Welcome to the home of the very worst of the meretricious poetasters!
number 53 for 9-14-05
The Bush Family of Thought
I know the reason that I am afraid of left wing rule. We may forget in these frightening times of religious right dominance and suppression of speech that there are many, many horrible things on the other side of the board. For instance, there are many horrors associated with socialism, and some of the progressive agenda leans towards socialism. I do believe that if we instantly dropped into socialized medicine, which I want, a socialized wage and other experiments would surely follow which would screw us, totally.
There's also the fact that hey, if you think the REPUBLICANS are censors, at least they're straight about it, for all of their ignorance. They say, pretty straight up, that they don't want gays to have rights and they don't want anyone to say anything they find prurient or anathema to God. And they have a reason to point to. God says no.
Whereas democrats want it to be wrong to say that women can be stupid, spoiled whores because of the fact that the statement is denigrating to women, not because the statement is empirically wrong. They discourage even the debate.
But then, if someone tells you, "You shouldn't say that", you can tell them to go fuck themselves. And much as I hate the fact that no one says, "All women are worthless bitches" on tv when we can regularly say, "Men are all stupid dogs.", I know one thing.
They CAN. And democrats are not trying to make saying it illegal. Except Hillary Clinton and GTA, but man, you know she did that so that she'll get Republican votes in 2008.
Oh, they'll get NOW on your case. They'll run you out of business. But they're not behind organizations that say what you can and cannot say in public and in print. They don't define prurient, instead they simple protest what they consider to be wrong.
George Bush and his cronies have been remarkably pointed about trying to silence things they find abominable. The deputy attorney general and the attorney general have made their number one priority porn, not terrorism, and drugs, not poverty.
The reason why it's easier to cite and attack Republican stupidity is because it's more obvious. Democratic stupidity is more devious and guarded, wrapped in intellectual ideology instead of religious fanaticism. Which is better? I don't know.
But anyway, point being, it means Republicans sometimes say the DAMNEDest things.
I read the below article which claims that the response to Katrina was the best response to a major hurricane in history. Are you surprised the columnist is a conservative in damage control mode? I'm not.
Citation
He says, with a glibness nearing arrogance through a source, that:
"The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."
What he doesn't say is the obvious. None of those hurricanes caused NEAR the amount of damage, near the loss of life, and near the public interest. It was larger than Hugo, larger than Andrew, larger than Iniki, larger than Francine and Jeanne.
There's also the fact that though FEMA may have been on track or faster than par, that's not the issue here. I, personally, have never really had a problem with the rescue effort so far. If anything, I'm mad at the mayor for not ordering an evacuation. I don't blame the rescue organization. Though admittedly, Bush and company, hell, Clinton and all the way back should have spent serious money on getting a crack team of FAST responses to natural disaster. But then, that doesn't make as many headlines as war, does it.
No.
The catastrophic failure of Katrina was an indifferent executive. Even if the FEMA was busting ass, Bush was standing around and jacking off for the cameras, and we all saw it, and we all resented it, because we all know that if we had the man's powers, we'd be doing something. Instead, he was fishing. He was taking photo ops. He was dancing on the ruins of the stupid world stage.
If it took FEMA three days, it took Bush a WEEK to even comment to the situation. To get down there and hold people together. I really wasn't part of that 90% that thought he did a great job cheering us up after 9-11 talking about revenge. That actually pissed me off. But I do see the symbolic need for the president to pat the victims on the head and BE THERE for his people.
But see, are these his people? And that's the question.
I don't think they are. In fact, I don't think most of America are George Bush's rich, careless people who know they will never want for anything.
Take his wife, who was so devastated by the loss of the darkies that she didn't even remember the name of the hurricane correctly, much less the names of any of the victims. She called it "Corinna".
Citation
Take his vice-president, who arrived late on the scene for damage control to spin the story of a FEMA that was doing just a really great job.
I find it apt the response of one passer by in this video. He tells Dick Cheney, as Dick Cheney told a senator on the Senate floor, to go fuck himself.
The reporter asks, "Have you heard that since you got here?"
Dick says no.
Probably because...that's right. It doesn't seem he's listening.
Citation
And his mother had this to say about people stuck in the feces filled, foodless Superdome:
"So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."
A poor choice of words? Or a family and set of people who have no idea about what befalls the black and poor? I report, you decide.
Citation
What I want to know is if any of these people have read the articles, pondered the issues, thought about the poor beyond how it hurts them politically.
The dead patients who had to be executed in hospitals because there was no relief might have a thing or two to say about how really, really well the relief effort went.
Citation