I'm listening to the Clash, "Straight to Hell" and I am going over the events post- and pre-11, September, 2001 ('cause no matter what Reagan said, we ARE connected to the world and therefore our system of numerology and dates should reflect the rest of the world...) and this is what I have (re)discovered: And these are just a FEW of the articles from which I have cut and pasted information, Thank you Bill Gates (even though you donate to the Republicans, you bastard! But then again you want to end world wide sickness, which gives to you a certain God-like personality, so, run with it my be-spectaled friend...)
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.
Mr. Bush said last month that the dispute concerned "the presidential daily brief," a classified written intelligence report he gets each morning. The White House confirmed last year that one such report in August 2001, a month before the attacks, mentioned that al Qaeda might try to hijack U.S. passenger planes. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has described the report as an analysis, rather than a warning, and said hijacking was mentioned in a traditional sense, not as it was used on Sept. 11.
According to a Congressional probe into the Sept. 11 attacks, the president's Aug. 6, 2001 daily briefing included information "acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives." It referred to an al Qaeda support base in the United States, and FBI "judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks." Describing the White House's concerns about access to the document, Mr. Bush said it is important "for the writers of the presidential daily brief to feel comfortable that the documents will never be politicized and/or unnecessarily exposed for public purview."
The tug-of-war over the daily brief is not the first dispute over access to information involving the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney has fought the General Accounting Office and private watchdog groups who want access to the documents used by his energy task force. The Senate Committee probing prewar intelligence in Iraq has expressed frustration over delays in getting documents from the administration.
President Bush said Monday his staff is cooperating with the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, but stopped short of saying whether the White House would hand over top-level papers that may be subpoenaed. "Those are very sensitive documents," Mr. Bush said, adding that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was working with Thomas Kean, chairman of the commission, on this issue.
Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission said, "the president is correct on both counts. They are very sensitive documents. That's why we are having negotiations. These aren't things you just hand out to folks."
Mr. Bush's remarks were underscored later Monday by White House press secretary Scott McClellan. But McClellan, too, stopped short of saying the White House will turn over certain papers, such as transcripts of the president's daily terrorism briefings.
Kean's remarks to the Times were his first explicit public warning to the White House that it risked a subpoena and a politically damaging courtroom showdown with the commission over access to the documents, which include Oval Office intelligence reports that reached President Bush's desk in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. "I will not stand for it," said Kean, who is now the president of Drew University in Madison, N.J. "That means that we will use every tool at our command to get hold of every document." He told the Times that, while he had not directly threatened a subpoena in his recent conversations with the White House legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, "it's always on the table, because they know that Congress in their wisdom gave us the power to subpoena, to use it if necessary."
While Kean said he was barred by an agreement with the White House from describing the Oval Office documents at issue in any detail — he said the White House was "quite nervous" about any public hint at their contents — other commission officials said they included the detailed daily intelligence reports that were provided to Mr. Bush in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The reports are known within the White House as the Presidential Daily Briefing. Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.
The chairman of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said the White House was continuing to withhold several highly classified intelligence documents from the panel and that he was prepared to subpoena the documents if they were not turned over within weeks
"continuing delays by the Bush administration in providing documents and other evidence needed by the panel."
While Kean said he was barred by an agreement with the White House from describing the Oval Office documents at issue in any detail — he said the White House was "quite nervous" about any public hint at their contents — other commission officials said they included the detailed daily intelligence reports that were provided to Mr. Bush in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The reports are known within the White House as the Presidential Daily Briefing. Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.
December 10, 2004
November 22, 2004
critical discourse analysis and the abuse of language by our government
In his introduction, Ronald Wardhaugh writes about critical discourse analysis. "This work focuses on how language is used to exercise and preserve power and privilege in society, how it buttresses social institutions, and how even those who suffer as a consequence fail to realize how many things that appear to be 'natural' and 'normal' are not at all so." It was argued by Benjamin Lee Whorf that human beings created language and that in turn, created societies with common cultures and that it is language which helps to define our culture, which in turn is a reflection of us. Essentially, we create our own reality and we express that reality in our language. However, when certain people abuse the use of language, as Wardhaugh writes, "power relations in societ determine who gets to say what and who gets to write what." they do so by abusing our faith and certainty in the very words they use against us.
