Sunday, December 21, 2008
Sunday, May 28, 2006
On Our “National Language”…
You know, in order to keep your sanity in these United States these days, you have to try to ignore a certain amount of what goes on in Washington D.C. Otherwise, you’ll either find yourself thinking of relocation to Canada, or your head will explode.
The ongoing and imaginary saga being produced by Fox News, titled “The War on Christmas” comes to mind. Unless you’re consistently out of this country during the fourth quarter of the year, you can’t possibly think that Christmas is losing any ground here. The ultra-tacky retail décor and torrent of holiday ads get started just after Labor Day, for heaven’s sake. How much more Christmas could we possibly handle? If there is some sort of war on Christmas in this country, then Christmas is clearly kicking the other side’s butt, even though Bill O’Reilly may not think so.
Hillary Clinton’s rumored run for the White House in 2008 is another one. First of all, who cares? If she runs—well, good for her. If she doesn’t—well, good for her. Considering that we’ve never even come remotely close to having anything but a white male in the Oval Office, and that Hillary is about as polarizing as a candidate as could be imagined, discussing this as a possibility is about as useful as thinking we’ll be out of Iraq any time soon. Let’s just face it. We’re not electing a woman, a Jew, an African American, or any other minority to the US Presidency any time soon, okay? I don’t care how conservative Joe Lieberman gets—he’s still a Jew and enough said.
Lately the media has turned to bird flu in an attempt to scare us enough to actually watch something besides American Idol. Bird flu? Really? Best I can tell, according to the World Heath Organization, there have been about 216 reported cases of bird flu worldwide as of May 2006, and roughly half of them have been fatal. That’s about 110 deaths on a planet with 6.5 billion people living on it. That’s about the same number of folks in the US killed by Fire Ants each year, and I’ve never even seen a single story about Fire Ants in this country—frankly, didn’t even know we had Fire Ants in this country.
The fact is that if you start watching too much T.V. news, on top of reading the newspaper and listening to the radio as you drive, you can quickly find yourself scared to death about nothing, and mad as hell about even less. Turn the incendiary crap off and things start to look better almost immediately.
So, that being said, I try to ignore as much as possible in order to maintain some semblance of sanity, but this past week or two something came to my attention and I just can’t ignore it, although it unquestionably deserves to be completely ignored en masse. The issue is that of our “National Language,” which the Untied States Senate approved after a significant amount of debate and deliberation on May 18th 2006. Next this compelling piece of legislation will go to the House, where our elected officials can continue to debase themselves.
If you’re an elected official in our nation’s capital, I’d appreciate a few answers to a few simple questions. As to the rest, just think of it as constructive criticism.
1. Who’s idea was this? We need to find this person and bring them to a public square where we can pull down their pants and spank the shit out of them. Then we can make them wear a bright yellow dunce cap and force them to sit on a stool outside the Capitol building for at least a year. If they are ever found to be involved in anything even half as stupid as this again that requires the use of tax payer money, they will be shot without trial, simple as that.
2. If you were involved in this idiocy even peripherally, either send every American citizen a sincere apology note, or have the decency to step down now. You are clearly an idiot and even an idiot knows that he or she should not be involved in the making of laws.
3. How much did this nonsense cost? I’m not kidding, I really want an accounting of the costs involved in making English our National Language. I’ve been paying taxes for better than twenty years now and this past year my wife and I paid more than a hundred grand. How much of my money was spent on this inconceivable nonsense? I’m contacting my attorney to see if I can withhold next year’s payment to the IRS until I receive an answer, but either way, if you spent more than $3.50 on this then you owe the American people some dough.
4. Two journalists employed by The Washington Post referred to this issue’s debate in the Senate as “an emotional debate fraught with symbolism”. And I’m just not going to say anything else about that statement, other than to say that if it’s true, then anyone involved in the Senate’s debate should not be allowed to cross streets without a parent or legal guardian holding their hand.
5. Also according to the Post, “the measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to ‘preserve and enhance’ the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services be provided in other languages”. Go back and read that sentence again. Then go into the nearest restroom, place your head in the toilet bowl and flush ten times.
6. The vote was 63 to 34? So, evidently what we have here is two distinct groups running our legislature: dumb and dumber.
7. The Post went on to report: “The English-language debate has roiled U.S. politics for decades and, in some quarters, has been as controversial and important as an amendment to ban flag burning.” Ooooo, that important, huh? And here I thought that the War on Terror, the morbidly obese deficit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, how Bill Clinton will look as the First Husband, and the like were the important issues.
8. The Post article also said that: “The impact of the language amendment was unclear even after its passage”. And that: “It also sets requirements that immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship know the English language and U.S. history”. There are millions of Americans that don’t know much about the English language—even “The Decider” knows that. And as to knowing U.S. history, my guess would be that anyone educated outside the U.S. knows a lot more than our high school grads.
9. Senator Inhofe (R-Okla) made a last minute change that made English the “national” language, as opposed to the “official” language, and I personally think that anyone caught agreeing or disagreeing with this change should be put to sleep.
10. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) had the quote of the day, however. He said, as quoted by the Post, "In my view, we had it watered down enough to make it acceptable”. That from the man referred to as “the maverick”? Sen. McCain is considered to be the front-runner for the Republican candidate for President in 2008. Perfect, just fucking perfect.
Like I said in the beginning, I tried to ignore it, I really did. But, since the apparent morons in D.C. can’t get their priorities straight, someone has to do it for them.
Stop working on such stupid shit. Now. Apologize to the American people for squandering their hard earned money. If you must squander stupidly, go back to spending $2750.00 on toilet seats and DOD screwdrivers. At least those little gems make for funny sound bites on Jay Leno. This is just implausibly stupid and dreadfully sad.
English is our “national language,” whatever that means, and everyone on the planet knows that. The debate about this point, I’ll bet you, even made Bin Laden scratch his head and take pause thinking: “It must be a trick designed to make us think they’re even dumber than we already think they are.” Just for fun, I think France should go ahead and make English their “National Language” too. And Italy, Germany, Senegal, legislators around the globe should all get on board.
As to our neighbors to the south I can only say: ¿Nosotros está sí eso estúpido, pero podría tú enviar por favor a alguien encima para ayudarnos a construir nuestra cerca de 2.000 millas?
And Grazias… or rather Thanks! Just showing off my national pride.
The ongoing and imaginary saga being produced by Fox News, titled “The War on Christmas” comes to mind. Unless you’re consistently out of this country during the fourth quarter of the year, you can’t possibly think that Christmas is losing any ground here. The ultra-tacky retail décor and torrent of holiday ads get started just after Labor Day, for heaven’s sake. How much more Christmas could we possibly handle? If there is some sort of war on Christmas in this country, then Christmas is clearly kicking the other side’s butt, even though Bill O’Reilly may not think so.
Hillary Clinton’s rumored run for the White House in 2008 is another one. First of all, who cares? If she runs—well, good for her. If she doesn’t—well, good for her. Considering that we’ve never even come remotely close to having anything but a white male in the Oval Office, and that Hillary is about as polarizing as a candidate as could be imagined, discussing this as a possibility is about as useful as thinking we’ll be out of Iraq any time soon. Let’s just face it. We’re not electing a woman, a Jew, an African American, or any other minority to the US Presidency any time soon, okay? I don’t care how conservative Joe Lieberman gets—he’s still a Jew and enough said.
Lately the media has turned to bird flu in an attempt to scare us enough to actually watch something besides American Idol. Bird flu? Really? Best I can tell, according to the World Heath Organization, there have been about 216 reported cases of bird flu worldwide as of May 2006, and roughly half of them have been fatal. That’s about 110 deaths on a planet with 6.5 billion people living on it. That’s about the same number of folks in the US killed by Fire Ants each year, and I’ve never even seen a single story about Fire Ants in this country—frankly, didn’t even know we had Fire Ants in this country.
The fact is that if you start watching too much T.V. news, on top of reading the newspaper and listening to the radio as you drive, you can quickly find yourself scared to death about nothing, and mad as hell about even less. Turn the incendiary crap off and things start to look better almost immediately.
So, that being said, I try to ignore as much as possible in order to maintain some semblance of sanity, but this past week or two something came to my attention and I just can’t ignore it, although it unquestionably deserves to be completely ignored en masse. The issue is that of our “National Language,” which the Untied States Senate approved after a significant amount of debate and deliberation on May 18th 2006. Next this compelling piece of legislation will go to the House, where our elected officials can continue to debase themselves.
If you’re an elected official in our nation’s capital, I’d appreciate a few answers to a few simple questions. As to the rest, just think of it as constructive criticism.
1. Who’s idea was this? We need to find this person and bring them to a public square where we can pull down their pants and spank the shit out of them. Then we can make them wear a bright yellow dunce cap and force them to sit on a stool outside the Capitol building for at least a year. If they are ever found to be involved in anything even half as stupid as this again that requires the use of tax payer money, they will be shot without trial, simple as that.
2. If you were involved in this idiocy even peripherally, either send every American citizen a sincere apology note, or have the decency to step down now. You are clearly an idiot and even an idiot knows that he or she should not be involved in the making of laws.
3. How much did this nonsense cost? I’m not kidding, I really want an accounting of the costs involved in making English our National Language. I’ve been paying taxes for better than twenty years now and this past year my wife and I paid more than a hundred grand. How much of my money was spent on this inconceivable nonsense? I’m contacting my attorney to see if I can withhold next year’s payment to the IRS until I receive an answer, but either way, if you spent more than $3.50 on this then you owe the American people some dough.
4. Two journalists employed by The Washington Post referred to this issue’s debate in the Senate as “an emotional debate fraught with symbolism”. And I’m just not going to say anything else about that statement, other than to say that if it’s true, then anyone involved in the Senate’s debate should not be allowed to cross streets without a parent or legal guardian holding their hand.
5. Also according to the Post, “the measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to ‘preserve and enhance’ the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services be provided in other languages”. Go back and read that sentence again. Then go into the nearest restroom, place your head in the toilet bowl and flush ten times.
6. The vote was 63 to 34? So, evidently what we have here is two distinct groups running our legislature: dumb and dumber.
7. The Post went on to report: “The English-language debate has roiled U.S. politics for decades and, in some quarters, has been as controversial and important as an amendment to ban flag burning.” Ooooo, that important, huh? And here I thought that the War on Terror, the morbidly obese deficit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, how Bill Clinton will look as the First Husband, and the like were the important issues.
8. The Post article also said that: “The impact of the language amendment was unclear even after its passage”. And that: “It also sets requirements that immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship know the English language and U.S. history”. There are millions of Americans that don’t know much about the English language—even “The Decider” knows that. And as to knowing U.S. history, my guess would be that anyone educated outside the U.S. knows a lot more than our high school grads.
9. Senator Inhofe (R-Okla) made a last minute change that made English the “national” language, as opposed to the “official” language, and I personally think that anyone caught agreeing or disagreeing with this change should be put to sleep.
10. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) had the quote of the day, however. He said, as quoted by the Post, "In my view, we had it watered down enough to make it acceptable”. That from the man referred to as “the maverick”? Sen. McCain is considered to be the front-runner for the Republican candidate for President in 2008. Perfect, just fucking perfect.
Like I said in the beginning, I tried to ignore it, I really did. But, since the apparent morons in D.C. can’t get their priorities straight, someone has to do it for them.
