(Note: I've been writing this post for the past three lunch hours so if things seem a little disjointed, i apologize. I'm trying to weave it together as best i can at this point.)
Gimpy said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I?m not sure where to start with all these pro-Bush comments?not because I find them so preposterous or anything, but only because of the wide breadth of the ground that?s been covered.
Whether California voted for Kerry, or the "Hispanic vote" went to Bush, or whatever (By the way, am i the only one who is offended when commentators speak of the "Black vote" as if all blacks would only care about one certain issue and they'd all flock to whoever supported that issue?)...the point here is that NOBODY other than millionaires, oil magnates, or disenchanted nihlists should have voted for Bush. It makes no sense. The only way it does make sense is if the people who voted for him are ignorant of the issues (note, i said "ignorant", not "stupid").
With all due respect dreamer, i find your first post a little hazy in that i'm not sure what your overall point was. (I actually wrote this originally commenting on your first post...your latter posts are crystal clear.) Are you saying that everyone should stop stereotyping people, lumping people into two groups, etc? People on both sides do that...ever heard the phrase "Damn liberals!"?
Bush is a failure as a president. I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise in a coherent fashion, and I have had several such arguments. Let's do a quick rundown on his "progress":
Environment: He's halted any kind of progress on healing the environment (a la refusal to sign Kyoto to gutting the Clean Air Act to his endless acquiescence to the oil and gas lobby...i can actually site several instances here but i'm at work and don't have the time). I mean, the head of the EPA resigned in protest over him...doesn't that tell you something? I think this might go down in history as his greatest failure, even greater than the Iraq fiasco. The United States contributes 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. While people like Arnold Schwarzenneger are mindlessly zooming around in their Hummers, (squandering a precious resource which is theorized to be non-renewable, i might add); the globe continues to warm at a staggering pace. The consequences for ignoring this could be enormous...and all the evidence is there that this is exactly what is happening. (I should add that i heard recently that Schwarzenneger is getting his Hummer's retrofitted to use hydrogen power...the benefits of living in a Blue state, i suppose.)
Trade: I can't believe how these guys pick and choose things in NAFTA that suits them. They defy the WTO and post unfair tarrif hikes on Canadian softwood lumber. This is a huge thing, and i know especially in canada, a lot of people are furious about this. Also, they had that steel industry thing where they were imposing levies on imported steel, much to the chagrin of Japan and Russia and other countries who protested this move. There were many others as well, although I can?t recall all of them right now. While this certainly angered the countries who were hit with these unfair (and illegal, in some cases) trade restrictions, it was a bit of a boon to american industries, and so i can see how some people in these industries might like Bush as they are benefitting from these tactics. However, as an American consumer, you are paying more for your new house?more for your steel products. Your prices ultimately go up as the built in extra cost of buying American sends those staple by-products higher. This of course eventually impacts the economy which we?ll deal with later. All this and not to mention the fact that America is bound by NAFTA trade rules, and it should really at least try to honour it's contracts.
Iraq: What does one have to say about this? Why was this war started other than to encourage OPEC countries to continue to use the dollar as their reserve currency instead of switching to the euro like Iraq did? They defied the international community and regressed us back a few decades when the strong and mighty do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want. They lied about the WMD, they broke international laws, they invaded a sovereign country, regardless of the justification pretexts. I could go on for pages about the ramifications of what they've done here...what kind of precedent this sets for countries like Russia, China, or any other country who aren't inherently "good" like America seems to think of itself. Not to mention the fact that the war is a mess...innocencents are dying on a regular basis...real people, with real families. It's very easy to pontificate on Iraq intellectually and detached, and relegate it to a "number 3" on the list of most important things for America, but meanwhile babies are being blown to bits by American guns that your tax dollars support and your Republican vote encourages. I know that no one really wants to see this kind of thing happen. But it does. That's why it's called "War", and that's why the civilized world tries to avoid these things. Re-electing Bush is either saying: "We agree with what you're doing over there in Iraq" or "I don't agree with what you're doing but i don't think the killing of innocents is necessarily that big a deal...as long as you don't let gays get married." I hate reducing these things to dichotomies but since that's what the american president does, i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to. Bottom line: Iraq cannot be ignored!
War on Terror: I'm no expert on terror but my Malthusian instincts tell me that for every family the US army harms in any way (kills, maims, displaces), ten more terrorists are bourne, now and in future generations. The fundamental problem which the Bush administration and many americans don't seem to grasp here is that they have a great deal of difficulty extricating themselves from their ethno-centric views. They truly seem to believe that terrorists hate their freedom or are attacking them because they are pure evil. They really believe that people living halfway around the world sit in caves, miserable and scheming...watching Entertainment Tonight or something and saying to themselves, "Ohhh....this sucks. Why can't we wallow in decadence? I want a Hummer too. You know what we should do? Let's kill ourselves while taking out some of them in the process."
