Well, it was no surprise to see the Whitehouse gloating today about the failure of the House to pass a veto-proof S-Chips bill. The new press secretary actually stated that the vote was still another victory for the poor children in our country.
You know, it truly amazes me that the president of the United States and his lackies do not even know who the S-Chips legislation helps. Bush himself started the misinformation campaign when he claimed that the S-Chips program was for "poor" children. Of course, I don't think that Mr. Bush has had too much contact with poor children since he is from a wealthy family. But now, even his press secretary shows her ignorance by repeating the same nonsense.
Let's help these people out. "Poor children" are covered already by Medicaid. Got it? The S-Chips program covers those individuals who can't afford the outrageous premiums that insurance companies charge the rest of us.
The program also covers children who could not obtain private insurance due to pre-existing conditions which, of course, the insurance industry avoids like the plague. Anyone with a brain could not have missed this points if they watched any television news the last few weeks. With the exception of the Fox News folks who parrot Bush-talk ad nauseam, every network has described the program correctly.
It was encouraging that several House Republicans did vote against the president on this issue. While it is tempting to join in the strong condemnation of the Bush position on this subject as certain Democrats did, I believe that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's approach will more likely lead to a veto-proof bill in the near future.
If you watched the CBS News or Countdown tonight, you saws that an incredible 84% of Americans favor the S-Chips program and that 67% would be willing to pay higher taxes for the program.
I sent my own Congressman a message supporting this legislation but he's about as likely to vote for the bill as Rush Limbaugh is to praise it. However, the Republican party surely has the sense to figure out that this is still another nail in their coffins for the 2008 Election year.
I just keep asking myself: How can this be America? As Mrs. Pelosi pointed out, what we spend in a few weeks in Iraq would pay for the increase in the S-Chips program for a full year! These are our children and grandchildren we're talking about for God's sake. While Bush runs around saying he's protecting "poor children", he's really just protecting the private insurance industry.
I think that 14 votes can be obtained with a few small changes in this bill. Let's all tell our Congressmen and Congresswomen that we really do care about all of the children in this country.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
I'm sitting here listening to Pulizer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh (I've also seen the name spelled Hirsch) talking to Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air" about the Cheney, uh, Bush administration's plan to attack Iran. Although Mr. Hersh is one of the finest journalists on U.S. involvement in the Mideast, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Cheney and Bush having been pushing for a military attack on Iran for months, if not years.
For the last couple of years, the American public has been fed a steady line that Iran is "close to developing a nuclear weapon." Just as Iraq's WMD's turned out to be a load of manure, the intelligence on Iran's nuke program became less and less persuasive. In fact, the majority of the American public just didn't buy the "Iran nuke" capabilities at all. So, typical of the Cheney-Bush boys, when one "justification" for pre-emptive strikes against countries does not work, we've now been given a second reason for an attack: "We need to attack Iran because they support terrorists in Iraq."
Hersh points out in his article in The New Yorker that tactical nuclear attacks on Iran are unlikely. Instead, Cheney-Bush will most likely push conventional "surgical" strikes against specific targets such as the "Revolutionary Guard" in the country.
But, based on the Cheney-Bush administration's history of lying to the American public and the world in general, how do we know that the U.S. military won't use nukes.?
What Hersh also points out in his article and on Fresh Air is that there will have to be a ground force sent to Iran although it won't be a large. However, with our military, especially the Army and Marines, already spread out to the point of breaking, how can Cheney-Bush even consider this insane idea.
Hersh also makes a valid point that our diplomacy with Iran goes something like this: "Get your act straight, or we're going to blow the hell out of you." Hmm. Some diplomacy. Given the fact that we have actually just completed a successful diplomatic breakthough with one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil" countries (North Korea), why in the hell can't Cheney-Bush at least try talking to Iran?
At 60 years of age, I find myself becoming more and more disappointed in what passes as leadership in this nation. Not only are we "led" by a stoneage mentality president, our national media, with a few exceptions, are also following in perfect lockstep with this insanity. One of the exceptions is MSNBC and Keith Obermann in particular. ABC and CBS, on the other hand, have been showing us daily what a bad guy the Iranian president is. Just as almost all of the media practically acted as cheerleaders for our invasion of Iraq, those same reporters are frequently not asking the right questions in regard to Iran.
What are those questions? Well, for one thing, why do Cheney and Bush think that the U.S. should be the police force for the world? Secondly, with all the "bad" guys in the world, why do Cheney and Bush always want to attack Mideast countries? Could it be that "oil" is the reason for nearly all of Cheney-Bush thinking?