Stop working on such stupid shit. Now. Apologize to the American people for squandering their hard earned money. If you must squander stupidly, go back to spending $2750.00 on toilet seats and DOD screwdrivers. At least those little gems make for funny sound bites on Jay Leno. This is just implausibly stupid and dreadfully sad.
English is our “national language,” whatever that means, and everyone on the planet knows that. The debate about this point, I’ll bet you, even made Bin Laden scratch his head and take pause thinking: “It must be a trick designed to make us think they’re even dumber than we already think they are.” Just for fun, I think France should go ahead and make English their “National Language” too. And Italy, Germany, Senegal, legislators around the globe should all get on board.
As to our neighbors to the south I can only say: ¿Nosotros está sí eso estúpido, pero podría tú enviar por favor a alguien encima para ayudarnos a construir nuestra cerca de 2.000 millas?
And Grazias… or rather Thanks! Just showing off my national pride.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
A Letter to the President of the United States
CONFIDENTIAL & PERSONAL
April 20, 2006
Mr. George W. Bush
The President of the Unite States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C.
Dear George,
I’m so sorry to be writing at a time like this. I’m sure you’re busy. I just didn’t think that calling would be appropriate, and didn’t know what else to do. There are a couple of items that require your immediate attention, and obviously, no one else is pointing them out forcefully enough.
By the way, it’s worth mentioning that I supported you in the last election—argued vehemently with the Birkenstock crowd at every occasion—even watched a little Fox News. I bought in to the “it’s hard work” speech, and always believed that you, Dick, Rummy, and Condi would prevail at the end of the proverbial day. Michael Moore was a kook. Sure, you had made some mistakes in hindsight, but that’s to be expected in “a post-9/11 world,” right?
But, George… it’s getting a little nuts. And people are really starting to notice. Hasn’t Laura or your mom said anything? Democrats are shopping for homes in McLean, for God’s sake.
First of all, there’s Iraq. You said Saddam had a death ray and he didn’t. OK, fair enough. But then you started blabbering on about how we went to war for other reasons, like bringing freedom to an oppressed people, teaching Iraqi women to read, installing democracy, and crap like that. It sounded ridiculous at the time, but I think everyone just figured that it was the best you could come up with after telling the world the sky was falling when, in fact, it was doing no such thing.
Then we were treated to Polaroid photos of US soldiers having a little too much fun with their Iraqi prisoners. And while everyone understood that this was in no direct way your fault, it didn’t do much to inspire confidence in US capabilities to bring democracy anywhere. It’s not so much that the unconscionable behavior took place, more that those involved felt comfortable enough in what they were doing to make it a Kodak moment, as if the potential for being discovered or imprisoned was essentially nonexistent.
Then Condi had trouble defining “torture” while touring Europe, and the White House quickly coined the unforgettable term “extraordinary rendition” to refer to whisking “suspects” off to Eastern European prisons for “questioning”. And you followed up by making a case for illegal wiretapping, holding prisoners indefinitely without rights or charges, and defending whatever your administration had done as being in the country’s best interests.
Now the news of your unraveling seems to be coming weekly. Scooter testified that you and Dick are the ones that told him to leak information related to Ambassador Wilson and his lovely wife Valerie. Your response? “OK, I did it, but I was allowed to because I’m the President.” Well, fuck you George. That’s nonsense and you know it. Nor is it the salient point. You said back then that you had no idea who was leaking such information, and that heads would roll when you found out. You called for an investigation. And as it turns out… it was you the whole time. That’s kind of a problem for most folks, George, regardless of what they’re saying on Fox News these days.
To give you an idea of just how bad things are in your administration, one of your key guys was recently arrested for child molestation, and another basically for shoplifting… and it barely made the evening news. I think it’s safe to say that after we all saw the antique dealer you put in charge of FEMA make a real mess of Katrina, our expectations of your hiring skills were, let’s just say, greatly diminished.
And, while we’re on the topic of Katrina… what in the world were you thinking there. You and Dick were on vacation, and Condi was shopping for shoes on 5th Avenue? You dipped down to 1000 feet and looked at the devastation from Air Force One? John Travolta seemed to be able to fly in with supplies for the people, but you couldn’t get them any help? Even when you apologized on television you looked like you were swallowing castor oil.
If you want to know how badly you screwed up Katrina, simply consider that if the same storm had hit during Regan’s or Clinton’s presidency, they’d have made a TV movie of either President’s valor and commitment. Ronny would have been standing in water up to his ass, helping lift sandbags, while Nancy would have been serving coffee to firemen and baking cookies. Bill Clinton would have been lifting little black babies and old folks off the roofs of submerged houses, kissing each one and tearing up as he talked about the bravery of the people. You looked out the window of your custom designed 747 while sipping coffee and waiting for Dick to get out of his favorite trout stream and take your call.
Now you’ve puffed out your chest once again and Iran is developing nuclear power anyway. Now what, George? Need the help of the “soon to become irrelevant” United Nations, do you? Is Iran an “immanent threat” too? Sanctions look unlikely; the idea of military force is a farce. What now? I never thought I’d see the day, but China and Russia are issuing statements “urging caution” and sounding much more reasonable than the good old USA. If I didn’t know better, I’d be looking around for the rabbit hole into which I obviously have fallen.
Rummy, of course, has managed to piss off so many people in the military that it’s down right surreal. Generals… General Officers of the United States Armed Forces are on television saying the Secretary of Defense should resign. If I hadn’t seen and heard it with my very own eyes and ears, I wouldn’t have believed it. I seem to remember some of your clan complaining that the anti-war rhetoric was hurting our troops and harming the war effort—some of Ted Kennedy’s and Bill Clinton’s statements come to mind, among many others. Perhaps you should stop worrying about them, and start worrying about the impact of what appears to be nothing short of mutiny, Mr. Christian.
Yes, you are the “decider”. You get to decide. But over here, if we don’t like the way our President’s “deciding,” we get to decide some things as well. Maybe not today, but sooner rather than later.
Dick actually shot a guy while hunting and then waited something like 14 hours to report the event to the media. Even teenage children I know asked if the reason he waited was that he was drunk when it happened. And if he wasn’t… well, then he’s the dumbest sonofabitch the great State of Wyoming has ever produced. He got booed while throwing out the first ball at a baseball game… booed. I can’t remember the last time this country cared enough about a VP to boo him… Spiro Agnew, I suppose.
The worst part is that your troubles appear only to be beginning. You’re clearly in way over your head, and it’s starting to show. If the Dems gain control of the House in the midterms, you’re goose is almost certainly cooked. The war in Iraq looks unsolvable, even conservative talk show host, Bill O’Reilly is calling for our withdrawal by this coming December. Never mind that Afghanistan is far from over, and that peace in the Middle East seems about as likely as you and Laura dancing at a gay wedding.
Oh, and one more thing… Did you really handle the whole UAE port thing the way you did? Incredible. First you defended it like it was your own, then you admitted that you only found out about it a few days before? So, when you defended it, you didn’t know shit about it? Really? Who’s grand strategy was that? You ran around the country for two weeks trying to tell people that it was a good idea for an Arab nation to manage our major ports?
If they tried, Hollywood couldn’t come up with this stuff. The UAE? You mean the country that recently gave Hammas $50 million? Hammas… you know the organization you have identified as being a “terrorist” organization? Does that make the UAE with us, or agin’ us? I’m confused.
I’m not even going to bring up the immigration debacle. Or the deficit spending. Or your mission to reform Social Security. Or your “mandate”. Or your stance on Roe vs. Wade. Or your veto-free record that passes pro-business legislation without apology. It’s just too painful. You’ve managed to reach a point that I’ve never seen a president reach before. Even Democrats are reticent to criticize too harshly for fear of overstating the obvious. And replacing personnel at this stage in the game is certain to be seen as the same circus with different clowns.
Let’s just face it. Osama is long gone. Iraq is too. Hammas now leads the Palestinians. North Korea is still led by a well-armed lunatic. And Iran is building things nuclear. The Scooter thing is only going to get worse. And Tom Delay is running around the country splitting the Republican Party right down the middle, which of course is traditionally the job of Senator John McCain. You’re circling the drain, Mr. President, and you better get things going in another direction PDQ.
I couldn’t leave you without making a few suggestions:
1. Stop talking about Saddam and his WMD. It’s soooo 2003. No one cares anymore. You thought he had them; he didn’t… so what. Ronald Regan wouldn’t be caught dead answering questions about something he fucked up three years after he did it, now would he? Just do what he did… wave your hand and dismiss the subject as being below you, then kiss Laura, pet the dog, and head for the Oval Office for a cup of hot chocolate.
2. Have Dick Cheny fall on a sword for Wilson and Plame. Scooter said it was Dick that told him that you said it was OK. Everyone that watches Law & Order knows that’s heresay. You never said it was OK; it was Cheny gone mad. He can retire early to a life of speeches, fly-fishing, and buckets of cash.
3. Go to the UN and beg them to help fix the mess in Iraq. Just say your sorry and explain that you were just scared to death at the time. They’ll understand.
4. Help Iran by supplying them with what they need to have nuclear power. They’re going to get it anyway. Everyone else has it. And maybe they won’t want to blow us up as much if we help them a little now.
5. Hire a writer from the Clinton administration. You’re Texas crew doesn’t play well on a national stage. Perhaps see what Carville or Begala are up to these days.
If none of these ideas resonates with you, then I do have another that might be pretty effective. Have one of the interns give you a blow job while flying on Air Force One, or better yet, bend one over the big desk in the Oval Office. I realize it’s been done before, but you could improve upon the whole thing by referring to her as “your bitch” and announcing that she’s going to have your baby because you didn’t want to pull out and risk creating another blue dress.
Betcha’ that would get the focus back where it belongs… on decaying morals and family values. Then the Christian Right could run another Bible-thumper for President. It may sound a little nutty at first, but as a registered Republican, it’s sobering to realize that that’s about the only way we’re going to see another Republican in the White House for a long time.
As I said in the beginning, I’m sorry to have to write to you in this tone and with this message. Please understand that I do it with love in my heart. Someone had to tell you the truth. You’re in really bad shape, so stop being so arrogant about things. And let me know if you want me to send over an “intern” for a private interview… I’d be honored to help in any way I can.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Andelman
An American Citizen
April 20, 2006
Mr. George W. Bush
The President of the Unite States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C.
Dear George,
I’m so sorry to be writing at a time like this. I’m sure you’re busy. I just didn’t think that calling would be appropriate, and didn’t know what else to do. There are a couple of items that require your immediate attention, and obviously, no one else is pointing them out forcefully enough.
By the way, it’s worth mentioning that I supported you in the last election—argued vehemently with the Birkenstock crowd at every occasion—even watched a little Fox News. I bought in to the “it’s hard work” speech, and always believed that you, Dick, Rummy, and Condi would prevail at the end of the proverbial day. Michael Moore was a kook. Sure, you had made some mistakes in hindsight, but that’s to be expected in “a post-9/11 world,” right?
But, George… it’s getting a little nuts. And people are really starting to notice. Hasn’t Laura or your mom said anything? Democrats are shopping for homes in McLean, for God’s sake.
First of all, there’s Iraq. You said Saddam had a death ray and he didn’t. OK, fair enough. But then you started blabbering on about how we went to war for other reasons, like bringing freedom to an oppressed people, teaching Iraqi women to read, installing democracy, and crap like that. It sounded ridiculous at the time, but I think everyone just figured that it was the best you could come up with after telling the world the sky was falling when, in fact, it was doing no such thing.