This is very very dangerous thinking and is one of the causes of this whole war in the first place. Osama and his cronies have a cause that they believe in. It's dangerous to write off extremists by relegating them to a caricature stereotype. And while we're at it, Rumsfeld promised the world, after 9/11 that he would have OBL caught in two years less a day. This is another broken promise by this sad administration. They SHOULD have caught him by now. All the high-tech spy equipment, from satellites to nano-tech bugging devices, and they can't find a $25,000,000 bulls-eye walking around the desert with a dialysis machine? Give me a break.
To conclude on this...shifting focus from al-qaeda onto Iraq has put a huge cog in the terror war. Invading Iraq has done more to perpetuate terror than Osama could ever have done. I think it was the Al-Jazeera documentary "Control Room" which showed a father whose family had just been decimated by an american smart bomb, who implanted in my brain to what degree that hatred has manifested itself in the Arab world. Tears storming from his eyes, his face flush crimson with hate, the words slurring out in a sharp poisonous invective: "Look what you've done! My family! My family! Murderers! American Murderers!" Or something to that effect. Very scary...and i have to say, if someone killed my whole family needlessly, i'd be saying the same thing.
International Relations: OK. How does this wound heal? Americans are hated across the globe, which sucks because it's a helluva country. The Bush administration has betrayed and insulted ally after ally, to a point now where even the american people are avoided when travelling certain places. "You're for us or against us!" What the hell is that? Who does this guy think he is? Does anyone really think this kind of attitude is conducive to properous diplomatic relations?
When Bush branded North Korea one-third of the "Axis of Evil", he obliterated any progress that was being made under South Korea's "Sunshine policy". Now, there is a nuclear armed North Korea viciously antagonistic toward the United States and their neighbours to the south. (On this point, admittedly, they started building their weapons in the Clinton era, themselves deceiving the South Koreans and Americans, and really they brought on such distrust themselves, but spouting off cartoonish rhetoric and labelling a whole nation as "Evil" basically put an end to any kind of quick diplomatic resolution to the crisis. By the way, most South Koreans hate Americans as well and they're their allies! When asked who they trust more, Kim Jong Il (the lying dictator to their north) and George Bush, they chose Communist Kim.)
All across Europe the majority of ordinary people are hostile toward the Bush administration...and again, Europe has historically been allies with the U.S. When J.F.K. wanted French support against Cuba and blockading the Soviets during the missile crisis, JFK offered to provide proof of this by showing the satellite images to (i believe it was) DeGaulle. He replied: "I don't need to see the photos. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me." After the backstabbing, deceit and hypocrisy of the Bush administration, who would ever say this again?
A recently dismissed Canadian MP has long insulted our staunchest ally on a constant basis, saying that she ?hates those bastards?, calling the missile defence proponents the ?coalition of idiots?, and it wasn't until she stomped on an effigy president Bush on national television that there was enough political support to dump her from the liberal party. And even this...many people believe she was only fired because she insulted our own Prime Minister by saying that he and the Liberal party could ?go to hell?.
By proclaiming themselves impervious to the International Criminal Court, Bush and his cronies said to the world: "We will be the judge, jury, and executioner. We will prosecute War criminals...but we are above such accusations. We can and will do no wrong. Your morality is sceptical...Ours is beyond reproach."
By their snubbing of the United Nations, they have made the institution irrelevant. Alliances are once again forged out of economic necessity and diplomatic convenience...vanished now is the dream of international unity and a common moral standard.
The only good thing i can say about the Bush administration's atrocious international relations record is that Colin Powell helped quell the rising tide of war that was sweeping up in Pakistan and India a few years ago. But now, even Powell isn't there.
The "morality" card Does anyone else find it ironic that this president has garnered the "morality" vote, when just about any international court in the world (if americans would ever allow themselves to be subject to such impartial judicial bodies) would label Bush a war criminal? Apparently, a woman does not have the right to choose what to do with her own body, and yet Bush has no problem destroying entire families from his cushy seat of power in Washington in a war that just didn?t have to happen. Keep in mind too that this is a president that has never had to get his own hands dirty (Kerry, at the very least, has a notion of war as something other than a vague political tactic, because he has actually been in one).