George Lakoff writes about the use of words by politicians extensively in Moral Politics. Although Lakoff writes more about the use of language as a political tool; as a means to gain a politically favorable end, it can be argued that if that end is arrived at by deceitful use of language, then those words were abused. That is, we the listeners had our knowledge of and faith in those words abused. As a whole, I believe people when they tell me something. Unless given to think otherwise, I am not immediately suspicious of the things that people tell me. I trust the words they use to represent the truth. But when those words have more than a double-meaning, when they actually mean something else entirely; the exact opposite, then I have had my faith and my certitude in those words and my understanding of them undermined. And more than that, deliberately so in order that the person who did this may gain an advantage.
Faith and certainty are two buzz-words used a lot by Republicans and especially George W Bush and his administration (so are morals, values and responsibility, but discussing those would take more than I have time for) However, on a seemingly daily basis, the Bush administration abuses these two basic items of language, and language is considered to be the cornerstone of humanity. By degrading faith in the ability of language to tell the truth, the Bush administration is essentially creating a new lexicon from an existing language. Like the world in which Alice finds herself on the other side of her looking-glass, it appears as though our world is beginning to mirror a backwards-front, upside-down world where truths are lies, nobody does anything wrong and apologies are not necessary because mistakes are never made. In this world, everyone agrees with one another, there is no dissent and no differing opinion is ever given. This is a terrible reality, more horrifying than any imagined by Lewis or Lovecraft for that matter.
Since we are the creators of our language, which in turn creates our culture, then we are either content with this new reality or we need to take back our language from those who twist it against us.
George Lakoff writes about the use of words by politicians extensively in Moral Politics. Although Lakoff writes more about the use of language as a political tool; as a means to gain a politically favorable end, it can be argued that if that end is arrived at by deceitful use of language, then those words were abused. That is, we the listeners had our knowledge of and faith in those words abused. As a whole, I believe people when they tell me something. Unless given to think otherwise, I am not immediately suspicious of the things that people tell me. I trust the words they use to represent the truth. But when those words have more than a double-meaning, when they actually mean something else entirely; the exact opposite, then I have had my faith and my certitude in those words and my understanding of them undermined. And more than that, deliberately so in order that the person who did this may gain an advantage.
Faith and certainty are two buzz-words used a lot by Republicans and especially George W Bush and his administration (so are morals, values and responsibility, but discussing those would take more than I have time for) However, on a seemingly daily basis, the Bush administration abuses these two basic items of language, and language is considered to be the cornerstone of humanity. By degrading faith in the ability of language to tell the truth, the Bush administration is essentially creating a new lexicon from an existing language. Like the world in which Alice finds herself on the other side of her looking-glass, it appears as though our world is beginning to mirror a backwards-front, upside-down world where truths are lies, nobody does anything wrong and apologies are not necessary because mistakes are never made. In this world, everyone agrees with one another, there is no dissent and no differing opinion is ever given. This is a terrible reality, more horrifying than any imagined by Lewis or Lovecraft for that matter.
Since we are the creators of our language, which in turn creates our culture, then we are either content with this new reality or we need to take back our language from those who twist it against us.
October 25, 2004
re: movie quotes (mq)
Those of you who know me know that I am an unending well of useless trivia, especially quoting lines from movies. From this point forward, realising full well that not all of you may be as savvy, or at the least devote a large part of your memory skills to remembering things like, "Double-secret probation", I will, everytime I use such a quote, place in paranthetical notation, the letters mq. Just so ya know...
retroactive scare tactics
Now this is really something (mq)... First there was light, and it was good. Then there was the US Presidential election of 2000 and things were confusing. Then there was September 11th, 2001 and things were terrifying. Then there was the Patriot Act, then there was the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and things were supposed to be safer. In fact, it was the invasion of Iraq that was supposed to do precisely that.
It was committed in order to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists. It was done to prevent Saddam Hussein from aiding and abetting terrorists. It was done to avenge the acts of 11th Sep, 2001 and show those same terrorists we mean business. We all know now that, save for the last point, none of this is true. We now know that, according to many reports, the US is in fact less safe. We now know that there were no significant amounts of WMDs in Iraq and there were no tangible connections to terrorist groups, specifically al Qaida.
Instead of admitting to any of this, the Bush administration, or Team Bush as I like to call them, has instead decided to focus our attention not only on John Kerry's perceived weaknesses in handling terror as it exists now, post-Iraq invasion, as it will come to be (which, in his own words, not even W can predict...), but now, from our Veep, how it would have been.
