I'm angry

[LadyJeanne]

I'm angry that we have spent over $179 billion (and counting) in Iraq on this damned war with no actual progress in fighting against terrorism. I'm angry that our funds are being wasted in Iraq rather than on measures to protect us from terrorism.

http://costofwar.com/

I'm angry that it takes a tragedy like that in London today to make people realize that fighting a war in Iraq will in no way prevent a war on our own turf.

I'm angry that our National Guard is mired in Iraq instead of available to protect our nation at home, as per their mission:

"To provide trained and disciplined forces for domestic emergencies or as otherwise provided by state law."

I'm angry that our Coast Guard's fleet is in disrepair and the Bush administration wants to increase the replacement time from 20 to 25 years, leaving our ports vulnerable.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-coast-guard_x.htm

I'm angry that terrorists target the innocent.

I'm just fucking angry.

My heart goes out to our friends in England and around the world.

 

[rgraham666]

*HUGS* LadyJ.

This too shall pass.

 

[oggbashan]

Who told you that the war in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism?

According to some sources, Saddam Hussein was on Al-Queda's list of targets.

Iraq and terrorism are different wars. Afghanistan was connected to terrorism. So was Libya. Remember Lockerbie?

Libya has renounced terrorism. Afghanistan is not the training ground for terrorists that it used to be. They train in London, Paris, New York...

Og

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'm angry that the escape clause in Bush's 2006 budget has allowed a reduction from 10,000 new border patrol guards to 210 new guards. Yet, of course, no expense spared for Iraq.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL

I'm angry that US border patrol agents have been sent to train forces protecting Iraqi borders, leaving our own vulnerable.

"For nearly a year, U.S. Border Patrol and Customs agents, both now working under U.S. Customs and Border Protection, have been quietly dispatched to help establish Iraq's new Department of Border Enforcement."

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=99805

I'm angry that this administration continues to pull the wool over our eyes, and succeeds in distracting us from the real problem by harping on the US manufactured problem in Iraq.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Who told you that the war in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism?

Og

GWB & Co. won an election by telling us that the war in Iraq had everything to do with terrorism. No, I didn't believe him. But 51% of Americans apparently did.

 

[oggbashan]

GWB & Co. won an election by telling us that the war in Iraq had everything to do with terrorism. No, I didn't believe him. But 51% of Americans apparently did.

Is that the same 51% who believe they were abducted by aliens from UFOs?

Og

 

[LadyJeanne]

Is that the same 51% who believe they were abducted by aliens from UFOs?

Og

Too bad the aliens returned them in time to vote last November.

 

[oggbashan]

Too bad the aliens returned them in time to vote last November.

But were they the same people or were they controlled by implants in their heads?

Og

 

[LadyJeanne]

But were they the same people or were they controlled by implants in their heads?

Og

I believe it must be control by implants. How else could they believe gay marriage was a bigger threat than the Bush administration?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Is that the same 51% who believe they were abducted by aliens from UFOs?

Og

No, no. These are the 51% who saw Elvis at the Mini-Mart.

 

[logophile]

I'm angry too, LadyJ.
And just so so so sad.

*There's no crying smilie - why is that?*

 

[oggbashan]

They're not doing so well over here. Tony Blair was returned to power with a minority of the vote and still has a large majority in Parliament.

Maybe our aliens don't understand the British sense of humour. Tony Blair, tried and tested friend of George Bush, is so far to the left of the Democrats that they would reject him in terror. He took away all pistols and rifles even from our Olympic shooters. The cost of welfare is still sky-high despite his changes and he is so soft on crime despite all his statements to be 'Tough on Crime;Tough on the causes of Crime' that he has passed a law to make 24 hour drinking available anywhere if you are over 18 or over 16 if you have a meal with it.

Og

 

[LadyJeanne]

No, no. These are the 51% who saw Elvis at the Mini-Mart.

If only he had been singing, Return [Bush] to Sender...

 

[Despina]

How else could they believe gay marriage was a bigger threat than the Bush administration?

Have you seen some of the dykes out there?