If we?ve learned anything over the past two millenia, it?s that the church and state should be most decidedly separate. Even ignoring the fact that religion has been the catalyst for most wars in the past 2,000 years, one is still left with the fact that it would be inherently prudent to keep these two institutions separate for this very reason: The religious right represents an ignorant and archaic point of view that has no place in the decision-making process of a progressive and 21st century society.
Why is this true? Because, while faith, devotion, love, peace, and belief are good and admirable notions, the majority of religious conscripts are ignorant of the alternatives they have, and have no basis to make a decision as to one religion or form of thought over the other. All one has to do is look at the demographics of religion and society and it?s quite simple to see that people preach that which they are exposed to. If one did a study of education/religious persuasion, I?ll bet you everything from a diddle-Di-Do to a Damned-if-I-know, that it would show a negative correlation between those who claim a religious affiliation and their extent of education. People cling to what they know, and fear what they don?t. Sociology 101.
I?m not saying that one religion is better than the other, or they?re all wrong or anything like that. I?m just saying that such institutions are contrary, by their very nature, with their adherence to the dictates of faith rather than logic, to a progressive society, and one should never be permitted to appeal to this kind of ignorant bias when gleaning voters. I mean the whole morality thing is such a load of crap I can?t even believe it. Organized religions have burned people alive, summarily executed vast populations of people, waged wars and havoc and destruction over countless centuries, turned a blind eye to science every step of the way, quelled dissent and discouraged new ideas with the sword or with other, more vicarious tactics such as ?ex-communication?. They have raped national treasuries of much-needed monies, covered up child abuse sex scandals, promoted barbaric acts of terrorism, reduced women to property, encouraged racism and sexism. If the church had it?s way we?d still be living in caves, thinking the Earth was the center of the terra-system. And these people have the audacity, in this day and age, to pontificate on ?moral? issues. What a joke.
Anyway, my point is that one such person is espousing his views in the White House today, no matter how he might try to window-dress these views. While it?s a touchy subject, I think the United States is making a big mistake with a lot of their policy decisions that have to do with this?Bush?s faith-based initiatives blurring the line between church and state?the handicapping of America?s once world-leading scientific community with the disapproval of embryonic stem cell usage for research?the dishing out of civil rights arbitrarily based on sexual preference. These kinds of things. In my opinion, America?s so-called ?morality? vote is a hypocritical load of nonsense.
Economy I?m no macro-economist or anything, and this is for me, admittedly, the weakest part of my argument, although for someone more versed in this subject, I suspect this would be an issue to which they could really stick it to the Bush administration.
To me, his tax cuts make no sense. I understand the rationale behind it, but I don?t believe that it could produce the results that the administration claims that it could. It seems to me like giving a tax cut to the rich for it?s own sake, and then, as an afterthought, throwing up the possibility that all this extra wealth might just, hopefully, maybe, trickle down to the rest of the country. Supposedly, this will encourage investment in the U.S., facilitate a prosperous business environment, and eventually, miraculously, empower the average American worker as there would be more jobs, higher wages, and more competition. I just don?t understand how these dots can connect.
In any case, Bush has the benefit and/or liability of never having to defend/gloat over his tax cut philosophy while he is in office. It is the kind of thing, if successful, that will take time to come into effect. But here are some financial facts that we can simply point out that have occurred while Bush has been in office:
- Since Bush took office, 1.8 million private sector jobs have been lost.
- The United States landed itself in an economic recession, the worst for jobs seen since the Great Depression.
- Bush, conservative that he is (/roll eyes) has recklessly squandered a budget surplus of almost $200 billion dollars, and has now plunged the U.S. in federal debt to the tune of over $500 billion. It is projected that if this administration sticks with this plan until the end of his term in 2008, the projected debt of the United States will be an unmanageable 7.6 trillion dollars by 2013! Needless to say, this is another record low for the country.
- Unemployment has increased over two full points since Clinton left office where he had, by the way, had unemployment down to the lowest point in history, and had historical highs in budget surplus as well. Bush changed all that.
- Bush?s obsession with all things war-like has increased the American?s military budget to an astronomical number, whereby it still dwarfs the next 20 nations in military spending COMBINED! (And they still can?t find Bin Laden)
Civil Liberties This issue should also have been high on the list for potential voters as it cuts to the very heart of what being American is supposed to be all about. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly. Ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the neo-cons in the Bush administration have been rolling out unprecedented restraints and restrictions on civil liberties, either directly or corroding them through propoganda, insinuatinon, and fear-mongering.
