Pages

Monday, June 23, 2008

I Piss On Bush's and Cheney's Heads

This article made me seethe, and cry.

Haditha was a slaughter, perpetrated upon innocents because supposedly the US military on the scene believed they were under fire.

If this was true (and it fucking isn't), then why did they shoot two babies? Did the babies have their hands on any triggers? Were they holding the pins from recently-tossed grenades? Were they busily using their Legos to build IEDs?

The leader of this gang, Sgt. Wuterich, says he would do it all over again. One of his Marines said this:

"I know it was a bad thing what I've done, but I done it because I was angry TJ was dead and I pissed on one Iraqi's head."

NONE of the perps have been or will be punished. I am at a loss for words.

Yousef Aid Ahmed, the sole surviving brother of what used to be a large family, told the McClatchy News Service:

"We put our hopes in the law and in the courts, and one after another they are found innocent. This is an organized crime."

How eloquent (because of course, we don't expect him to be), how un-jihadist (because of course, we don't expect him to be) of him, n'est-ce pas?

This is what happens when BushCo, in proven cahoots with the insular, useless American media, only depict people of the Middle East as turban-wearing, dress-wearing, barefooted, machine-gun-toting, Allah-ululating, effigy-burning fanatics. When you can succeed in depersonalizing an entire country of human beings, when you can succeed in depicting them as non-human beasts, then it makes it easier to slaughter them, wipe them off the face of the earth, get them the fuck out of the way so that Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, the French company Total, and BP can waddle back into Iraq and take all the oil, conveniently when oil is hopefully (for those no-bid contract winners) moving towards $200 a barrel.

And you succeed in creating Haditha. A gory, ugly, terrible, senseless act within a much larger, much more despicable, gigantic crime, for which its perpetrators will also remain unpunished.

Can I go to the White House and piss on Bush's and Cheney's heads? I would get arrested. Isn't that ironic?

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Obama "Disappoints"

I can say that now. Disappoints. It's because I spent the last few hours pounding the keys, wearing off all the cuss word keys on my laptop, telling Obama that the next time he asks me, the little person, for my $25 or $50 contribution, I'll tell him to go pound sand up his Telecom-funded ass.

Oh, did I mention that I'm pissed off about FISA?

Ok, I'm much calmer now. The cat can come out from under the covers. The boyfriend can come home from his walk. Here's a few measly little thoughts that I have:

  1. The government could listen in on the telephone calls of potential criminals before FISA. They just had to get a court order. Which doesn't take years, or months, or in emergencies, even days. No. It takes a few hours. But the government decided that they needed to trump up an excuse to grab more power, so they whined that they should not have to go through "all the trouble" of getting said court order, and many uninformed people (meaning our elected representatives in Congress) thought that this didn't sound unreasonable, and so FISA was born.
  2. THERE IS NO FUCKING THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES THAT REQUIRES EXCESSIVE SPYING ON REGULAR AMERICAN CITIZENS, OK? It's a fucking lie.
  3. Barack Obama is supposed to be the candidate that rises above all this happy horseshit and guides us sensibly out of this fucking mess that BushCo put us in. Instead, he bends over and takes it in the ass along with those useless excuses for representatives of the people (Pelosi and Hoyer), and actually says that the recent FISA compromise was a good one! He makes some vague statement that it wasn't the best compromise, but it was a good one. And he'd try to do something, although he didn't know if he could be successful at doing that vague something, to get rid of the bill later on, at some vague time in the future when he hopes that we all forgot his heresy.
Fuck that. Fuck him.

Oh. And I'm still voting for Obama, the devil I don't know, because McCain is the devil I know.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Paul Bremer: Don't Care A Damn About The Underclass

I've believed for a long time that BushCo really doesn't care at all about the little people. Like me. And you. And all the Iraqis, except the ones they need to translate and/or play puppet government with. Everybody else is just chaff. We worker bees are pesky, pestilential. We also tend to fuck a lot and multiply. Oh darn.

The BushCo reaction to Katrina screamed of this dismissive attitude. Kanye West summed it up when he said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." There was such a hue and cry about Kanye's simple, but dead-on assertion. But there's always a hue and cry when the evil doers righteously deny their evil doing.

But until now, I'd never found any direct quotes by a BushCo employee that clearly indicates this attitude. I'm sure there are more (let me know, my 30 million loyal readers, and I'll add them to this post), but I want to record this one, which I found in an article on The American Prospect called Muqtada's Got a Posse (worth reading the entire thing. It discusses all the myths about Muqtada al-Sadr):

Paul Bremer's shocking declaration, as recounted by Ali Allawi, that Bremer "didn't care a damn about the underclass and what they [the Sadrists] represented!"

Things I Think About In The Middle Of The Night

I'm a former marketing person. I spent too many years trying to make silk purses out of sows' ears. Or shit taste like chocolate. Expensive chocolate. So, I pay attention to stuff that other people don't. I read the underlying message of the message. I try and figure out what emotional hook advertisers, and politicians are simply advertisers, are employing to sell their products. There is always an emotional hook. If you think you make buying decisions based on facts and figures, or if you think you do not fall prey to manipulative advertising, think again. Just watch all four segments of this film and you will know what I mean.

So, I woke up pondering something in the wee hours this morning. It was after I read the article about McCain and Bush raising $3 million at a private fundraiser in Phoenix. The party was at somebody's house. So, it's probably safe to assume there weren't thousands of people there, especially since tickets ranged from $1000 to $25,000 each. So, those individuals were forking out loads of cash. It is said that some wrote $100,000 checks.

What are the individuals who write that size of a check for McBush hoping to preserve? Their wealth perhaps? The "safety" of our country? Have they really fallen for that Big Lie? Are they buying favors? You expect the favor-buying to happen at the PAC and corporate giving level. So, I'm not sure what these individuals think about when they support McBush.

In contrast, what is on the mind of a person who donates $25 online to Obama's campaign?

I don't have any facts. I'm just saying there's a contrast to ponder.

I'm sure there are "little people" who donate a few bucks at a time online for McBush. But I doubt the McBush campaign focuses on them. I'm also sure that there are wealthy people who donate to Obama's campaign. I know Obama is not taking corporate, lobbyist or PAC donations during this campaign, but I also know he took those kinds of donations before he officially declared. He's taken money from the defense and insurance lobby. So, his hands are not clean. Neither are Hillary's.

I'm implying that wealthy Republicans are less noble than grassroots lower-to-middle class Democrats. That wealthy Republicans are grasping and greedy and unkind and could give a shit about their country, they just want to preserve their own lifestyle. I'm implying that lower-to-middle class Democrats are altruistic and hopeful that they can change the country to be a better place to live, for everyone, even the hoi polloi. I'm implying that Republicans are not nice people, and that Democrats are nice people. Which is unfair because there are probably at least three nice Republicans...somewhere.

Do wealthy Democrats feel the same way as their not-so-wealthy Democrats? Do they donate to a candidate for the same reasons as wealthy Republicans? What is going on when wealthy neocons donate to Democratic campaigns? What was Rupert Murdoch thinking when he donated to Hillary's campaign? What was he hoping to gain?

Do not-so-wealthy Republicans see things the same way as wealthy Republicans...that they want to preserve their lifestyle or hold on to their "wealth" if and when they get wealthy? Or is it them that have fallen for The Big Terrorists n' Mexicans n' Heathens n' Homos Are Going To Kill Us Lie?

Where does the image of the old-time conservative fit in, the ones who believed that individuals and their government should be fiscally responsible and that wealth allows for philanthropy. Or is this a Big Lie too? I know I used to feel that way. When I was climbing the corporate ladder, I wanted to hold on to my wealth and at the same time, give back to my community and to those less blessed.

From a marketing perspective, when Republicans craft their message, are they dishing out fear pablum (terrorist threats, xenophobic threats) for the masses and wealth preservation winks n' nods (if you give me your money, I'll give your company war contracts or favorable legislation, and I won't tax you - my wealthy friends - just the hoi polloi) to the wealthy?

When Democrats craft their marketing message, do they tell one story to the "regular guy" (we'll give you a voice, you count, you can make a difference, you won't be a victim anymore) and another story to the wealthy and powerful (Don't worry about what I say about NAFTA, I really didn't mean it)?

Just wondering.