*drool*

 

[LadyJeanne]

Have you seen some of the dykes out there?

*drool*

Yes, but the ladies just wanna fuck you, not fuck you over.

 

[BlackShanglan]

They're not doing so well over here. Tony Blair was returned to power with a minority of the vote and still has a large majority in Parliament.

Maybe our aliens don't understand the British sense of humour. Tony Blair, tried and tested friend of George Bush, is so far to the left of the Democrats that they would reject him in terror. He took away all pistols and rifles even from our Olympic shooters. The cost of welfare is still sky-high despite his changes and he is so soft on crime despite all his statements to be 'Tough on Crime;Tough on the causes of Crime' that he has passed a law to make 24 hour drinking available anywhere if you are over 18 or over 16 if you have a meal with it.

Og

I've always found that intriguing, as well as the way he made the transition from Clinton to Bush. Rather glad he did, though. It might not be much, but at least someone has Bush's ear now and then. I think he does what he can.

 

[oggbashan]

I've always found that intriguing, as well as the way he made the transition from Clinton to Bush. Rather glad he did, though. It might not be much, but at least someone has Bush's ear now and then. I think he does what he can.

Whichever party is in power in the UK, the government is an ally of the US. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party are committed to NATO and although both may be critical of some aspects of US foreign policy, when the chips are down both will support the US whether in power or not.

Only the Liberal Democrat party in the UK was against the Iraq war up to the point when our troops went in. Then they followed the convention in the Houses of Parliament - once our Armed Forces are committed then they get support from all Members of Parliament, Lords and Commons. Only AFTER the deployment of troops has ended do we argue about the rights and wrongs. We DO NOT second-guess commanders in the field. We give them a task and let them do it as professionals.

Og

 

[Guest]

I'm angry too, LadyJ.
And just so so so sad.

*There's no crying smilie - why is that?*

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/traurig/105.gif


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/traurig/whine.gif


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/traurig/3.gif


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/traurig/5.gif


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/traurig/heul.gif


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/traurig/smilehuilend.gif

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Is that the same 51% who believe they were abducted by aliens from UFOs?

Og

I believe it's the 51% who found John Kerry as appealing as a cold barium ennema and the Democratic party's platform only slightly more so.

There are some far right fundamantalists who voted against gay marriage, but it's stupid and self defeating to lable anyone who didn't vote for the democrats as idiots. Rather than constantly deride them, de cry them, villify them and heap scorn upon them, why don't you try taking alook at the things that movtivated them? I guarentee you a lot more held their nose and voted Bush than gleefully did so.

I know there are a lot of folks, myself included, who would have been happy to vote for someone other than Bush, if the alternative candidate had had any merit. I voted third party, because I couldn't support Bush and I wasn't about to support Kerry. Many didn't feel they had that option.

If your party, had the brains god gave gnats, instead of raining hate upon people, you would look at their fears, their aspirations and their problems and adjust your efing platform to adress some of those. Instead you bitch, whine, moan, complain, and sneer. And it's why you lost this time around and why you are laying the ground work for having your asses handed to you the next time around too, no matter how badly Bush screws up.

Bill Clinton was the worse thing that could have happened to the Democratic party. He was the worse thing because he had lessons to teach. But it appears the only people who were listening were the Republicans. Clinton, whom I despised, understood you had to deal with people at the personal level, you had to speak to the things that most worried them, the things they were most insecure about, the things that mattered to them on a day to day basis. Jobs I believe was what he felt most people were worried about. The GOP is doing that while the Dems keep right on hurling insults at those fears, needs and concerns.

So while you continue to assuage your anger by villifying them and comparing them to loons, the vast majority will continue to worry about the things that most affect them, and the GOP will continue to speak to those concerns.

But I am beating my head against a wall, because I haven't met a liberal yet that wants to hear it. Those who don't support you are just fucking stupid backward ass country fucks. Strange how this country has developed isn't it, with over half the population just too stupid to see it your way.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I don't care who voted for Bush. I don't care where they live or what motivated them or even if there were any shenanigans in the voting protocol that made it happen. It happened.