People who spoke out against the Iraq war were unpatriotic and possibly even suspected terrorists. Even on civil liberties legislation where the dissenters were in fact defending the constitution of the United States, the fundamental founding ideas which protect their right to dissent in the first place, these people were close to be branded as traitors for their actually very patriotic and courageous stands. And while one can blame the terrorist attacks for this stifling atmosphere of suspicion in america, the Bush administration, with it?s ambiguous colour coded terror warnings, certainly did nothing to help it. And with the bills they proposed and laws they enacted under attorney general John Ashcroft and the Homeland Security Department (an Orwellian title if I?ve ever heard one), they took ?fear propogation? to a whole new level, systematically quashing those high ideals and principles that americans had hitherto held so dear.
With The Patriot Act, which is anything but patriotic, officials would have the right to access American?s bank records, internet usage (including the ability to surreptitiously intercept emails), even books you check out in the library for God?s sake (God help you if you?re a Noam Chomsky fan). Wire taps can be obtained without a court order, even the ability of federal agents to walk into your house would be permitted now without a warrant.
With the TIPS program, fellow citizens would be encouraged to spy on one another, and in fact many people did rat out neighbours for looking ?suspicious?. Some of the examples of this are actually quite funny, but I doubt it was amusing for the person who was whisked off to an FBI interrogation room because they were going to flight school or doing something else which was is apparently an obvious precursor to terrorist activity.
American citizens can be summarily rounded up and detained without being charged, without access to a lawyer, and can be held indefinitely. This is contrary to the most sacred legal principles: Presumption of Innocence, Right to a fair trial, and that whole Habeas Corpus thing. It is simply disgraceful that these rights of americans have now been eroded. Not to mention if you aren?t an american citizen. The prisoners being held in Guantanomo Bay are being held in the same manner. No charge. No trial. No time for being released. There are constant suicide attempts the conditions are so horrible there. This unlawful detainment of people who haven?t even been charged with a crime goes against every international law and convention that has emerged since WWII. How can this kind of thing be OK?
Situation: You write an email to a friend saying something vaguely negative about the Bush Administration. FBI agents to a search of your house when you?re away and find a bunch of left-wing books and maybe a copy of the Koran. You are sent to a dark hole in a military prison near you. Your family inquires as to where you are?they receive no answer. You have disappeared. Or, I forget the word used in Orwell?s 1984 to describe people who simply vanish from sight, but it was as if they never existed in the first place. It could happen to you too. And when you?re sitting in that dark hole, meditating in vicious frustration, perhaps then you can wish you didn?t cast that vote for George Bush.
The man is an idiot This one hardly needs to be said. I mean, entire books have been written about all the verbal slip-ups this half-witted president has made. Web sites are dedicated to pointing out this man?s rhetorical handicap:
http://www.bushisms.com/NewQuotes.html
http://www.bushisms.com/index1a.html#BEFORE
The man?s verbal mishaps are legendary. I could list pages upon pages of them, but I fear it would be redundant. Of course, many say that you can?t judge a man?s intelligence by the way they speak. Very well?how about this then?
http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html
From not knowing to who the Pakistan president was to his inability to perform rudimentary mathematical functions ? to asking an athelete if Wales was a country to incrdeulously asking the President of Brazil: ?You have blacks (in your country) too?? President Bush has demonstrated a profound ignorance to the world at large. Hell, just look at him. Does it look like there?s a lot going on in that head of his?
I?m going to wrap all this up now. This post has gone on for way longer than I meant for it too. Some things I didn?t touch on are Medicare and Education. Being Canadian, I?m not that familiar with what are essentially American domestic issues. But all the things I?ve pointed out are part of the reason why I?m so incredulous when people can actually say that they voted for George W. Bush. I?m not ?anti-american? by any means. This is another concept cooked up by the propoganda machine of the American right. I?m criticizing what I used to admire as a beautiful country which held values and principles which one could aspire to. As a child growing up in Canada I used to admire the United States. So free?so mighty?so progressive. They were the leaders of the free world and while I never would want to leave Canada permanently, I was proud to have such a cool neighbour right next door.
I?d be very interested to hear any rebuttals or comments on this, which has now taken me three lunch hours and a Sunday morning to complete. There?s a bunch of stuff I didn?t get to, and which maybe I?ll include in a Part 2 to this. Enron and the political wake that followed?Bush?s renewal of the nuclear arms race a la his ?bunker-busters??and I?d love to go on more about Bush?s atrocious environmental record, but it will all have to wait for another day. I?m tired as hell of writing this for now.
?As people do better they start voting like Republicans?unless they have to much education and vote democrat which proves, there can be too much of a good thing.?
Karl Rove, Bush administration chief political strategist
?If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.?
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of propoganda
s.
