STFU 2011

If you missed the eminently missable SOTU 2011, the transcript is here. Tax cuts, defunding social security,[via] but not the war in Afghanistan. Is it possible that he really believes his proposals will actually arrest the long term decline of the US, rather than accelerate it? If Barry is really as smart as his apologists say he is, then you'd think he knows better.

BHO=GWB.

For years I believed the democrats were the good guys and the republicans were the bad guys. I even voted for Mondale in '84, as well as Dukakis and Clinton later on. Now I believe the democrats are the bad guys and the republicans are the bad guys, and the so-called tea partiers are just crazy and stupid, daydreaming about their cock-eyed vision of the pre-civil rights era. Bipartisanship, at least as as most people construe it is likewise delusional, a psychological crutch for those who want to believe the system still works, and don't want to see the rot. Don't get me wrong- I understand the desire to believe, but the only choice we have left is whether or not we withhold our consent. That's all they want from us anyway, the conferral of legitimacy. Our opinions about what they do tofor us are irrelevant.

Johnson's Innards

On January 13, at a Pentagon commemoration of Martin Luther King Day, Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel to the Department of Defense (sic) vomited in full view of his assembled fellow murderers and members of the press. Here is a taste (oh, sorry) of what he threw up:
“I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation's military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack,” he said.
Not yet having fully relieved himself, he followed this with a load of--well, I'll be delicate and just record that this resembled the first, but the method of delivery was different:
"Johnson compared today’s troops to the Samaritan, who chose to help instead of taking an easier path. 'I draw the parallel to our own servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, away from the comfort of conventional jobs, their families and their homes,' Johnson said."
He went on, by this time slipping and sliding in the reeking slime he had emitted, but still game:
"'Volunteers in today’s military,' he said, 'have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people.'"
With a few more grunts and splats, Johnson added, “Every day, our servicemen and women practice the dangerousness -- the dangerous unselfishness Dr. King preached on April 3, 1968.”
There was appreciative applause from the audience, who overlooked the contents of Johnson's innards, which had filled the room and was sliding in a great wave into the hall.
Source: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62448

Lost Hope

Here's something I wrote on my blog exactly two years and ten days ago:
December 29, 2008
I caught 60 Minutes last night. It was all about Obama and his successful campaign. The program showed past and present footage of his fight for the nomination, the democratic convention, and interviews with him, the first lady apparent, and many of his staff by Steve Croft.
Obama was his usual personable, articulate, winning self--and oh, how I wanted to love him and those beautiful teeth! What a terrific American story! How different he was from the mean, seemingly crazed, illiterate little jerk he'll succeed! Surely, surely, Obama will lead us out of the wilderness and...
But I had to remember the little boy with no legs and no right arm sitting with his friend on the ground in Iraq. Obama has never, in thought, word, or deed, been an anti-war candidate. I had almost forgotten my dismay when he chose Biden as his running mate. Wait--why was I so concerned? Why did I vote for Nader? BECAUSE BIDEN'S A WARMONGER, THAT'S WHY! And the other picks of "O" that have the neo-cons slavering with delight have been just as indicative of his war-business-as-usual stance. Emmanuel, Gates--Clinton, fer cryin' out loud!--and the rest, staunch child killers all.
One of the many difficulties of taking seriously members of the media is their obvious old boy (and girl) network. How can we believe they aren't influenced by their proximity to power? I saw Croft laughing and joking with Obama and Biden and--dare I say it?--sucking up to them. He was thrilled, clearly, to be one of the boys and, significantly, he didn't pose a single hard question about war, "defense," or killing children. None of them do because, if they did, they'd find themselves shut out of the interviews and exclusive chats and dinner parties for which they live.
Now the scene of the crime is Gaza, where the Israelis continue to murder with the aid and support of the U.S. And Obama has said nothing. Soon, we'll hear, I assume, a carefully crafted, perfectly craven response excusing our Jewish friends and justifying the slaughter.
And babies will continue to be massacred.
-------------
And here's a comment by my friend, Jim Wetzel:
"Obama was his usual personable, articulate, winning self--and oh, how I wanted to love him and those beautiful teeth! What a terrific American story! How different he was from the mean, seemingly crazed, illiterate little jerk he'll succeed!"
I know what you mean. I'm a sucker for -- at this point -- pretty much any officeholder who can speak extemporaneously in complete sentences. (Although it seems to me, in recent months, that Obama's abilities in this area have been eroding somewhat ... maybe it's the Curse of the Presidency or something.)
But, if the president's going to serve as an attendant to the war machine, as Obama gives every possible sign of being, I think it was better that the president be a thoroughly unattractive yokel. Plausibility in the service of evil seems much more dangerous to me than boorishness serving same.
My response:
You're right, Jim. I read on one of our like-minded blogs about O. being more dangerous than Bush. I thought, how silly, how stupid, what a dumb thing to say--. But no, it's perfectly true. He has the liberals--so starved for so long--absolutely determined to see no evil in the dear leader.
--------
And so it has come to pass. The antiwar movement has dropped dead and the citizenry, "liberals" and "progressives" included, continues its indifference to the death and destruction we inflict on the world. They enjoy the political theatrics and accept the lies because it's more comfortable. Nobody really subscribes to the idea of peace or the ideals of democracy anymore and you know, that's a shame. A crying shame.