Folks, we've been here before. Just a few years ago, our president talked us into a war that we should never have fought. His advisors said the war would be over in a few months. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and then allowed several thousand Americans to die or suffer life-long physical and mental injuries. We were told that "freedom would be given to the people of Iraq. We were told that the infrastructure of Iraq would include improvements in schools, utilities and civil rights for women. NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED.
Please, let's call Cheney-Bush's hand on this nonsense of still another war. This will only end up being another way to kill Americans so that the military-industrial complex will be able to continue to make billions of dollars.
I, for one, am sick and tired of listening to Cheney-Bush lobby for attacking other countries while they veto health care for U.S. citizens, allow our infrastructure to collapse, and take our political freedoms away from us in the name of "anti-terror."
For the last couple of years, the American public has been fed a steady line that Iran is "close to developing a nuclear weapon." Just as Iraq's WMD's turned out to be a load of manure, the intelligence on Iran's nuke program became less and less persuasive. In fact, the majority of the American public just didn't buy the "Iran nuke" capabilities at all. So, typical of the Cheney-Bush boys, when one "justification" for pre-emptive strikes against countries does not work, we've now been given a second reason for an attack: "We need to attack Iran because they support terrorists in Iraq."
Hersh points out in his article in The New Yorker that tactical nuclear attacks on Iran are unlikely. Instead, Cheney-Bush will most likely push conventional "surgical" strikes against specific targets such as the "Revolutionary Guard" in the country.
But, based on the Cheney-Bush administration's history of lying to the American public and the world in general, how do we know that the U.S. military won't use nukes.?
What Hersh also points out in his article and on Fresh Air is that there will have to be a ground force sent to Iran although it won't be a large. However, with our military, especially the Army and Marines, already spread out to the point of breaking, how can Cheney-Bush even consider this insane idea.
Hersh also makes a valid point that our diplomacy with Iran goes something like this: "Get your act straight, or we're going to blow the hell out of you." Hmm. Some diplomacy. Given the fact that we have actually just completed a successful diplomatic breakthough with one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil" countries (North Korea), why in the hell can't Cheney-Bush at least try talking to Iran?
At 60 years of age, I find myself becoming more and more disappointed in what passes as leadership in this nation. Not only are we "led" by a stoneage mentality president, our national media, with a few exceptions, are also following in perfect lockstep with this insanity. One of the exceptions is MSNBC and Keith Obermann in particular. ABC and CBS, on the other hand, have been showing us daily what a bad guy the Iranian president is. Just as almost all of the media practically acted as cheerleaders for our invasion of Iraq, those same reporters are frequently not asking the right questions in regard to Iran.
What are those questions? Well, for one thing, why do Cheney and Bush think that the U.S. should be the police force for the world? Secondly, with all the "bad" guys in the world, why do Cheney and Bush always want to attack Mideast countries? Could it be that "oil" is the reason for nearly all of Cheney-Bush thinking?
Folks, we've been here before. Just a few years ago, our president talked us into a war that we should never have fought. His advisors said the war would be over in a few months. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and then allowed several thousand Americans to die or suffer life-long physical and mental injuries. We were told that "freedom would be given to the people of Iraq. We were told that the infrastructure of Iraq would include improvements in schools, utilities and civil rights for women. NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED.
Please, let's call Cheney-Bush's hand on this nonsense of still another war. This will only end up being another way to kill Americans so that the military-industrial complex will be able to continue to make billions of dollars.
I, for one, am sick and tired of listening to Cheney-Bush lobby for attacking other countries while they veto health care for U.S. citizens, allow our infrastructure to collapse, and take our political freedoms away from us in the name of "anti-terror."
Thursday, September 20, 2007
WHAT HAPPENED TO MR. "COMPASSIONATE" CONSERVATIVE?
I'm confused. Back when Gov. Bush was in Texas, he liked to call himself a "compassionate conservative." You know, the kind of conservative that cares more about the folks out there in voterland than the big, bad corporations. In fact, he even worked with the Democratic controlled Texas legislalure to at least give some validity to this "compassionate" leaning.
So, today, as I watched our fearless president jump all over Move-on.org's recent ad against the general that he put in a political situation, there was another story that showed where this man's heart really is. While a bi-partisan group in Congress proposed a bill that would add $35 billion to the S-Chips program for the children of our country, Mr. "Compassionate" shrugged and said "That's too much money. It might discourage people from getting private insurance."
