Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Rita is Looking Hellish

With luck, it will calm down a bit -- I cannot believe it's under 900 millibars...and the fine print (in another NOAA doc from tonight) is that the 898 is probably high, as it wasn't taken in the eye. Dig. So, basically, this could be the strongest storm ever in 150 years of recorded weather data. Just what we need.

This storm is currently both bigger and more powerful than Katrina, and will probably match Katrina when it hits.

I'm so glad we're wasting personnel and money in Iraq, for no good reason, when we have no need for the National Guard at home.

I hope these storms betoken the end of the 35-year-long "neoliberal/neoconservative" Republicrat reign. Sure, I'd take Clinton or Carter over Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush any day, but neither "Democrat" was anything like an actual Democrat.

I'd like to see some good old fashioned social program spending and infrastructure rebuilding. Not to mention fiscal sanity, and a new acknowledgement that there is a wall between Church and State in this country. And about two dozen more things; see rest of blog!

Take this country back from the oilgarchs, Christers, and moron-neocons in 2006 and 2008!

9 Thoughts:

Blogger A.T. said...

Ah, the return of "the Christers" Doug. And scads of f-bombs to boot. More than a bit frustriki, are we?

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Very frustiki, Allen. Very pissed off.

Aren't you? If not, why not?

Are you telling me that you actually think this administration is "conservative" -- still? They're robber barons and religious freaks -- I mean, Bush has said God talks to him. Does God talk to you? Does that govern how you do your job?

Throw in the neocon ideologues and you have a stew of unreality and incompetence that leads to what you've seen.

Or have you missed it?

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:40:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allen, people of your political and particular religious persuasion (but perhaps not you) were happy to see a competent President impeached for A BLOW JOB -- and that inquiry ate up $40m on Whitewater nothingness before an ex-Nixon aide got a young girl to squeal on the Prez.

A BLOW JOB! Please!

But crippling debt, missing Bin Laden, destroying FEMA with OUTRAGEOUS political appointees, rampant cronyism, a pointless lie-based war in Iraq, destroying civil liberties with the Patriot Act(s), and on and on...causing the DEATHS of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis and radically worsening our position in the world, which was essentially completely on our side on 9/11/01...no, none of these things can stack up to lying about a blow job.

Ya see, THAT'S what I don't get. And I'm not sure the best use of my time is trying to get it. I think I understand the irrationality behind it; I'm focusing my efforts on fighting and reversing it. We had an attempted coup d'etat in 1998, an actual one in 2000, and an almost certainly stolen election in 2004.

With the results (and much more besides) outlined above.

Ergo: I...AM...PISSED...OFF!

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:10:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

Sure, there's frustration, Doug, some aligned with yours, much not. I think you grossly oversimplify the Clinton matters, as is common on the Left these days(any memory of ChiCom fundraising, for example?), but that's neither here nor there. I do think that you and your compadres have been seeing GOP Boogeymen around every corner, lately, to a ridiculous degree. I'm not going to debate every post for the past month; it's simply a general observation. When every problem is seen, at its root, to have political or cultural opponents - "the GOP" or "conservatives" or (the insulting*) "Christers" as its cause, and with intentional and wicked motives most importantly - then life will be incredibly frustrating indeed. While I see sociopolitical liberals and general self-centeredness as being at the root of many ills, I rarely see the broad destructive intent that you put on your political opponents.

*[re "Christers," you may recall this:]

http://cyberpols.blogspot.com/2005/06/counter-boycott-christian-right.html

(I know, I know, learn the HTML tags for hyperlinks...)

To refresh your memory, a part of our comment exchange went like this:

At Sunday, June 12, 2005 11:59:27 PM, Allen Thornburgh said...
Usually you guys get normal references to link. This - I haven't even heard of the newssource before - is just bizarre. First, "Christers?" Is the writer trying to coin a new label? Haven't heard that one before.

At Monday, June 13, 2005 8:11:04 AM, Doug said...
Hey, Allen!

Thanks for your comments. I know that you are not this kind of Christian rightist -- and "Christers" is definitely meant as an insult to specifically these folks, not to anyone who believes in Christ, in whatever form. But it is meant as an insult.


All of which is to say that I hadn't seen you take this rhetoric as your own until now and it surprised me a bit.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:13:00 AM  
Blogger A.T. said...

The "out" is obviously that, as you say, you're not insulting moi or people like me. I get that, I guess. But I'm simply not sure what the "bad" Christian segment is out there that is causing such great harm. The natural term of derision these days is "fundamentalist" but insofar as it means those that are convinced of the veracity of the Gospel and the need to rely upon Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, well you're stuck with lumping me in with that group I'm afraid. I guess I just don't know how you differentiate between the "wacky" Christian Right and Christians who are sincere but somehow more reasonable in your view.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:23:00 AM  
Blogger pawlr said...

For what its worth, my 2 cents: the main distinction I draw between "good" Christians and "bad" Christians:

Bad Christians - eschatalogical obsession with Revelations or the end times, bigotry, hatred of people with other personal preferences, narrow mindedness, lack of respect for the scientific method, denial with regards to manifest social ills, a smug self-satisfaction among some wealthy Christians with regard to their deservedness.

Good Christians - genuine concern for the welfare of others, kindness, following Jesus' example in their daily life, tolerance, loyalty, devout, down to earth belief systems that cherish love and friendship between fellow people. A sense of responsibility towards less fortunate people and an abiding gratitude for the joys they experience. Concerned with caring for a world and environment entrusted to them by God. Following scripture by not trying to second-guess God's plan re: the Apocalypse but striving to make the world a better place each day. Taking nothing for granted.

Obviously an oversimplification, and there's a lot of both in every person, religious or secular. But what I see reflected in the policies of the ruling party is a lot more of the "bad" Christian stuff and not much of the "good".

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:34:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Basically, pawlr said it all.

Allen, if you can't tell the difference between a Dominionist at a Sunday Justice rally and Jimmy Carter, well, not much I can say.

And I'm not lumping you in with the wackos.

I defy you to compare Clinton to Bush negatively in any sense. No need to go there, though, as you won't be able to, as we won't agree on what's "bad" I'm afraid.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:01:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Furthermore, on the past month's posts: Have you not noticed that the rest of the country mostly agrees with US?

Bush's numbers hit 32 in some polls. Nixon was at 25 when he resigned. The interesting question is why anyone still supports this criminal administration.

"Wild-eyed liberal" only gets you so far. I think you care more about what a person actually believes rather than what a person actually does -- or fails to do. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I see no possible way for you to still support Bush without hewing to what you think are his good intentions.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:04:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Finally, on seeing "broad destructive intent" -- have you ever considered that those people we're pissed off at have not only broad destructive intent but have broadly destructive results?

1. Katrina non-response (the feds portion of the blame)
2. Giant tax cuts for the wealthy, driving up the deficit; massive spending (oh, how conservative!) and weakening our economy for ideological and simply incorrect reasons
3. Outing CIA agents for political reasons
4. The Iraq War
5. The Patriot Act(s)
6. Knocking down the wall between Church and State, which Roberts claimed not to understand. I'm sure you have no problem with this, but every single founder would and did. Every one, despite "scholarship" by rightwing Christian fundys to the "contrary."

Those are six off the top of my head. This administration is running the US into the ground. What you see is the result of their ideological bent: fundamentalist Christian, neocon, or simply crony-capitalist.

You claim not to have followed the Abramson story. You should. Makes "ChiCom" look like zilch. Showing secrets to AIPAC? Are you kidding me?

Are you happy that Bush put obviously unqualified people in FEMA? That led to needless deaths, by the way. Of people, not embryos. Some culture of life. And, two weeks after Katrina, he wants to put a 36-year-old with virtually zero experience in charge of one of the most important agencies in the vaunted "war against terror." They are either incompetent or something far worse. But never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice as an explanation.

All you zero in on is "Christers" and a vague observation that we cyberpolers have somehow gone off the deep end in the past month, during which hundreds of people were (dare I say it) "Left Behind" in NOLA and elsewhere. During which Iraq has slid ever closer to civil war. During which a USSC nominee was deciding Hamdi in the admin's favor while being concurrently interviewed by that admin for a Court seat. Hmmm...if that had happened under Clinton...

And, as you know, I am not a huge fan of Clinton. I simply show the difference between his admin's performance and this one's. It takes a whole lot of handwaving, for whatever conscious or unconscious reasons, to not see the obvious truth that we were far better off under Clinton than under Bush, even granting a certain amount of luck, etc.

This president didn't even want to have an investigation on 9/11. Didn't want one -- fought to the death over it!!! How do you explain that? Any normal country would have opened an investigation immediately, out of self-interest.

Well, I'm done. That, plus everything else I've ever written that you've read, is why I am appalled. I have worked to learn why the other side is appalled and why they think the way they do (generalizing here). I think I get it now, and it looks like blindness and unreality to me.

You said that voting for Bush was based on one issue: abortion. (On your blog.) I find this amazing, if not surprising. There is no way that anyone on "our" side will be able to convince you that not only is abortion a footnote to the massive life-threatening problems our planet faces, but that it is also easily avoided. We worked that out a while ago, but since I didn't accept your worldview-initial position, the posited and reasonable conclusion that in the real world abortion could be minimized to a trickle had little effect.

I guess that's the difference between being results-based and reality-based and being first-priniciples-based and faith-based.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:49:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home