Then we were treated to Polaroid photos of US soldiers having a little too much fun with their Iraqi prisoners. And while everyone understood that this was in no direct way your fault, it didn’t do much to inspire confidence in US capabilities to bring democracy anywhere. It’s not so much that the unconscionable behavior took place, more that those involved felt comfortable enough in what they were doing to make it a Kodak moment, as if the potential for being discovered or imprisoned was essentially nonexistent.
Then Condi had trouble defining “torture” while touring Europe, and the White House quickly coined the unforgettable term “extraordinary rendition” to refer to whisking “suspects” off to Eastern European prisons for “questioning”. And you followed up by making a case for illegal wiretapping, holding prisoners indefinitely without rights or charges, and defending whatever your administration had done as being in the country’s best interests.
Now the news of your unraveling seems to be coming weekly. Scooter testified that you and Dick are the ones that told him to leak information related to Ambassador Wilson and his lovely wife Valerie. Your response? “OK, I did it, but I was allowed to because I’m the President.” Well, fuck you George. That’s nonsense and you know it. Nor is it the salient point. You said back then that you had no idea who was leaking such information, and that heads would roll when you found out. You called for an investigation. And as it turns out… it was you the whole time. That’s kind of a problem for most folks, George, regardless of what they’re saying on Fox News these days.
To give you an idea of just how bad things are in your administration, one of your key guys was recently arrested for child molestation, and another basically for shoplifting… and it barely made the evening news. I think it’s safe to say that after we all saw the antique dealer you put in charge of FEMA make a real mess of Katrina, our expectations of your hiring skills were, let’s just say, greatly diminished.
And, while we’re on the topic of Katrina… what in the world were you thinking there. You and Dick were on vacation, and Condi was shopping for shoes on 5th Avenue? You dipped down to 1000 feet and looked at the devastation from Air Force One? John Travolta seemed to be able to fly in with supplies for the people, but you couldn’t get them any help? Even when you apologized on television you looked like you were swallowing castor oil.
If you want to know how badly you screwed up Katrina, simply consider that if the same storm had hit during Regan’s or Clinton’s presidency, they’d have made a TV movie of either President’s valor and commitment. Ronny would have been standing in water up to his ass, helping lift sandbags, while Nancy would have been serving coffee to firemen and baking cookies. Bill Clinton would have been lifting little black babies and old folks off the roofs of submerged houses, kissing each one and tearing up as he talked about the bravery of the people. You looked out the window of your custom designed 747 while sipping coffee and waiting for Dick to get out of his favorite trout stream and take your call.
Now you’ve puffed out your chest once again and Iran is developing nuclear power anyway. Now what, George? Need the help of the “soon to become irrelevant” United Nations, do you? Is Iran an “immanent threat” too? Sanctions look unlikely; the idea of military force is a farce. What now? I never thought I’d see the day, but China and Russia are issuing statements “urging caution” and sounding much more reasonable than the good old USA. If I didn’t know better, I’d be looking around for the rabbit hole into which I obviously have fallen.
Rummy, of course, has managed to piss off so many people in the military that it’s down right surreal. Generals… General Officers of the United States Armed Forces are on television saying the Secretary of Defense should resign. If I hadn’t seen and heard it with my very own eyes and ears, I wouldn’t have believed it. I seem to remember some of your clan complaining that the anti-war rhetoric was hurting our troops and harming the war effort—some of Ted Kennedy’s and Bill Clinton’s statements come to mind, among many others. Perhaps you should stop worrying about them, and start worrying about the impact of what appears to be nothing short of mutiny, Mr. Christian.
Yes, you are the “decider”. You get to decide. But over here, if we don’t like the way our President’s “deciding,” we get to decide some things as well. Maybe not today, but sooner rather than later.
Dick actually shot a guy while hunting and then waited something like 14 hours to report the event to the media. Even teenage children I know asked if the reason he waited was that he was drunk when it happened. And if he wasn’t… well, then he’s the dumbest sonofabitch the great State of Wyoming has ever produced. He got booed while throwing out the first ball at a baseball game… booed. I can’t remember the last time this country cared enough about a VP to boo him… Spiro Agnew, I suppose.
The worst part is that your troubles appear only to be beginning. You’re clearly in way over your head, and it’s starting to show. If the Dems gain control of the House in the midterms, you’re goose is almost certainly cooked. The war in Iraq looks unsolvable, even conservative talk show host, Bill O’Reilly is calling for our withdrawal by this coming December. Never mind that Afghanistan is far from over, and that peace in the Middle East seems about as likely as you and Laura dancing at a gay wedding.
Oh, and one more thing… Did you really handle the whole UAE port thing the way you did? Incredible. First you defended it like it was your own, then you admitted that you only found out about it a few days before? So, when you defended it, you didn’t know shit about it? Really? Who’s grand strategy was that? You ran around the country for two weeks trying to tell people that it was a good idea for an Arab nation to manage our major ports?
If they tried, Hollywood couldn’t come up with this stuff. The UAE? You mean the country that recently gave Hammas $50 million? Hammas… you know the organization you have identified as being a “terrorist” organization? Does that make the UAE with us, or agin’ us? I’m confused.
I’m not even going to bring up the immigration debacle. Or the deficit spending. Or your mission to reform Social Security. Or your “mandate”. Or your stance on Roe vs. Wade. Or your veto-free record that passes pro-business legislation without apology. It’s just too painful. You’ve managed to reach a point that I’ve never seen a president reach before. Even Democrats are reticent to criticize too harshly for fear of overstating the obvious. And replacing personnel at this stage in the game is certain to be seen as the same circus with different clowns.
Let’s just face it. Osama is long gone. Iraq is too. Hammas now leads the Palestinians. North Korea is still led by a well-armed lunatic. And Iran is building things nuclear. The Scooter thing is only going to get worse. And Tom Delay is running around the country splitting the Republican Party right down the middle, which of course is traditionally the job of Senator John McCain. You’re circling the drain, Mr. President, and you better get things going in another direction PDQ.
I couldn’t leave you without making a few suggestions:
1. Stop talking about Saddam and his WMD. It’s soooo 2003. No one cares anymore. You thought he had them; he didn’t… so what. Ronald Regan wouldn’t be caught dead answering questions about something he fucked up three years after he did it, now would he? Just do what he did… wave your hand and dismiss the subject as being below you, then kiss Laura, pet the dog, and head for the Oval Office for a cup of hot chocolate.
2. Have Dick Cheny fall on a sword for Wilson and Plame. Scooter said it was Dick that told him that you said it was OK. Everyone that watches Law & Order knows that’s heresay. You never said it was OK; it was Cheny gone mad. He can retire early to a life of speeches, fly-fishing, and buckets of cash.
3. Go to the UN and beg them to help fix the mess in Iraq. Just say your sorry and explain that you were just scared to death at the time. They’ll understand.
4. Help Iran by supplying them with what they need to have nuclear power. They’re going to get it anyway. Everyone else has it. And maybe they won’t want to blow us up as much if we help them a little now.
5. Hire a writer from the Clinton administration. You’re Texas crew doesn’t play well on a national stage. Perhaps see what Carville or Begala are up to these days.
If none of these ideas resonates with you, then I do have another that might be pretty effective. Have one of the interns give you a blow job while flying on Air Force One, or better yet, bend one over the big desk in the Oval Office. I realize it’s been done before, but you could improve upon the whole thing by referring to her as “your bitch” and announcing that she’s going to have your baby because you didn’t want to pull out and risk creating another blue dress.
Betcha’ that would get the focus back where it belongs… on decaying morals and family values. Then the Christian Right could run another Bible-thumper for President. It may sound a little nutty at first, but as a registered Republican, it’s sobering to realize that that’s about the only way we’re going to see another Republican in the White House for a long time.
As I said in the beginning, I’m sorry to have to write to you in this tone and with this message. Please understand that I do it with love in my heart. Someone had to tell you the truth. You’re in really bad shape, so stop being so arrogant about things. And let me know if you want me to send over an “intern” for a private interview… I’d be honored to help in any way I can.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Andelman
An American Citizen
Thursday, December 08, 2005
An Extraordinary Rendition
Last night my wife and I went to see the symphony orchestra at our local college perform an extraordinary rendition of Gustav Mahler’s Das Lied von der Erde. A few weeks ago, in keeping with the spirit of the upcoming holidays, we saw a beautiful rendition of the Nutcracker performed by a local opera company. And my own rendition of a couple of Bob Dylan songs on the guitar, while perhaps not rising to the level of being considered “extraordinary,” is considered by most to be pretty darn good.
Now, as I read the papers and watch what’s passing for “news” these days on television, I understand the U.S. Government and its all-star CIA Band is performing some extraordinary renditions of their own. When I first heard the news I thought, “Wow, and I didn’t even know the CIA had an interest in music. Isn’t it nice that they’re performing in Europe?”
Wasn’t I surprised to learn that, apparently, when the Bush administration uses the term “rendition,” they’re not talking about music or performance art. When they mention “rendition” they’re talking about apprehending suspects and secretly flying them off to be interrogated in the kind of Romanian prison that’s not going to be found in your Fodor’s Guide, should you be visiting the eastern block European countries anytime soon. As to what makes such a “rendition” an “extraordinary” one remains a tad unclear, but it may have something to do with being dunked in cold water while strapped to a chair.
Now, to be fair, this administration is far from being the first to mutilate the English language in an attempt to insult the educated and confuse the rest. I can remember hearing about a “nuclear device” in the 1960s, which I came to find out referred to “a bomb capable of destroying a fairly sizable piece of the world’s real estate”. Oh, and what was that quaint term used to describe the mess in Southeast Asia that produced little more than 65,000 American body bags? Oh yes, I remember it now… “police action”.
And, who among us could ever forget Bill Clinton explaining to his interrogators that the answer to their question depended on what the definition of “is” was. It didn’t play well in Poughkeepsie, and I can’t imagine such an answer would go over all that well with the CIA either. Thankfully, I’ve never been interrogated by the CIA, but from what I understand, those guys aren’t the types that enjoy debating the semantics of the English language with someone they’ve got duct-taped to a chair while a German Shepherd sniffs at their testicles.
OK, so they may not be the first, but that doesn’t make them any less funny, scary, or sad. Ever since 9/11, the Bush administration has been having a field day bastardizing the usage of common English words and terminology. Even the “War on Terror” itself is a war on an abstract noun.
How about the “Coalition of the Willing”. Well, it turns out that phrase, which for me conjures up images of American Red Cross volunteers, actually means “Us, the Brits, and 137 guys from Poland”. And, every time I hear Bush or Rummy saying that we’re “winning” the War on Terror, it makes me wonder exactly what “winning” now means. The infamous and hotly debated “Patriot Act” seems to only diminish the freedoms for which our country’s patriots have fought and died. And the Department of Homeland Security refers to a color chart proven about as accurate as the one available from the Crayola Company, and not being able to carry a lighter or tweezers on the flight to Chicago.
These days, the term “National Security” means “no longer a matter for discussion”. And it can’t be very long before Fox News starts referring to “white phosphorous” as “freedom powder” or some other such nonsense.
So, I had to find out precisely, what is a rendition? Perhaps, I thought optimistically, I’d been using the term incorrectly all these years. Well, according to my two dictionaries it is:
• An interpretation or performance of a piece of music or drama
• A translation of a literary work
• The act of translating something into another language (formal)
• A surrender (archaic)
• To reduce by heating
• To present or give what’s owed
The word “extraordinary” is primarily defined as:
• Very unusual and deserving attention and comment because of being wonderful, excellent, strange or shocking
So, you put the two words together and you get the administration’s new catch phrase “extraordinary rendition,” which I now understand actually denotatively means: “If you people are stupid enough to buy our shit, then we’re just going to keep shoveling it down your throat.” With an accompanying connotation of “We’re going to do whatever the f*#k we want under the guise of fighting the War on Terror, and there ain’t nothing you can do about it.”
