God Rigs Election: It's Bush In A "blowout"
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
Will you vote for do-it-yourself diplomacy?
Just so we can avoid any boring Canada-US barbs, let me begin by making it clear I am not a Canadian. Fate happens to have left me domiciled in Canada for the foreseeable future, but I’m actually British by birth, citizenship and inclination. So if anyone wants to attack what I’m about to say on the basis of its ethnic or nationalist source, please be advised that while I may defend myself as a Brit, in that process I will at least acknowledge your barbs. Attacking me as a Canadian, however, will merely be treated as poor comedy.
Now to the point. Though I have a much deeper and heartfelt admiration and respect for the European way of life than for the North American, on balance between Canada and the U.S.A. I am usually found expressing more empathy with American attitudes and ideals than Canadian ones. The problem is, however, that every now and then the ‘evil empire’ stupidly unmasks itself, and reveals itself to be totally unworthy of the mantle it wears: that of the New Romans. This unmasking is usually accomplished by some jumped up hillbilly or group of them, most often strutting the hustings under a Republican banner.
These people appear so moronic that they don’t even realise the measure of disappointment, disrespect and sometimes outright hatred they spawn throughout the world. As with the Romans of old, we all look the U.S.A. to provide leadership not just in affairs of capitalism and military adventure, but also in matters of civility, individual freedom, justice, modern aesthetic refinement and representative democracy. While we may kid and banter with Americans, most of us have known Americans on a one to one basis, and invariably find them decent and honourable people. We happily do business with them; share their joy over triumphs such things as moon landings and their outrage and sorrow over events like the 9/11 Attack or the Kennedy assassinations; respect their faiths; admire their courage and determination; enjoy their wit and humour and at times even share their battlefields and bedrooms. No matter how much we may grow to like the average American, however, it seems there is always some Republican hayseed standing in the wings waiting to let his or her side down. Case in point:
I’m sure most of those decent Americans, even some who support the Republican Party, are offended by Rumsfeld’s extremism, but stop and consider for a moment how this looks to those of us outside the U.S.A. We look at this Bush league moron, and ask ourselves: if this man has that little respect for the rights of his own citizens, what on Earth does he wish upon us?
Politically Incorrect was just a TV show, but that’s what makes this turn of events so worrying. It would have been so easy for Rumsfeld to offer a tacit defence of the sponsors’ and network’s actions. He could have pointed out that no one prevented Maher from speaking his mind. The sponsors merely voted with their wallets by choosing to stop supporting Maher’s public forum. Business as usual for the network too, they decided not to continue airing a program that no longer had financial patrons. We might not have liked hearing that, but we could not have argued with the logic. After all, we all enjoy the same freedom. We can stop patronising those sponsors and even avoid watching other ABC TV broadcasts in protest. That basic brand of liberty, however, is of no value to the hayseeds of the G.W. Bush White House.
The world has seen leaders of this ilk before. In every corner of the ancient world such unprincipled tyrants have time after time pushed the boundaries of credibility until their extremism incites mass carnage. When the smoke clears and thousands lie dead, the unfit leaders may at last be recognised for the dangerous creatures they are. Too late. Our cities are ruins and our loved ones are reduced to dust and ash. Those of us who try to remember and live with our Old World heritage are not inclined to let it happen again. It’s far too easy to dismiss Rumsfeld’s words as a slip of the tongue; a simple man momentarily unable to express a complex ideal, but he was not being asked to explain rocket science. He was being asked to state his position on one of the most basic freedoms of all, the freedom to think and express one’s thoughts. What do you think the cancellation of Politically Incorrect says about that freedom Mr. Rumsfeld?
Go ahead, reelect the Bush cabal in 2004. It’s your country and the rest of us have no business meddling in your democratic process. Be aware, however, that with this gang of uncivilised backwoods barbarians in charge, your country will not have leadership capable of nurturing the goodwill most of the world still feels toward ordinary Americans. The Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to carry your torch abroad. With this nepotistic band of criminals in charge, the task of maintaining what goodwill still exists toward Americans will fall solely to you, the individual American, because your leaders have proven they are not equal to the task. They even disrespect you, so we know they must hate the rest of us with a passion.