Gimpy said:
Strangely, i find this the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've heard in awhile:
Bear with me, and i'll try to encapsulate why i think this...it will be brief and i will only dust upon points and issues which, if requested, i can extrapolate on later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I?m not sure where to start with all these pro-Bush comments?not because I find them so preposterous or anything, but only because of the wide breadth of the ground that?s been covered.
Whether California voted for Kerry, or the "Hispanic vote" went to Bush, or whatever (By the way, am i the only one who is offended when commentators speak of the "Black vote" as if all blacks would only care about one certain issue and they'd all flock to whoever supported that issue?)...the point here is that NOBODY other than millionaires, oil magnates, or disenchanted nihlists should have voted for Bush. It makes no sense. The only way it does make sense is if the people who voted for him are ignorant of the issues (note, i said "ignorant", not "stupid").
With all due respect dreamer, i find your first post a little hazy in that i'm not sure what your overall point was. (I actually wrote this originally commenting on your first post...your latter posts are crystal clear.) Are you saying that everyone should stop stereotyping people, lumping people into two groups, etc? People on both sides do that...ever heard the phrase "Damn liberals!"?
Bush is a failure as a president. I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise in a coherent fashion, and I have had several such arguments. Let's do a quick rundown on his "progress":
Environment: He's halted any kind of progress on healing the environment (a la refusal to sign Kyoto to gutting the Clean Air Act to his endless acquiescence to the oil and gas lobby...i can actually site several instances here but i'm at work and don't have the time). I mean, the head of the EPA resigned in protest over him...doesn't that tell you something? I think this might go down in history as his greatest failure, even greater than the Iraq fiasco. The United States contributes 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. While people like Arnold Schwarzenneger are mindlessly zooming around in their Hummers, (squandering a precious resource which is theorized to be non-renewable, i might add); the globe continues to warm at a staggering pace. The consequences for ignoring this could be enormous...and all the evidence is there that this is exactly what is happening. (I should add that i heard recently that Schwarzenneger is getting his Hummer's retrofitted to use hydrogen power...the benefits of living in a Blue state, i suppose.)
Trade: I can't believe how these guys pick and choose things in NAFTA that suits them. They defy the WTO and post unfair tarrif hikes on Canadian softwood lumber. This is a huge thing, and i know especially in canada, a lot of people are furious about this. Also, they had that steel industry thing where they were imposing levies on imported steel, much to the chagrin of Japan and Russia and other countries who protested this move. There were many others as well, although I can?t recall all of them right now. While this certainly angered the countries who were hit with these unfair (and illegal, in some cases) trade restrictions, it was a bit of a boon to american industries, and so i can see how some people in these industries might like Bush as they are benefitting from these tactics. However, as an American consumer, you are paying more for your new house?more for your steel products. Your prices ultimately go up as the built in extra cost of buying American sends those staple by-products higher. This of course eventually impacts the economy which we?ll deal with later. All this and not to mention the fact that America is bound by NAFTA trade rules, and it should really at least try to honour it's contracts.
Iraq: What does one have to say about this? Why was this war started other than to encourage OPEC countries to continue to use the dollar as their reserve currency instead of switching to the euro like Iraq did? They defied the international community and regressed us back a few decades when the strong and mighty do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want. They lied about the WMD, they broke international laws, they invaded a sovereign country, regardless of the justification pretexts. I could go on for pages about the ramifications of what they've done here...what kind of precedent this sets for countries like Russia, China, or any other country who aren't inherently "good" like America seems to think of itself. Not to mention the fact that the war is a mess...innocencents are dying on a regular basis...real people, with real families. It's very easy to pontificate on Iraq intellectually and detached, and relegate it to a "number 3" on the list of most important things for America, but meanwhile babies are being blown to bits by American guns that your tax dollars support and your Republican vote encourages. I know that no one really wants to see this kind of thing happen. But it does. That's why it's called "War", and that's why the civilized world tries to avoid these things. Re-electing Bush is either saying: "We agree with what you're doing over there in Iraq" or "I don't agree with what you're doing but i don't think the killing of innocents is necessarily that big a deal...as long as you don't let gays get married." I hate reducing these things to dichotomies but since that's what the american president does, i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to. Bottom line: Iraq cannot be ignored!
War on Terror: I'm no expert on terror but my Malthusian instincts tell me that for every family the US army harms in any way (kills, maims, displaces), ten more terrorists are bourne, now and in future generations. The fundamental problem which the Bush administration and many americans don't seem to grasp here is that they have a great deal of difficulty extricating themselves from their ethno-centric views. They truly seem to believe that terrorists hate their freedom or are attacking them because they are pure evil. They really believe that people living halfway around the world sit in caves, miserable and scheming...watching Entertainment Tonight or something and saying to themselves, "Ohhh....this sucks. Why can't we wallow in decadence? I want a Hummer too. You know what we should do? Let's kill ourselves while taking out some of them in the process."