Stand by, because there’s plenty more government inspired word games to come. Just this past week, Condi, serving as the administration’s proof that they are as open minded and friendly toward African Americans as was the Clinton administration, after being asked by numerous European governments about the our country’s definition of “torture,” is undoubtedly en route back to Washington D.C. to get the White House Wordsmiths working on it.
I’ve got a suggestion for them. How about this for a definition of torture: “Torture” – Being told by my government that the practice of secretly taking suspects to obscure locations in order to be able to act outside the bothersome constraints of U.S. laws – is nothing more than an “extraordinary rendition”.
Well, I can only say one word about that… "Bravo!"
Now, as I read the papers and watch what’s passing for “news” these days on television, I understand the U.S. Government and its all-star CIA Band is performing some extraordinary renditions of their own. When I first heard the news I thought, “Wow, and I didn’t even know the CIA had an interest in music. Isn’t it nice that they’re performing in Europe?”
Wasn’t I surprised to learn that, apparently, when the Bush administration uses the term “rendition,” they’re not talking about music or performance art. When they mention “rendition” they’re talking about apprehending suspects and secretly flying them off to be interrogated in the kind of Romanian prison that’s not going to be found in your Fodor’s Guide, should you be visiting the eastern block European countries anytime soon. As to what makes such a “rendition” an “extraordinary” one remains a tad unclear, but it may have something to do with being dunked in cold water while strapped to a chair.
Now, to be fair, this administration is far from being the first to mutilate the English language in an attempt to insult the educated and confuse the rest. I can remember hearing about a “nuclear device” in the 1960s, which I came to find out referred to “a bomb capable of destroying a fairly sizable piece of the world’s real estate”. Oh, and what was that quaint term used to describe the mess in Southeast Asia that produced little more than 65,000 American body bags? Oh yes, I remember it now… “police action”.
And, who among us could ever forget Bill Clinton explaining to his interrogators that the answer to their question depended on what the definition of “is” was. It didn’t play well in Poughkeepsie, and I can’t imagine such an answer would go over all that well with the CIA either. Thankfully, I’ve never been interrogated by the CIA, but from what I understand, those guys aren’t the types that enjoy debating the semantics of the English language with someone they’ve got duct-taped to a chair while a German Shepherd sniffs at their testicles.
OK, so they may not be the first, but that doesn’t make them any less funny, scary, or sad. Ever since 9/11, the Bush administration has been having a field day bastardizing the usage of common English words and terminology. Even the “War on Terror” itself is a war on an abstract noun.
How about the “Coalition of the Willing”. Well, it turns out that phrase, which for me conjures up images of American Red Cross volunteers, actually means “Us, the Brits, and 137 guys from Poland”. And, every time I hear Bush or Rummy saying that we’re “winning” the War on Terror, it makes me wonder exactly what “winning” now means. The infamous and hotly debated “Patriot Act” seems to only diminish the freedoms for which our country’s patriots have fought and died. And the Department of Homeland Security refers to a color chart proven about as accurate as the one available from the Crayola Company, and not being able to carry a lighter or tweezers on the flight to Chicago.
These days, the term “National Security” means “no longer a matter for discussion”. And it can’t be very long before Fox News starts referring to “white phosphorous” as “freedom powder” or some other such nonsense.
So, I had to find out precisely, what is a rendition? Perhaps, I thought optimistically, I’d been using the term incorrectly all these years. Well, according to my two dictionaries it is:
• An interpretation or performance of a piece of music or drama
• A translation of a literary work
• The act of translating something into another language (formal)
• A surrender (archaic)
• To reduce by heating
• To present or give what’s owed
The word “extraordinary” is primarily defined as:
• Very unusual and deserving attention and comment because of being wonderful, excellent, strange or shocking
So, you put the two words together and you get the administration’s new catch phrase “extraordinary rendition,” which I now understand actually denotatively means: “If you people are stupid enough to buy our shit, then we’re just going to keep shoveling it down your throat.” With an accompanying connotation of “We’re going to do whatever the f*#k we want under the guise of fighting the War on Terror, and there ain’t nothing you can do about it.”
Stand by, because there’s plenty more government inspired word games to come. Just this past week, Condi, serving as the administration’s proof that they are as open minded and friendly toward African Americans as was the Clinton administration, after being asked by numerous European governments about the our country’s definition of “torture,” is undoubtedly en route back to Washington D.C. to get the White House Wordsmiths working on it.
I’ve got a suggestion for them. How about this for a definition of torture: “Torture” – Being told by my government that the practice of secretly taking suspects to obscure locations in order to be able to act outside the bothersome constraints of U.S. laws – is nothing more than an “extraordinary rendition”.
Well, I can only say one word about that… "Bravo!"
Saturday, November 19, 2005
DATELINE… We Have a Problem
While watching a little television this past Sunday evening, I happened to catch DATELINE, the NBC news magazine program. It was the show’s unsavory topic that caught my attention: “Internet Predators” – the guys that chat with young children on the Internet in the hopes of luring them to have illicit sex – pedophilia, in other words.
What caught my attention was that the show apparently had “gone undercover” to catch these sick individuals by posing as 13 year-old kids online, and then inviting the men to a house where hidden cameras would be rolling. You would not have believed the kind of men they caught in their web, one of the guys caught was a rabbi, for God’s sake.
Now, I am the father of a ten year-old daughter who’s very active on the Internet, so I’m as concerned about these types of predators, I would think, as much as anybody. DATELINE staffers went online and started chatting with men, who BELIEVED they were chatting with a 13 year-old. Then they invited the men to a house they had rented – the presumption was that if they showed up at the house, they had done so in an attempt to engage in sexual activities with a minor.
The show was nothing short of astonishing. They told one guy to show up naked and he did. The show’s host had to throw him a towel. When the rabbi learned that he had been filmed, he went to pieces, almost unable to stand and clearly scared to death. According to the show, he resigned his position the next day.
I won’t go into detail about each Internet predator they caught on their hidden camera, but suffice it to say that they caught quite a few and it was shocking, disgusting, scary, and certainly important to see what is apparently going on every single day online.
As I was watching the program, I started to wonder about a few things. First, I started thinking about whether these guys were going to be arrested as a result of being caught by DATELINE. Then I started wondering how DATELINE could legally do what it was they were doing. I mean, didn’t people have to be told they were going to appear on DATELINE… didn’t they have to sign some sort of legal release in order to be filmed for broadcast television?
The Internet Predators shown on DATELINE, most certainly did not appear to have signed releases – they were caught red-handed chatting about sex with a minor and then caught on camera coming over to the supposed child’s home – and they were freaking out, trying to deny the charges, saying that it was the first time they had done something like this; some simply ran when they saw adults at the house where they had been told the 13 year-old would be home alone.
So how, I wondered, did DATELINE do it? I tried contacting the show via E-mail, but all I received was an auto-reply response thanking me for watching DATELINE, and telling me how to buy transcripts of the show… (Thanks a lot, by the way). Then I tried looking up laws related to filming people for broadcast television. I even checked the ACLU Website to see if they had anything to say on the topic.
Now, I want to be very clear here… I support what DATELINE did in an effort to bring to light what Internet Predators are all about. The people that prey on children are beyond depraved and need to be imprisoned, medicated, or otherwise “helped”. My first thought was that if you have to trap them on hidden camera, so be it, as far as I’m concerned. In my mind, if you’re preying on children for sex, you simply don’t have any “rights” and that’s that.
The more I thought about it, however, the more it bothered me. I mean, if DATELINE can hide cameras and create stories in this way, what’s stopping them and others in the media from using the methodology for other purposes. For example, what if a religious program wanted to “catch” people going into a gay bar and then having illicit sex in the bar’s parking lot. Or, what if they were “catching” people doing other things, like buying loose joints on the streets of Manhattan.
Imagine the following scenario: A guys in a bar having a few drinks. He leaves the bar, walks down the street, and is approached by what appears to be a woman. She offers him sex for money and he accepts. The go off to his car to engage in the act, she turns out to be a transvestite, and the whole thing is captured on hidden camera and broadcast on television. The show’s title might be: Transvestite Prostitutes Lure Husbands to Cheat, or some such thing.
Now, the guy leaving the bar has certainly committed a crime by soliciting what he thought was a woman for sex. If caught by the police, he would likely be arrested and punished under the law. Perhaps he’d pay a fine, or maybe even spend a day or two in jail. But in this example, he wasn’t caught by the police, he was “caught on hidden camera” by DATELINE, for example, and his punishment is to be nationally shamed.
I don’t remember hearing about “national shaming” as a punishment in the U.S. and I’m thinking that such a punishment could be interpreted as being “cruel and unusual”. Again, as a father of a ten year-old, I’m not completely opposed to such cruel and unusual punishment for those that prey on children, but as an American citizen, I’m concerned. I mean, if a person gets caught doing something illegal, say smoking marijuana, or even stealing something from a store, they should be punished under the law, but that doesn’t mean that they should be punished by DATELINE.
Also, keep in mind that we are all still presumed to be innocent prior to being found guilty. And DATELINE is not the body charged with determining a person’s guilt. What if they filmed someone who, for whatever reason, turned out to be not guilty?
Here’s an example: What if one of the men they filmed coming to the house was not the person that had been chatting online, but the father or other relative of the person chatting. What if he saw what his son or other relative was doing and came over to the house to stop what was going on. DATELINE, after all, was pretending to be a 13 year-old boy; what if the father was coming over to the house to talk to the child’s parents about what he had discovered going on online? He walked up to the door, saw several adults standing around, and ran off in fear of whatever he perceived might be going on. We simply do not know. Several men on the DATELINE program did in fact come to the door of the hidden camera house, see people standing inside and take off. If one of them wasn’t a predator, he’s certainly seen as being one now by anyone that saw his face on the show. It’s not like DATELINE checked their ID or anything. One of those guys could have been a Kirby Vacuum salesman, for all we, or DATELINE know.
The Legal Issues…
I finally did find a Website that presented legal issues surrounding the use of hidden cameras and broadcasting, and what I found made me feel even worse. First of all, I went to DATELINE’s site to see what they had to say for themselves (www.msnbc.msn.com). Sure enough, they had a special page devoted to the subject of hidden camera usage as related to newsgathering and investigative journalism.
Basically, they said it was admittedly controversial, but that their lawyers had approved of their actions, and they “promised” to always use such tactics responsibly. Gee… now doesn’t that make one feel all warm and fuzzy safe? A promise by DATELINE, or any other broadcaster or cable television outlet for that matter, to act responsibly is about as comforting as a presidential candidate promising not to raise taxes in a campaign speech.
Thanks DATELINE, and I’m sure you’re all very nice responsible guys. But let’s not forget that you’re the same people that chose the topic of Internet Predators over all others, and you did so because of its likelihood to result in higher ratings. You cannot be trusted by the American people to “do the right thing” because you are anything but impartial or objective. You’re in it for the money, plain and simple. Oh, I’m sure that you also want to do good, if faced with the choice of good vs. bad, but few decisions are that black and white, and you’ll generally choose the more profitable path.
