Only Bush could announce (at a press conference to address the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto) “those who committed this crime must be brought to justice” about a killer who then blew himself up.
But then (since the last National Republican Convention stressed “a vote for Bush is a vote for God!) he probably just picked up the bat phone, talked to the Big Guy and told him what to do (just like he has on a host of other “moral” issues, like blocking life-saving cell stem research). Only Bush. It’s his mandate.
In the 2000 campaign, a 60 minutes reporter asked Bush if he could name the Prime Minister of Pakistan. “No,” he answered with obvious disdain. “Can you?” He could. Most educated people could-- Pervez Musharraf, the military leader who took over the country. Musharraf, the all important ally in the “War on Terror” supposedly against Osama bin Laden, but which quickly spiraled into an ill-justified quagmire in Iraq. Only Bush.
And Musharraf, along with Putin, leaders able to seize and hold power in ways that exceed Bush’s Supreme Court grab in 2000. Undoubtedly his heroes. They, however, didn’t have to face the U.S. Constitution and the balance of powers. Poor only Bush—yet he can condemn oppressive regimes in the same breath that he embraces them when it serves his purpose.
But as he has ably demonstrated, the Constitution and balance of powers can be corrupted and undermined. I only hope that we actually have a democratic election in 2008, not a “declaration of national emergency” to leave Bush in power.
We can’t continue with only Bush. I hope his regime doesn’t force us to beyond Jan. 2009.
Writer
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
When Did We Become the Soviet Union?
When I was a child growing up in the 1960s, our school regularly held “bomb drills” where we would either (1) crawl under our desks or (2) march into the hall and put our heads against our lockers. Yeah, I know, that’s a ridiculous response to the perceived threat of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, but that was the policy.
Our teachers also taught us about the Soviet Union—mostly that “Russia” was not the proper term, and that living in the Soviet Union was horribly oppressive. People couldn’t live where they wanted to live. People couldn’t leave the country if they chose. The totalitarian government made all the decisions. Evil. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And the evil was defeated. Or just replaced.
My girlfriend and I waited six months while she got permission to come to the U.S. from Canada. Yes—Canada and the U.S., a border I’ve crossed frequently with no more than a brief conversation with the border guards. She applied for a new passport, even paid for expedited service, but to date has not seen her passport, even though she’s been assured that everything is in order, that it’s just waiting for someone in Ottawa to stamp it. Canada finally issued her a letter indicating her application was in process and allowed her to travel on that.
The U.S. holds an equally bizarre stance. Passport applications are months behind, including those with expedited payments, and all to accomplish WHAT? [My state’s senator, Chuck Schumer, has called for a refund for those folks who didn’t get the expedited service they purchased. Imagine.] Deadlines have been adjusted and readjusted, but if you want to go to Canada, you’ll need a passport to get back. Nothing else will do.
Why?
“Homeland Security” has nothing to do with this (unless the government is hopelessly stupid). ANYONE with an iota of common sense, determined to do so, can cross this border. Hell, in many places, a small boat or plane will do the job—in some places you can just walk across. Even if somehow we sealed this line, we have oceans on each side. It’s just not hard.
Then why the increase in “security”? Remember—the 9/11 hijackers were all in the country LEGALLY. If we’re addressing security here, it’s only the illusion of security, the administration once more betting on the foolishness or inattention of the American public. So far a safe bet.
The Bush folks wanted a national ID card, and couldn’t get it. They substituted the passport. They cut taxes and ballooned the national debt. The passport fiasco generates significant extra income. They put in place a policy they couldn’t sustain with infrastructure, and so couldn’t deliver. Anyone see a pattern?
Logic has nothing to do with any of this. While jingoistic ideologues debate toothless immigration policy, reality seems immaterial. My girl, for example, lives with me, has her own income from her share of a business interest in Canada, has her own health insurance from Canada, but the U.S. figures too many Canadians already live in the U.S. Hardly the immigration message you heard on the news.
Look at this another way—suppose she visited (she can visit for three months, then has to go back for 48 hours, then can visit again) and lost her passport (or letter, or imagine they were stolen—a popular target soon, I’ll bet). She’d be unable to reenter Canada. She’d then be an unwitting illegal alien in the U.S. What’s she supposed to do? In the U.S. at least, immigration cases don’t get the protections citizens are afforded—meaning they can hold you indefinitely for no reason. Imagine you go to Canada. Your luggage is stolen, along with your passport. How are you going to get back? The administration’s position is that you can’t return.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. You can’t leave the country without government approval, through a State department approved passport, which you must purchase but will get whenever, maybe. If you don’t have your papers, you can’t return.
Yeah, hopefully, the Consulate can help you.
But truthfully, and I do NOT say this lightly—
The war on terror? The fight against “those who hate freedom”? Osama bin Laden won it six years ago, and the Bush administration features his top generals.