What matters now is what Bush is doing now that he's won his second term. What matters now is what the citizens of the United States think of what he's doing. What matters now is whether we will sit back and accept his agenda or protest it. What matters now is whether we will remain content to go shopping to support our economy while spending billions on a useless war. What matters now is whether we will demand that our representatives in Congress force this administration to focus on actually protecting our country instead of strip searching 80 year olds at airport security.

What matters now is figuring out what it will take for Bush & Co. to take the reality of terrorism seriously.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't care who voted for Bush. I don't care where they live or what motivated them or even if there were any shenanigans in the voting protocol that made it happen. It happened.

What matters now is what Bush is doing now that he's won his second term. What matters now is what the citizens of the United States think of what he's doing. What matters now is whether we will sit back and accept his agenda or protest it. What matters now is whether we will remain content to go shopping to support our economy while spending billions on a useless war. What matters now is whether we will demand that our representatives in Congress force this administration to focus on actually protecting our country instead of strip searching 80 year olds at airport security.

What matters now is figuring out what it will take for Bush & Co. to take the reality of terrorism seriously.

And that's exactly what I am getting at. You don't care who voted for him, or how he got elected, or how he wound up with majorities in both houses. You now want him to do particular things but you don't have any leverage.

If you took a look at who voted for him and why, and you addressed their concerns in a meaningful way, you might be able to win back some seats in congress. You might, just might, be able to establish a counter balance to him and his cronies, by giving him a senate he has to work with rather than a rubber stamp. If you managed to take away his party's majority in the senate, you would force him to moderate and to listen and you could, via that majority, stop him from taking the most egrigious of actions.

But as long as the people who voted for him are a running punchline to you he's going to keep wininning and retain a free hand to screw up as he pleases. It's a little late in the game to demand he act like a statesman, when your contempt for those who supported him has given him the power to act like a ceasar.

 

[LadyJeanne]

And that's exactly what I am getting at. You don't care who voted for him, or how he got elected, or how he wound up with majorities in both houses. You now want him to do particular things but you don't have any leverage.

If you took a look at who voted for him and why, and you addressed their concerns in a meaningful way, you might be able to win back some seats in congress. You might, just might, be able to establish a counter balance to him and his cronies, by giving him a senate he has to work with rather than a rubber stamp. If you managed to take away his party's majority in the senate, you would force him to moderate and to listen and you could, via that majority, stop him from taking the most egrigious of actions.

But as long as the people who voted for him are a running punchline to you he's going to keep wininning and retain a free hand to screw up as he pleases. It's a little late in the game to demand he act like a statesman, when your contempt for those who supported him has given him the power to act like a ceasar.

That's a great point, Colly, and I have no doubt at all that you are correct. That's exactly what I do in my job every day as I try to help two global companies work together, and I see the value in understanding the 'other side' and addressing their concerns in such a way that we can ultimately find some common ground and work from there. It takes a LOT of effort, you have to take the time to develop trust and some degree of respect for each other.

You also can't take anything personally - it's just business. Unfortunately, that's exactly where I have a huge problem when it comes to politics. It is personal and it's hard to separate beliefs and logic, particularly when it seems we don't debate issues in this country in an effort to come to agreement or find common ground. We don't even debate. Issues are raised, sound bites are issued, the rhetoric and misinformation flies around for a bit, and we vote with our gut without having any meaningful discussion that could possibly lead to understanding and compromise.

It's almost impossible to develop trust and respect for the other's viewpoints when we're not even interested in debating the same things or even how to debate. Do I think the issue of gay marriage is important? Absolutely. During this last election, did I think that every brain cell we spent worrying about gay marriage took away from discussion about the priority each candidate would place on safeguarding our infrastructure and chemical plants and borders and railways from terrorist attacks? Absolutely. How can I focus on addressing an ingrown toenail when I see the bleeding head wound? How can I respect the doctor who does?

The punchlines, while distateful, are a coping mechanism. Without the black humor, I'd live every day in despair and hopelessness.