The amazing thing about Dateline’s position is that, according to the laws on the subject of hidden camera tactics, they’re A-OK. The law basically says that hidden camera footage is OK if the people taping believe that the issue is important to society, or some such vague and ambiguous bullshit.
Of course, what one person believes is important is quite different than what someone else believes, so even after doing more legal research than I could normally stomach, I came to understand… well, not much actually.
The morale of the story is that you better be careful out there because you could be on a not-so-funny version of candid camera at any moment. And if you are “caught” doing something illegal, punishment by the court system may be the least of your worries.
What caught my attention was that the show apparently had “gone undercover” to catch these sick individuals by posing as 13 year-old kids online, and then inviting the men to a house where hidden cameras would be rolling. You would not have believed the kind of men they caught in their web, one of the guys caught was a rabbi, for God’s sake.
Now, I am the father of a ten year-old daughter who’s very active on the Internet, so I’m as concerned about these types of predators, I would think, as much as anybody. DATELINE staffers went online and started chatting with men, who BELIEVED they were chatting with a 13 year-old. Then they invited the men to a house they had rented – the presumption was that if they showed up at the house, they had done so in an attempt to engage in sexual activities with a minor.
The show was nothing short of astonishing. They told one guy to show up naked and he did. The show’s host had to throw him a towel. When the rabbi learned that he had been filmed, he went to pieces, almost unable to stand and clearly scared to death. According to the show, he resigned his position the next day.
I won’t go into detail about each Internet predator they caught on their hidden camera, but suffice it to say that they caught quite a few and it was shocking, disgusting, scary, and certainly important to see what is apparently going on every single day online.
As I was watching the program, I started to wonder about a few things. First, I started thinking about whether these guys were going to be arrested as a result of being caught by DATELINE. Then I started wondering how DATELINE could legally do what it was they were doing. I mean, didn’t people have to be told they were going to appear on DATELINE… didn’t they have to sign some sort of legal release in order to be filmed for broadcast television?
The Internet Predators shown on DATELINE, most certainly did not appear to have signed releases – they were caught red-handed chatting about sex with a minor and then caught on camera coming over to the supposed child’s home – and they were freaking out, trying to deny the charges, saying that it was the first time they had done something like this; some simply ran when they saw adults at the house where they had been told the 13 year-old would be home alone.
So how, I wondered, did DATELINE do it? I tried contacting the show via E-mail, but all I received was an auto-reply response thanking me for watching DATELINE, and telling me how to buy transcripts of the show… (Thanks a lot, by the way). Then I tried looking up laws related to filming people for broadcast television. I even checked the ACLU Website to see if they had anything to say on the topic.
Now, I want to be very clear here… I support what DATELINE did in an effort to bring to light what Internet Predators are all about. The people that prey on children are beyond depraved and need to be imprisoned, medicated, or otherwise “helped”. My first thought was that if you have to trap them on hidden camera, so be it, as far as I’m concerned. In my mind, if you’re preying on children for sex, you simply don’t have any “rights” and that’s that.
The more I thought about it, however, the more it bothered me. I mean, if DATELINE can hide cameras and create stories in this way, what’s stopping them and others in the media from using the methodology for other purposes. For example, what if a religious program wanted to “catch” people going into a gay bar and then having illicit sex in the bar’s parking lot. Or, what if they were “catching” people doing other things, like buying loose joints on the streets of Manhattan.
Imagine the following scenario: A guys in a bar having a few drinks. He leaves the bar, walks down the street, and is approached by what appears to be a woman. She offers him sex for money and he accepts. The go off to his car to engage in the act, she turns out to be a transvestite, and the whole thing is captured on hidden camera and broadcast on television. The show’s title might be: Transvestite Prostitutes Lure Husbands to Cheat, or some such thing.
Now, the guy leaving the bar has certainly committed a crime by soliciting what he thought was a woman for sex. If caught by the police, he would likely be arrested and punished under the law. Perhaps he’d pay a fine, or maybe even spend a day or two in jail. But in this example, he wasn’t caught by the police, he was “caught on hidden camera” by DATELINE, for example, and his punishment is to be nationally shamed.
I don’t remember hearing about “national shaming” as a punishment in the U.S. and I’m thinking that such a punishment could be interpreted as being “cruel and unusual”. Again, as a father of a ten year-old, I’m not completely opposed to such cruel and unusual punishment for those that prey on children, but as an American citizen, I’m concerned. I mean, if a person gets caught doing something illegal, say smoking marijuana, or even stealing something from a store, they should be punished under the law, but that doesn’t mean that they should be punished by DATELINE.
Also, keep in mind that we are all still presumed to be innocent prior to being found guilty. And DATELINE is not the body charged with determining a person’s guilt. What if they filmed someone who, for whatever reason, turned out to be not guilty?
Here’s an example: What if one of the men they filmed coming to the house was not the person that had been chatting online, but the father or other relative of the person chatting. What if he saw what his son or other relative was doing and came over to the house to stop what was going on. DATELINE, after all, was pretending to be a 13 year-old boy; what if the father was coming over to the house to talk to the child’s parents about what he had discovered going on online? He walked up to the door, saw several adults standing around, and ran off in fear of whatever he perceived might be going on. We simply do not know. Several men on the DATELINE program did in fact come to the door of the hidden camera house, see people standing inside and take off. If one of them wasn’t a predator, he’s certainly seen as being one now by anyone that saw his face on the show. It’s not like DATELINE checked their ID or anything. One of those guys could have been a Kirby Vacuum salesman, for all we, or DATELINE know.
The Legal Issues…
I finally did find a Website that presented legal issues surrounding the use of hidden cameras and broadcasting, and what I found made me feel even worse. First of all, I went to DATELINE’s site to see what they had to say for themselves (www.msnbc.msn.com). Sure enough, they had a special page devoted to the subject of hidden camera usage as related to newsgathering and investigative journalism.
Basically, they said it was admittedly controversial, but that their lawyers had approved of their actions, and they “promised” to always use such tactics responsibly. Gee… now doesn’t that make one feel all warm and fuzzy safe? A promise by DATELINE, or any other broadcaster or cable television outlet for that matter, to act responsibly is about as comforting as a presidential candidate promising not to raise taxes in a campaign speech.
Thanks DATELINE, and I’m sure you’re all very nice responsible guys. But let’s not forget that you’re the same people that chose the topic of Internet Predators over all others, and you did so because of its likelihood to result in higher ratings. You cannot be trusted by the American people to “do the right thing” because you are anything but impartial or objective. You’re in it for the money, plain and simple. Oh, I’m sure that you also want to do good, if faced with the choice of good vs. bad, but few decisions are that black and white, and you’ll generally choose the more profitable path.
The amazing thing about Dateline’s position is that, according to the laws on the subject of hidden camera tactics, they’re A-OK. The law basically says that hidden camera footage is OK if the people taping believe that the issue is important to society, or some such vague and ambiguous bullshit.
Of course, what one person believes is important is quite different than what someone else believes, so even after doing more legal research than I could normally stomach, I came to understand… well, not much actually.
The morale of the story is that you better be careful out there because you could be on a not-so-funny version of candid camera at any moment. And if you are “caught” doing something illegal, punishment by the court system may be the least of your worries.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Scooter Libby -- Variations on a Theme
In my lifetime I’ve gotten to see Lyndon Johnson’s brilliant handling of the war in Southeast Asia. Then I went to sleep one night and woke up to the Watergate hearings and Nixon waving goodbye as he climbed into the helicopter. Carter seemed like a nice enough guy, but not much of a leader. Then Uncle Ronny and Aunt Nance came to live in the White House and, just as things were looking up, the whole Iran-Contra mess came up and then, reminiscent of the Watergate hearings, no one could seem to remember anything except that Ollie North did it. Bush I seemed to handle things pretty well, but having the ex-director of the CIA in the White House always made me a little itchy. Bill Clinton was cool for a while, but then he said that something depended on what the definition of “is” was, and I went to take another nap.
G.W. showed up promising to restore dignity to the U.S. Presidency and he decided that the best way to do that was to tell the world that Saddam had WMD, and then prove himself wrong. Now we have Scooter Libby, who plays The Boy Wonder to Rove’s Batman, being indicted for lying to a Federal Grand Jury and obstructing justice, among other things.
Now, after thirty-some years of watching the U.S. Presidency make a mess of itself at least once a decade, I’m now being asked to believe that, even if it’s true that Scooter did it, it stops right there. Rove, Chaney, Bush… they had no idea this sort of thing was happening and did nothing wrong. Well, I have but one thing to say to the White House on this point: Do you think we're stupid?
Let’s look at what happened here in simple terms. The CIA sent a guy named Joe Wilson, to go over to Africa to find out if a story about Saddam trying to buy yellow cake uranium was in fact true. He came back and said it wasn’t, but the administration didn’t want to hear it. OK, so far so good. They don’t have to listen to everything they hear, no problem.
Wilson decided, however, that the people of the United States should know about what he didn’t find in Africa, so he exercised his patriotic duty and wrote an article in the newspaper. We still have freedom of speech, right? You can disagree with the President, if you like. I certainly have for most of my lifetime.
This time, however, the White House got mad. They didn’t like Mr. Wilson’s article and so Scooter and Rove got on the phone and started calling reporters to engage in conversations about Mr. Wilson and his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Those reporters did what reporters do after being handed a story by Mr. Rove… they reported it, in one way or another.
The problem, of course, was that we weren’t all supposed to know about Valerie’s chosen career in the CIA. She was, as they say, under cover. No one knew she was working for the CIA; she had fake business cards and was running a fake company. But when the two guys from the White House told reporters that it was Wilson’s wife that was behind his trip to Africa, I suppose in an attempt to attack the credibility of Mr. Wilson and his trip, they essentially blew Valerie’s cover.
Now, I realize that there’s a whole lot of extraneous crap related to this story that I am not bothering to bring up. But let’s just pause there for a moment so that we can understand what’s really happening here…
Some of the top guys in the White House got pissed off at what an American citizen had to say and decided to strike back at him by telling the press things intended to harm his credibility and his wife’s career. Here it is again: Our top guys in the White House picked up the phone and called reporters in an effort to discredit an American citizen and punish him for his exercising his right to free speech. From reading the newspapers, it seems like Rove or Scooter had to be on that phone call for at least ten, maybe fifteen minutes.
Now, as is always the case, the left and right each have their own interpretation of this still emerging and intriguing tale. On the right they’re questioning whether Valerie’s position at CIA makes giving away her identity a crime. At one point I heard one of the two White House storm troopers defend himself by saying something about only referring to “Wilson’s wife” as opposed to Valerie Plame. I suppose the implication is that he didn’t do it because he didn’t actually use her name. I think it would have to depend on what the definition of “is” is.
OK, I have a couple of things to say about all this.
Item #1: Will somebody please give these people something to do. Am I to understand that two of the top guys in our government – guys on the White House staff – have nothing better to do than vindictively pursue one guy because of an article he wrote that made the administration look bad? Are you kidding me? I run a small business with six employees and I don’t have time to get back at someone who pissed me off. And, there were two of them on it. Two. Two of them. I can only surmise that it’s because one senior advisor to the President of the United States would not have been sufficient firepower to get the job done right.
Item #2: I don’t know… Maybe the two of them could fill in their dead time by trying to do something to find Usama Bin Laden, what do you think? They obviously have way too much time on their hands. Was Joe Wilson’s article in the New York Times really going to be all that powerful? First of all, it was in the New York Times and because Fox News and conservative talk radio have long since convinced roughly half the country that the Times is a liberal, leftist rag of a paper, we don’t have to concern ourselves about the article’s potential effect on them.