Writer
Our teachers also taught us about the Soviet Union—mostly that “Russia” was not the proper term, and that living in the Soviet Union was horribly oppressive. People couldn’t live where they wanted to live. People couldn’t leave the country if they chose. The totalitarian government made all the decisions. Evil. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And the evil was defeated. Or just replaced.
My girlfriend and I waited six months while she got permission to come to the U.S. from Canada. Yes—Canada and the U.S., a border I’ve crossed frequently with no more than a brief conversation with the border guards. She applied for a new passport, even paid for expedited service, but to date has not seen her passport, even though she’s been assured that everything is in order, that it’s just waiting for someone in Ottawa to stamp it. Canada finally issued her a letter indicating her application was in process and allowed her to travel on that.
The U.S. holds an equally bizarre stance. Passport applications are months behind, including those with expedited payments, and all to accomplish WHAT? [My state’s senator, Chuck Schumer, has called for a refund for those folks who didn’t get the expedited service they purchased. Imagine.] Deadlines have been adjusted and readjusted, but if you want to go to Canada, you’ll need a passport to get back. Nothing else will do.
Why?
“Homeland Security” has nothing to do with this (unless the government is hopelessly stupid). ANYONE with an iota of common sense, determined to do so, can cross this border. Hell, in many places, a small boat or plane will do the job—in some places you can just walk across. Even if somehow we sealed this line, we have oceans on each side. It’s just not hard.
Then why the increase in “security”? Remember—the 9/11 hijackers were all in the country LEGALLY. If we’re addressing security here, it’s only the illusion of security, the administration once more betting on the foolishness or inattention of the American public. So far a safe bet.
The Bush folks wanted a national ID card, and couldn’t get it. They substituted the passport. They cut taxes and ballooned the national debt. The passport fiasco generates significant extra income. They put in place a policy they couldn’t sustain with infrastructure, and so couldn’t deliver. Anyone see a pattern?
Logic has nothing to do with any of this. While jingoistic ideologues debate toothless immigration policy, reality seems immaterial. My girl, for example, lives with me, has her own income from her share of a business interest in Canada, has her own health insurance from Canada, but the U.S. figures too many Canadians already live in the U.S. Hardly the immigration message you heard on the news.
Look at this another way—suppose she visited (she can visit for three months, then has to go back for 48 hours, then can visit again) and lost her passport (or letter, or imagine they were stolen—a popular target soon, I’ll bet). She’d be unable to reenter Canada. She’d then be an unwitting illegal alien in the U.S. What’s she supposed to do? In the U.S. at least, immigration cases don’t get the protections citizens are afforded—meaning they can hold you indefinitely for no reason. Imagine you go to Canada. Your luggage is stolen, along with your passport. How are you going to get back? The administration’s position is that you can’t return.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. You can’t leave the country without government approval, through a State department approved passport, which you must purchase but will get whenever, maybe. If you don’t have your papers, you can’t return.
Yeah, hopefully, the Consulate can help you.
But truthfully, and I do NOT say this lightly—
The war on terror? The fight against “those who hate freedom”? Osama bin Laden won it six years ago, and the Bush administration features his top generals.
Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Weasel Piss
We called it weasel piss--I’m not sure why. In those days, we didn’t pay much attention to our metaphors, so I don’t think we had much of a reason. We just did.
Nonetheless, Old Milwaukee and Milwaukee’s Best were awarded the title of “weasel piss,” cheap beer college students consume not for its questionable quality, but because its price allows it to be consumed in quantity. [When I was a store manager in a college town, we sold it on sale for as little as $6.99 a case, and sold 50-100 cases a week.]
My housemates and I, of course, felt we were above this. That’s largely because one of our housemates had an uncle or cousin or something who worked at a Miller plant, so we could purchase through him cases of beer we saw as better at a discount. I had a stash of 4-6 cases of Löwenbräu dark piled up in the corner of my closet. [The same housemate had a teacher who farmed potatoes on the side. We purchased grocery bags full of red potatoes (which we also believed were better) for 80¢ a bag. Life was good.]
I thought those days were behind me. Guess not. Although my days of drinking weasel piss are far behind me, I still see my share of Old Milwaukee--on my lawn. I live out in the country, a good six miles from the nearest college (which even then is in a small town), yet there they are--can after can, day after day.
Perhaps this is because drinking drivers and riders need to get rid of the evidence. OK--that’s at least prudent behavior. And probably not limited to students--I find a fair number of Bud Lite cans on my lawn too. But I also find soda cans, juice boxes, ice tea bottles, cigarette cartons, potato chip bags--no damning evidence here. True, we get a lot of wind up in the hills, and trash blows around sometimes--plastic grocery bags full of household trash, milk jugs and such--but clearly much of the debris comes from cars.
