Friday, July 16, 2004

The Enemy of our Enemy

This one comes via the infallible Cursor:
__________________________________________________________________
"Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.

They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs.

They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death"."
___________________________________________________________________
 
Full story here.
 
It's one thing to sit in the comfort of our respective dens, and make clever witticisms to each other about what an evil bastard he is, but our compadres in Iraq have a whole different ballgame going on. 
 
And remember:  We're doing this to make America safer. 
 

Pardon my dust...

Hey everyone. For all those too impatient to look at the end of
the post, my name is Willie Tomg, and I'll be doing a bit of guest blog
work for JFK. Nothing too special mind, just adding my $0.02 to
what I see in the world, and in life. I've been meaning to start
a blog of my own, but never got around to it, so now I have no excuse
to stop bothering my friends, my family, and brick walls everywhere
with my left-of-center bloviations.



This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.



You can't handle the truth!


John Kerry, top left, first picture; Anti-war in Iraq protester, 2002, second picture


Diane Sawyer: First of all, I just want to ask about reading. Mr. President, you know that there was a great deal of reporting about the fact that you said, first of all, that you let Condoleezza Rice and Andrew Card give you a flavor of what's in the news.
Bush: Yes.
Sawyer: That you don't read the stories yourself.
Bush: Yes. I get my news from people who don't editorialize. They give me the actual news, and it makes it easier to digest, on a daily basis, the facts.
Sawyer: Is it just harder to read constant criticism or to read —
Bush: Why even put up with it when you can get the facts elsewhere? I'm a lucky man. I've got, it's not just Condi and Andy, it's all kinds of people in my administration who are charged with different responsibilities, and they come in and say this is what's happening, this isn't what's happening.



John F. Kennedy read several newspapers every morning. In addition to the usual daily briefing, he sought out the news on his own. He even learned how to speed read, reportedly tearing through the NY Times in about 20 minutes. With his bad back, he'd spend his morning standing, hunched over his desk, reading the news. How did we go from this kind of dedication to a man who refuses to acknowledge the world around him?

Can some of you older folks tell me if you've ever seen a president who has seemed any more detached from such pressing situations? I remember watching Bush's State of the Union address several months ago, while our boys were dying by the dozens in Iraq. One of his major issues: the use of steroids in professional baseball.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a purist when it comes to America's favorite pastime. But when I see GWB's beady eyes searching around the room when he's in a tough spot, I wonder how the hell did this guy get the job?

Bush is exhibiting more signs of his fear of reality. Anyone showing any amount of dissent at his rallies are carted off in cuffs. It's been all over the news, but for those who aren't aware, two people attending a Bush rally were caught wearing anti-Bush shirts. They had tickets, and, therefore, a right to be there. Bush's babysitters took notice and had them arrested. When the two dissenters had their day in court, the judge threw it out, basically telling Bush to get over himself.

On November 2nd, you will have two main choices: a man who exercised his First Amendment rights and was arrested for it, and a man who has people arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Boycott interior decorators


(I'd like to point out that I know it's pretty unoriginal to parody O'Reilly's "Talking Points", but I couldn't help myself)

“It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right… Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.”
-John Cornyn, (R) Texas

That's what gets me about this whole debate. How is it that love between two consenting adults undermines anything? The "instituion of marriage" has been a laughingstock for years now. You've got Britney Spears' 2 day marriage, Elizabeth Taylor's eight marriages, and I guess soon we're going to have box turtle marriages.

I had a history teacher last year who was a moderate Republican (I know, they're hard to come by). She showed her true colors one day when she commented that the legalization of gay marriages would "open the door for child pornographers and child molestors." When asked how she made the jump from marriage to pedophilia, she said they're "both alternative lifestyles."

Hrmmm...

Sometimes I put on my socks before I put on my pants. Most people don't do that. Should we make a Constitutional amendment barring people from putting socks on before pants? The truth is the gay community would be a credit to marriage. The vast majority don't want to get married on a whim, and certainly won't get married out of social pressure. They get married for one reason: love. If that love is strong enough to make them fight the established social structure against them, then more power to them.

The real agenda here is for the Republicans to try to put Kerry and Edwards in a tight spot. If they vote against the Constitutional ban, for months we'll see ads that say "Kerry and Edwards voted AGAINST family values. They hate America." If they vote for the ban (which will never happen), then it'll be the most famous flip-flop. If they don't vote at all, then they're "running from the issues."

It makes me sick to think that people can try to equate pedophilia with gay marriage. On one hand you have victimization; the other, a healthy lifestyle. The only thing that's unhealthy here is the hate and homophobia representing us in the Senate. And box turtles; they bite.

Monday, July 12, 2004

Dude, where's my objectivity?



I couldn't stop laughing while watching Matt Lauer go through this painful interview with Michael Moore several weeks ago. The otherwise sunny Matt was trying to grill Moore over his facts and fell flat on his face.

Lauer: "Disney decided they didn't want to distribute it. And basically, you accused them of censorship. Why?"
Moore: "Well, because they had made this movie. I mean for a year they sent me a check every month so I could make this film. And this was all with the intent of, you know, this film's going to be distributed. To find out just weeks before it's supposed to come out, after Disney sends an executive here to New York, sits in my office, watches the movie and he's like, 'whoa,' you know, and then reports back. Then they have a board meeting the next week, and they say, you know, 'No. There's no way we're going to distribute this.'"
Lauer: "It's their right, though. They're a distribution company."
Moore: "That's right."
Lauer: "You know what? They paid you? The checks cleared and they can look at it and say, you know what? This is not the kind of movie we want to distribute right now. Maybe it's too political. Maybe it won't attract a wide enough audience. It's their right."
Moore: "It's their right. Except here's the difference. It's not government censorship. It's censorship by a corporation. And we're at a point now, Matt, where we have fewer and fewer companies owning all our media. I mean here we are at NBC, which just bought Universal, which is owned by GE. As you have fewer and fewer voices in a democracy, in a free society, it's not good to limit the number of voices."


Indeed. What Moore didn't mention is that GE is under contract by the military to help build planes and other weapons of war. So Matt Lauer, the good old guy, profits from this war. The war does good, Matt does good; Moore does good, Matt... doesn't do so good. And it's when you've got major media outlets controlled by Republicans and their ideals that objectivity goes out the window and the evening news becomes propaganda time. It's amusing how pundits like O'Reilly, Coulter, Cavuto, and Hannity can claim an "unfair bias" against Moore with straight faces. The past 4 years, their Chimp in Chief has been calling the shots and they've been serving up propaganda on a silver platter at Fox News (owned by News Corp., a very very very right wing evil empire headed by Satan a.k.a. Rupert Murdoch). They've been in fundamentalist right wing HEAVEN and they have the cojones to accuse Moore of being disingenuous. They've had their chance, and now the progressives are fighting back, and they don't like it. Had Matt Lauer and his not-so-esteemed coleagues grilled President Bush the way he tried to grill Michael Moore, there's about 12,000 people that would still be alive right now.