Father of Executed American Blasts Bush, Media
..."He thought he was supporting the Iraqi people and the Bush administration by going over there, not with a gun but with his engineering tools," Michael Berg said.
click here for full story
Too bad in Rove's Amerika, you have to have a loved one killed to earn the right to be critical, and be heard by the media.
Maybe if president and media hadn't declared everyone not in love with this war a "Saddam lover",
some folks would still be alive today. Although according to some heartless Republicans I have spoke to personally, there haven't been that many killed, and those "are acceptable losses'- (my ass!)
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Saturday, June 26, 2004
F9/11- a view from the trenches...
OK- so we had to drive an hour to a major market to see Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11,
on its opening night. That's fine, we had a nice dinner too. The place was packed, and we were seated with the local royalty of liberal thinking- serious! We seemed to luck right into sitting with a large local contingent who had made the same hour drive. So of course, to different degrees, most of our friends already know most of what Michael had to say. What I was checking out were the gasps of the average hoosier who were probably forced to tag along due to a mate, friend or loved on who had to go.
Let me say this right now- Mike COULD HAVE BEEN HARDER ON THE PRESIDENT!
Sure, he pretty much made sport of the guy- but I think he kept most of his comments "fun" or "on the lighter side". Really. I mean, what's worse; Making you look foolish or funny; or making you seem to be a traitor wrapping himself in the flag? Point is, Mike really lets GW off the hook by mostly portraying him a guy who is "willing", but only "allowed to get away with it" by a willing media and generally hoodwinked public. Well duh!....
I wasn't surprised that Michael had some un-censored versions of white house "sanitized" military records relating to GW. I wonder- did ANY newsmedia organization have those un-censored versions? And were they afraid to air them for "fear of losing the place" in the white house press corp.? What I really really want to know is, are any other Americans making these connections and asking the same questions right now!!>?? I hope so...
There was one point in the footage of GW that he seemed to be a "golf bully", demanding credit "did I hear anyone say 'nice shot GW'?" for what was probably a shitty shot (what the fuck do I know about golf?) ; so for the rest of the movie, whenever the president was shown taking a swing, I exclaimed as loud as socially possible "nice shot GW!"- I just couldn't resist!
I really wanted to jump up and bring everyone together in a "Ferris Beuller" moment, but as soon as the idea crossed my evil mind, I had to realize that not everyone there was on the same page.
Some of these folks had never heard some of that stuff, I need to shut up and let folks listen... and that was a hell of a thing to realize.
If you generally read "bartcop.com" or "buzzflash.com" or "leftwingwackos.com", then this movie is not required viewing. You and I are already informed to a point. What you need to do is, take someone who "isn't interested". I'm reminded of some professional friends I have, who are arch-conservatives. I can just hear them say, "I'm just not interested in what that man has to say!". Problem is, they really should see it. They'd see the little-boy victim of war, getting his little head stiched up, crudely, screaming the whole time. Problem is, these arch-conservative friends are the "everything for the children" types, and while they'll give up their human rights, and therefore demand that WE ALL GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS, just to make their children "safer" from "terra", they're also the folks who DEMAND TO BE KEPT UNINFORMED AND IN THE DARK.
They care so much, that they "aren't interested" in critical opinions.
They care so much they try to shut down, and disallow dissenting, peacefully opinions.
They care so much they that searching law abiding citizens, with no regard to civil rights, will help make them safer.
Problem is, most folks don't run a political blog, being critical of the media on a semi-regular basis. Most folks get their news from Dan "I ran Cronkite out so I can be a shill" Rather, and when they REALLY REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE FACTS, they check out MSNBC or Fox News. (Ouch!)
Most people only choose from the facts presented to them between bites of cheeseburger or they want little "digestible news nuggets" that pass for critical thinking.
So I hope there were many, many non-political types, or straight up Republican recon types at Fahrenheit 9/11.
Maybe with a full-on, over-done, too far out to be believed and too frightening to be ignored movie like this one, someone, ANYONE else will hear this. Maybe it's the only way some can ever hear...
OK- so we had to drive an hour to a major market to see Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11,
on its opening night. That's fine, we had a nice dinner too. The place was packed, and we were seated with the local royalty of liberal thinking- serious! We seemed to luck right into sitting with a large local contingent who had made the same hour drive. So of course, to different degrees, most of our friends already know most of what Michael had to say. What I was checking out were the gasps of the average hoosier who were probably forced to tag along due to a mate, friend or loved on who had to go.
Let me say this right now- Mike COULD HAVE BEEN HARDER ON THE PRESIDENT!
Sure, he pretty much made sport of the guy- but I think he kept most of his comments "fun" or "on the lighter side". Really. I mean, what's worse; Making you look foolish or funny; or making you seem to be a traitor wrapping himself in the flag? Point is, Mike really lets GW off the hook by mostly portraying him a guy who is "willing", but only "allowed to get away with it" by a willing media and generally hoodwinked public. Well duh!....