If you want to pay your politicians for this quality of service, that’s up to you. The history of the Old World is full of examples of the price you may have to pay for giving tyrants the benefit of the doubt. Be our guest, ignore our common blood soaked heritage at your peril. Just be aware that it’s a peril we may avoid sharing if we possibly can.
Just so we can avoid any boring Canada-US barbs, let me begin by making it clear I am not a Canadian. Fate happens to have left me domiciled in Canada for the foreseeable future, but I’m actually British by birth, citizenship and inclination. So if anyone wants to attack what I’m about to say on the basis of its ethnic or nationalist source, please be advised that while I may defend myself as a Brit, in that process I will at least acknowledge your barbs. Attacking me as a Canadian, however, will merely be treated as poor comedy.
Now to the point. Though I have a much deeper and heartfelt admiration and respect for the European way of life than for the North American, on balance between Canada and the U.S.A. I am usually found expressing more empathy with American attitudes and ideals than Canadian ones. The problem is, however, that every now and then the ‘evil empire’ stupidly unmasks itself, and reveals itself to be totally unworthy of the mantle it wears: that of the New Romans. This unmasking is usually accomplished by some jumped up hillbilly or group of them, most often strutting the hustings under a Republican banner.
These people appear so moronic that they don’t even realise the measure of disappointment, disrespect and sometimes outright hatred they spawn throughout the world. As with the Romans of old, we all look the U.S.A. to provide leadership not just in affairs of capitalism and military adventure, but also in matters of civility, individual freedom, justice, modern aesthetic refinement and representative democracy. While we may kid and banter with Americans, most of us have known Americans on a one to one basis, and invariably find them decent and honourable people. We happily do business with them; share their joy over triumphs such things as moon landings and their outrage and sorrow over events like the 9/11 Attack or the Kennedy assassinations; respect their faiths; admire their courage and determination; enjoy their wit and humour and at times even share their battlefields and bedrooms. No matter how much we may grow to like the average American, however, it seems there is always some Republican hayseed standing in the wings waiting to let his or her side down. Case in point:
shereads said:
I’m sure most of those decent Americans, even some who support the Republican Party, are offended by Rumsfeld’s extremism, but stop and consider for a moment how this looks to those of us outside the U.S.A. We look at this Bush league moron, and ask ourselves: if this man has that little respect for the rights of his own citizens, what on Earth does he wish upon us?
Politically Incorrect was just a TV show, but that’s what makes this turn of events so worrying. It would have been so easy for Rumsfeld to offer a tacit defence of the sponsors’ and network’s actions. He could have pointed out that no one prevented Maher from speaking his mind. The sponsors merely voted with their wallets by choosing to stop supporting Maher’s public forum. Business as usual for the network too, they decided not to continue airing a program that no longer had financial patrons. We might not have liked hearing that, but we could not have argued with the logic. After all, we all enjoy the same freedom. We can stop patronising those sponsors and even avoid watching other ABC TV broadcasts in protest. That basic brand of liberty, however, is of no value to the hayseeds of the G.W. Bush White House.
The world has seen leaders of this ilk before. In every corner of the ancient world such unprincipled tyrants have time after time pushed the boundaries of credibility until their extremism incites mass carnage. When the smoke clears and thousands lie dead, the unfit leaders may at last be recognised for the dangerous creatures they are. Too late. Our cities are ruins and our loved ones are reduced to dust and ash. Those of us who try to remember and live with our Old World heritage are not inclined to let it happen again. It’s far too easy to dismiss Rumsfeld’s words as a slip of the tongue; a simple man momentarily unable to express a complex ideal, but he was not being asked to explain rocket science. He was being asked to state his position on one of the most basic freedoms of all, the freedom to think and express one’s thoughts. What do you think the cancellation of Politically Incorrect says about that freedom Mr. Rumsfeld?
