Welcome to the home of the very worst of the meretricious poetasters!
number 91 for 12-26-05:
Too Angry to Continue (The End of Civil Liberty)
LOL Drudge. (That says: Russia deploys new set of strategic nuclear missiles...)
Well, Merry Christmas, and I hope you're not calling anyone you shouldn't be, because as you may know, big brother is watching.
George Bush, it would seem, has authorized and will continue to authorize domestic spying in the name of the "war on terror", a war that is undeclared, ambiguous and continuing, and quite frankly, without any real agenda for end beyond killing anyone who doesn't agree with our stated policies and tries to do anything about it.
What frustrates me about this whole affair is the glib sense of audacity Bush seems to have that people would be angry that the government are spying on their own citizens. The irony and the anger that I have grows with every article headline that I read.
Here's one of the better ones: Bush Says Eavesdropping saves US Lives.
Citation
I suppose it does, you know that? I really do. Because of the fact that we listen in to the conversations of a bunch of people, most of whom are likely shitheads, we catch a plot or two that otherwise might have gotten by and resulted in the deaths of thousands, or tens of thousands.
Two problems with that. One, none of those plots that have been exposed through this program have been brought forth as an example, and two, even if it does save lives, what does that make us?
There are many things that can save lives in this world that we just shouldn't fucking do. If we rounded everyone in the country up and put them in concentration camps and kept them all in separate rooms and force-fed them healthy food and forced them to exercise, people would live longer, there would be fewer murders, and heck, it would save just a whole lot of American lives.
We could also force women to stop having abortions, which would save a shitload of American lives.
We could, you know, stop the war in Iraq, and that would have saved about 2,160 American lives, not to mention those worthless and insignificant 30,000 towel head deaths.
And you know what? Killing anyone who's seditious to the United States might ultimately save more lives than it ends.
BUT THEN, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE US?
It's the same argument they used for torture. It saves American lives!
Yes. And, as I stated in the first few CTF articles, when a senator said that it would save a lot of American lives if we dropped a nuclear weapon on Mecca, he was right. We'd probably have less war if we slaughtered every fundamentalist religious person on the planet, one-by-one. It's obvious why we don't.
But hey, torture away! Here's yet ANOTHER article on a torture prison, this time in Afghanistan. USA! USA!
Citation
Then there's the blame portion. Where Bush has done something that is clearly in violation of the constitution, illegal, FUCK, IMPEACHABLE, much more so than perjury, because it consciously co-opts and endangers our CIVIL LIBERTIES as opposed to the honesty of the president (and fuck, who thinks the president is honest since Nixon?). But does he say, "Well, maybe I'll re-evaluate, since so many people think this is wrong.". Or maybe, "I'm sorry, I didn't know this was going to piss so many people off. I'll stop."? No. Instead, he says that the people who revealed the information that the president broke the law are instead threatening national security, and should stop.
Citation
Even though, in making this accusation, he knows fully that the terrorists already know we're tapping their phone lines, we don't reveal any specific plot that we're aware of they don't know we're aware of, and it's quite obviously a diversion tactic.
Which is, you know, pretty funny considering he makes this statement after he agrees and acknowledges on camera with glee that he broke the law.
What's really funny, if you look at the above article, and then it's follow-up with the same picture, the news coverage goes from a condemning tone to "Oh, Bush was just protecting us.". The headline changes from a blatant charge that he signed an illegal NSA order to, well:
Citation
BUSH: "I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people!"
Big Brother loves us.
Lawmakers have called for a probe, and people will be looking into the legality of what Bush has done. Already, they're asserting that Clinton and Carter did it, so it's okay. I guess if Clinton and Carter jumped off a bridge, you would too. So it's like this. When Bush's economy fails and Clinton's succeeds, it's Clinton's fault when it fails. Therefore, when Clinton wiretaps…I blame the first Bush. How's that? In all seriousness, however, if Clinton and Carter did it, they were fucking wrong too, and should be prosecuted.
Citation
The swing side of this is that it makes local authorities more bold and Gestapo, which leads to further and further abridgements of civil liberties until we don't know who or what the fuck we're supposed to be any more. That's what happened in Nazi Germany.
