Life in Omaha (in Scottsdale)

daily existence away from chicago

Blogroll Me!

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Why Do They Still Cling to Their Chains?

As usual, BD has been weighing in from the right. This is my response in a new thread to some earlier comments.

Sure, I agree that a discussion can be had without resorting to crude responses. But the utter frustration we on the left have is that this administration absolutely will not have those discussions. They ignore any evidence that contradicts their own pre-conceived agenda. They actively surpress data when it shows results that threaten their actions. They fire, demote, reassign or discredit voices within that disagree with them and resort to unseemly and, frankly, disgusting attacks on those outside (witness the whisper campaign that John McCain had an illigetimate black child and was slightly insane because of his confinement).

This administration is a severe threat to democracy and America, and frankly, with all the evidence amassed in front of them, I cannot fathom why a large fraction of American people still support it. Since my sense of what counts as reason, evidence and logic hold little to no weight, I will resort to ranting at the top of my lungs.

(currently in hour 2 of a coughing, non-sleeping baby--its three a.m. You are listening to.... I will rise in an hour and a half to go for a ride. Maybe.)


At 7:32 AM, Blogger $sh said...

My thoughts exactly. An example of this is taking place in my adopted home state of Kansas with the Board of Education. First, there was the highly-publicized evolution debate, wherein the 6 conservative Board members (10 total) called for hearings on the evolution vs. intelligent design topic, and invited "experts" who were nothing more than idealogues.

Now, the Board is looking to appoint a new Education commissioner for the state. They initially hired the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) to help find and evaluate applicants. However, NASBE decided to withdraw from the process...they were getting paid to do this...because (you're going to love this) the conservative majority of the Board decided that it wasn't necessary for candidates to have much experience with education. Here's an article:

You read that right. In general, it appears that the Kansas Board is taking actions to privatize public education. I didn't even mention that Board's attempt to change sex ed classes to "opt-in," meaning that students need to get parent's to sign a slip to allow them to take the classes. That'll go over really well in the households with sexual abusers...the kids that need the sex ed the most.

The reason I go on about this is that there are so many comparisons to the Bush administration. This is not just the Grover Norquist philosophy that government is bad. This is the philosophy that the government is bad, unless it can be used to legislate morality: MY morality. No concern about caring for those who cannot care for themselves (see Katrina and MANY other examples). No concern about striking a balance against unchecked corporate greed (see the FCC, and lack of anti-trust prosecutions).

I, too, am disgusted, frustrated, and baffled by the ~40% of people who still think Bush is doing a good job. What will it take? Do we have to get someone to claim that he had "relations" with them to damage this man? Is that really an impeachable offense (I know, that wasn't why Clinton was impeached, but you understand the point), as compared to the crimes that Bush has committed against humanity, and the environment?

Somebody help me understand.

Blue (Brown) Boy in a Red State

At 9:09 AM, Blogger Dr.K said...

The thing that just kills me about Bush is how tenuous is the relationship between the words that come out of his mouth and the situations in the world he is talking about. New Orleans is the best example. "You're doing a great job, Brownie!" My immediate question was, "Are you watching the same news reports I am?" People stuck on their roofs, with no food or water for days, literally dying there, while only the officially sanctioned rescue efforts weren't being turned turned away? The answer is that, of course he saw them. He knew very well the enormity of the disaster and the disgraceful response to it, and he knew he shouldered the blame for many, many lost lives because he was the one who had appointed unqualified cronies for a job that suddenly became life-and-death critical. Bush's response, his immediate impulse, was to lie to us, to cover it up, so that he would look better. We've seen this over and over again in Iraq, and we see it with his energy policy, his contemptible and disgraceful attack on the environment, his stubborn contempt for his political opponents, on and on. I seem to remember him actually saying that he wants to be known as the environmental president, just before he rejected the Kioto accords and just as he began slavering over the oil under ANWR. How in the world can anyone not look at him, and his record, and compare his rhetoric, and not think that this guy is very bad news? How can this possiby be? This is scary stuff, and reminds some of us too much of 1984, where the torture chamber is called the Ministry of Love, etc. Language with this guy (so infamous for his inept use of it even when he's trying to be straight)is mainly a medium for deception and manipulation, and with some attention, it starts getting easy to see through it to the contempt he holds for everything I, and many like me, believe in and sacrifice for. Katrina pales in comparison to the disaster of George Bush, and the damage he is wreaking pell mell with be with us for decades.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Who Links Here