Go ahead, reelect the Bush cabal in 2004. It’s your country and the rest of us have no business meddling in your democratic process. Be aware, however, that with this gang of uncivilised backwoods barbarians in charge, your country will not have leadership capable of nurturing the goodwill most of the world still feels toward ordinary Americans. The Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to carry your torch abroad. With this nepotistic band of criminals in charge, the task of maintaining what goodwill still exists toward Americans will fall solely to you, the individual American, because your leaders have proven they are not equal to the task. They even disrespect you, so we know they must hate the rest of us with a passion.
If you want to pay your politicians for this quality of service, that’s up to you. The history of the Old World is full of examples of the price you may have to pay for giving tyrants the benefit of the doubt. Be our guest, ignore our common blood soaked heritage at your peril. Just be aware that it’s a peril we may avoid sharing if we possibly can.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Oh yeah? Well what about how you people treat your janitors? I remember poor Sid Dithers going on strike at SCTV when he was denied the right to a half-hour lunch break, a six-day workweek and no windows on Christmas. Hinterland Who's Who indeed.
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
Re: The unmaking of a liberal candidate by the "liberal press"
Dean is now getting the demonizing treatment, just like Gore did in 2000.
The "Liberal Media" is now mostly a right-wing boogie man, since the right-wingers discovered they could buy those pesky liberal media outlets and turn them to their own purposes. That's what we have now.shereads said:
Dean is now getting the demonizing treatment, just like Gore did in 2000.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
AHEM. PAGING COLLY & OTHER CLOSET LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
From salon.com, the dirty on O'Neill's book. Particularly note the paragraph I highlighted just for you, near the bottom. Like I said, all that matters to me is that he can document this stuff. It's about time.
---------
He cannot tell a lie
When Democrats charged that President Bush was unfit for his job, Bush's defenders dismissed it. But now Paul O'Neill, a classic GOP insider, says the same thing -- and it's even worse than you've heard.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal
Jan. 15, 2004 _|_ One of the operating political assumptions of the Bush administration is that the checks and balances have essentially been checked. Every Democratic effort to launch an inquiry in the Senate into the Bush administration's actions, from its abuse of intelligence about WMD in Iraq to its energy policy, has been suppressed. The watchdog press has been kenneled. Bush refers to it dismissively as "the filter" and his chief of staff Andrew Card tells the New Yorker this week that it is unrepresentative and there is no reason to treat it otherwise.
But the implacable wall has been cracked by an insider's surprising confessions, "The Price of Loyalty," as related by journalist Ron Suskind. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, fired and forgotten, mild-mannered and gray, appears an unlikely dissident speaking truth to power. He was, after all, the CEO of Alcoa, a pillar of the Republican establishment.
More is involved with him than pride and pique. While O'Neill records slights and is being dismissed by some as a dotty reject, he does more than tell a few tales and confirm a few suspicions. The attack on him, consistent with Bush administration efforts to intimidate anyone who challenges the official version, underscores the inherent fragility of Bush's public persona, upon which rests his popularity. Bush's greatest political asset is his image as a strong, decisive and masterful commander in chief who also happens to be a nice man. Alongside him, Vice President Dick Cheney is viewed as the sagacious Nestor. Unlike other critics and the Democratic candidates, O'Neill's persuasiveness and his long-term damage to these icons comes from having served for years in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and in his firsthand critique of a government radically unlike any before it, especially Republican ones.
O'Neill's threat is to a president unusually dependent in an election campaign on fear and credibility to sustain the sense of power and inevitability.
O'Neill sounds an alarm against an unfit president who lacks "credibility with his most senior officials," behind whom looms a dark "puppeteer," as O'Neill calls Cheney, and a closed cabal. "A strict code of personal fealty to Bush -- animated by the embrace of a few unquestioned ideologues -- seemed to be in collision with a faith in the broader ideals of honest inquiry."
He is upset at the regular violations he sees against his notion of "sound" government. There is, he concludes, "a pattern: either no process, or a truncated one, where efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."