This is either truly amazing or truly a new low. Or both. Our Prez has admitted, twice, that he can not in fact see into the future, no matter his connection with the Divine One, however, the ability to not only see into the future, but as well, a future that might have been is a special power that does not elude his second in command. VP Dick Cheney has the absolute fucking gall to come out on a public stage and declare, after telling people that voting for Kerry will indeed put US into peril, and speculate on a world wherein Kerry was president. In Cheney's crystal ball this is a world where tyrannies and dictators run helter-skelter across the globe, killing indiscriminately and handing out WMDs like so many lethal Pez. Speaking of WMDs, this quote is EXTREMELY interesting from Cheney's deranged world view; concerning Hussein and his role in Kerry's world, Cheney had this to say, "He might well have nuclear weapons," Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the MAIN POINTS in TB's trump hand for justifying the invasion of Iraq? Cheney actually came out on national television and told all of US that Hussein was creating a nuclear weapons program. Remember the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes? And this was happening in the TB world, not some fantastical Kerry world.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? More importantly, what is wrong with their rabid followers who actually not only believe this shit, but will not question anything they say? As long as Fox News backs it up, then that's allright with them. Holy crap, I have never been so terrified about an unknown future in my life.
It was committed in order to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists. It was done to prevent Saddam Hussein from aiding and abetting terrorists. It was done to avenge the acts of 11th Sep, 2001 and show those same terrorists we mean business. We all know now that, save for the last point, none of this is true. We now know that, according to many reports, the US is in fact less safe. We now know that there were no significant amounts of WMDs in Iraq and there were no tangible connections to terrorist groups, specifically al Qaida.
Instead of admitting to any of this, the Bush administration, or Team Bush as I like to call them, has instead decided to focus our attention not only on John Kerry's perceived weaknesses in handling terror as it exists now, post-Iraq invasion, as it will come to be (which, in his own words, not even W can predict...), but now, from our Veep, how it would have been.
This is either truly amazing or truly a new low. Or both. Our Prez has admitted, twice, that he can not in fact see into the future, no matter his connection with the Divine One, however, the ability to not only see into the future, but as well, a future that might have been is a special power that does not elude his second in command. VP Dick Cheney has the absolute fucking gall to come out on a public stage and declare, after telling people that voting for Kerry will indeed put US into peril, and speculate on a world wherein Kerry was president. In Cheney's crystal ball this is a world where tyrannies and dictators run helter-skelter across the globe, killing indiscriminately and handing out WMDs like so many lethal Pez. Speaking of WMDs, this quote is EXTREMELY interesting from Cheney's deranged world view; concerning Hussein and his role in Kerry's world, Cheney had this to say, "He might well have nuclear weapons," Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the MAIN POINTS in TB's trump hand for justifying the invasion of Iraq? Cheney actually came out on national television and told all of US that Hussein was creating a nuclear weapons program. Remember the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes? And this was happening in the TB world, not some fantastical Kerry world.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? More importantly, what is wrong with their rabid followers who actually not only believe this shit, but will not question anything they say? As long as Fox News backs it up, then that's allright with them. Holy crap, I have never been so terrified about an unknown future in my life.
October 18, 2004
sociolinguistic mid-term extra-credit
This is a copy of my mid-term extra-credit for my sociolinguistics class. I wrote comments on an article, in this case, William Safire's latest "on language" column in the NYT. Read on, and hope with me that I get an 'A'...
There are four different interpretations of more or less the same words, constructed in different orders. One is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” which, using apparent Southern wisdom, advises people to leave well enough alone things that appear to be working just fine. The second is, “You break it, you own it.” a phrase apparently lifted from china shop rule, informing people that whatever they break in the shop, however they break it, they have to pay for it, even if they own it, because in this view, something broken is something purchased. The third, quoted from Pottery Barn policy, leaves slightly more leeway in the interpretation of breaking things; “If you break it accidentally, then you don’t have to pay for it.” (italics mine) which leaves open the argument of how something was broken to define the issue of payment. Finally, Jim Lehrer is quoted as saying (apparently confusing his words, but interestingly so just the same…), “If you broke it, you fix it.” (italics NYT’s), which states in no uncertain language that, regardless of how the item came about to be broken, you, the breaker of that item are held responsible for its repair. Senator John Kerry was asked to give his opinion of this interpretation of the misquote from Lehrer during his first debate with President George W Bush, “Now if you break it, you made a mistake. It’s the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it.” Claiming that breaking anything is a mistake, which therefore absolves the breaker of the item of any pre-meditated or malicious motives, Kerry then states in the next sentence that the act of breaking something is the “wrong thing to do”, suggesting that perhaps the breaking of the item was not in fact a mistake, but a conscience decision, and in this case, a decision that carries with it the weight of culpability. He then seems to align himself with the china shop rule by stating that no matter how the item was broken, you the breaker now own it. However, Kerry goes one step further by adding onto the act of owning the broken thing a moral responsibility of not only fixing it (this of course does not take into account that having broken the item, then paying for it, you may no longer have the monetary ability to repair it, or the item may in fact be now irreparable…) but then doing something with it.
