nor was he "connected". He was a rebellious ex-friend of the Reagan era.
If American contractor Paul Johnson is murdered by these terrorists who hold him captive, we'd better get ruthlessly tough on Saudi Arabia if we're going to be consistent and credible. Saudi Arabia is no less than infested with terrorists and the Saudi government is not firm enough in their resolve. They are too bloody afraid of their own populace.
Why are we allowing them to get away with their inadequate responses? Why aren't we chasing Prince Bandar into a spider-hole?
The hypocrisy of our foreign policy is astounding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: If you think chasing Prince Bandar into a spider-hole seems a ludicrous idea for a civilized nation to propose, think about the proportion of 9/11 terrorists who were citizens of Saudia Arabia compared to the number that were from Iraq. The Bush administration has made a hypocritical circus of this war on terror...attacking a nation who played no part in killing so many of our citizens in NYC in 2001.
Ashcroft: Worst Attorney General in History
Ashcroft: Worst Attorney General in History
Paul Krugman says there's no question:
John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in American history.
(This particular column is focusing only on Mr. Ashcroft's role in the fight against terror.)
[LINK]
Paul Krugman says there's no question:
John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in American history.
(This particular column is focusing only on Mr. Ashcroft's role in the fight against terror.)
[LINK]
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
5.2 Earthquake in San Diego
5.2 Earthquake in San Diego
Today's earthquake in San Diego (a 5.2 earthquake) took a lot of people by surprise. You can read about the experience (and memories of a far more dangerous quake) at Moderate Voice. Kevin at Primary Main Objective, Lt. Smash, Cinediva, San Diego blog, and USS Clueless have reported in about the quake at their blogs as well.
Louis...if you're out there..how did you make out?
Today's earthquake in San Diego (a 5.2 earthquake) took a lot of people by surprise. You can read about the experience (and memories of a far more dangerous quake) at Moderate Voice. Kevin at Primary Main Objective, Lt. Smash, Cinediva, San Diego blog, and USS Clueless have reported in about the quake at their blogs as well.
Louis...if you're out there..how did you make out?
David Brooks and the Great Overgeneralization
David Brooks and the Great Overgeneralization
Someone please tell David Brooks that it doesn't matter that Dubya is a "Manager" and went to business school and drives a pick-up.
Bush is destroying America from the inside.
I don't really care that John Kerry plays classical guitar.
He might be able to turn America's disastrous tidal path. We're heading for the rocks.
Of Managers and Professionals
I worked for a major corporation most of my life as one of David Brooks' "Managers" in a "Professional's" skin. A false career for me, I suppose, when you consider my nature, although I did very well and derived a sense of personal satisfaction for a job well-done. After a post 9/11 career change, I now do the work that better suits my nature. 9/11 informed me in a way that no career-advisor could ever inform a client.
Life isn't very long.
We need to do what we can while were here.
Watching all Bush has done after 9/11..pick-up truck and classical guitar considerations aside...I know that part of what I need to do is to remind my fellow Americans that we have a dangerous man at the helm of a country so many of us love with breath and depth indescribably immense.
Brooks blames the citizenry
One look at a man like Lincoln Chaffee or Christopher Shays completely dilutes Brooks' pick-up/management overgeneralizations. Chaffee, Shays, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar...just a few examples of GOP men who do not fit Brooks' "Manager" overgeneralization. Brooks says, if not for the civil war within the educated class in America, this country would be far less polarized. I wonder why it is Brooks fails to fault leadership in Washington, D.C. for the absolutely shitty job they've done this past decade to show the American people what it means to intelligently argue their ideals without all the ad hominem attacks? These are the figureheads of our nation. If they are not charged with heavy responsibility for setting the tone of civility, who should be? To fail to assign blame where blame belongs is little more than delusional and misleading dissemination on Mr. Brooks' part.
America was born through the driving force of David Brooks' Professionals
David Brooks says:
"Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith."
Let me be blunt. Ben Franklin got more tail than a toilet seat. He loved the women. That wouldn't go over big with the faith-crowd in today's technological news age. Yet, Ben Franklin's abundance of ideas fostered the creation of our nation.
David Brooks says:
"[Managers] prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective."
Dear heavens. "Managers" would have HATED Ben Franklin.
If Brooks thinks he's broken some magical political code with this analysis, someone needs to know we're out here laughing...through our tears.
Someone please tell David Brooks that it doesn't matter that Dubya is a "Manager" and went to business school and drives a pick-up.
Bush is destroying America from the inside.
I don't really care that John Kerry plays classical guitar.
He might be able to turn America's disastrous tidal path. We're heading for the rocks.
Of Managers and Professionals
I worked for a major corporation most of my life as one of David Brooks' "Managers" in a "Professional's" skin. A false career for me, I suppose, when you consider my nature, although I did very well and derived a sense of personal satisfaction for a job well-done. After a post 9/11 career change, I now do the work that better suits my nature. 9/11 informed me in a way that no career-advisor could ever inform a client.
Life isn't very long.
We need to do what we can while were here.
Watching all Bush has done after 9/11..pick-up truck and classical guitar considerations aside...I know that part of what I need to do is to remind my fellow Americans that we have a dangerous man at the helm of a country so many of us love with breath and depth indescribably immense.
Brooks blames the citizenry
One look at a man like Lincoln Chaffee or Christopher Shays completely dilutes Brooks' pick-up/management overgeneralizations. Chaffee, Shays, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar...just a few examples of GOP men who do not fit Brooks' "Manager" overgeneralization. Brooks says, if not for the civil war within the educated class in America, this country would be far less polarized. I wonder why it is Brooks fails to fault leadership in Washington, D.C. for the absolutely shitty job they've done this past decade to show the American people what it means to intelligently argue their ideals without all the ad hominem attacks? These are the figureheads of our nation. If they are not charged with heavy responsibility for setting the tone of civility, who should be? To fail to assign blame where blame belongs is little more than delusional and misleading dissemination on Mr. Brooks' part.
America was born through the driving force of David Brooks' Professionals
David Brooks says:
"Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith."
Let me be blunt. Ben Franklin got more tail than a toilet seat. He loved the women. That wouldn't go over big with the faith-crowd in today's technological news age. Yet, Ben Franklin's abundance of ideas fostered the creation of our nation.
David Brooks says:
"[Managers] prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective."
Dear heavens. "Managers" would have HATED Ben Franklin.
If Brooks thinks he's broken some magical political code with this analysis, someone needs to know we're out here laughing...through our tears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)