Secondly, it was in the New York Times and most of the country, the part that elected Bush to a second term by the way, has never even seen a New York Times, much less read one. Hell, I got stoned once in the last seventies and didn’t see a Times again until ’84 or ’85.
Item #3: It’s important that you understand that I don’t give a damn about any of the other convoluted facts on either side. I’ve tried to read the detailed accounts of those facts in several newspapers and by the time you’re done, you’ll either have Excedrin Headache Number 622, or you’ll find yourself daydreaming about where you might go next year on vacation.
I don’t even care whether Scooter is found guilty, or Rove gets indicted. I don’t care if Cheney was sitting on Rove’s lap, giggling as he prompted Rove to make a whole series of phony phone calls. I don’t care whether Valerie Plame’s “outing” was a “crime” or not. I don’t care what Rove knew and when. I don’t even care about Joe Wilson’s wife’s career. None of it matters.
The whole thing is just so high school. Let’s see… “These two senior guys, after being shot in the ego by a couple of sophomore girls, come to school on Monday spreading the rumor that the two girls are sluts. Since the two guys know the editor of the school paper, they get pictures of the girls printed in some demeaning or discrediting way.” If you pitch it right, it’s got all the makings of good solid episode of Boy Meets World, or Saved By The Bell.
What in the world were Scooter, Rove, and whoever else turns out to be involved, thinking? Just the fact that they would spend any time at all chasing around a guy because of an op-ed he wrote in the newspaper… ASTOUNDS ME. That’s why I say the extraneous details don’t matter. Neither one of them should ever have picked up the phone.
And that, by the way, is how we know that these two monkeys in suits meant to do what they did to the Wilson family – it was no accident. Following Wilson’s op-ed in The New York Times, they both picked up telephones and talked to reporters about Joe Wilson, his wife and his trip to Africa in an effort to discredit the article and its author. One guy… ok, maybe. But two guys… well, that’s pretty close to hatching a plot.
Forget about whether what they did rises to the level of a criminal act, or whether any given charge can be proven in a court of law. What does the whole thing tell you about who these two guys are? Can you imagine all the other shit these two jokers have pulled on other people while climbing the ladder to the top? And Scooter’s a nice Jewish boy named “Scooter” for God’s sake. How can these things happen?
What Scooter and Rove did was seriously wrong. There may be other factors that, at the end of the day, somehow mitigate the outcome, but regardless, what they did certainly didn't help to restore any dignity to the White House. Simple as that.
G.W. showed up promising to restore dignity to the U.S. Presidency and he decided that the best way to do that was to tell the world that Saddam had WMD, and then prove himself wrong. Now we have Scooter Libby, who plays The Boy Wonder to Rove’s Batman, being indicted for lying to a Federal Grand Jury and obstructing justice, among other things.
Now, after thirty-some years of watching the U.S. Presidency make a mess of itself at least once a decade, I’m now being asked to believe that, even if it’s true that Scooter did it, it stops right there. Rove, Chaney, Bush… they had no idea this sort of thing was happening and did nothing wrong. Well, I have but one thing to say to the White House on this point: Do you think we're stupid?
Let’s look at what happened here in simple terms. The CIA sent a guy named Joe Wilson, to go over to Africa to find out if a story about Saddam trying to buy yellow cake uranium was in fact true. He came back and said it wasn’t, but the administration didn’t want to hear it. OK, so far so good. They don’t have to listen to everything they hear, no problem.
Wilson decided, however, that the people of the United States should know about what he didn’t find in Africa, so he exercised his patriotic duty and wrote an article in the newspaper. We still have freedom of speech, right? You can disagree with the President, if you like. I certainly have for most of my lifetime.
This time, however, the White House got mad. They didn’t like Mr. Wilson’s article and so Scooter and Rove got on the phone and started calling reporters to engage in conversations about Mr. Wilson and his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Those reporters did what reporters do after being handed a story by Mr. Rove… they reported it, in one way or another.
The problem, of course, was that we weren’t all supposed to know about Valerie’s chosen career in the CIA. She was, as they say, under cover. No one knew she was working for the CIA; she had fake business cards and was running a fake company. But when the two guys from the White House told reporters that it was Wilson’s wife that was behind his trip to Africa, I suppose in an attempt to attack the credibility of Mr. Wilson and his trip, they essentially blew Valerie’s cover.
Now, I realize that there’s a whole lot of extraneous crap related to this story that I am not bothering to bring up. But let’s just pause there for a moment so that we can understand what’s really happening here…
Some of the top guys in the White House got pissed off at what an American citizen had to say and decided to strike back at him by telling the press things intended to harm his credibility and his wife’s career. Here it is again: Our top guys in the White House picked up the phone and called reporters in an effort to discredit an American citizen and punish him for his exercising his right to free speech. From reading the newspapers, it seems like Rove or Scooter had to be on that phone call for at least ten, maybe fifteen minutes.
Now, as is always the case, the left and right each have their own interpretation of this still emerging and intriguing tale. On the right they’re questioning whether Valerie’s position at CIA makes giving away her identity a crime. At one point I heard one of the two White House storm troopers defend himself by saying something about only referring to “Wilson’s wife” as opposed to Valerie Plame. I suppose the implication is that he didn’t do it because he didn’t actually use her name. I think it would have to depend on what the definition of “is” is.
OK, I have a couple of things to say about all this.
Item #1: Will somebody please give these people something to do. Am I to understand that two of the top guys in our government – guys on the White House staff – have nothing better to do than vindictively pursue one guy because of an article he wrote that made the administration look bad? Are you kidding me? I run a small business with six employees and I don’t have time to get back at someone who pissed me off. And, there were two of them on it. Two. Two of them. I can only surmise that it’s because one senior advisor to the President of the United States would not have been sufficient firepower to get the job done right.
Item #2: I don’t know… Maybe the two of them could fill in their dead time by trying to do something to find Usama Bin Laden, what do you think? They obviously have way too much time on their hands. Was Joe Wilson’s article in the New York Times really going to be all that powerful? First of all, it was in the New York Times and because Fox News and conservative talk radio have long since convinced roughly half the country that the Times is a liberal, leftist rag of a paper, we don’t have to concern ourselves about the article’s potential effect on them.
Secondly, it was in the New York Times and most of the country, the part that elected Bush to a second term by the way, has never even seen a New York Times, much less read one. Hell, I got stoned once in the last seventies and didn’t see a Times again until ’84 or ’85.
Item #3: It’s important that you understand that I don’t give a damn about any of the other convoluted facts on either side. I’ve tried to read the detailed accounts of those facts in several newspapers and by the time you’re done, you’ll either have Excedrin Headache Number 622, or you’ll find yourself daydreaming about where you might go next year on vacation.
I don’t even care whether Scooter is found guilty, or Rove gets indicted. I don’t care if Cheney was sitting on Rove’s lap, giggling as he prompted Rove to make a whole series of phony phone calls. I don’t care whether Valerie Plame’s “outing” was a “crime” or not. I don’t care what Rove knew and when. I don’t even care about Joe Wilson’s wife’s career. None of it matters.
The whole thing is just so high school. Let’s see… “These two senior guys, after being shot in the ego by a couple of sophomore girls, come to school on Monday spreading the rumor that the two girls are sluts. Since the two guys know the editor of the school paper, they get pictures of the girls printed in some demeaning or discrediting way.” If you pitch it right, it’s got all the makings of good solid episode of Boy Meets World, or Saved By The Bell.
What in the world were Scooter, Rove, and whoever else turns out to be involved, thinking? Just the fact that they would spend any time at all chasing around a guy because of an op-ed he wrote in the newspaper… ASTOUNDS ME. That’s why I say the extraneous details don’t matter. Neither one of them should ever have picked up the phone.
And that, by the way, is how we know that these two monkeys in suits meant to do what they did to the Wilson family – it was no accident. Following Wilson’s op-ed in The New York Times, they both picked up telephones and talked to reporters about Joe Wilson, his wife and his trip to Africa in an effort to discredit the article and its author. One guy… ok, maybe. But two guys… well, that’s pretty close to hatching a plot.
Forget about whether what they did rises to the level of a criminal act, or whether any given charge can be proven in a court of law. What does the whole thing tell you about who these two guys are? Can you imagine all the other shit these two jokers have pulled on other people while climbing the ladder to the top? And Scooter’s a nice Jewish boy named “Scooter” for God’s sake. How can these things happen?
What Scooter and Rove did was seriously wrong. There may be other factors that, at the end of the day, somehow mitigate the outcome, but regardless, what they did certainly didn't help to restore any dignity to the White House. Simple as that.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Iraq and 9/11 -- A Voice from the Middle
What Happened on 9/11 and Why Did the United States Start the War in Iraq?
One might find it difficult to believe, but this is a surprisingly easy question to answer. The problem is that the answer, in truth, is too dull for most people to accept. No one’s going to scream about it on Fox News. But it’s the true answer, nonetheless.
(Stand by and I’ll give it to you…)
A lot of people it seems, especially since the late nineties aren’t happy unless a story is nothing short of electrifying and nefarious; it seems we need something in which to sink our collective teeth, or it’s back to a Seinfeld rerun, or shopping online. I suppose to some degree it’s understandable. The events of 9/11 were large – the explanations, one might think, must be commensurately large.
We, as a nation, can’t stand the thought that what happened on 9/11 was simply that a couple of dozen Islamic fundamentalists, on a mission for martyrdom, high-jacked some planes with box cutters and other such pen knives, and blew up two large, symbolic buildings. Simple as that. They weren’t particularly brilliant, or devious, or even evil – lots of history’s infamous characters would have to be considered far more evil than these guys. These guys were just religious fanatics who believed in their hearts and minds that America is decadent, amoral, and spreading fast. In other words, they have similar views to many of today’s conservative talk show hosts.
How did they do it? Simple… they accomplished their mission precisely because it wasn’t that hard. No one was looking for it, that’s for sure. At least one of the guys that high-jacked the plane got on without a valid passport. Other guys brought on board enough dangerous shit to make your head spin. They were able to it because there was virtually no one even remotely trying to stop them.
Now look, if a handful of young adults with Swiss Army knives manages to rob a bank, we’d say: “Wow, that’s amazing and how did they do that? They must be really good.” But if that same group robbed that bank on a day when the doors and the safe have been left open and no one is around for blocks… well then, not so impressive.
In hindsight, we had plenty of chances to stumble onto their plans. Our FBI had memos running around about middle-eastern men learning to fly, but not interested in landing. Other intelligence (and I use that term lightly) said that someone might be plotting to crash planes into the World Trade Center – that certainly seems pretty specific, but it, like all the others were resoundingly ignored.
We just didn’t think it would happen and no one was watching the store. The guys that flew the planes are not Bond Villains with immense power and resources focused on global domination or destruction. They are simply desperate and angry people who have let religion destroy their ability to function as rational human beings. And because we, as a nation, left the bank’s doors wide open, they happened to stroll in and unload the vault. OK, they got their reward when the towers collapsed, but that doesn’t make them criminal masterminds by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course, that’s not what we were told by our leaders and experts. We were told a far more exciting story about a global network of cells put in place by an evil zillionaire named Usama Bin Laden; Mr. Rumsfeld even gave him his own acronym: UBL. We were given the impression that his Al Qaeda organization was sophisticated and powerful, and it made sense… otherwise how could they have beaten the all-powerful US of A? These guys, the media reported, were operating terrorist training camps in exotic locales. They even showed us footage of “terrorists in training” and it looked like they were the evil degenerate version of the Green Berets.