This is all of course, related to the invasion of Iraq. The first thing to note is the application of words of mercantilism to an act of war, lending more credence to the argument of those against the war that it was in fact an imperialistic strong-arming to gain unfettered access to a large part of the world’s oil supply. Secondly is Powell’s apparent backsliding on his original warning to Bush, by giving him an out in suggesting that it was possible that the breakage, or the invasion was a mistake. Powell, in the interim, is able to absolve himself completely by using as his advice, quoted policy of a retail outlet; these were not his words. Finally, as only a lawyer could, Kerry then takes all of this and twists it into a great big political pretzel by saying that the breaking of anything, or the invasion of any country is inherently a mistaken action, but never the less a wrong one, thus requiring the breaker to fix their mistake and then make good on that mistake by turning it into something worthwhile and useful.
I think that the Bush administration should have followed the original adage.
There are four different interpretations of more or less the same words, constructed in different orders. One is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” which, using apparent Southern wisdom, advises people to leave well enough alone things that appear to be working just fine. The second is, “You break it, you own it.” a phrase apparently lifted from china shop rule, informing people that whatever they break in the shop, however they break it, they have to pay for it, even if they own it, because in this view, something broken is something purchased. The third, quoted from Pottery Barn policy, leaves slightly more leeway in the interpretation of breaking things; “If you break it accidentally, then you don’t have to pay for it.” (italics mine) which leaves open the argument of how something was broken to define the issue of payment. Finally, Jim Lehrer is quoted as saying (apparently confusing his words, but interestingly so just the same…), “If you broke it, you fix it.” (italics NYT’s), which states in no uncertain language that, regardless of how the item came about to be broken, you, the breaker of that item are held responsible for its repair. Senator John Kerry was asked to give his opinion of this interpretation of the misquote from Lehrer during his first debate with President George W Bush, “Now if you break it, you made a mistake. It’s the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it.” Claiming that breaking anything is a mistake, which therefore absolves the breaker of the item of any pre-meditated or malicious motives, Kerry then states in the next sentence that the act of breaking something is the “wrong thing to do”, suggesting that perhaps the breaking of the item was not in fact a mistake, but a conscience decision, and in this case, a decision that carries with it the weight of culpability. He then seems to align himself with the china shop rule by stating that no matter how the item was broken, you the breaker now own it. However, Kerry goes one step further by adding onto the act of owning the broken thing a moral responsibility of not only fixing it (this of course does not take into account that having broken the item, then paying for it, you may no longer have the monetary ability to repair it, or the item may in fact be now irreparable…) but then doing something with it.
This is all of course, related to the invasion of Iraq. The first thing to note is the application of words of mercantilism to an act of war, lending more credence to the argument of those against the war that it was in fact an imperialistic strong-arming to gain unfettered access to a large part of the world’s oil supply. Secondly is Powell’s apparent backsliding on his original warning to Bush, by giving him an out in suggesting that it was possible that the breakage, or the invasion was a mistake. Powell, in the interim, is able to absolve himself completely by using as his advice, quoted policy of a retail outlet; these were not his words. Finally, as only a lawyer could, Kerry then takes all of this and twists it into a great big political pretzel by saying that the breaking of anything, or the invasion of any country is inherently a mistaken action, but never the less a wrong one, thus requiring the breaker to fix their mistake and then make good on that mistake by turning it into something worthwhile and useful.
I think that the Bush administration should have followed the original adage.
October 10, 2004
the most hateful presidential election ever, or the mother of all mud-slingin'?
