angstzeit: (Default)
"...some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

-George W. Bush in a speech to the Heritage Foundation.

Um, if some in Washington had spent more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden before September 11th 2001, we wouldn't remember that date. Might want to be careful with those stones in your glass house Mr. President.
angstzeit: (Default)
"...some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

-George W. Bush in a speech to the Heritage Foundation.

Um, if some in Washington had spent more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden before September 11th 2001, we wouldn't remember that date. Might want to be careful with those stones in your glass house Mr. President.

Chilling.

Oct. 19th, 2007 09:23 am
angstzeit: (Default)
Not in the good way.

That feeling is one I've felt all to often in recent years.

Last night I watched Tuesday's Frontline about Cheny's obsession with executive powers. It was truly chilling. Essentially, Cheny believes the President if the U.S. should have unlimited power during a time of war. Did you just think about that phrase "war on terror?" I did. It means, simply, that we will be at war forever. Therefore, the President will have unlimited power forever.

This is not just going back to what George Washington's troops fought so hard to defeat. The President of the U.S. has more power than any king ever had.

If you're not chilled, you didn't understand what I said.

Chilling.

Oct. 19th, 2007 09:23 am
angstzeit: (Default)
Not in the good way.

That feeling is one I've felt all to often in recent years.

Last night I watched Tuesday's Frontline about Cheny's obsession with executive powers. It was truly chilling. Essentially, Cheny believes the President if the U.S. should have unlimited power during a time of war. Did you just think about that phrase "war on terror?" I did. It means, simply, that we will be at war forever. Therefore, the President will have unlimited power forever.

This is not just going back to what George Washington's troops fought so hard to defeat. The President of the U.S. has more power than any king ever had.

If you're not chilled, you didn't understand what I said.
angstzeit: (Default)
An interesting character analysis of Bush in light of future Presidents.

As I have mentioned before: There's only one thing worse than a "politician" holding office--a zealot holding office. Of course I dislike politicians generally, but any high official must be realistic and flexible--hopefully in regards to the best course for the country and not how to line their pockets.

We Americans, in general, like the tough, power through attitude. We like to feel we are powerful and thus can do anything if we just keep pushing. Bush seems to be the embodiment of that thinking. Certainly, flinching at the first sign of difficulty is equally foolish. But if a leader is stuck in an all-or-nothing mindset, the chances are good nothing, or usually something much worse will be the outcome.

To drag out a tired metaphor--take Hitler versus Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. All had some zealotry about them but the three worked together versus the one. The Allies were cooperating (mostly) and thus more flexible. Determined but cautious. For Hitler, there was only his goal; or total destruction. The more things went against him the more righteous and reckless he became.

It is kind of ironic that Kerry seemed to be the opposite of Bush. Opposition makes Bush more stubborn and Kerry more evasive. It lost him the race. God knows how much else it lost.

*Hey! thanks for cutting off my microphone! What did I do? Don't tase me bro! Aaaaaaaaah.*
angstzeit: (Default)
An interesting character analysis of Bush in light of future Presidents.

As I have mentioned before: There's only one thing worse than a "politician" holding office--a zealot holding office. Of course I dislike politicians generally, but any high official must be realistic and flexible--hopefully in regards to the best course for the country and not how to line their pockets.

We Americans, in general, like the tough, power through attitude. We like to feel we are powerful and thus can do anything if we just keep pushing. Bush seems to be the embodiment of that thinking. Certainly, flinching at the first sign of difficulty is equally foolish. But if a leader is stuck in an all-or-nothing mindset, the chances are good nothing, or usually something much worse will be the outcome.

To drag out a tired metaphor--take Hitler versus Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. All had some zealotry about them but the three worked together versus the one. The Allies were cooperating (mostly) and thus more flexible. Determined but cautious. For Hitler, there was only his goal; or total destruction. The more things went against him the more righteous and reckless he became.

It is kind of ironic that Kerry seemed to be the opposite of Bush. Opposition makes Bush more stubborn and Kerry more evasive. It lost him the race. God knows how much else it lost.

*Hey! thanks for cutting off my microphone! What did I do? Don't tase me bro! Aaaaaaaaah.*
angstzeit: (Default)
I have made no secret that I believe the actions and rhetoric of the Bush administration are not only useless but counterproductive in curbing terrorism. However, I have also claimed I don't think they really want to curb terrorism, since it is the perfect political weapon--fear and revenge are excellent tools of power.

