Welcome to the Notes From the Front Blog Volume One. This is the new locale for my Notes rants and I will no longer be clogging up your email with my views on life, liberty, and fun the USA. Check in from time to time and see what's on my mind.....mainly it's the gentle swish of a women's hips....but occastionaly I talk about socio-political issues and the direction, or lack thereof, that our country is heading.
It's high time I wrote one of these again. Too much has happened in the last few months for me to be silent. After sitting around and stewing about it, I have decided that the United States is one giant reality show with W as the perfect star. The show is an offshoot of MTV Punk'd....or maybe DC Punk'd !! And who may you ask is being punk'd? Well, it's those people who voted for Bush thinking he represents their interests.
Essentially what has happened is that our current government has become like
one giant PR firm....spinning any kind of event ANY way they want to. Only in
our current state of fear could we elect a man who essentially skipped out on his
military service to his country and yet still call him strong and brave. And NOT elect
man who did serve his country with distinction and honor while calling him a coward
and glory seeker.
I am convinced now more than ever that Bush and pals could spin anything anyway
they wanted to. I am waiting for the day when someone in the White House
murders someone and everyone from Laura to Rush will hop on the radio and say,
"Well, he deserved it." Mark my words: IT WILL HAPPEN.
Too often I have heard people say that it is the "liberals" who are out to ruin this country. They are the ones who feel and don't think. They complicate issues and make things worse for everyone. Actually, the exact opposite is true. Let's first take a look at what the word "liberal" means.According to Webster's Dictionary, 2005 Online edition, the word liberal means:
1.. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, orauthoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2.. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, andtolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 3.. Tending to give freely; generous
Wow. That doesn't sound all that bad to me. Free from bigotry? Open to new ideas? Isn't this exactly what America is supposed to be about?
When are we going to have a real leader again like FDR, Truman, Kennedy or even
Reagan? These were strong, intelligent people who were respected throughout the world.
Now, we have no respect at all in the rest of the world. And quite frankly, it's embarassing.
But the right will have you believe that it is the fault of the Europeans...especially the French...and the fear and loathing machine gets cranked up all over again while we completely ignore our own responsibilty.
And the left, what's their deal? Grow some balls for crying out loud! And speaking of balls.... Message to Howard Dean: find someone who has the nuts NOT to pucker up and kiss the ass of the religous right. They have essentially hijacked a decent, albeit somehwhat misguided, political party. I would like to see both parties put candidates who are intelligent, strong, wise, educated, and thoughtful leaders who will keep their religious and spiritual beliefs to themselves. I consider myself to be a deeply spiritual man and I believe that my beliefs have no place whatsoever in the United States government.
Folks, really, do you think that things are going well? Seriously, I'd like to hear from you...
solidbond@mn.rr.com
3 comments:
The most significant problem I have with "liberals" today (your word, not mine) is the seemingly pathological need to lash out at anybody and everybody who questions their opinion. Don't support gay marriage? Then you're a bigoted bible-thumper. Don't support stem cell research? Then you can't see past your religious veil and understand modern science. Support the attack on Iraq? Then you have fallen into step with your neo-con buddies in the White House. Support tax cuts for wealthy individuals? Then you're in league with the Enrons of the world.
The liberal's inability to think beyond the black-and-white, us vs. them mentality will continue to prevent them from gaining a majority following in this country. I sincerely believe that any number of items on the liberal agenda could be achieved quite quickly if the champions of those items would simply stop ranting like raving lunatics. What made FDR, JFK, etc., great was not some alleged superiority in belief system. It was their ability to appeal to and work with a broader base through compromise for the greater good.
Like it or not, there are valid concerns with gay marriage, stem cell research, fanatical foreign regimes, and social security. Just because an administration that you despise to an unhealthy degree raises those concerns doesn't invalidate them.
Nobody that I know is against properly funding education or making sure that Joe Unemployed is taken care of. Most people that I know are against haphazardly throwing scads of money into the schools' coffers, or funding Johnny Crunchandmunch's meth problem. I can and will take being called "anti-education" all day before I agree to let some bleeding heart guilt me into coughing up money that I know is going to be wasted. If that makes me a neocon, GWB-ass-kissing prick, then I guess I'll just have to respectfully disagree...