I wasn't surprised that Michael had some un-censored versions of white house "sanitized" military records relating to GW. I wonder- did ANY newsmedia organization have those un-censored versions? And were they afraid to air them for "fear of losing the place" in the white house press corp.? What I really really want to know is, are any other Americans making these connections and asking the same questions right now!!>?? I hope so...
There was one point in the footage of GW that he seemed to be a "golf bully", demanding credit "did I hear anyone say 'nice shot GW'?" for what was probably a shitty shot (what the fuck do I know about golf?) ; so for the rest of the movie, whenever the president was shown taking a swing, I exclaimed as loud as socially possible "nice shot GW!"- I just couldn't resist!
I really wanted to jump up and bring everyone together in a "Ferris Beuller" moment, but as soon as the idea crossed my evil mind, I had to realize that not everyone there was on the same page.
Some of these folks had never heard some of that stuff, I need to shut up and let folks listen... and that was a hell of a thing to realize.
If you generally read "bartcop.com" or "buzzflash.com" or "leftwingwackos.com", then this movie is not required viewing. You and I are already informed to a point. What you need to do is, take someone who "isn't interested". I'm reminded of some professional friends I have, who are arch-conservatives. I can just hear them say, "I'm just not interested in what that man has to say!". Problem is, they really should see it. They'd see the little-boy victim of war, getting his little head stiched up, crudely, screaming the whole time. Problem is, these arch-conservative friends are the "everything for the children" types, and while they'll give up their human rights, and therefore demand that WE ALL GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS, just to make their children "safer" from "terra", they're also the folks who DEMAND TO BE KEPT UNINFORMED AND IN THE DARK.
They care so much, that they "aren't interested" in critical opinions.
They care so much they try to shut down, and disallow dissenting, peacefully opinions.
They care so much they that searching law abiding citizens, with no regard to civil rights, will help make them safer.
Problem is, most folks don't run a political blog, being critical of the media on a semi-regular basis. Most folks get their news from Dan "I ran Cronkite out so I can be a shill" Rather, and when they REALLY REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE FACTS, they check out MSNBC or Fox News. (Ouch!)
Most people only choose from the facts presented to them between bites of cheeseburger or they want little "digestible news nuggets" that pass for critical thinking.
So I hope there were many, many non-political types, or straight up Republican recon types at Fahrenheit 9/11.
Maybe with a full-on, over-done, too far out to be believed and too frightening to be ignored movie like this one, someone, ANYONE else will hear this. Maybe it's the only way some can ever hear...
Friday, June 11, 2004
Chris Mathews- Worshiping at the Feet of Reagan
In a news climate that is soooooo desperate not to use vulgar words, like "Haliburton" and "Human Rights", the death of former president Reagan is like a blessing from heaven. For the record, I'm glad the poor guy isn't suffering anymore. I do have some compassion for him and his dreadful family, but, as a liberal- I don't generally hate anyone past the point of de-humanizing them;
my point is that we're all gonna die- and that simple thing is most likely the ONLY thing I'll ever have in common with the man. But it's enough.
So Chris "the screamer" Mathews on MSNBC this morning, while covering the massive funeral for Ronnie, dared to quietly explain the "some people" didn't like the guy because he was so suave and self-assured! Listen you asshole, you know better than that! The ONLY FUCKIN THING SOME OF US LIBERALS LIKED ABOUT THE MAN WAS THAT HE WAS SO PRESENTABLE LOOKING AS PRESIDENT!!
Never mind the facts that he was a liar (or was he, like his vice president "out of the loop?"), or that he preached a smaller government while growing it ever larger, or that he broke unions and screwed the once "safe" AIRLINE INDUSTRY.
No, Chris Mathews wants everyone to know it was because of his looks. That's why we hated him.
Once- when explaining to a friend why I disagreed with Reagan, I was accused of having a "personal problem" with the man. No, I explained, if you were on the "glory end" of Reagan- like if you were a minister, cop, politician, or right wing pundit- of course you'd love Reagan. He was like, everything you dreamed about; a person who validated your every desire and dream, and he made it look good. (It was OK to be white and powerfull during Reagan, in fact, why would you have wanted to be anything else?)
BUT- if you were on the end that got cut, slashed or totally eliminated from the Reagan budget, then your were called "small minded" or "a focus group". I called it getting fucked.
My father had worked all his life, with the belief that he'd have certain retirement benefits. When the time came to retire, Reagan decided that ANYONE getting more than a peasants wage from the government was a "DOUBLE DIPPER" and should be cut to subsistence level benefits.
NEVER MIND THAT THESE MEN AND WOMEN WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND PAID THOSE TAXES TO HAVE THOSE BENEFITS! The point is, social security is not a hand out. You pay for that shit. I pay for that shit. Then some actor/politician who probably NEVER worked a day in his miserable life dares to label these working men and women "the problem" and "we gotta cut this pork!".