History tells us that mud-slinging is nothing new in politics. In fact it was politics that invented the term, and the rules. Rules? Where we're going, we don't need rules... And so we have arrived at this date in history (check the date on the blog...) and all of the smear the fear tactics employed impressively well by Team Bush. As Americans know all too well, this life under the shadow of fear began on the 11th of September, 2001. Ever since then, the message from El Casa Blanco has been two-pronged: Keep doing what you've been doing, especially as regards spending and consuming petroleum products; and be always vigilant, in other words live life the way you want but never forget to look over your shoulder. This has become especially true of the latest craze amongst desperate housewives; the role of security mom. I won't go into this exciting new look (you have to click on "security mom" in the left-hand pane) because I have already discussed it before (see below...) What absolutely amazes me is that so many people have not caught on; it has been three years since that terrible day, and granted, we have not had any attacks on our soil, thank God, but how much of that fact can be attributed to Bush et. al. doing an outstanding job on home security and how much of that to the fact that it takes time, preparation, money and people capable of pulling off another event like 9/11? I mean, let's face it folks, as GWB likes to say, "Fool me once...", and if we were to have another event similar to that, then someone could say that we deserved it. And yet, the notion that terrorists exist and are lurking at our borders, mustachioed, chisel-toothed grins flashing in the night like so many Mack knives, is the prime motivator of the leviathan that is the Team Bush engine.
It is this fear, and its daily perpetuation that has been keeping Bushie just a nose ahead of Kerry, if you believe the polls... As I have stated before, Team Bush seems to be taking not just a page, but the entire book of Nazi propaganda and using it to not only prevent US from ever relaxing, but keeping us hyper-aware of the newest Fear; this is our Cold War. And like the torture tactics created by the CIA, this form of sleep-deprivation, call it comfort-, or perhaps, more sinister yet, freedom-deprivation is turning a large part of this country into foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives, ignoring the basic tenets of the Republican Party, our Constitution, and the Bible as they post increasingly vehement blogs attacking anyone or anything considered to be Democrat, which by way of this twisted extention equals liberal, equals atheist, equals communist, equals sexual deviant. This seething anger at an unseen, unknown and understood enemy who could attack at any time, anywhere and apparently, could be anyone, including one of our own(!) has, in absence of any actual threat or person, been turned onto the opposing party as the embodiment of all that is un-American, therefore anti-American, and then therefore the enemy.
As Team Bush repeatedly have been telling US recently, a vote for Dem is a vote for Them. This, seems to me a markedly different stance taken by TB immediately after it was apparent that Kerry would be their opponent in the 2004 race. If you remember, during that brief period, TB was casting Kerry as a dour, negative person who did not have a personality let alone a positive plan for US. Since then Kerry has been able to shape his platform more definitively and has taken over the reigns of a positive message while TB has retreated into their secret bunkers, shouting slogans and repeating the mantra of fear and terror over and over.
That this is one of the most polarized social periods in US history is reflected in our candidates and perhaps one of the most acrimonious runoffs for Prez in recent history. As I said at the start, history has taught us this, and there have been things far worse said and done by politicians towards one another in order to win a political seat, but not since WWII have the consequences of the President's decisions weighed so much like the sword of Damocles, poised to cut US off from the rest of the world indefinitely. I have not completely agreed with Kerry on all points, but I certainly do not agree with Bush on any point, so my choice is clear; 4 more years of increased polarization and tension in my own country while outside, we are more and more seen as a country to be feared and distrusted. History has taught us another thing; this is not what our founding fathers envisioned, at all.
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I
It is this fear, and its daily perpetuation that has been keeping Bushie just a nose ahead of Kerry, if you believe the polls... As I have stated before, Team Bush seems to be taking not just a page, but the entire book of Nazi propaganda and using it to not only prevent US from ever relaxing, but keeping us hyper-aware of the newest Fear; this is our Cold War. And like the torture tactics created by the CIA, this form of sleep-deprivation, call it comfort-, or perhaps, more sinister yet, freedom-deprivation is turning a large part of this country into foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives, ignoring the basic tenets of the Republican Party, our Constitution, and the Bible as they post increasingly vehement blogs attacking anyone or anything considered to be Democrat, which by way of this twisted extention equals liberal, equals atheist, equals communist, equals sexual deviant. This seething anger at an unseen, unknown and understood enemy who could attack at any time, anywhere and apparently, could be anyone, including one of our own(!) has, in absence of any actual threat or person, been turned onto the opposing party as the embodiment of all that is un-American, therefore anti-American, and then therefore the enemy.
As Team Bush repeatedly have been telling US recently, a vote for Dem is a vote for Them. This, seems to me a markedly different stance taken by TB immediately after it was apparent that Kerry would be their opponent in the 2004 race. If you remember, during that brief period, TB was casting Kerry as a dour, negative person who did not have a personality let alone a positive plan for US. Since then Kerry has been able to shape his platform more definitively and has taken over the reigns of a positive message while TB has retreated into their secret bunkers, shouting slogans and repeating the mantra of fear and terror over and over.