Kerry and Bush's Vietnam records are irrelevant and were not worth the BS on both sides. Ask Bob Dole and John McCain how their war hero status helped them. Kerry had a very good chance at winning but pulling out his Nam buddies he ignored for thirty years out on the campaign was a little phony in my book. He had plenty of ammo against Bush without bringing war records into it. While we're on the topic, look up the military records of other great Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and FDR as well as Truman, who I don't recall as dripping with medals himself. It is nice if a President is a war hero but as Bill Clinton recently proved, it isn't necessary.
Another thing, heroes don’t shout. Before Kerry played his hero card he played the atrocity card. When Kerry came back from Vietnam he joined with Jane Fonda and in 1971 denounced those who wear the uniform as terrorists-like rapists and assassins who cut off heads, taped wires to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and said he committed the same kinds of atrocities as did thousands of others and he made these charges under oath. He could have attacked the war without attacking the warrior. He could have questioned policy without supporting the communists’ claim that our soldiers were war criminals. Kerry has shot himself in the foot politically by re-raising the angst of 35 years ago. Since he himself raised the issue via his strategy he needed to address the issue. Of course partisan republicans were not going to believe him since they would not believe a thing he said even if Christ himself appeared and attested it was the truth, anymore than partisan dems would believe GWB given the same circumstances. But partisans are not who he needed to convince: it's the swing voters and all these changes in stories about events insignificant for three decades hurt him.
Kerry made an issue out of Vietnam, his medals, his band of brothers, yaddadda, dem surrogates call GWB a draft dodger and then he expected GWB's supporters to not bring up the fact that he once made some bizarre statements about US Military atrocities in VN and that he once advocated putting the UN in control of our troops - Not to mention all his anti-defense & CIA votes. While I think his service in Vietnam should not be questioned it is legitimate to go after his entire record and that included Kerry's votes against virtually every new weapons system proposed during his time in congress, his votes to cut the intelligence budget, etc. etc. - that's not "questioning his patriotism", it's questioning his voting record for those who had trouble discerning one from the other. On a related subject, for the first time I saw Jane Fonda’s Vietnam footage the other night on TV and I’ve concluded that I would not walk across the street to even spit upon her, viewing my saliva too valuable to deposit on her.
I wouldn’t say that liberals feel instead of think but there is a fundamental difference between how folks arrive at decisions. I notice a lot of folks arriving at decisions on policies on feelings rather than rational thought. It happens in both parties however it is most prevalent in social issues. While we "ought" to do something because it makes us feel good and theoretically would address a social ill, that is hardly the reason for government to move forward. A great case in point of this notion is all the War on Poverty Programs put forward by LBJ and enacted by his democratically controlled Congress at the time. Government programs were going to wipe out poverty in a generation via transfer payments...well, poverty won that battle.
I think, and this is just my opinion with no research whatsoever to back it up from a third party, that liberals seem to approach policy with more of an emotional standpoint...hence the term "bleeding heart", a derisive term when spoken by a conservative, which I have used myself. See, liberals approach policy with an ideal in mind and an ideal is a departure from reality. Doesn't mean that is bad but often times, policy needs a here-and-now fix, which is not the ideal, but expedient.
On the other hand, conservatives approach government (or say they do) as something that should not be intrusive with the firmly held belief government will screw anything they try up, and reality seems to support that case.
So we have two entirely different points of view: the "government can make our lives better" versus "if you want your life ruined, just interject the government", battling it out. Moderates believe both, actually, and try to balance what the government could and should do with keeping them out as much as possible. And that requires thought and analysis of the long term impact of policy changes as well as the consequences of inaction and not the emotional yes or no of both wings of each political party.
With regards to the world’s opinion of the US, here's a few tips:
If you're Canadian, you're America Lite. You wish you were us, and you're gaining enough weight to keep up with us. Too bad you don't have oil or an army. STFU and praise us.