Hmm. The S-Chip or State Children's Health Insurance Program was originally created in 1997 to provide health insurance to eligible uninsured children. On ABC's nightly news, several individuals who could not afford health insurance but whose benefits have been cut basically said without S-Chip benefits, their children would go without medicine or some other necessity like food (along with the parent, of course."
What part of the Chip program does this phony compassionate president not understand? He certainly has compassion for the military-industrial complex which will spend that $35 billion in Iraq in less than six months! But, hell, we're doing such great things for that country. Oh, most of the people still don't have water or electricity but we've "given" them such political freedom that they don't mind these hardships. Bull.
I'm not even sure that Bush knows the meaning of "compassionate." The man has refused to help those who need our help the most--our children. I know that George himself grew up with the same silver spoon that his father did. George and the rest of the Bush clan never had to worry where the money for food or prescriptions. Hell, Bush had a nanny for his twins when they were babies when the rest of us were changing diapers ourselves.
I urge you to write your Congressman and Senator to support the inclusion of this money into a plan that has actually helped people in this country. Let's not waste another minute on the fake compassion of our president.
So, today, as I watched our fearless president jump all over Move-on.org's recent ad against the general that he put in a political situation, there was another story that showed where this man's heart really is. While a bi-partisan group in Congress proposed a bill that would add $35 billion to the S-Chips program for the children of our country, Mr. "Compassionate" shrugged and said "That's too much money. It might discourage people from getting private insurance."
Hmm. The S-Chip or State Children's Health Insurance Program was originally created in 1997 to provide health insurance to eligible uninsured children. On ABC's nightly news, several individuals who could not afford health insurance but whose benefits have been cut basically said without S-Chip benefits, their children would go without medicine or some other necessity like food (along with the parent, of course."
What part of the Chip program does this phony compassionate president not understand? He certainly has compassion for the military-industrial complex which will spend that $35 billion in Iraq in less than six months! But, hell, we're doing such great things for that country. Oh, most of the people still don't have water or electricity but we've "given" them such political freedom that they don't mind these hardships. Bull.
I'm not even sure that Bush knows the meaning of "compassionate." The man has refused to help those who need our help the most--our children. I know that George himself grew up with the same silver spoon that his father did. George and the rest of the Bush clan never had to worry where the money for food or prescriptions. Hell, Bush had a nanny for his twins when they were babies when the rest of us were changing diapers ourselves.
I urge you to write your Congressman and Senator to support the inclusion of this money into a plan that has actually helped people in this country. Let's not waste another minute on the fake compassion of our president.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
How Stoopid Does Bushbrain Think We Are?
Firstest of all, I needs to interduce mahself. Mah name is Jed P. Fuddplucker but ewe kin jest call me Jed or P. if'n ewe don't have much time. Ah'm the falter ego of Mike Holmes, that leftwing feller who don't know he lives 'round nuthin' but John Birchtree folks in West Texas.
Bein' a falter ego is tuff coz Holmes won't let me out 'cept when he's sleepin'. Ah knowed that Mike's been p.o.'d 'bout this here feller in the Whiteouthouse up in Warshington D.C. this week coz his blud presure is way up. The title to this here blog (by firstest) is wot Mike haz ben thinkin' 'bout all week.
Ewe see, we cain't figger out this Bushbrain feller's fuzzy navel math. Back in Janary of this yeer Bushbrain dun talked us into surgin' a bunch more of our troops to Irack. Now, to me, we should never have ben thar in the firstest place. And it seemed that the folks who voted in 2006 dint think much of the war either. But here we wint and sint another 30,000 younguns to fite in that dern un-civil war. Sense then, the Irack polyticians ain't dun worth a bucket of warm spit in wot that Bushbrain feller said wuz there "benchmarks." Hell, Ah dint even know wot benchmarks wuz and I giss those Irackies dint either.
Enyhow, this last week Bushbrain wuz back on the tellervision jest tellin' us another bunch of lyes. Hell, when Ah see Bushbrain talk, Ah knows he's a lyin' wen Ah sees his lips movin' (Ah know that's an old joke but with this moron, it's true.) Hells bells, Bushy had this fellar Petrayus up afore them Congress folks havin' all kindy trouble with even the Republicanners.
An' wot duz Bushbrain cook up fer us pore feable peeple? Sez he's gonna bring 'bout 5000 troops home. Onliest trouble iz, those troops wuz do home anyway. Mah math ain't so good, but I reckon Bushy's "bringin' home" 'bout 2% of our youngun's and we all are 'sposed to git all teary-eyed that he's endin' the war. Pardone the Frenchy talk, but that's one lode of bullshit. Even Bushbrain sez the Irack folks ain't a'meetin' them benchymarks.