That this is one of the most polarized social periods in US history is reflected in our candidates and perhaps one of the most acrimonious runoffs for Prez in recent history. As I said at the start, history has taught us this, and there have been things far worse said and done by politicians towards one another in order to win a political seat, but not since WWII have the consequences of the President's decisions weighed so much like the sword of Damocles, poised to cut US off from the rest of the world indefinitely. I have not completely agreed with Kerry on all points, but I certainly do not agree with Bush on any point, so my choice is clear; 4 more years of increased polarization and tension in my own country while outside, we are more and more seen as a country to be feared and distrusted. History has taught us another thing; this is not what our founding fathers envisioned, at all.
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I
October 07, 2004
the language and symbolism of fear, or how ed and joe changed the way we view cigarette ads...
Allright now, I do not consider myself to be partisan at all, in fact I do my best to listen to both sides of the story and come up with my own conclusions, however, it has not escaped me that the treat of terrorism has been near-constant since the events of 11, September 01. It is funny, and not funny ha-ha that this was not an issue, at least to the extent that it is now, within our social framework in the US prior to that infamous date in history. However, it certainly is now, isn't it? And the man and the administration under whose watch it was that those events occured is supposed to be the best able to handle any future threats? A coach takes his team to a losing season, he's fired. A CEO bankrupts his company, he's fired. A president and an entire administration ignore threat warnings, spend more time on vacation than any other person let alone president in the history of mankind, except for maybe an ex-friend of mine, Steve Haluska... But, I digress... so, back to the ever constant threat of terrorism, this piece dovetails nicely with the latest in American pop culture, that of the apparently growing cult of security moms Is it me, or does it seem decidedly Bernaysian to be releasing this kind of a report at oh, say, less than a month before the presidential elections? What would good ole' German nationalist, Go Joe Goebbels have to say, or advise? I mean, after all, he was just doing his patriotic duty, right? Right....
catching up
Man, try and study for a test in second language acquisition and the world passes you by... Or in the case of trying to study at SFSU, the pretty women... OK, here are some interesting sites to check out: A funny, in a disturbing way video from the RNC. I can't be certain, but although Guliani, Cheney, Bush et al did repeat many of the words on the clip, I get the distinct feeling that they did not repeat them quite as much... Now here, this one is the one we knew was happening all along; Florida has got its online voting together, finally, after working out all of the bugs. You know, I hope that when the dust is settled, we can all stand unanimously behind our leader, whichever Bush it is... And now, on a serious note, please check out this site, dedicated to parents who are fed-up with the Bush administration and seek change by creating 60-second videos of their stories...
Allright, I've caught up a little bit, but there is still more, especially after I get through the NYT from last sunday and then of course, we have round two!
Allright, I've caught up a little bit, but there is still more, especially after I get through the NYT from last sunday and then of course, we have round two!
October 05, 2004
the veep debates
As somebody who seriously dislikes this administration and its policies, and somebody who seriously distrusts the current veep, I have to say that this debate was like a defensive football game; in that there was not really a clear and concise winner-both sides did their best and both sides were able to claim small victories (and I hate to admit this, but Cheney actually was able to come off so much more human than he has been portrayed; he did a fantastic job) however, I do think that Edwards held himself well, as you would expect from a trial lawyer, but as well, when he made mistakes, he was very warm, human and American about them. In the end, I call this one a draw, which is what I expected from this debate. This was more even because intellectually, which is a taboo word amongst the Reps, these two American men were very evenly matched and in the end, displays the foresight and intelligence of their superiors when tapping them as veeps or soon to be veeps, whatever the case might be…
from the rude pundit, found on this site
Here is what the rude pundit has to say about tonight's veep debate:
What Edwards Should Say (Rude Version):If, at tonight's "debate", when Edwards is asked, "How do you believe your career as a trial lawyer affects your approach to government?", he doesn't answer, "What the fuck kind of question is that, Gwen? What the fuck are you implying? Holy fuck, have you even looked at the cases I've tried? Doesn't the press do any actual goddamn research on, say, Lexis-Nexis or even fuckin' Google? Or maybe my fuckin' book? My legal career was based on helping individuals dicked over by the very kind of corporate and government culture this evil motherfucker across this stupid ass table has fostered. And don't you fuckin' gimme that stroke victim smirk, Dick, or I'll come across and start shovin' aluminum tubes up your ass, all 60,000 of 'em, one anodized tube at a goddamn time. Then, with all those tubes up your ass, you can tell me, tell all of us, if they feel like centrifuge tubes or just plain ol' rocket tubes. And then I'll shove yellow cake uranium from Niger up your ass. Then I'll shove the bones and blood of over 1000 Americans up your ass. And the bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqis, right up the motherfuckin' asshole, Dick, right on up. We'll follow that up with Energy Task Force documents, reams of 'em, get it, Dick? Gettin' reamed with reams? Then I'll shove Halliburton up your ass. I'll shove Kellog, shove Brown, shove Root, right up into your dessicated colon. I'll shove no-bid contracts and deferred compensation in there until your sphincter is aching and bloody. That's right, Dick, it's all goin' up there. Bribes to Nigeria and business with Iran. We're packin' it in, bitch. And let's go back, Gwen, let's get old school on this man whose heart is so small it needs a machine to make it pump, this vile, depraved political attack dog, this insider who massages the system to the benefit of his bastard cronies like a Korean hooker at a Japanese spa. Let's shove South African apartheid up Dick's ass. Let's shove water pollution, air pollution and other environmental degradation up Cheney's ass. Let's shove the bodies of women who will die of botched abortions if he gets his way up Cheney's ass. Let's shove the Project for a New American Century up Cheney's ass, along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the motherfuckin' neocons, pack 'em in, into Cheney's ass, alongside draft deferments, Lynne, SDI, and more. And when Cheney's cryin', yellin' that it hurts, his ass hurts, when he's weepin' and wonderin', 'Why? Why are you shoving all this up my ass?' I'll say, 'Because you've been shovin' it all up our asses for years, you vicious, soulless bastard. Now, stay bent over, 'cause, trust me, there's tons more shovin' to do and then I'm gonna fuck you Deliverance style, you corporate pig, so start practicin' your squealin'.' Does that answer your question, Gwen?", then the debate will be worthless.
// posted by Rude One @ 9:53 AM
What Edwards Should Say (Rude Version):If, at tonight's "debate", when Edwards is asked, "How do you believe your career as a trial lawyer affects your approach to government?", he doesn't answer, "What the fuck kind of question is that, Gwen? What the fuck are you implying? Holy fuck, have you even looked at the cases I've tried? Doesn't the press do any actual goddamn research on, say, Lexis-Nexis or even fuckin' Google? Or maybe my fuckin' book? My legal career was based on helping individuals dicked over by the very kind of corporate and government culture this evil motherfucker across this stupid ass table has fostered. And don't you fuckin' gimme that stroke victim smirk, Dick, or I'll come across and start shovin' aluminum tubes up your ass, all 60,000 of 'em, one anodized tube at a goddamn time. Then, with all those tubes up your ass, you can tell me, tell all of us, if they feel like centrifuge tubes or just plain ol' rocket tubes. And then I'll shove yellow cake uranium from Niger up your ass. Then I'll shove the bones and blood of over 1000 Americans up your ass. And the bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqis, right up the motherfuckin' asshole, Dick, right on up. We'll follow that up with Energy Task Force documents, reams of 'em, get it, Dick? Gettin' reamed with reams? Then I'll shove Halliburton up your ass. I'll shove Kellog, shove Brown, shove Root, right up into your dessicated colon. I'll shove no-bid contracts and deferred compensation in there until your sphincter is aching and bloody. That's right, Dick, it's all goin' up there. Bribes to Nigeria and business with Iran. We're packin' it in, bitch. And let's go back, Gwen, let's get old school on this man whose heart is so small it needs a machine to make it pump, this vile, depraved political attack dog, this insider who massages the system to the benefit of his bastard cronies like a Korean hooker at a Japanese spa. Let's shove South African apartheid up Dick's ass. Let's shove water pollution, air pollution and other environmental degradation up Cheney's ass. Let's shove the bodies of women who will die of botched abortions if he gets his way up Cheney's ass. Let's shove the Project for a New American Century up Cheney's ass, along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the motherfuckin' neocons, pack 'em in, into Cheney's ass, alongside draft deferments, Lynne, SDI, and more. And when Cheney's cryin', yellin' that it hurts, his ass hurts, when he's weepin' and wonderin', 'Why? Why are you shoving all this up my ass?' I'll say, 'Because you've been shovin' it all up our asses for years, you vicious, soulless bastard. Now, stay bent over, 'cause, trust me, there's tons more shovin' to do and then I'm gonna fuck you Deliverance style, you corporate pig, so start practicin' your squealin'.' Does that answer your question, Gwen?", then the debate will be worthless.
// posted by Rude One @ 9:53 AM
you fuckers need a kick in the pants...
Okay, andI found out that this term too is not one of OURS (by this I mean being OK); that is the most widely recognized phrase is actually derived from black pidgeon. I mean, really people, can't we all just get along like the French and establish a school of padantic language which requires only that no more transmogriifications of the language shall evolve, or persist?...
Anyway, this came in from the master of disaster himself:
http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov
and I don't think that I need to add that it was created partisanly.... or plain speakingly... or non-Ciseroianly...
Anyway, this came in from the master of disaster himself:
http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov
and I don't think that I need to add that it was created partisanly.... or plain speakingly... or non-Ciseroianly...
October 04, 2004
the numbers are in, and they don't lie
The latest CNN/Gallup polls are in and they confirm what the so-called flash polls from debate night showed; that despite what Karl Rove says, Kerry actually did kick ass: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm
You can read more about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/new/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-poll_x.htm
Some more interesting stuff from this blog: http://www.electablog.com/ which goes into great detail regarding the Rep's use of language as symbols. Especially for a dorky linguist like myself, it confirms what I had all along suspected; that when it comes to perception, the Dems just don't know how to get past, as Ed Helms put it so succintly, the fact that Kerry was raised in France by a pack of gay billionaires... He was joking, I think...
You can read more about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/new/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-poll_x.htm
Some more interesting stuff from this blog: http://www.electablog.com/ which goes into great detail regarding the Rep's use of language as symbols. Especially for a dorky linguist like myself, it confirms what I had all along suspected; that when it comes to perception, the Dems just don't know how to get past, as Ed Helms put it so succintly, the fact that Kerry was raised in France by a pack of gay billionaires... He was joking, I think...
October 03, 2004
this just in...
The ever handy NYT, Sunday edition, ran this article on the front page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?oref=login
Interesting stuff, too much for me to paraphrase, but the article breaks down the failures of both the American intelligence community and specifically the Bush administration to accurately investigate and inform the American public about Hussein's so-called nuclear weapons program. Remember folks; this was one of Bush's key cards in his trump to invade Iraq, not, as he claims now, to establish a free and democratic country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?oref=login
Interesting stuff, too much for me to paraphrase, but the article breaks down the failures of both the American intelligence community and specifically the Bush administration to accurately investigate and inform the American public about Hussein's so-called nuclear weapons program. Remember folks; this was one of Bush's key cards in his trump to invade Iraq, not, as he claims now, to establish a free and democratic country.
more conservative whining...
I have heard just about everything I thought I could hear from conservatives re: Bush getting absolutely hammered in the first debate, including, but not limited to: Kerry and his team knew the questions ahead of time (hence Bush's stunned, deer in the headlight look), this was, as one astute woman pointed out, the reason Bush was so flustered; because he actually HAD TO THINK up his answers, while Kerry, so quick and slick, was always at the ready. No, honey? That IS the way Bush thinks. It's painful to watch, I know, and this is why when he does read, he reads children's books... upside down...
But now, more proof that Kerry was cheating: http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php
apparently Kerry not only brought something into the debates, but he actually PULLED IT FROM HIS POCKET AND USED IT! Why in the hell can't we get quality security in these things? What if it was marijuana? Crap. Better get Rove and Cheney in on it...
But now, more proof that Kerry was cheating: http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php
apparently Kerry not only brought something into the debates, but he actually PULLED IT FROM HIS POCKET AND USED IT! Why in the hell can't we get quality security in these things? What if it was marijuana? Crap. Better get Rove and Cheney in on it...
opening rant
Hello and welcome to the latest installment of unmitigated rambling. This has existed as a monthly column in a local, "underground" newspaper based in Salt Lake City, SLUG (Salt Lake Under Ground) It was then posted on-line in Geo Cities, but my attention waned. Now, thanks to extreme partisan politics, and downright evil underhandedness, on both sides, but especially so on the side of the extremely conservative right it lives again. Only this time, with broadband connection and newer technology, I might actually keep this up. Of course, if Kerry winds, my interest will probably wane again... On this blog I will be posting fairly regularly, and I do mean fairly, and I would guess the main focus will be politics, daily events and my struggles with my MA in linguistics.
So feel free to post away your thoughts and I look forward to hearing and reading....
So feel free to post away your thoughts and I look forward to hearing and reading....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