If you're Mexican, you're now Americans thanks to GWB. STFU and praise us.
If you're Germans, you still owe a lot of Jews a lot of money. And we've kicked your ass any time we've gone to war against you. STFU and praise us.
If you're French, you're lucky you're not German. You have good wine and cheese, and your people are thin. Good work. I'd be thin too eating snails and frog legs.
If you're British, stop complaining. I know the weather there sucks and puts you in a rotten mood and you wish we spoke the Queen's English but really...your monarchy is more impotent than our Presidents. You wish you had our California weather. P.S. you're also lucky to not be German.
If you're Spanish, please send some of your women over. They're very hot.
If you're African (other than S Africa and Egypt) - we're sorry about the whole slave thing. Now apologize for the AIDS thing. Thanks.
Arab countries - good work on finding all the oil. Now please give women some marginal rights (I know, they piss me off too sometimes) and stop this whole Jihad BS. It's really demeaning and we'd hate to have to show you how a real Holy War is done.
To the remainder of the European nations, excluding Holland - it's bad enough that you don't have Amsterdam. Don't compound matters and make me point out that you don't have New York or Chicago as well.
To Holland - could you move Amsterdam over here?
To the Pacific Rim - thanks for the stereos.
South Korea, I love your lust for video games but really, you're a giant country of nerds. If it wasn't for an American presence over there you'd be speaking North Korean.
Japan - All your bases are belong to us!
To the remainder of the countries (with the exception of China) - you're really of no consequence and I've gotten bored insulting the whole globe.
Except for China.
China - while I too can find girls a little irritating sometimes, I'm not a big fan of letting them die of exposure. (Exception - ex girlfriend Jennifer). I predict a massive marriage between you and Russia as thousands of Chinamen start buying Russian Mail Order Brides (just stay away from Anastasia Mishkina). This is probably going to collapse both of your economies and the good ol' USA will have to bail your asses out again. P.S. please stop stealing our nuclear secrets. Just because a President "sells" them to you, doesn't necessarily mean you should be buying them. I fear your nuclear weaponry may be no more potent than Miracle Whip (which is killing thousands, granted).
Thank you to all furr’ners, you have been chastised by Crabmaster Scratch.
Here are some thoughts on the replys to my posts.
The descriptions of liberals lashing out could just as easily be said of the so called conservatives. This is especially true of the enviroment we live in today. The government is not tolerant of gay marriage, stem cell research, or anti-war sentiment. The irony of all this is that if you are truly Christian than you should be accepting of everyone, strive to improve humanity, and abhor war. I am willing to give you the fact that there are plenty of liberals that contradict themselves but I think the hypocrisy runs much deeper on the other side of the aisle.
The yelling I see comes mostly from the right and my chief complaint about the left is that they don't yell at all because of the very things brought up in the first response. They are afraid that people will view them as "radical" or "anti-American." Isn't the very definition of conservative to view the world in a black and white way? Isn't the beef with liberals that they focus too much on the grey?
I also think that your view of Democrats and big government doling out money to welfare mothers is very anitiquated. Our government is bigger, spends more money, and is more bureacratic now than ever before and that is with conservative in office.
In regards to the second response, I think Kerry's whole Vietnam experience is a great example of something that should be put in the forefront. He joins the Army to serve his country. He acts heroically and saves lives. He sees fellow officers engaging in brutal behavior during the course of the war. (Isn't war that way anyway) He complains about it and the press, before they became lapdogs and dunces, exposes the atrocities we committed in Vietnam.
Years later, he talks about this and the right launches the most successful PR campaign since Goebells and the rest is history. Time and again, I read things like "It's Kerry's fault that he got ripped on Vietnam. He brought it up." Well heavens above if we actually have a Democrat who served his country in the military. Since when do the Republicans have the corner market on the Pentagon.
Truman served his country in WWI from the years 1917-1919. His service is well documented in his collection of letters written during the time and is available at his library.
In addition, I thought the comments at the end of the second post regarding other countries were quite funny and they should be spun off into their own blog.
Post a Comment