"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

January 26, 2005
Things I'd Rather Not Say

I think that disagreeing, no matter how violently, with Condaleeza Rice's politics and single-minded 'loyalty' to George Bush is not a reason to vote against her as Secretary of State. Much as I dislike the entire Bush cult of little yes-men, I find myself doubting that Congress's power to "advise" encompasses the right to vote against someone because you dislike their politics. The issue should be whether or not she's qualified to be Secretary of State. Of course, for the record, I should make it clear that I totally approve of using the nomination hearings to scold the Bush Administration, though. The White House isn't much about listening to anyone who isn't lockstepped into their mindset. These confirmations hearings are among the only times you can be sure someone is actually paying attention.

(On the other hand, if you're Gonzales, then you deserve to have your nomination fail because your devotion to working around the law instead of upholding it makes you unfit for the office you're seeking.)

I don't care about Bush's $40M inauguration, okay? His financiers donated most of the money privately and it wouldn't have gone to the troops anyhow. Why does everyone talk about that figure like it was yanked directly from the DoD's multi-billion dollar budget? Let's talk instead of about the figure the government (i.e., we, the taxpayers) paid for security for that mess. Like over $20 million shelled out by the Feds and the perennially cash-strapped DC? (Or, we could laugh about how the group who pretends they're liberating the world now have to move around inside a rocket-launcher protected 'bubble' because the world is so much worse off than it was four years ago.)

Does the figure $1.7 billion ring any bells with you? It should. Hundreds of billions of dollars ago, it was what we were told would be the USofA taxpayers' contribution to reconstructing Iraq. (Probably the Bush Administration, if they discussed it, which they won't and we don't seem to have an honest journalist left in the country who will ask directly, would say that the $300 Billion price tag we're facing so far isn't about reconstruction, it's about fighting the war. As I understand it, almost none of the "reconstruction" money seems to have been spent.)

The Bush Administration could not be happier about the massive budget deficit and the stumbling economy. Sad, but true. They're delighted. This is exactly what they need as an excuse to further slash already crippled social programs. This is exactly the excuse they need to justify more depredations on the Head Start and the FDA and the EPA and other social and environmental programs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

They want this deficit. They want the country lumbered with a gargantuan debt for decades to come, don't you understand? Their intent is to destroy as much of the government as they can. Past Republican excesses in this line have already directly contributed to people getting hurt and they've just begun dismantling the ecology. They fantasize about a world where the government exists to maintain an army and to make sure corporations aren't prevented from making profits any way they want. And that's about all they care about. (Okay, a couple of them also want to control your sex life, but that's a different rant.)

It's like the Social Security "crisis." It's all a lie. Many people have been pointing this out for a long time. Some are still mentioning it from time to time. The reason Social Security is predicted to be unable to meet its obligations is because the government spends the money on other things.

Another "pundit" comes out of the closet and admits to taking government funds to push the Administration's agenda. But we forgive her. Apparently the $20,000+ she received just slipped her mind, as did the fact that she was paid another $20,000 to 'write a report' on the same subject for the Bush Administration. She just forgot about $40,000, that's all.

I do want to say that I applaud those people, here and there, fighting to take back control of the country from the corporations.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:24 AM


Comments