It all made sense to people because surely, what we all watched on 9/11 could not have been the result of anything simple, like twelve angry young men with pen knives. We like conspiracies; they make us feel better. If the deeds of 9/11 were perpetrated by a small group of zealots that only succeeded because no one was trying to stop them, then the world seems just too dangerous to imagine. An evil empire we can deal with; we’ll just send in the same guys who saved the world on D-Day in World War II, and soon the world would be safe again.
What to do, what to do? Very soon after 9/11 we were told that we found the evil empire and it lived in Afghanistan. We were shown tapes of UBL broadcasting from his bat cave. We were shown people in black, with black beards and dark skin – bad guys on a scale that even George Lucas couldn’t have better imagined. To look at them, these were clearly the best “bad guys” since the Nazis themselves. They even had long curved knives, like Ali Babba’s forty thieves of the Arabian Nights.
These guys weren’t Al Qaeda or anything, they were called “The Taliban”. The word “Taliban” means “religious students” but that just doesn’t sound evil enough. In reality, the Taliban of 2001 was actually the “mujahideen” that we heard about when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Then they were the good guys – mujahideen means “freedom fighters” after all. But, in late 2001, all we heard was that the Taliban was the evil empire, they lived in Afghanistan, and we were going to go over there and give them a good old American ass-whipping. Then we sang the National Anthem and started plastering our flag all over the place, so “they” wouldn’t win.
Predictably, we won the war against Afghanistan. Apparently, the Taliban’s evil outfits and curved knives were no match for our laser guided missiles. Good had prevailed over evil once again. Let’s hit the mall and get back to Disneyland… so “they” don’t win. We were so happy when we won. Woopie! The United States of America can kick Afghanistan’s butt any day of the week, so there. Who would have ever thought? Never mind that we didn’t find UBL. That wasn’t the important thing.
The war in Afghanistan quickly became boring, like watching Joe Frazier fight Al Franken, and just after the one-year anniversary of 9/11 our President told us that he had found another evil empire, even more powerful than the Taliban, in Iraq. Ah ha! It wasn’t just those guys in the black robes, it was Saddam Hussein, whom we all knew from his hit television show of the early 1990s called The Gulf War.
Saddam was the guy behind the curtain and he had a death ray. He must be stopped at all costs. You could almost hear the bugle call and sounds of horses charging over the plains. The US Calvary would soon be on its way.
A lot of people were surprised when the bad guy turned out to be a sequel character, not Rocky, but Rocky II. Was Saddam somehow behind the events of 9/11? Was Saddam in cahoots with UBL? No one was sure, but we were sure that he had a death ray weapon of mass destruction, and would have to be stopped if we were to win our “War on Terror”. Colin Powell had pictures, for God’s sake.
When some in the United Nations disagreed with our view of Saddam, we started calling the organization “irrelevant” and useless. What good had the UN ever done, really? Bosnia maybe, but who could remember back to 1998? It was 2002 and you were either with us or against us. There were only two sides in this war and you better line up behind us, the good guys, or you’d be one of the bad guys. The French thought it a better idea to work through the UN, and within days we were ordering Freedom Fries at the US Capitol. To be against this war against Iraq and Saddam’s death ray, was dangerous business, just ask the Dixie Chicks.
So, we went marching into Iraq and proclaimed victory within a few weeks, a long time when you consider that we won the Gulf War in four days. Saddam was on the run and we would soon smoke him out and round him up. Good would soon triumph once again over evil… let’s get back to planning a vacation or refinancing a home at four percent fixed. Saddam, shaddam… interest rates hadn’t been this low in fifty years.
Oh sure, there was this little nagging problem of finding the WMD that we had told the world was the reason behind the war. Surely our President hadn’t been crying wolf, right? Was Saddam’s death ray just another version of Y2K? No way, he was the key member of The Axis of Evil, just like he was during his last fifteen minutes of fame.
When U.S. soldiers pulled Saddam out of his ultra-sophisticated secret hiding hole he looked like someone’s alcoholic grandfather after a three-day bender. There were no WMDs after all, but that didn’t matter because the real reason we had gone into Iraq was to bring freedom to oppressed people and make sure the women over there could learn to read and shop at the mall. Or was that in Afghanistan? No matter, they were all the same at this point, weren’t they?
What had started with a dozen or so young fanatical religious men and their box cutters, had now gone from being a global network of terrorist cells, to being the Taliban, to being Saddam’s Iraq, and still UBL was no where to be found. Even some of the folks firmly in the Bush fan club started to wonder what the hell was going on.
The left, as led by film maker Michael Moore, was sure that the whole thing was a calculated, premeditated plot by the Bush administration to control Iraq’s oil supply… or finish what W’s father had started… or something else, but whatever it was, it was certainly no accident.
On the right, Bush’s defenders pointed to intelligence flaws, and held onto the belief that, WMD or no WMD, Iraq simply had to be involved in 9/11 somehow, or could have been… or might have been in the future… or something. Bush hadn’t lied, he was right to do what he did, regardless the outcome. The world was now a safer place, now let’s get back to what we can do with those low interest rates.
One would have to think that if our going into Iraq was a calculated plot perpetrated by the Bush administration, it wasn’t a very good one. Kind of like a teenager telling a lie that is easily and quickly detected.
So, what did happen here? Why did we go into Iraq? We went into Iraq for the same reason we put Japanese Americans into concentration camps after Pearl Harbor. We were scared and didn’t know what else to do. And, when I say “we” I mean everyone, including those in the White House. We went rushing into Iraq because we lost our keys on 9/11 and when we couldn’t find them in Afghanistan, we started looking where the light was better.
The fact is that our leaders aren’t of superior intelligence and they’re capable of being scared just like a child bullied on the school ground. And, when they get scared, they tend to do stupid stuff, like putting Japanese Americans behind bars. Or, like fighting a war in Southeast Asia to “stop the spread of communism”. Or, like sending God-knows-who to land at The Bay of Pigs. Or, like blacklisting Hollywood actors because they attended a meeting during the 1930s. Or, like sending people to break in to an office in the Watergate Hotel. Or any other of the famously stupid things we’ve done over the years because we were afraid. It’s just what we, as human beings, do.
We went into the Spanish-American War because we thought our battleship, the Maine, was bombed while in Havana’s harbor. It wasn’t, we later learned, but no matter. We escalated our involvement in Viet Nam because the enemy allegedly fired upon our boats off the coast in the Gulf of Tonkin. They weren’t, but no matter, the end will surely justify the means. And the two times during the last century that we actually should have become militarily involved, WWI and WWII, we didn’t want to. We waited until 1917 to enter the First World War and didn’t get to fighting Germany and Japan until 1942, and only after Pearl Harbor. We’re just stupid when we’re scared, simple as that.
What happened on and since 9/11 is actually a simple, somewhat boring story of a handful of misguided men who found the bank unlocked and unguarded, and then the acts of human beings who had the shit scared out of them. Although nowhere near as photogenic as was the twin towers falling to rubble, it’s a lot like the Y2K scare that scared some people so badly that they stocked up on bottled water and hid under their beds instead of celebrating New Year’s Eve.
Of course, that’s not the sort of story that would fuel a year’s worth of controversial programming on Fox News, or any of the other dramatic media outlets competing for ratings in order to sell television commercials. They need a hook, a conspiracy, and evil empire, a global network of well financed and highly trained villains dressed in black and sporting beards. Just like the promoters of the WWF wrestling shows, they need a good guy and a really bad guy to hold our attention through the commercial break.
Why did we start the war on Iraq? Because we were scared and didn’t know what else to do. What happened on 9/11? A small group of religious fanatics with cutlery high-jacked some planes and crashed them into some buildings killing three thousand innocent people. It’s not the first time such things have transpired and it won’t be the last. It’s simply the story of human beings doing what human beings do when angry, misguided and afraid.
Did our President intentionally lie? Did he perpetrate a grand conspiratorial plan? Don’t be silly. Just look at whom we’re talking about here. It’s George W. Bush, remember?
G.W. -- The same guy that liberals back in 2000, characterized as being far from the shed’s sharpest tool. This is the same guy who, when questioned in 2004, as to the progress being made in Iraq replied by saying that it was “hard work”. The same guy who sat looking dumbfounded as he paused from his reading of “My Pet Goat” to an elementary school class on 9/11. The same guy who, in a speech to the nation and the world, characterized the problems of terrorism and the middle east as having just two components, good and bad. He’s not complex enough to even conceive of such a nefarious plot, much less execute it.
Does that mean he did the right thing in Iraq… who knows? The world is certain to be somewhat better without guys like Saddam running around, at least until another Saddam takes his place somewhere else. Will our brand of democratic government take hold in the Middle East? Again, only time will tell, but regardless it’s time to move on. Fahrenheit 9-11 is now selling for $9.99 on DVD – it’s old news that needs to be put behind us. We’ve got plenty of other big issues for talking heads to fight over, like gay marriage, or prayer in schools, or whether Hillary Clinton was or is a lesbian.
There is a rule in the intelligence community that says that, when analyzing a situation, the simplest answer is usually correct. Many people may not like that answer, it is after all, dull when compared with the grand, master plans of Hollywood movies. But alas, the simplest answer is usually the right answer.
Why did the “plumbers” break into the Watergate Hotel, when their employer was certain to win the next election in a landslide? Because President Nixon and those around him were simply paranoid nut cases that were afraid of losing. Why did we fight the Cold War and the war in Viet Nam? Because we were scared of the “red menace” spreading its Godless, anti-capitalist doctrine to Petute, Indiana. Why did Bill Clinton lie about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Because he was scared to tell the truth, like any other guy in his position would be. Why, on television, did he answer a question by saying that it depended what the definition of “is” was? Well, because he was being an idiot, that’s why.
And, why did we rush to round up Japanese Americans and imprison them after Pearl Harbor? For the same reason we were in such a hurry to go to war in Iraq.
As to the question of whether Hillary was or is a lesbian… I sure hope so. It certainly would make for some compelling television.
One might find it difficult to believe, but this is a surprisingly easy question to answer. The problem is that the answer, in truth, is too dull for most people to accept. No one’s going to scream about it on Fox News. But it’s the true answer, nonetheless.
(Stand by and I’ll give it to you…)
A lot of people it seems, especially since the late nineties aren’t happy unless a story is nothing short of electrifying and nefarious; it seems we need something in which to sink our collective teeth, or it’s back to a Seinfeld rerun, or shopping online. I suppose to some degree it’s understandable. The events of 9/11 were large – the explanations, one might think, must be commensurately large.
We, as a nation, can’t stand the thought that what happened on 9/11 was simply that a couple of dozen Islamic fundamentalists, on a mission for martyrdom, high-jacked some planes with box cutters and other such pen knives, and blew up two large, symbolic buildings. Simple as that. They weren’t particularly brilliant, or devious, or even evil – lots of history’s infamous characters would have to be considered far more evil than these guys. These guys were just religious fanatics who believed in their hearts and minds that America is decadent, amoral, and spreading fast. In other words, they have similar views to many of today’s conservative talk show hosts.
How did they do it? Simple… they accomplished their mission precisely because it wasn’t that hard. No one was looking for it, that’s for sure. At least one of the guys that high-jacked the plane got on without a valid passport. Other guys brought on board enough dangerous shit to make your head spin. They were able to it because there was virtually no one even remotely trying to stop them.