This is very very dangerous thinking and is one of the causes of this whole war in the first place. Osama and his cronies have a cause that they believe in. It's dangerous to write off extremists by relegating them to a caricature stereotype. And while we're at it, Rumsfeld promised the world, after 9/11 that he would have OBL caught in two years less a day. This is another broken promise by this sad administration. They SHOULD have caught him by now. All the high-tech spy equipment, from satellites to nano-tech bugging devices, and they can't find a $25,000,000 bulls-eye walking around the desert with a dialysis machine? Give me a break.
To conclude on this...shifting focus from al-qaeda onto Iraq has put a huge cog in the terror war. Invading Iraq has done more to perpetuate terror than Osama could ever have done. I think it was the Al-Jazeera documentary "Control Room" which showed a father whose family had just been decimated by an american smart bomb, who implanted in my brain to what degree that hatred has manifested itself in the Arab world. Tears storming from his eyes, his face flush crimson with hate, the words slurring out in a sharp poisonous invective: "Look what you've done! My family! My family! Murderers! American Murderers!" Or something to that effect. Very scary...and i have to say, if someone killed my whole family needlessly, i'd be saying the same thing.
International Relations: OK. How does this wound heal? Americans are hated across the globe, which sucks because it's a helluva country. The Bush administration has betrayed and insulted ally after ally, to a point now where even the american people are avoided when travelling certain places. "You're for us or against us!" What the hell is that? Who does this guy think he is? Does anyone really think this kind of attitude is conducive to properous diplomatic relations?
When Bush branded North Korea one-third of the "Axis of Evil", he obliterated any progress that was being made under South Korea's "Sunshine policy". Now, there is a nuclear armed North Korea viciously antagonistic toward the United States and their neighbours to the south. (On this point, admittedly, they started building their weapons in the Clinton era, themselves deceiving the South Koreans and Americans, and really they brought on such distrust themselves, but spouting off cartoonish rhetoric and labelling a whole nation as "Evil" basically put an end to any kind of quick diplomatic resolution to the crisis. By the way, most South Koreans hate Americans as well and they're their allies! When asked who they trust more, Kim Jong Il (the lying dictator to their north) and George Bush, they chose Communist Kim.)
All across Europe the majority of ordinary people are hostile toward the Bush administration...and again, Europe has historically been allies with the U.S. When J.F.K. wanted French support against Cuba and blockading the Soviets during the missile crisis, JFK offered to provide proof of this by showing the satellite images to (i believe it was) DeGaulle. He replied: "I don't need to see the photos. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me." After the backstabbing, deceit and hypocrisy of the Bush administration, who would ever say this again?
A recently dismissed Canadian MP has long insulted our staunchest ally on a constant basis, saying that she ?hates those bastards?, calling the missile defence proponents the ?coalition of idiots?, and it wasn't until she stomped on an effigy president Bush on national television that there was enough political support to dump her from the liberal party. And even this...many people believe she was only fired because she insulted our own Prime Minister by saying that he and the Liberal party could ?go to hell?.
By proclaiming themselves impervious to the International Criminal Court, Bush and his cronies said to the world: "We will be the judge, jury, and executioner. We will prosecute War criminals...but we are above such accusations. We can and will do no wrong. Your morality is sceptical...Ours is beyond reproach."
By their snubbing of the United Nations, they have made the institution irrelevant. Alliances are once again forged out of economic necessity and diplomatic convenience...vanished now is the dream of international unity and a common moral standard.
The only good thing i can say about the Bush administration's atrocious international relations record is that Colin Powell helped quell the rising tide of war that was sweeping up in Pakistan and India a few years ago. But now, even Powell isn't there.
The "morality" card Does anyone else find it ironic that this president has garnered the "morality" vote, when just about any international court in the world (if americans would ever allow themselves to be subject to such impartial judicial bodies) would label Bush a war criminal? Apparently, a woman does not have the right to choose what to do with her own body, and yet Bush has no problem destroying entire families from his cushy seat of power in Washington in a war that just didn?t have to happen. Keep in mind too that this is a president that has never had to get his own hands dirty (Kerry, at the very least, has a notion of war as something other than a vague political tactic, because he has actually been in one).