Well, not that I enjoy the company, but it seems Bin Laden agrees with me.

From an article in Slate; Bin Laden is quoted:

Bush left no room for doubts or media opinion. He stated clearly that this war is a Crusader war. He said this in front of the whole world so as to emphasize this fact. … When Bush says that, they try to cover up for him, then he said he didn't mean it. He said, 'crusade.' Bush divided the world into two: 'either with us or with terrorism' … The odd thing about this is that he has taken the words right out of our mouths.

Obviously, Bin Laden has a political agenda, but no more so than Bush. I feel as if we are all caught between two grinding stones being crushed to make the wine Bush and Bin Laden will toast their victories with.
angstzeit: (Default)
I have made no secret that I believe the actions and rhetoric of the Bush administration are not only useless but counterproductive in curbing terrorism. However, I have also claimed I don't think they really want to curb terrorism, since it is the perfect political weapon--fear and revenge are excellent tools of power.

Well, not that I enjoy the company, but it seems Bin Laden agrees with me.

From an article in Slate; Bin Laden is quoted:

Bush left no room for doubts or media opinion. He stated clearly that this war is a Crusader war. He said this in front of the whole world so as to emphasize this fact. … When Bush says that, they try to cover up for him, then he said he didn't mean it. He said, 'crusade.' Bush divided the world into two: 'either with us or with terrorism' … The odd thing about this is that he has taken the words right out of our mouths.

Obviously, Bin Laden has a political agenda, but no more so than Bush. I feel as if we are all caught between two grinding stones being crushed to make the wine Bush and Bin Laden will toast their victories with.

Truthiness

Oct. 9th, 2006 02:04 pm
angstzeit: (Default)
I found myself following a car the other day with the next step in the "fish" fight. A little background on the fish. Some years ago Christians began sticking these simple fish designs to the back of their cars. The sign was used by early Christians to identify each other and places to gather when their religion was illegal. Somebody then came up with a parody of the fish by putting legs on it and the word Darwin in it.
Well, what I saw was a large fish with the word TRUTH in it eating the Darwin fish. It was the first tangible evidence I'd seen of the trend in America expressed through the satire of Stephen Colbert with his word truthiness.
Colbert satirizes right-wing cable pundits (along with their followers) by playing one to its absurd end. In his first show he introduced the word truthiness. He expressed this as one side of a divide in America between "those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart." Basically, it is a notion, that what feels like the truth is the truth. Facts are ignored unless they agree with one's world view. Religions have necessarily followed this sort of "truth." But lately it seems to be invading all aspects of life--most disturbingly, politics.

Mr. Colbert was interviewed by the Onion's A. V. Club out of character (1-26-2006) and said:

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President [Bush] because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."

While the actions of President Bush have been an obvious example recently, conservatives are not the only guilty party here. While many liberals tend toward intellectualism in their rhetoric, there is still an emotional force behind them. And there are many liberals who are as unthinking and prone to espouse truth from their gut rather than facts as their conservative counterparts.

To me it is a frightening trend. I also think it is not unexpected. America, as a nation has held onto a "truth" about itself for a very long time. However, the facts against its “truth” are mounting and this is deeply frightening many Americans. These Americans flock to those in power who hold fast to that fantasy and ignore the reality at hand. Others, who always doubted that fantasy are rushing to create the new fantasy of America.

Whose "truth" will win? Will we ever find a truth based on reality?
(I won't go any deeper into the philosophical implications of that question. Now anyway.)))

Truthiness

Oct. 9th, 2006 02:04 pm
angstzeit: (Default)
I found myself following a car the other day with the next step in the "fish" fight. A little background on the fish. Some years ago Christians began sticking these simple fish designs to the back of their cars. The sign was used by early Christians to identify each other and places to gather when their religion was illegal. Somebody then came up with a parody of the fish by putting legs on it and the word Darwin in it.
Well, what I saw was a large fish with the word TRUTH in it eating the Darwin fish. It was the first tangible evidence I'd seen of the trend in America expressed through the satire of Stephen Colbert with his word truthiness.
Colbert satirizes right-wing cable pundits (along with their followers) by playing one to its absurd end. In his first show he introduced the word truthiness. He expressed this as one side of a divide in America between "those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart." Basically, it is a notion, that what feels like the truth is the truth. Facts are ignored unless they agree with one's world view. Religions have necessarily followed this sort of "truth." But lately it seems to be invading all aspects of life--most disturbingly, politics.