I was driving behind a pickup truck when the driver stopped at an intersection and unceremoniously dumped an empty donut box, coffee cup and cigarette carton out the driver’s window. His back window featured a bumper sticker announcing “Osama bin Laden can kiss my American ass.” Apparently, so can everyone else. And why not? If you want to identify yourself as an asshole, might as well get people in there close to the action.
This behavior isn’t limited to drivers. Campers at Stony Pond, where I daily walk my dog, leave behind beer cans and broken bottles along with their still smoldering fires. Fishermen cut loose their lines and just leave them on the ground. One morning a gosling trying to flee my dog and I along with its parents and siblings got tangled in such a line just at the water’s edge. I spent half an hour working to free the struggling chick from the line, which cut deeply into its leg, while juggling an excited dog and upset, honking geese. The story ended happily, but it easily could have ended in an unnecessarily slaughtered goose.
“A weasel is wild. Who knows what he thinks?” begins Annie Dillard’s essay “Living Like Weasels.” “He does not let go.” She describes one naturalist’s encounter with a weasel “dangling from his palm,” “socketed…deeply as a rattlesnake.” In another instance, “a man shot an eagle out of the sky…and found the dry skull of a weasel fixed by the jaws to his throat.” Tenacious little buggers.
wea·sel (wē'zəl) noun 1. a carnivorous, burrowing mammal of the genus Mustela. 2. a sneaky or treacherous person. 3. one who behaves in a stealthy, furtive way. verb 1. to use deliberately vague language. 2. to be evasive.
Seems about right.
Writer
Nonetheless, Old Milwaukee and Milwaukee’s Best were awarded the title of “weasel piss,” cheap beer college students consume not for its questionable quality, but because its price allows it to be consumed in quantity. [When I was a store manager in a college town, we sold it on sale for as little as $6.99 a case, and sold 50-100 cases a week.]
My housemates and I, of course, felt we were above this. That’s largely because one of our housemates had an uncle or cousin or something who worked at a Miller plant, so we could purchase through him cases of beer we saw as better at a discount. I had a stash of 4-6 cases of Löwenbräu dark piled up in the corner of my closet. [The same housemate had a teacher who farmed potatoes on the side. We purchased grocery bags full of red potatoes (which we also believed were better) for 80¢ a bag. Life was good.]
I thought those days were behind me. Guess not. Although my days of drinking weasel piss are far behind me, I still see my share of Old Milwaukee--on my lawn. I live out in the country, a good six miles from the nearest college (which even then is in a small town), yet there they are--can after can, day after day.
Perhaps this is because drinking drivers and riders need to get rid of the evidence. OK--that’s at least prudent behavior. And probably not limited to students--I find a fair number of Bud Lite cans on my lawn too. But I also find soda cans, juice boxes, ice tea bottles, cigarette cartons, potato chip bags--no damning evidence here. True, we get a lot of wind up in the hills, and trash blows around sometimes--plastic grocery bags full of household trash, milk jugs and such--but clearly much of the debris comes from cars.
I was driving behind a pickup truck when the driver stopped at an intersection and unceremoniously dumped an empty donut box, coffee cup and cigarette carton out the driver’s window. His back window featured a bumper sticker announcing “Osama bin Laden can kiss my American ass.” Apparently, so can everyone else. And why not? If you want to identify yourself as an asshole, might as well get people in there close to the action.
This behavior isn’t limited to drivers. Campers at Stony Pond, where I daily walk my dog, leave behind beer cans and broken bottles along with their still smoldering fires. Fishermen cut loose their lines and just leave them on the ground. One morning a gosling trying to flee my dog and I along with its parents and siblings got tangled in such a line just at the water’s edge. I spent half an hour working to free the struggling chick from the line, which cut deeply into its leg, while juggling an excited dog and upset, honking geese. The story ended happily, but it easily could have ended in an unnecessarily slaughtered goose.
“A weasel is wild. Who knows what he thinks?” begins Annie Dillard’s essay “Living Like Weasels.” “He does not let go.” She describes one naturalist’s encounter with a weasel “dangling from his palm,” “socketed…deeply as a rattlesnake.” In another instance, “a man shot an eagle out of the sky…and found the dry skull of a weasel fixed by the jaws to his throat.” Tenacious little buggers.
wea·sel (wē'zəl) noun 1. a carnivorous, burrowing mammal of the genus Mustela. 2. a sneaky or treacherous person. 3. one who behaves in a stealthy, furtive way. verb 1. to use deliberately vague language. 2. to be evasive.
Seems about right.
Writer
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Clery in the Goat Line
During the 2004 U.S. presidential election, a group of Catholic bishops claimed that voting for John Kerry would be a sin. They cited his pro-choice stance on abortion in particular, along with his position on stem cell research.
The bishops’ stance was nothing more than voter intimidation and a thinly veiled foray into politics. The repercussions for both Americans and religion are, at the very least, troubling.
Start with the sheer arrogance. How is it that these particular bishops knew the mind of God when numerous other bishops felt these are matters of individual conscience (as Kerry stated his own view)? Why did this issue supposedly take precedence over all others, including the death penalty, war, and poverty?
It also took fantastic nerve to throw stones on top of the child sexual abuse scandal and the church’s cover up and enabling of the abusers. Hardly a strong position for children’s rights.
And what of the Bush Administration? Is it not a sin to lie to bring a nation to war, subsequently killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis, including innocent civilians?
Shouldn’t good Christians worry about clear moral problems, such as wrongfully executed citizens? Or that America is one of only three countries that executes children (the others are Iran and Pakistan)?
The bishops are trying to prevent thinking. No one is FOR abortion, only whether choice should be legislated. And the bishops don’t have a very good record obeying the law anyway. If the sanctity of life is truly important to them, how about saving newborns in China drowned because they’re female? How about saving thousands of innocent people from ethnic slaughter in Rwanda and the Sudan? How about saving millions of African children who die each year from diarrhea? Unfortunately, the key issue seems to be winning, ego, not the sanctity of life. Look at the rhetoric about Iraq--the Bush administration doesn't talk about peace or success, but winning and losing.
That Republicans embraced such end runs around thinking is also telling. The Republican National Convention stressed that “A vote for Bush is a vote for God,” perhaps the most sickening and baldly disingenuous statement to come from politics. Thankfully voters had enough and sent Republicans the message they deserved, that Americans think for themselves, and showed such outrageous Republicans the door. Maybe they should do the same for a few clergy.
If not, Americans won’t have to fear Islamic Fundamentalists--Christian Fundamentalists seem ready to do the job for them. After Osama bin Laden responded to the 9/11 attacks with “Not me, but thank Allah,” the Rev. Jerry Falwell added “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”
Matthew 25:31-46 explains that when the Son of Man comes in His glory, He will separate the sheep (those destined for heaven) from the goats, based on how each responded when the Lord was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, or in prison. They will ask, “Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, or in prison?” The Lord will reply, “Whenever you did this to (for) the least of my brothers, you did it to (for) me.”
Quite a few bishops may be in the goat line.
Writer
The bishops’ stance was nothing more than voter intimidation and a thinly veiled foray into politics. The repercussions for both Americans and religion are, at the very least, troubling.
Start with the sheer arrogance. How is it that these particular bishops knew the mind of God when numerous other bishops felt these are matters of individual conscience (as Kerry stated his own view)? Why did this issue supposedly take precedence over all others, including the death penalty, war, and poverty?
It also took fantastic nerve to throw stones on top of the child sexual abuse scandal and the church’s cover up and enabling of the abusers. Hardly a strong position for children’s rights.
And what of the Bush Administration? Is it not a sin to lie to bring a nation to war, subsequently killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis, including innocent civilians?
Shouldn’t good Christians worry about clear moral problems, such as wrongfully executed citizens? Or that America is one of only three countries that executes children (the others are Iran and Pakistan)?
The bishops are trying to prevent thinking. No one is FOR abortion, only whether choice should be legislated. And the bishops don’t have a very good record obeying the law anyway. If the sanctity of life is truly important to them, how about saving newborns in China drowned because they’re female? How about saving thousands of innocent people from ethnic slaughter in Rwanda and the Sudan? How about saving millions of African children who die each year from diarrhea? Unfortunately, the key issue seems to be winning, ego, not the sanctity of life. Look at the rhetoric about Iraq--the Bush administration doesn't talk about peace or success, but winning and losing.
That Republicans embraced such end runs around thinking is also telling. The Republican National Convention stressed that “A vote for Bush is a vote for God,” perhaps the most sickening and baldly disingenuous statement to come from politics. Thankfully voters had enough and sent Republicans the message they deserved, that Americans think for themselves, and showed such outrageous Republicans the door. Maybe they should do the same for a few clergy.
If not, Americans won’t have to fear Islamic Fundamentalists--Christian Fundamentalists seem ready to do the job for them. After Osama bin Laden responded to the 9/11 attacks with “Not me, but thank Allah,” the Rev. Jerry Falwell added “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”
Matthew 25:31-46 explains that when the Son of Man comes in His glory, He will separate the sheep (those destined for heaven) from the goats, based on how each responded when the Lord was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, or in prison. They will ask, “Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, or in prison?” The Lord will reply, “Whenever you did this to (for) the least of my brothers, you did it to (for) me.”
Quite a few bishops may be in the goat line.
Writer
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