If we?ve learned anything over the past two millenia, it?s that the church and state should be most decidedly separate. Even ignoring the fact that religion has been the catalyst for most wars in the past 2,000 years, one is still left with the fact that it would be inherently prudent to keep these two institutions separate for this very reason: The religious right represents an ignorant and archaic point of view that has no place in the decision-making process of a progressive and 21st century society.
Why is this true? Because, while faith, devotion, love, peace, and belief are good and admirable notions, the majority of religious conscripts are ignorant of the alternatives they have, and have no basis to make a decision as to one religion or form of thought over the other. All one has to do is look at the demographics of religion and society and it?s quite simple to see that people preach that which they are exposed to. If one did a study of education/religious persuasion, I?ll bet you everything from a diddle-Di-Do to a Damned-if-I-know, that it would show a negative correlation between those who claim a religious affiliation and their extent of education. People cling to what they know, and fear what they don?t. Sociology 101.
I?m not saying that one religion is better than the other, or they?re all wrong or anything like that. I?m just saying that such institutions are contrary, by their very nature, with their adherence to the dictates of faith rather than logic, to a progressive society, and one should never be permitted to appeal to this kind of ignorant bias when gleaning voters. I mean the whole morality thing is such a load of crap I can?t even believe it. Organized religions have burned people alive, summarily executed vast populations of people, waged wars and havoc and destruction over countless centuries, turned a blind eye to science every step of the way, quelled dissent and discouraged new ideas with the sword or with other, more vicarious tactics such as ?ex-communication?. They have raped national treasuries of much-needed monies, covered up child abuse sex scandals, promoted barbaric acts of terrorism, reduced women to property, encouraged racism and sexism. If the church had it?s way we?d still be living in caves, thinking the Earth was the center of the terra-system. And these people have the audacity, in this day and age, to pontificate on ?moral? issues. What a joke.
Anyway, my point is that one such person is espousing his views in the White House today, no matter how he might try to window-dress these views. While it?s a touchy subject, I think the United States is making a big mistake with a lot of their policy decisions that have to do with this?Bush?s faith-based initiatives blurring the line between church and state?the handicapping of America?s once world-leading scientific community with the disapproval of embryonic stem cell usage for research?the dishing out of civil rights arbitrarily based on sexual preference. These kinds of things. In my opinion, America?s so-called ?morality? vote is a hypocritical load of nonsense.
Economy I?m no macro-economist or anything, and this is for me, admittedly, the weakest part of my argument, although for someone more versed in this subject, I suspect this would be an issue to which they could really stick it to the Bush administration.
To me, his tax cuts make no sense. I understand the rationale behind it, but I don?t believe that it could produce the results that the administration claims that it could. It seems to me like giving a tax cut to the rich for it?s own sake, and then, as an afterthought, throwing up the possibility that all this extra wealth might just, hopefully, maybe, trickle down to the rest of the country. Supposedly, this will encourage investment in the U.S., facilitate a prosperous business environment, and eventually, miraculously, empower the average American worker as there would be more jobs, higher wages, and more competition. I just don?t understand how these dots can connect.
In any case, Bush has the benefit and/or liability of never having to defend/gloat over his tax cut philosophy while he is in office. It is the kind of thing, if successful, that will take time to come into effect. But here are some financial facts that we can simply point out that have occurred while Bush has been in office:
- Since Bush took office, 1.8 million private sector jobs have been lost.
- The United States landed itself in an economic recession, the worst for jobs seen since the Great Depression.
- Bush, conservative that he is (/roll eyes) has recklessly squandered a budget surplus of almost $200 billion dollars, and has now plunged the U.S. in federal debt to the tune of over $500 billion. It is projected that if this administration sticks with this plan until the end of his term in 2008, the projected debt of the United States will be an unmanageable 7.6 trillion dollars by 2013! Needless to say, this is another record low for the country.
- Unemployment has increased over two full points since Clinton left office where he had, by the way, had unemployment down to the lowest point in history, and had historical highs in budget surplus as well. Bush changed all that.
- Bush?s obsession with all things war-like has increased the American?s military budget to an astronomical number, whereby it still dwarfs the next 20 nations in military spending COMBINED! (And they still can?t find Bin Laden)
Civil Liberties This issue should also have been high on the list for potential voters as it cuts to the very heart of what being American is supposed to be all about. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly. Ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the neo-cons in the Bush administration have been rolling out unprecedented restraints and restrictions on civil liberties, either directly or corroding them through propoganda, insinuatinon, and fear-mongering.