Not enough coffee - don't know if this made any sense...

 

[BlackShanglan]

You also can't take anything personally - it's just business. Unfortunately, that's exactly where I have a huge problem when it comes to politics. It is personal and it's hard to separate beliefs and logic, particularly when it seems we don't debate issues in this country in an effort to come to agreement or find common ground. We don't even debate. Issues are raised, sound bites are issued, the rhetoric and misinformation flies around for a bit, and we vote with our gut without having any meaningful discussion that could possibly lead to understanding and compromise.

It's almost impossible to develop trust and respect for the other's viewpoints when we're not even interested in debating the same things or even how to debate.

<...>

Not enough coffee - don't know if this made any sense...

It did to me. I agree with Colly and with this. Until we've learned to talk to each other and to debate issues in a meaningful way, we're going to be stuck at the "team sport" level of political discourse.

I'll go a step further. I believe that our political leaders like it that way. One can look at it through the lens of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," a superb essay in which he discusses why political leaders have a vested interest in making language meaningless and in manipulating emotions while leaving reason untouched. Or one can look at it as an embodiment of modern business practice and see this all as a massive "branding" exercise. The key thing is not to enumerate specific advantages, but to create a recognizable brand with warm, fuzzy emotional connotations. On the whole, we've got Madison Avenue meeting Big Brother. Pollsters and image consultants don't like having to deal with issues, which can be complex, difficult to understand, and rather dull to explain. They like people with a strong brand loyalty who can be swayed by a simple, consistant emotional message.

That this is true I think is supported by several recent political events. Take, for example, the redistricting of Texas, which led to such comical events as the entire Democratic legislative body decamping to another state. One heard a great deal about Democrats losing seats. What made less news was the even more ruthlessly destroyed minority: split ticket voters. The redistricting was clearly and directly targeted at districts that traditionally voted one way for federal representation and another for state, or who voted mostly one party but had a favorite congressman or senator of the other whom they kept electing. Nearly all of these districts were eliminated or so substantially reworked that the split ticket base was now the minority. Politicians and political consultants don't like split ticket voters; they aren't reliable and they don't have a strong enough brand loyalty to just vote the straight ticket. They question who and what they are voting for. Hence, they were broken up and split out amongst the more reliable population.

Similarly, I think that in all fairness anyone who watched the televised debates on the California governorship would have to come to the conclusion that there was one and precisely one man who showed up ready to to actually govern the state. This was the Republican candidate who had been the leading pick before Schwarzeneggar threw his hat into the ring. He had plans and ideas, he had figures to fund them, and he was also able not only to spell out his own concepts, but to accurately present and rebut the ideas that the opposition had brought to the table. The rest of the debaters spent most of their time trying to work in "zingers" and puff for the cameras. And who got the nomination? The poor man's party sold out their own candidate despite him clearly being the one for the job and went with the recognizable brand name with broad non-political appeal.

More unfortunately still, they were right. He won. And there's the rub. So long as we keep debating this way ourselves, and so long as we keep electing them when they do it, they'll keep it up. Every election year the quality of candidates is miserable, and every year we hear the same thing, a little more plainly stated each time: "Yes, he's a weak candidate, but you don't want THEM to win, do you?" If we don't demand better than that, that is all we're ever going to see. And politicians and their handlers will be happy, because it's a lot easier to do that than to try to develop and enunciate a coherent and substantial platform.

Fight now while we can. Otherwise, we'll always have been at war with Oceania.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's a great point, Colly, and I have no doubt at all that you are correct. That's exactly what I do in my job every day as I try to help two global companies work together, and I see the value in understanding the 'other side' and addressing their concerns in such a way that we can ultimately find some common ground and work from there. It takes a LOT of effort, you have to take the time to develop trust and some degree of respect for each other.

You also can't take anything personally - it's just business. Unfortunately, that's exactly where I have a huge problem when it comes to politics. It is personal and it's hard to separate beliefs and logic, particularly when it seems we don't debate issues in this country in an effort to come to agreement or find common ground. We don't even debate. Issues are raised, sound bites are issued, the rhetoric and misinformation flies around for a bit, and we vote with our gut without having any meaningful discussion that could possibly lead to understanding and compromise.