Mr. Colbert was interviewed by the Onion's A. V. Club out of character (1-26-2006) and said:

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President [Bush] because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."

While the actions of President Bush have been an obvious example recently, conservatives are not the only guilty party here. While many liberals tend toward intellectualism in their rhetoric, there is still an emotional force behind them. And there are many liberals who are as unthinking and prone to espouse truth from their gut rather than facts as their conservative counterparts.

To me it is a frightening trend. I also think it is not unexpected. America, as a nation has held onto a "truth" about itself for a very long time. However, the facts against its “truth” are mounting and this is deeply frightening many Americans. These Americans flock to those in power who hold fast to that fantasy and ignore the reality at hand. Others, who always doubted that fantasy are rushing to create the new fantasy of America.

Whose "truth" will win? Will we ever find a truth based on reality?
(I won't go any deeper into the philosophical implications of that question. Now anyway.)))
angstzeit: (Default)
I usually am. Google "failure."
angstzeit: (Default)
I usually am. Google "failure."
angstzeit: (Default)
I keep occasionally thinking of things to say here but don't seem to get around to it or lack the energy to hash my thoughts out. Here's some bits.

Wisdom. What's that all about? It seems to be a popular theme in books and movies and TV--You know the "Wise Man" (or Woman) who helps the hero to their goal or see themselves clearly or...well I hope you get it. So why in our "real" culture are these people dismissed so often? We only seem to recognize them after they're dead. I don't want to get into the whole "what is wisdom thing." I suppose many are wise in their own way. Anyway, I'm rambling.

I don't get this sudden "Hey, lets pull out of Iraq" thing. I sure as hell was against going in. I think the whole affair was rushed, poorly planned, abysmally executed but we all marched right on in and now we just want to split? It may well be that we will never accomplish the wonderful democratic utopia we supposedly are there for but if we up and book out--I can't imagine the chaos. We've created a terrorist breeding ground. I had an image come to me the other day. Ol' Dubya deciding he's man enough to go screw this bull in the ass he's got a grudge against. Well, now he's in there and the bull's mad as hell but Dubya can't pull out or the bull will turn around and ram a horn or two up Dubya's ass.

Recently found a new obsession. http://www.portalofevil.com/buzz.php Hit the Livejournal Random Images Generator. It shows you 30 of the latest pictures posted to Livejournal pages. As the page says, it is surprisingly addictive.
angstzeit: (Default)
I keep occasionally thinking of things to say here but don't seem to get around to it or lack the energy to hash my thoughts out. Here's some bits.

Wisdom. What's that all about? It seems to be a popular theme in books and movies and TV--You know the "Wise Man" (or Woman) who helps the hero to their goal or see themselves clearly or...well I hope you get it. So why in our "real" culture are these people dismissed so often? We only seem to recognize them after they're dead. I don't want to get into the whole "what is wisdom thing." I suppose many are wise in their own way. Anyway, I'm rambling.

I don't get this sudden "Hey, lets pull out of Iraq" thing. I sure as hell was against going in. I think the whole affair was rushed, poorly planned, abysmally executed but we all marched right on in and now we just want to split? It may well be that we will never accomplish the wonderful democratic utopia we supposedly are there for but if we up and book out--I can't imagine the chaos. We've created a terrorist breeding ground. I had an image come to me the other day. Ol' Dubya deciding he's man enough to go screw this bull in the ass he's got a grudge against. Well, now he's in there and the bull's mad as hell but Dubya can't pull out or the bull will turn around and ram a horn or two up Dubya's ass.

Recently found a new obsession. http://www.portalofevil.com/buzz.php Hit the Livejournal Random Images Generator. It shows you 30 of the latest pictures posted to Livejournal pages. As the page says, it is surprisingly addictive.

March 2016

S M T W T F S
  12345
67 89101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2017 04:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios