Passing the Buck... Err, Bill

So, yesterday, the Senate passed the Iraq funding bill with $124 Billion available to support the war effort in Iraq. Bush promised to veto it as soon as it reached his desk, and said he would continue to do so as long as it was contingent on withdrawal.

From ABC.com:

"If they want to try again that which I've said is unacceptable, of course I won't accept it," the president said during a news conference here with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "I hope it won't come to that."

"I invited the leaders of the House and the Senate to come down soon after my veto so we can discuss a way forward," the president said. "I'm optimistic we can get a bill, a good bill and a bill that satisfies all our objectives."

What Mr. Bush means by this, of course, is that if the Senate and Congress want to put on a good dog show and show the country how they follow his lead like loyal puppies, then they can come and visit with him so he can tell them what to do. Unfortunately, it seems like it's already working.

Early word is that the Democrats are already working on a 'fall-back' draft that will remove any mention of withdrawal, and will go for less, and even more fluidic "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government that will represent "deadlines." One would be wise to point out that numerous other deadlines have been proposed, accepted, passed, and faded in this war, though.

I think I can speak for a number of Democratic Americans (and others) who voted for change last year, only to find that the party of spineless wimps remains largely inhabited by the same invertebrates who let this get as far as it has in the past six and a half years. We are sorely disappointed that our team represents not the "cut and run" attitude that the Republican media machine would have us believe, but instead, a "hide and cower" attitude that backs down every time some Republican weasel utters the word "unpatriotic."

To them, I say; For shame! Go and hide your heads in the sand. If you can't take this heat, get out of DC, and let someone who cares give it a try. How dare you use your candidacy just to further your own name! You're no better than the president which you publicly oppose and privately embrace. Out of one corner of your mouth, you would have us believe that you represent our values and wish to end this senseless war, while out of the other, you would duck and cover at every opposition that comes your way.

If you believe as we do that this war should end, you should make your plan, end this pointless infighting among the party, and stick to it. If Mr. Bush decides he does not want to support the troops, and would sooner have them stay and continue to die for nothing but his personal gain, then let him. The military will run out of funding, and then you will have to override the President's ill thought out plot and bring them home right then and there.

I think we have discovered Mr. Bush's true plot: His intention is not now, and perhaps never was to finish this war. He wanted to get himself and his enablers into the Middle East for pure monetary gain, particularly the rich oil fields of Iraq. He has succeeded in his mission, and cares not for the will of the American people, nor for the troops that are killed every day.

The entire purpose of the war has been nothing more than personal gain, and now, the intention of saving his own name so that some history book does not record him as the man who started and lost the War on Terror, if you can even call this sham a real war. The only reason we stay now is so that Halliburton and others can continue to suck money from our very own national pockets, as well as those of the Iraqis. If Saddam Hussein deserved to die, then you better believe that these lousy excuses for Americans deserve no better.

In addition to holding fast to forcing the administration to withdraw our troops, investigations should be launched into all the war profiteers, and nothing but the harshest sentences should be handed down. If our country has any sense of the great nation we once were, we would accept no less.

Presidential Motorcade

So the "President" was in town today. How do I know and why do I care?

Well, I know because it was a pain in the ass getting home tonight. Several subways were shut down, roads were blocked off, and Central Park was being bisected. First he takes away our rights, and now he wants to keep me from getting home so I can go out biking and enjoying our lovely weather?

I care because of the same reasons. Sure he was here on 'official' business, but when has this guy conducted any real business of national import since he took office? I mean, for the better?

I really wanted to ask him to tell Gonzalez to testify, but that just isn't going to happen...

Karl Rove is Just Green... Well, OK, he's not Green at All

So Sheryl Crow and Laurie David (producer of Inconvenient Truth) met with Karl Rove at the Correspondents Dinner. There are always two sides to every story... So far, when Karl Rove's story has come into play, I am always prone to doubting it.

Anyway, the story goes that they stopped Rove at the Dinner, and mentioned their views about global warming. Rove immediately tried to walk away, and Sheryl attempted to stop him. Debate rages about how she stopped him, but it's clear that she didn't grab his arm, strong arm him back, and say "Listen up Porky." Of course, she'd have the respect of millions of Americans if she did.

In its own way though, she earned a lot of respect for the way she confronted him about his callousness. When she stopped him, he turned around and spat out "Don't touch me."

Crow responded "You can't talk to us like that, you work for us." Rove spat out "I don't work for you, I work for the American people," to which Crow responded "We are the American people."

Now, we can't be positive of what happened, but honestly, who's story do you buy?

Of course, today the Wicked Witch of the Hill (Dana Perino) down played... or, well, up played the incident, depending on who's point of view you're using. Of course, her story was that Rove was hostily confronted and cornered. Seeing Sheryl Crow's hulking mass and her known violent streak would confirm that, of course. In fact, the "large hulking man" supposedly seen with Alec Baldwin's daughter is actually Sheryl Crow. They were just out on the town for a day.

Somehow, this whole thing is just stunning, isn't it?

Tagged

Iggy the Senior tagged me this Friday, and also noted that I've been going silent for too long of a stretch since starting this thing... Well, he's right, and I'd be lying to say that I'd be able to make his number of posts, but I'll try to manage one every two days at least, and work it up from there.

I'll let you know my tags as I find them.

Self-(read:Imposed) Censorship

So, with the recent media feeding frenzy over the fresh corpse of Don Imus' career (who I must say looked like a walking corpse) finally past us, I thought now would be as good a time as any to dredge that topic back to the surface. Not his comments mind you, or those of his critics, but the whole topic of offensive public commentary and the like, and there's a lot of it out there.

First, but probably not the biggest firestarter is foul language. Of course, after seeing a kid of less than 5 years old at the park yesterday saying "Look, you big fucking bitch!" because he wasn't getting the attention he thought he deserved, this is certainly one that should be addressed. Possibly as long as radio has been around in this country, the use of foul language has been taboo, and with good reason. Initially it was probably not regulated, except by standards of excellence from the broadcasters. Of course, now the FCC regulates this.

Of course, it's reasonable to say that this is a significant issue, because clearly, both from television/movies, and undoubtedly from within the home, this kind of language has an impact on children and people in general. Crude, vulgar, and almost always angry, it has the power to demean anyone using it, and becomes a reflection of them, their upbringing, and even education. Certainly, adults use it and always have, but the issue today has more to do with the lack of control with which it is used, particularly as regards in front of children, or even directed towards them. In doing so, even if the parent chooses to scold the child for use of the language, it signifies to the child that at some point, it is still acceptable, it just depends on to whom and when.

As demonstrated by the first example I gave, clearly the child knows the word, knows its negative connotation, and knows how and when to use it. Of course, if he knows that word, it's undoubtable that his vocabulary is much more extensive. That brings me to my next topic.

Racist terminology has been around for nearly as long as humanity has been able to distinguish one group from another. In the past, it was more than just race, of course: Class, national, and regional origin have also been considered acceptable attributes by which to segregate and demean someone. Naturally, this proud tradition continues, though it is considered more acceptable to mainstream culture these days.

We all remember the wonderful warm fuzzy feeling we all got from the repetition ad nauseum of Don Imus' comments two weeks ago. Was it a bad joke? Sure. Was it completely off color? Of course. Does that mean a comedian isn't allowed to make a bad joke? No, naturally it doesn't. Does that mean that a white comedian isn't allowed to make a racist joke? Yes, apparently it does.

I admit that I didn't really know what to think, say, or do, when the backlash against Don Imus started. I recall thinking that I didn't hear anything about it in the near week long stretch since he supposedly said it, and would come to realize later that it was because nobody actually DID say anything until then. Then I looked at who was saying something about it... Not the Rutgers' women, not Don Imus, or any of his loyal listeners, or even CBS/MSNBC... It was Al Sharpton. Naturally, red flags came up.

Let me be clear on this point. I less often question WHAT Sharpton and those like him say, unless it's the same hateful rhetoric they accuse others of saying, because he does say that. It is how and why Sharpton says it that makes me question him. Usually in front of a lot of cameras, probably with full makeup on, and surrounded by the obligatory group of lackeys that seems to follow him from each "sad denigrating incident."

Anyway, back to the point at hand. Sharpton has for years been on a quest to silence anyone who would say anything bad about the black community or its people, and has occasionally rented himself out to other groups to gain their support as well. This has included more than just white people, but this represents the largest selection of his targets. Who does he go after? Not outspoken clan leaders, or flagrantly racist radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. He goes after the Don Imus in the crowd.

I'll be the first to admit that Imus' comments were offensive, but they were meant as a joke. That's all. Sure, bad jokes, and yes, he should've toned it down, but no more or less than other comedians needed to keep down their racial jokes. He shouldn't have been fired over this any more than another comedian should've been fired for his jokes, or a rapper over their lyrics (which it's fair to argue have a much more significant impact on the mentality of youth these days, see my very first point above).

Now, after the backlash against Sharpton for targeting only Imus and allowing the rap and African American comedy community to get away with murder compared to Imus' veritable jay-walking, he makes a token gesture of 'meeting' with rap moguls in an effort to 'address' the concerns about lyrics.

Anyway, the whole thing about this that got me started on this post (aside from that child I saw in the park), can be found here:

http://www.illwillpress.com/topical2.html

Thank you, Foamy.

Words Cannot Express this Loss

A tragedy today as over 50 people were shot and 32 killed at Virginia Tech. Recalling my thoughts upon hearing of the breaking story of two people shot earlier in the morning, I remember thinking "How sad."

Upon later hearing from my boss that there were at least 20 people dead, and then 30, I thought "Oh no... not again."

During my time in high school, I took part in an anti-violence group, and my group chose to do a special on school violence. I don't remember the specifics or statistics in it. We did our presentation in the fall of 2000, a year and a half after the massacre at Columbine. I do remember the address that day by President Bill Clinton. Simple, poignant, and respectful.

Today though, the immediate response from our political groups, as well as gun lobbyists of both sides, is to begin a debate on gun control, using this tragedy to further their own interests. For those of you who would turn this into some misguided political debate, it should be understood that this is not for you to stick your opinions into.

For now, all we can do is to offer our thoughts and prayers tonight for the lost, and the friends and families of those as well.

Green Zone Bombed in Iraq (Again)

Well, I guess it's just the "one or two bombings a day" that make the news, isn't it Mrs. Bush?

So today, the Iraqi Parliament building's cafeteria was bombed at the height of the lunch hour, killing at least two members of the government and injuring an unknown number more. Numerous government vehicles were seen shortly thereafter racing away from the building, armed security forces clinging to the sides to prevent any ambushes.

In addition, a major bridge in Baghdad was also destroyed by a truck bomb on the same day. All this has happened SINCE the start of the push to secure Baghdad itself (let alone the rest of the country). It would stand to reason that more enemy forces would converge on the largest concentration of American and Iraqi troops, but it should also stand to reason that these troops would be doing a better job of protecting Baghdad.

Unless, of course, the infusion of 20,000 additional troops really was so miniscule that it would make little to no impact on the security of our people there.

Absolutely priceless. From TruthDig.

The Decider

http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/