So, folks out thar in blogland, Ah'm back to mah 'riginal querstion: how stoopid duz Bush think we are? I know'd that one movie fellar named Forrest Gump sed "stoopid is as stoopid does" and I think that's Bushbrain's motto. Ever time Ah see this "feerless leader" who looks liken Alfred E. Newman, it makes me want to wake Mike Holmes up. But Ah giss Ah don't want to raise his bloodpressure. In fact, Ah think Ah feel Mike awakin' so I gotta git. This here is Jed P. Fuddplucker sayin' Ah'm sick 'n tired to all this Bush balony.
Bein' a falter ego is tuff coz Holmes won't let me out 'cept when he's sleepin'. Ah knowed that Mike's been p.o.'d 'bout this here feller in the Whiteouthouse up in Warshington D.C. this week coz his blud presure is way up. The title to this here blog (by firstest) is wot Mike haz ben thinkin' 'bout all week.
Ewe see, we cain't figger out this Bushbrain feller's fuzzy navel math. Back in Janary of this yeer Bushbrain dun talked us into surgin' a bunch more of our troops to Irack. Now, to me, we should never have ben thar in the firstest place. And it seemed that the folks who voted in 2006 dint think much of the war either. But here we wint and sint another 30,000 younguns to fite in that dern un-civil war. Sense then, the Irack polyticians ain't dun worth a bucket of warm spit in wot that Bushbrain feller said wuz there "benchmarks." Hell, Ah dint even know wot benchmarks wuz and I giss those Irackies dint either.
Enyhow, this last week Bushbrain wuz back on the tellervision jest tellin' us another bunch of lyes. Hell, when Ah see Bushbrain talk, Ah knows he's a lyin' wen Ah sees his lips movin' (Ah know that's an old joke but with this moron, it's true.) Hells bells, Bushy had this fellar Petrayus up afore them Congress folks havin' all kindy trouble with even the Republicanners.
An' wot duz Bushbrain cook up fer us pore feable peeple? Sez he's gonna bring 'bout 5000 troops home. Onliest trouble iz, those troops wuz do home anyway. Mah math ain't so good, but I reckon Bushy's "bringin' home" 'bout 2% of our youngun's and we all are 'sposed to git all teary-eyed that he's endin' the war. Pardone the Frenchy talk, but that's one lode of bullshit. Even Bushbrain sez the Irack folks ain't a'meetin' them benchymarks.
So, folks out thar in blogland, Ah'm back to mah 'riginal querstion: how stoopid duz Bush think we are? I know'd that one movie fellar named Forrest Gump sed "stoopid is as stoopid does" and I think that's Bushbrain's motto. Ever time Ah see this "feerless leader" who looks liken Alfred E. Newman, it makes me want to wake Mike Holmes up. But Ah giss Ah don't want to raise his bloodpressure. In fact, Ah think Ah feel Mike awakin' so I gotta git. This here is Jed P. Fuddplucker sayin' Ah'm sick 'n tired to all this Bush balony.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
STILL BLUE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS
It's the type of day on which we all remember where we were when it happened. September 11, 2001. That day joins the other "days of infamy" such as Pearl Harbor and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
I was in Leon, France with my wife as we were near of end of a wonderful European vacation when I saw the demise of the Twin Towers on CNN. We were in shock as was most of the world. The tour we were on consisted on one third Americans, one third Australians, and one third New Zealanders. Our Aussie and New Zealand friends had lost some people in the towers but their sympathy for us was tearfully comforting.
The French people were extremely gracious to us for the next several days even giving us free phone calls back to the states. The world grieved with us as our president vowed to "get those responsible" for what became known as simply 9/11.
Now, I sit here six years later only to see yet another Bin Laden videotape shown on my television set. I sit here six years later watching a general and an ambassador trying to justify our continuing war against a people and a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
I cried when I saw the towers fall. I cried when I saw the Pentagon hit and when the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. So did millions around the world but the pain and suffering caused by the terrorists on that fateful day has never been answered. Instead of going after the masterminds of the plot, our fearless team of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield et. al chose to send our volunteer troops into the wrong harm's way.