People who spoke out against the Iraq war were unpatriotic and possibly even suspected terrorists. Even on civil liberties legislation where the dissenters were in fact defending the constitution of the United States, the fundamental founding ideas which protect their right to dissent in the first place, these people were close to be branded as traitors for their actually very patriotic and courageous stands. And while one can blame the terrorist attacks for this stifling atmosphere of suspicion in america, the Bush administration, with it?s ambiguous colour coded terror warnings, certainly did nothing to help it. And with the bills they proposed and laws they enacted under attorney general John Ashcroft and the Homeland Security Department (an Orwellian title if I?ve ever heard one), they took ?fear propogation? to a whole new level, systematically quashing those high ideals and principles that americans had hitherto held so dear.
With The Patriot Act, which is anything but patriotic, officials would have the right to access American?s bank records, internet usage (including the ability to surreptitiously intercept emails), even books you check out in the library for God?s sake (God help you if you?re a Noam Chomsky fan). Wire taps can be obtained without a court order, even the ability of federal agents to walk into your house would be permitted now without a warrant.
With the TIPS program, fellow citizens would be encouraged to spy on one another, and in fact many people did rat out neighbours for looking ?suspicious?. Some of the examples of this are actually quite funny, but I doubt it was amusing for the person who was whisked off to an FBI interrogation room because they were going to flight school or doing something else which was is apparently an obvious precursor to terrorist activity.
American citizens can be summarily rounded up and detained without being charged, without access to a lawyer, and can be held indefinitely. This is contrary to the most sacred legal principles: Presumption of Innocence, Right to a fair trial, and that whole Habeas Corpus thing. It is simply disgraceful that these rights of americans have now been eroded. Not to mention if you aren?t an american citizen. The prisoners being held in Guantanomo Bay are being held in the same manner. No charge. No trial. No time for being released. There are constant suicide attempts the conditions are so horrible there. This unlawful detainment of people who haven?t even been charged with a crime goes against every international law and convention that has emerged since WWII. How can this kind of thing be OK?
Situation: You write an email to a friend saying something vaguely negative about the Bush Administration. FBI agents to a search of your house when you?re away and find a bunch of left-wing books and maybe a copy of the Koran. You are sent to a dark hole in a military prison near you. Your family inquires as to where you are?they receive no answer. You have disappeared. Or, I forget the word used in Orwell?s 1984 to describe people who simply vanish from sight, but it was as if they never existed in the first place. It could happen to you too. And when you?re sitting in that dark hole, meditating in vicious frustration, perhaps then you can wish you didn?t cast that vote for George Bush.
The man is an idiot This one hardly needs to be said. I mean, entire books have been written about all the verbal slip-ups this half-witted president has made. Web sites are dedicated to pointing out this man?s rhetorical handicap:
http://www.bushisms.com/NewQuotes.html
http://www.bushisms.com/index1a.html#BEFORE
The man?s verbal mishaps are legendary. I could list pages upon pages of them, but I fear it would be redundant. Of course, many say that you can?t judge a man?s intelligence by the way they speak. Very well?how about this then?
http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html
From not knowing to who the Pakistan president was to his inability to perform rudimentary mathematical functions ? to asking an athelete if Wales was a country to incrdeulously asking the President of Brazil: ?You have blacks (in your country) too?? President Bush has demonstrated a profound ignorance to the world at large. Hell, just look at him. Does it look like there?s a lot going on in that head of his?
I?m going to wrap all this up now. This post has gone on for way longer than I meant for it too. Some things I didn?t touch on are Medicare and Education. Being Canadian, I?m not that familiar with what are essentially American domestic issues. But all the things I?ve pointed out are part of the reason why I?m so incredulous when people can actually say that they voted for George W. Bush. I?m not ?anti-american? by any means. This is another concept cooked up by the propoganda machine of the American right. I?m criticizing what I used to admire as a beautiful country which held values and principles which one could aspire to. As a child growing up in Canada I used to admire the United States. So free?so mighty?so progressive. They were the leaders of the free world and while I never would want to leave Canada permanently, I was proud to have such a cool neighbour right next door.
I?d be very interested to hear any rebuttals or comments on this, which has now taken me three lunch hours and a Sunday morning to complete. There?s a bunch of stuff I didn?t get to, and which maybe I?ll include in a Part 2 to this. Enron and the political wake that followed?Bush?s renewal of the nuclear arms race a la his ?bunker-busters??and I?d love to go on more about Bush?s atrocious environmental record, but it will all have to wait for another day. I?m tired as hell of writing this for now.
?As people do better they start voting like Republicans?unless they have to much education and vote democrat which proves, there can be too much of a good thing.?
Karl Rove, Bush administration chief political strategist
?If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.?
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of propoganda
s.
:shock:
