Dissolve into Evergreens
This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography and personal observations. Thank you for reading.

Current Playlist

Top 100 in iTunes

juscuz's Last.fm Overall Artists 


Atom Site Feed

B4 d- t k s u- f i- o x-- e- l- c+


< ? Colorado Blogs # >

« - ? Blog Oklahoma * # + »
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
guilt by fallacy
Think Progress ? UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans:

"LAUER: Katie pressed him [Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?"

Yes, and yes, and yes. Because receiving money from clients and associates is beside the fact and only cofuses the issue. Abramoff worked for the GOP, not the Dems.

Just because the republicans want to try to pull the democrats into this with guilt by asssociation it does not mean that this scandal effects both parties equally.

Move Rovian langauge from the lying sacks of shit at the GOP:

"The United States faces a ruthless enemy, and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in," Mr. Rove said. "President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said, referring to the program in which the National Security Agency eavesdropped on conversations without getting a warrant from a judge. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Once again we get false association. This time by suggesting that there is this laudable goal which we should all support and then suggesting that by disagreeing with the president, then democrats, and people like myself who think the president is goin about this all wrong, are in fact wanting to help the terrorists and put american lives in danger.

I mean seriously, you really do have to have a malfunctioning critical thinking capacity in order to swallow this shit.

Its not either or.

I could say:

"I plan to launch a nuclear strike on Canada to prove to the terrorists that America will not be cowed, that we will not take acts of terrorism lying down and that the american people are the hardest working, most moral people in the world, who will stand behind me to do what is needed to keep all our precious little baby's safe from our enemies!!

There are some who disagree with me."

Mind you I think most people would disagree with attackng Canada (except maybe a few people, maybe...) but I can frame it as if opposing the policy means opposing all the other shit I've said as well.

Read Rove's statement again. He declares that President Bush and the GOP understand the nature of the threat facing America. I disagree, I think they completely miss the point of trying to combat terrorism, with Iraq being the prime example of their own incomprehension. Witness the recent elections in Palestine, where a democratic process is clearly working against our stated goal of reducing the threat of violence to America and our allies. That example is not necessarily Bush's fault but it does put a lie to the claim that democracy in the middle east will somehow magically solve our terrorist problem.

I agree with wat Rob said recently:

To get what we want in the Middle East, it’s neither necessary nor sufficient to promote democracy (that is, popular election of leaders). For democracy to work, it needs to be “reality-based,” not a popularity contest between fanatics making promises based in fantasy and theology. We need to promote secularism, transparency, rule of law, respect for minority rights, free market capitalism, “corrupt” western culture, consciousness of universal values beyond clan, ethnicity and religion, and the idea that only civility can produce the kind of decent life these people deserve. Yes, that takes time. But there’s no faster alternative that works – trying to rush it just puts the power of sovereign states in the hands of the people with the craziest platform.

If you read what Rob wrote in the bold type, that is the antithesis of the Republican party. Here in the states, they play footsy with the theocrats, they try to cover up their obvious corruption, they play favorites with their political allies and fundraisers in a bold display of blatent cronyism, and they take advantage of the ethnic and religious divisions in this country to win elections.

Its as if they are trying to bring the best of all the world's most disfunctional governments right here to the United States. Sometimes it feels like we're just short of having Bush stand on a balcony shooting a gun in the air.


About Me

35 yr old
Highlands Ranch
Recording Engineer
Voted for Kerry
Voted for Obama
Philosophical Type
Omicron Male
Feminist Friendly
22.3% Less Smart

Any Box


Barack Obama Logo
Get Firefox!

Dissolve into Evergreens