Why am I still so blue (here I describe the melancholy feeling, not the political blue) after all of these years? These six, long, deadly years? Well, for one thing new information keeps being uncovered that show that our president has lied to us from the very start about Iraq. Just last week, a September 6, 2007, article on Salon.com highlighted the facts that Bush knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. CIA director told him that his sources pointed out that no weapons existed but Bush just ignored him. The fact that Bush lied about the WMD does not surprise me. I'm not sure he's capable of telling the truth.
Does that really surprise anyone? Hell, even from my little spot in West Texas, I wrote against the war in Iraq on Epinions.com on January, 8, 2003. Bush didn't give a damn whether or not Saddam had WMD. His later reason that we entered the war to "free the citizens of Iraq" was also a load of manure. Hell, Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iraq for oil and revenge for Saddam's attack on the first Bush president.
And, more importantly and even more sinister, the Iraq war is simply the crowning achievement of an administration bound and determined to create an Imperial Presidency. On NPR's "Fresh Air" of 9/5/07, Charlie Savage summarized his findings about this topic. He's written a book entitled "In Pursuit of the Imperial President." The book is still more cause for me to be depressed or blue. I should have seen it coming. Savage points out that the neo-cons around Bush have been pushing for this new form of King Bush for decades. Cheney has been pissed off since Congress weakened the presidency during the days of his first boss, Tricky Dick Nixon. Savage has also written extensively about one major tool in the advancement of Imperial Presidency--the infamous signing statements.
Bush has utilized these signing statements more than any president in history to nullify or amend congressional bills as he signs them into law. This, along with the Bush administration's attacks on the rights of all citizens and ultimately on the U.S. Constition are enough to cause me to be permanently blue.
So, what can we do? What can I do? Well, for one thing, I would like to think that Congress is going to do something about all this insanity. We've had a lot of talk, but little action. I can write my Congressman and the Senators of Texas but, since they are all conservative R's, I won't get very far. I think that we all ought to "get mad as hell and not take this anymore" (to paraphrase a character in the movie "Network") and call for Bush's and Cheney's impeachment. They've lied; they've taken consitutional rights from us, they've ignored the law and put our young men and women in danger by re-defining "torture" and ignoring the Geneva Convention rules. It's time for Bush to come back to Crawford, Texas and continue to clear brush. At least there, he wouldn't be killing Americans.
I was in Leon, France with my wife as we were near of end of a wonderful European vacation when I saw the demise of the Twin Towers on CNN. We were in shock as was most of the world. The tour we were on consisted on one third Americans, one third Australians, and one third New Zealanders. Our Aussie and New Zealand friends had lost some people in the towers but their sympathy for us was tearfully comforting.
The French people were extremely gracious to us for the next several days even giving us free phone calls back to the states. The world grieved with us as our president vowed to "get those responsible" for what became known as simply 9/11.
Now, I sit here six years later only to see yet another Bin Laden videotape shown on my television set. I sit here six years later watching a general and an ambassador trying to justify our continuing war against a people and a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
I cried when I saw the towers fall. I cried when I saw the Pentagon hit and when the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. So did millions around the world but the pain and suffering caused by the terrorists on that fateful day has never been answered. Instead of going after the masterminds of the plot, our fearless team of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield et. al chose to send our volunteer troops into the wrong harm's way.
Why am I still so blue (here I describe the melancholy feeling, not the political blue) after all of these years? These six, long, deadly years? Well, for one thing new information keeps being uncovered that show that our president has lied to us from the very start about Iraq. Just last week, a September 6, 2007, article on Salon.com highlighted the facts that Bush knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. CIA director told him that his sources pointed out that no weapons existed but Bush just ignored him. The fact that Bush lied about the WMD does not surprise me. I'm not sure he's capable of telling the truth.
Does that really surprise anyone? Hell, even from my little spot in West Texas, I wrote against the war in Iraq on Epinions.com on January, 8, 2003. Bush didn't give a damn whether or not Saddam had WMD. His later reason that we entered the war to "free the citizens of Iraq" was also a load of manure. Hell, Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iraq for oil and revenge for Saddam's attack on the first Bush president.
And, more importantly and even more sinister, the Iraq war is simply the crowning achievement of an administration bound and determined to create an Imperial Presidency. On NPR's "Fresh Air" of 9/5/07, Charlie Savage summarized his findings about this topic. He's written a book entitled "In Pursuit of the Imperial President." The book is still more cause for me to be depressed or blue. I should have seen it coming. Savage points out that the neo-cons around Bush have been pushing for this new form of King Bush for decades. Cheney has been pissed off since Congress weakened the presidency during the days of his first boss, Tricky Dick Nixon. Savage has also written extensively about one major tool in the advancement of Imperial Presidency--the infamous signing statements.