Now look, if a handful of young adults with Swiss Army knives manages to rob a bank, we’d say: “Wow, that’s amazing and how did they do that? They must be really good.” But if that same group robbed that bank on a day when the doors and the safe have been left open and no one is around for blocks… well then, not so impressive.
In hindsight, we had plenty of chances to stumble onto their plans. Our FBI had memos running around about middle-eastern men learning to fly, but not interested in landing. Other intelligence (and I use that term lightly) said that someone might be plotting to crash planes into the World Trade Center – that certainly seems pretty specific, but it, like all the others were resoundingly ignored.
We just didn’t think it would happen and no one was watching the store. The guys that flew the planes are not Bond Villains with immense power and resources focused on global domination or destruction. They are simply desperate and angry people who have let religion destroy their ability to function as rational human beings. And because we, as a nation, left the bank’s doors wide open, they happened to stroll in and unload the vault. OK, they got their reward when the towers collapsed, but that doesn’t make them criminal masterminds by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course, that’s not what we were told by our leaders and experts. We were told a far more exciting story about a global network of cells put in place by an evil zillionaire named Usama Bin Laden; Mr. Rumsfeld even gave him his own acronym: UBL. We were given the impression that his Al Qaeda organization was sophisticated and powerful, and it made sense… otherwise how could they have beaten the all-powerful US of A? These guys, the media reported, were operating terrorist training camps in exotic locales. They even showed us footage of “terrorists in training” and it looked like they were the evil degenerate version of the Green Berets.
It all made sense to people because surely, what we all watched on 9/11 could not have been the result of anything simple, like twelve angry young men with pen knives. We like conspiracies; they make us feel better. If the deeds of 9/11 were perpetrated by a small group of zealots that only succeeded because no one was trying to stop them, then the world seems just too dangerous to imagine. An evil empire we can deal with; we’ll just send in the same guys who saved the world on D-Day in World War II, and soon the world would be safe again.
What to do, what to do? Very soon after 9/11 we were told that we found the evil empire and it lived in Afghanistan. We were shown tapes of UBL broadcasting from his bat cave. We were shown people in black, with black beards and dark skin – bad guys on a scale that even George Lucas couldn’t have better imagined. To look at them, these were clearly the best “bad guys” since the Nazis themselves. They even had long curved knives, like Ali Babba’s forty thieves of the Arabian Nights.
These guys weren’t Al Qaeda or anything, they were called “The Taliban”. The word “Taliban” means “religious students” but that just doesn’t sound evil enough. In reality, the Taliban of 2001 was actually the “mujahideen” that we heard about when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Then they were the good guys – mujahideen means “freedom fighters” after all. But, in late 2001, all we heard was that the Taliban was the evil empire, they lived in Afghanistan, and we were going to go over there and give them a good old American ass-whipping. Then we sang the National Anthem and started plastering our flag all over the place, so “they” wouldn’t win.
Predictably, we won the war against Afghanistan. Apparently, the Taliban’s evil outfits and curved knives were no match for our laser guided missiles. Good had prevailed over evil once again. Let’s hit the mall and get back to Disneyland… so “they” don’t win. We were so happy when we won. Woopie! The United States of America can kick Afghanistan’s butt any day of the week, so there. Who would have ever thought? Never mind that we didn’t find UBL. That wasn’t the important thing.
The war in Afghanistan quickly became boring, like watching Joe Frazier fight Al Franken, and just after the one-year anniversary of 9/11 our President told us that he had found another evil empire, even more powerful than the Taliban, in Iraq. Ah ha! It wasn’t just those guys in the black robes, it was Saddam Hussein, whom we all knew from his hit television show of the early 1990s called The Gulf War.
Saddam was the guy behind the curtain and he had a death ray. He must be stopped at all costs. You could almost hear the bugle call and sounds of horses charging over the plains. The US Calvary would soon be on its way.
A lot of people were surprised when the bad guy turned out to be a sequel character, not Rocky, but Rocky II. Was Saddam somehow behind the events of 9/11? Was Saddam in cahoots with UBL? No one was sure, but we were sure that he had a death ray weapon of mass destruction, and would have to be stopped if we were to win our “War on Terror”. Colin Powell had pictures, for God’s sake.
When some in the United Nations disagreed with our view of Saddam, we started calling the organization “irrelevant” and useless. What good had the UN ever done, really? Bosnia maybe, but who could remember back to 1998? It was 2002 and you were either with us or against us. There were only two sides in this war and you better line up behind us, the good guys, or you’d be one of the bad guys. The French thought it a better idea to work through the UN, and within days we were ordering Freedom Fries at the US Capitol. To be against this war against Iraq and Saddam’s death ray, was dangerous business, just ask the Dixie Chicks.
So, we went marching into Iraq and proclaimed victory within a few weeks, a long time when you consider that we won the Gulf War in four days. Saddam was on the run and we would soon smoke him out and round him up. Good would soon triumph once again over evil… let’s get back to planning a vacation or refinancing a home at four percent fixed. Saddam, shaddam… interest rates hadn’t been this low in fifty years.
Oh sure, there was this little nagging problem of finding the WMD that we had told the world was the reason behind the war. Surely our President hadn’t been crying wolf, right? Was Saddam’s death ray just another version of Y2K? No way, he was the key member of The Axis of Evil, just like he was during his last fifteen minutes of fame.
When U.S. soldiers pulled Saddam out of his ultra-sophisticated secret hiding hole he looked like someone’s alcoholic grandfather after a three-day bender. There were no WMDs after all, but that didn’t matter because the real reason we had gone into Iraq was to bring freedom to oppressed people and make sure the women over there could learn to read and shop at the mall. Or was that in Afghanistan? No matter, they were all the same at this point, weren’t they?
What had started with a dozen or so young fanatical religious men and their box cutters, had now gone from being a global network of terrorist cells, to being the Taliban, to being Saddam’s Iraq, and still UBL was no where to be found. Even some of the folks firmly in the Bush fan club started to wonder what the hell was going on.
The left, as led by film maker Michael Moore, was sure that the whole thing was a calculated, premeditated plot by the Bush administration to control Iraq’s oil supply… or finish what W’s father had started… or something else, but whatever it was, it was certainly no accident.
On the right, Bush’s defenders pointed to intelligence flaws, and held onto the belief that, WMD or no WMD, Iraq simply had to be involved in 9/11 somehow, or could have been… or might have been in the future… or something. Bush hadn’t lied, he was right to do what he did, regardless the outcome. The world was now a safer place, now let’s get back to what we can do with those low interest rates.
One would have to think that if our going into Iraq was a calculated plot perpetrated by the Bush administration, it wasn’t a very good one. Kind of like a teenager telling a lie that is easily and quickly detected.
So, what did happen here? Why did we go into Iraq? We went into Iraq for the same reason we put Japanese Americans into concentration camps after Pearl Harbor. We were scared and didn’t know what else to do. And, when I say “we” I mean everyone, including those in the White House. We went rushing into Iraq because we lost our keys on 9/11 and when we couldn’t find them in Afghanistan, we started looking where the light was better.
The fact is that our leaders aren’t of superior intelligence and they’re capable of being scared just like a child bullied on the school ground. And, when they get scared, they tend to do stupid stuff, like putting Japanese Americans behind bars. Or, like fighting a war in Southeast Asia to “stop the spread of communism”. Or, like sending God-knows-who to land at The Bay of Pigs. Or, like blacklisting Hollywood actors because they attended a meeting during the 1930s. Or, like sending people to break in to an office in the Watergate Hotel. Or any other of the famously stupid things we’ve done over the years because we were afraid. It’s just what we, as human beings, do.
We went into the Spanish-American War because we thought our battleship, the Maine, was bombed while in Havana’s harbor. It wasn’t, we later learned, but no matter. We escalated our involvement in Viet Nam because the enemy allegedly fired upon our boats off the coast in the Gulf of Tonkin. They weren’t, but no matter, the end will surely justify the means. And the two times during the last century that we actually should have become militarily involved, WWI and WWII, we didn’t want to. We waited until 1917 to enter the First World War and didn’t get to fighting Germany and Japan until 1942, and only after Pearl Harbor. We’re just stupid when we’re scared, simple as that.
What happened on and since 9/11 is actually a simple, somewhat boring story of a handful of misguided men who found the bank unlocked and unguarded, and then the acts of human beings who had the shit scared out of them. Although nowhere near as photogenic as was the twin towers falling to rubble, it’s a lot like the Y2K scare that scared some people so badly that they stocked up on bottled water and hid under their beds instead of celebrating New Year’s Eve.
Of course, that’s not the sort of story that would fuel a year’s worth of controversial programming on Fox News, or any of the other dramatic media outlets competing for ratings in order to sell television commercials. They need a hook, a conspiracy, and evil empire, a global network of well financed and highly trained villains dressed in black and sporting beards. Just like the promoters of the WWF wrestling shows, they need a good guy and a really bad guy to hold our attention through the commercial break.
Why did we start the war on Iraq? Because we were scared and didn’t know what else to do. What happened on 9/11? A small group of religious fanatics with cutlery high-jacked some planes and crashed them into some buildings killing three thousand innocent people. It’s not the first time such things have transpired and it won’t be the last. It’s simply the story of human beings doing what human beings do when angry, misguided and afraid.
Did our President intentionally lie? Did he perpetrate a grand conspiratorial plan? Don’t be silly. Just look at whom we’re talking about here. It’s George W. Bush, remember?
G.W. -- The same guy that liberals back in 2000, characterized as being far from the shed’s sharpest tool. This is the same guy who, when questioned in 2004, as to the progress being made in Iraq replied by saying that it was “hard work”. The same guy who sat looking dumbfounded as he paused from his reading of “My Pet Goat” to an elementary school class on 9/11. The same guy who, in a speech to the nation and the world, characterized the problems of terrorism and the middle east as having just two components, good and bad. He’s not complex enough to even conceive of such a nefarious plot, much less execute it.
Does that mean he did the right thing in Iraq… who knows? The world is certain to be somewhat better without guys like Saddam running around, at least until another Saddam takes his place somewhere else. Will our brand of democratic government take hold in the Middle East? Again, only time will tell, but regardless it’s time to move on. Fahrenheit 9-11 is now selling for $9.99 on DVD – it’s old news that needs to be put behind us. We’ve got plenty of other big issues for talking heads to fight over, like gay marriage, or prayer in schools, or whether Hillary Clinton was or is a lesbian.
There is a rule in the intelligence community that says that, when analyzing a situation, the simplest answer is usually correct. Many people may not like that answer, it is after all, dull when compared with the grand, master plans of Hollywood movies. But alas, the simplest answer is usually the right answer.
Why did the “plumbers” break into the Watergate Hotel, when their employer was certain to win the next election in a landslide? Because President Nixon and those around him were simply paranoid nut cases that were afraid of losing. Why did we fight the Cold War and the war in Viet Nam? Because we were scared of the “red menace” spreading its Godless, anti-capitalist doctrine to Petute, Indiana. Why did Bill Clinton lie about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Because he was scared to tell the truth, like any other guy in his position would be. Why, on television, did he answer a question by saying that it depended what the definition of “is” was? Well, because he was being an idiot, that’s why.
And, why did we rush to round up Japanese Americans and imprison them after Pearl Harbor? For the same reason we were in such a hurry to go to war in Iraq.
As to the question of whether Hillary was or is a lesbian… I sure hope so. It certainly would make for some compelling television.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