It's almost impossible to develop trust and respect for the other's viewpoints when we're not even interested in debating the same things or even how to debate. Do I think the issue of gay marriage is important? Absolutely. During this last election, did I think that every brain cell we spent worrying about gay marriage took away from discussion about the priority each candidate would place on safeguarding our infrastructure and chemical plants and borders and railways from terrorist attacks? Absolutely. How can I focus on addressing an ingrown toenail when I see the bleeding head wound? How can I respect the doctor who does?

The punchlines, while distateful, are a coping mechanism. Without the black humor, I'd live every day in despair and hopelessness.

Not enough coffee - don't know if this made any sense...

It did, and my reaction is anoher symptom of taking it personal. My whole immediate family voted for GWB. That's three decorated veterans, 4 lawyers, 2 It professonals, a warehouse manager, a retired Rn, 4 school teachers and a mechanic. There isn't a UFO sighting among them, nor do they have more than one or two missing teeth. Most of them are significantly more intelligent than the average liberal yahoo slinging mud and I am sick of it. So you aren't alone in taking it personally. No offense was meant.

It's just that the people who voted for Bush did so for reasons. It's not one reason, gay marriage. Or two gay marriage and religion. It's fifty howeverodd many million reasons. It is the heighth of folly to lump them all together as idiots and go along merrily expecting the smart people to vote next time around. They are people, just like the people who voted for Kerry, and if you don't speak to them, to their wants, their needs, their fears and their aspirations, they are going to vote republican again. Because the GOP is speaking to them.

I haven't seen a democratic or liberal pundit, here or anywhere else, sit down and ask why they lost. I see wild-assed consipracy theories of Diebold intervention, vicious stereotyping of anyone who voted Bush as beneath contempt and a lot of rhetoric about how poor a choice Bush was compared to Kerry. A whole lot of crying in their coffe, lashing out at the Majority who betrayed the country and not one tiny bit of soul searching.

As a conservative, that kind of reaction should make me as gleeful as it does Coulter or Rush. But I'm a conservative who sees that my party has sould out to the far religious right and to a bunch who are conservative in name only. It's disheartening to see the only party that currently has a chance of unseating them acting so self centeredly blind.

The neo cons who control the GOP right now aren't unbeatable. The religious right, for all it's rhetoric isn't a monlithic structure, there isn't some vast united front there. It's a few very loud, very fundamentalist jerks, with a hell of a lot more conservate, but not reactionary and even moderate and liberal Christians who make the back bone of it. And those people are there only because they feel their religion is under attack and to fightback they have joined hands with the lunatic fringe, since that fringe promised to put a stop to it.

The Democratic party, it seems to me, is acting like a British Captain in the 18th century. Prepared to stick to their principals and not budge an inch and in doing so go down with the ship, rather than roll up their sleeves and help the others bail.

I do totally apologize if the tone of my earlier posts made it seem personal.

 

[LadyJeanne]

So long as we keep debating this way ourselves, and so long as we keep electing them when they do it, they'll keep it up. Every election year the quality of candidates is miserable, and every year we hear the same thing, a little more plainly stated each time: "Yes, he's a weak candidate, but you don't want THEM to win, do you?" If we don't demand better than that, that is all we're ever going to see. And politicians and their handlers will be happy, because it's a lot easier to do that than to try to develop and enunciate a coherent and substantial platform.

You've hit the nail on the head, my friend. I remember during the Democratic debates, after everyone already decided that Kerry was the most 'presidential' of the bunch, that Dennis Kucinich was practically laughed off the stage each time he wanted to focus on domestic issues such as jobs and health care. I'm not saying he was the best candidate, but he sure had some substantial things to say and no one wanted to listen. I don't doubt that he received a similar brush-off when the Party was developing its platform, whatever that mysterious process might be. Not because he wasn't making sense, but because that kind of thing doesn't sell.