Bush has utilized these signing statements more than any president in history to nullify or amend congressional bills as he signs them into law. This, along with the Bush administration's attacks on the rights of all citizens and ultimately on the U.S. Constition are enough to cause me to be permanently blue.
So, what can we do? What can I do? Well, for one thing, I would like to think that Congress is going to do something about all this insanity. We've had a lot of talk, but little action. I can write my Congressman and the Senators of Texas but, since they are all conservative R's, I won't get very far. I think that we all ought to "get mad as hell and not take this anymore" (to paraphrase a character in the movie "Network") and call for Bush's and Cheney's impeachment. They've lied; they've taken consitutional rights from us, they've ignored the law and put our young men and women in danger by re-defining "torture" and ignoring the Geneva Convention rules. It's time for Bush to come back to Crawford, Texas and continue to clear brush. At least there, he wouldn't be killing Americans.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Being Blue in a Red Zone
This is my first attempt at entering the blogosphere. I'm a late bloomer into this electronic world but I've noticed some great writing on blogs so I thought I would throw my hat in the ring.
The title to my blog refers to the fact that I am a Liberal in the middle of one of the "reddest" political zones in the country--Odessa, Tx. Both Daddy Bush and W Bush lived here in earlier days and the majority of folks still buy most of the nonsense that our clueless leader in Washington spews forth.
About this color thing. Red. Hmm. Seems I remember a time when that color was equated (especially by card-carrying Joe McCarthy-like Republicans) with that evil menace known as the Soviet Union. Those of us old enough to remember the 50's amd 60's remember the RED SCARE. Hell, we even had drills in my elementary school to "protect ourselves" in event of nuclear attack or tornado by hunkering down under our desks. Man, I felt safe.
Anyway, Red is now the color code for the R's while Blue is used for Demos. I know it really started on the election nights when the media moguls wanted to differentiate between parties on the maps but I stiil think it funny that R's are represented by Red.
I propose a number of other colors for our political maps. Purple has already benn used by Time and Newsweek to signify the reality that most states have significant elements of Blue and Red. Green enclaves could exist throughout the country for environmentalists who want to save our planet. I think many members of both parties should be given a special Yellow designation for failing to stand up to Bush on Iraq and abuses of our civil liberties. Hell, Congress, for the most part, still acts as though Shrub (to borrow Molly's nickname for W) is popular in this country.
Bush has reached new lows in popularity in this nation and he has caused us to be the most hated country in the world. I have another special color for W, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rove-Zebra. For their actions which have violated the rights of every member of our society in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, this gang of four should be outfitted in the same outfits that prisoners wear.
The possibilities for color-coding our political maps are endless. I'm end my little blog here and ask for any suggestions the reader might have about content or "colors for the map."
The title to my blog refers to the fact that I am a Liberal in the middle of one of the "reddest" political zones in the country--Odessa, Tx. Both Daddy Bush and W Bush lived here in earlier days and the majority of folks still buy most of the nonsense that our clueless leader in Washington spews forth.
About this color thing. Red. Hmm. Seems I remember a time when that color was equated (especially by card-carrying Joe McCarthy-like Republicans) with that evil menace known as the Soviet Union. Those of us old enough to remember the 50's amd 60's remember the RED SCARE. Hell, we even had drills in my elementary school to "protect ourselves" in event of nuclear attack or tornado by hunkering down under our desks. Man, I felt safe.
Anyway, Red is now the color code for the R's while Blue is used for Demos. I know it really started on the election nights when the media moguls wanted to differentiate between parties on the maps but I stiil think it funny that R's are represented by Red.
I propose a number of other colors for our political maps. Purple has already benn used by Time and Newsweek to signify the reality that most states have significant elements of Blue and Red. Green enclaves could exist throughout the country for environmentalists who want to save our planet. I think many members of both parties should be given a special Yellow designation for failing to stand up to Bush on Iraq and abuses of our civil liberties. Hell, Congress, for the most part, still acts as though Shrub (to borrow Molly's nickname for W) is popular in this country.
Bush has reached new lows in popularity in this nation and he has caused us to be the most hated country in the world. I have another special color for W, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rove-Zebra. For their actions which have violated the rights of every member of our society in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, this gang of four should be outfitted in the same outfits that prisoners wear.
The possibilities for color-coding our political maps are endless. I'm end my little blog here and ask for any suggestions the reader might have about content or "colors for the map."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)