Like when you take someone's property because their beliefs don't fit into the mainstream, and don't return the property even when you don't charge the person with a crime, as happened to this bondage fan.
Citation
Here's my absolute favorite article on the affair. Bush held a press conference, and was asked if he was pushing his power too far. Gonzales called the wiretaps the most classified program in the US. Pffft. Yeah. Fucking right. What about the guys you lead off into the forest and kill? What about the secret assassinations? Even a fucking retard scratching the surface knows you fucks are up to more than just listening to our asses.
Bush's response? He's doing what he's doing to protect us while protecting our civil liberties.
So, get this, Orwell fans. We're saving our civil liberties by abridging them.
Citation
Things are getting even better, though! First, because they want to save our civil liberties by abridging them more, they EXTENDED the PATRIOT Act for another six months so that they can make the things that abridge our civil liberties sound like they're not abridging our civil liberties, because, as any good writer knows, it's not what it is, it's how it sounds to the reader.
NO! It's not looking over the shoulder of our citizens to make them paranoid so they'll do what we want! It's domestic surveillance!
Citation
Here's a nice article on how the wiretap scandal is going to be handled, by Peter Daou of Salon.com. A large excerpt (it's me again after the link):
1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.
2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004).
3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.
4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.
5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.
6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.
7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.
8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.
9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.
10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democratic leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...
Rinse and repeat.
Citation
The WASHINGTON TIMES, about as REPUBLICAN a newspaper as you can get, even lit into the president. Quite poignantly, considering their usual shit.
Citation
A commentary from White House council:
"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president. That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."
Into English: Yes, we're breaking the law, but it's okay because our intentions are good.
Tell that to the 19-year-old black inner city mother stealing food for her children who's sent to jail, you fucking pricks. The mother who is out of work because of your administration's pro-corporate bullshit, but encouraged to breed because it's godly.
Citation
The best part of this whole affair? The corporations are complicit and the surveillance is much broader than acknowledged. They're tapping into the MAIN ARTERY of American phone lines, without check, aided by the corporations that provide them.
Citation
Citation
What's not to be afraid of?
Police are infiltrating protests and monitoring their activities.
Citation
Mosques are being monitored for radioactivity (even though in the US it's more likely a Christian fanatic will kill someone than a fucking Muslim) without the approval of the "secret courts" (Oh, that makes it worse, I guess, somehow…WAIT A SECOND. Why the fuck do we have SECRET COURTS in the first place?)
Citation
Citation
And hey, it's all right, because Colin Powell says it's all right!
Citation
AND THE PRESIDENT, THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, IS NOW
SUMMONING
REPORTERS TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT PRINT TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE.
SUMMONING.
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT SUMMON AND CONTROL THE PRESS.
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT TO DO AND THINK.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A KING.
WE SUMMON THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Citation
You know what? I have more articles, I just have to stop. Right now. I'm so damned angry, I have to stop right now.
Sorry.
ENDLESS HORROR WITH CHILDREN (FOR GOD)
In the days after Christmas, oh Lord, we stop for a moment to look at your bounty in terms of child murder.
First, a 21-year-old mother who fatally neglected her daughter and then put her in a trash bag.
Citation
And look here! A man kills his wife and three children because they asked him to do chores.
Citation
Santa exposing himself to a little boy.
Citation
A 90-year-old woman sexually assaulted, AFTER she was strangled.
Citation
A 15-year-old kills his father rather than tell him he had bad grades.
Citation
A family stones and kills a 7-month-old and a 12-year-old for being "possessed by the devil".
Citation
80 fetuses in the desert. 'nuff said.
Citation
Dad poisons three kids because he doesn't want them to go through the hell of a divorce. Impeccable logic, Watson.
Citation
A pit bull kills an elderly woman. Good going, God!
Citation
HIV positive woman rapes a young boy.
Citation
A magnet toy kills a 2-year-old.
Citation
SHOULDN'T BE FUNNY, BUT IS
An actress from "It's A Wonderful Life" died on Christmas.
Citation