That pork paid your wages Mr. Reagan. That pork raised good American kids who died in places like Vietnam. That pork was promised a certain amount of safety when they became old, and a lot of them believed you when you promised to look out for them. Instead, you cut their benefits.
But- due to the "free ride" that most media gave the old guy, Reagan got away with blaming the worker. And now- we're accused of not liking the man, because of his looks and charm.
Listen, only a knee-jerk neocon in-training would buy Reagans act anyway. But, it was a better act that Nixon, and for sure better that Ford. So, even back then, I understood that it was Reagans "image" people preferred to worship, not his deeds.
So jump ahead to Chris Mathews, still wanting to have it both ways. When we point out specific, credible evidence of why we don't care for Reagan- we're just being petty. When we point out that 99% percent of his appeal was visual and emotional, we hate him for his looks. No Chris, he was so much more bearable because of his looks. ANYWAY- we all know you neocons hated Clinton because of his looks, now see how ridiculous that sounds?
In a news climate that is soooooo desperate not to use vulgar words, like "Haliburton" and "Human Rights", the death of former president Reagan is like a blessing from heaven. For the record, I'm glad the poor guy isn't suffering anymore. I do have some compassion for him and his dreadful family, but, as a liberal- I don't generally hate anyone past the point of de-humanizing them;
my point is that we're all gonna die- and that simple thing is most likely the ONLY thing I'll ever have in common with the man. But it's enough.
So Chris "the screamer" Mathews on MSNBC this morning, while covering the massive funeral for Ronnie, dared to quietly explain the "some people" didn't like the guy because he was so suave and self-assured! Listen you asshole, you know better than that! The ONLY FUCKIN THING SOME OF US LIBERALS LIKED ABOUT THE MAN WAS THAT HE WAS SO PRESENTABLE LOOKING AS PRESIDENT!!
Never mind the facts that he was a liar (or was he, like his vice president "out of the loop?"), or that he preached a smaller government while growing it ever larger, or that he broke unions and screwed the once "safe" AIRLINE INDUSTRY.
No, Chris Mathews wants everyone to know it was because of his looks. That's why we hated him.
Once- when explaining to a friend why I disagreed with Reagan, I was accused of having a "personal problem" with the man. No, I explained, if you were on the "glory end" of Reagan- like if you were a minister, cop, politician, or right wing pundit- of course you'd love Reagan. He was like, everything you dreamed about; a person who validated your every desire and dream, and he made it look good. (It was OK to be white and powerfull during Reagan, in fact, why would you have wanted to be anything else?)
BUT- if you were on the end that got cut, slashed or totally eliminated from the Reagan budget, then your were called "small minded" or "a focus group". I called it getting fucked.
My father had worked all his life, with the belief that he'd have certain retirement benefits. When the time came to retire, Reagan decided that ANYONE getting more than a peasants wage from the government was a "DOUBLE DIPPER" and should be cut to subsistence level benefits.
NEVER MIND THAT THESE MEN AND WOMEN WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND PAID THOSE TAXES TO HAVE THOSE BENEFITS! The point is, social security is not a hand out. You pay for that shit. I pay for that shit. Then some actor/politician who probably NEVER worked a day in his miserable life dares to label these working men and women "the problem" and "we gotta cut this pork!".
That pork paid your wages Mr. Reagan. That pork raised good American kids who died in places like Vietnam. That pork was promised a certain amount of safety when they became old, and a lot of them believed you when you promised to look out for them. Instead, you cut their benefits.
But- due to the "free ride" that most media gave the old guy, Reagan got away with blaming the worker. And now- we're accused of not liking the man, because of his looks and charm.
Listen, only a knee-jerk neocon in-training would buy Reagans act anyway. But, it was a better act that Nixon, and for sure better that Ford. So, even back then, I understood that it was Reagans "image" people preferred to worship, not his deeds.
So jump ahead to Chris Mathews, still wanting to have it both ways. When we point out specific, credible evidence of why we don't care for Reagan- we're just being petty. When we point out that 99% percent of his appeal was visual and emotional, we hate him for his looks. No Chris, he was so much more bearable because of his looks. ANYWAY- we all know you neocons hated Clinton because of his looks, now see how ridiculous that sounds?
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11
Ambusher of poor Charleton Heston, and maker of literate, thought provoking films,
Michael Moore is at it again with Fahrenheit 9/11;
a must see trailer is available!
Now the Steve and E.D. crowd with have something new to carp about besides Bill and Hillary.
Oh-? whatdaya mean they refuse to talk about it? what about fair and balanced?
Ambusher of poor Charleton Heston, and maker of literate, thought provoking films,
Michael Moore is at it again with Fahrenheit 9/11;
a must see trailer is available!
Now the Steve and E.D. crowd with have something new to carp about besides Bill and Hillary.
Oh-? whatdaya mean they refuse to talk about it? what about fair and balanced?