Invading Iraq was on the agenda of the first meeting of the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, which O'Neill attended, months before 9/11, and pushed relentlessly. Regressive tax cuts creating massive deficits were implemented without economic justification as "the administration has managed to kill the whys at every turn."
When the political team distorts basic economic numbers on tax cuts and inserts them into the 2001 State of the Union address, O'Neill yells, "This is complete bullshit!" It is "something that knowledgeable people in the U.S. government knew to be false." The business executive is shocked at the derogation of policy in favor of corporate special interests -- a "combination of confidentiality and influence by powerful interested parties" -- at the expense of even scientific evidence. He learns that moderate Republicans such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, EPA Director Christie Whitman (whose effort to affirm policy on global warming is in her word "slaughtered" by Cheney and the politicos), and he himself "may have been there, in large part, as cover."
These icons were packaged with White House assistance under the imprimatur of Bob Woodward in "Bush At War." In it the president has a searching mind, seeks conflicting advice and puts policy above politics. "He had come to believe that a president should not store up political capital." He has a "philosophy" and a "vision" of "preemptive and, if necessary, unilateral action to reduce suffering and bring peace." Cheney is his wise and trusted mentor, an "efficient, solid rock": "These days he [Cheney] was worried about nothing less than the future of the world." And Bush had "found that when Cheney asked questions it was worth listening to them." These Soviet-style encomiums lack only the parenthetical: (stormy applause).
In O'Neill's firsthand account, however, Bush appears as a bully, using nicknames to demean people. He appears querulous (When Bush orders a cheeseburger and it doesn't arrive quickly, he summons his chief of staff. "'You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting us some cheeseburgers?' Card nodded. No one laughed. He all but raced out of the room"). He appears manipulated ("'Stick to principle' is another phrase that has a tonic effect on Bush" -- it was used by his senior political adviser Karl Rove to push for additional tax cuts). He appears incurious and, above all, intently political. When Bush holds forth it is often to demonstrate that he's not Clinton. He informs his NSC that on Middle East peace "Clinton overreached," but that he will take Ariel Sharon "at face value," and will not commit himself to the peace process: "I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation." Powell is "startled," but Bush reverts in the meeting to "the same flat, unquestioning demeanor that O'Neill was familiar with."
The "inscrutable" Cheney emerges as the power behind the throne, orchestrating the government by stealth and leaks to undermine opposing views. He uses tariffs as "political bait" for the midterm elections. When O'Neill argues that out-of-control deficits will cause a "fiscal crisis," Cheney "cut him off. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter,' he said. 'We won the midterms. This is our due.'"
In the end, Cheney fires O'Neill, the first time a vice president has ever dismissed a Cabinet member.
O'Neill's revelations have not been met by any factual rebuttal. Instead, they have been greeted with anonymous character assassination from a "senior official": "Nobody listened to him when he was in office. Why should anybody now?" Then the White House announced that O'Neill was under investigation for abusing classified documents, though he claimed they were not and the White House had eagerly shoveled carefully edited NSC documents to Woodward.
Quietly, O'Neill and his publisher have prepared an irrefutable response. Soon they will post every one of the 19,000 documents underlying the book on the Internet. The story will not be calmed.
I can't wait - SR
edited to add: Interesting that the unofficial brush-off comment leaked from the White House to dis O'Neill would be "Nobody listened to him when he was in office, why should anybody now?" Presumably he was hired by Bush/Cheney because his years of experience with the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations made him someone worth listening to. Unless the moderates really were there just "for cover," as O'Neill alleges. I've always had the impression that Colin Powell is used for PR value and otherwise brushed aside when his views differ dramatically from those of Cheney/Rumsfeld.
edited again to add: Good lord, I just realized I referred to a member of the Reagan administration as a "moderate." We're in serious trouble.
From salon.com, the dirty on O'Neill's book. Particularly note the paragraph I highlighted just for you, near the bottom. Like I said, all that matters to me is that he can document this stuff. It's about time.
---------
He cannot tell a lie
When Democrats charged that President Bush was unfit for his job, Bush's defenders dismissed it. But now Paul O'Neill, a classic GOP insider, says the same thing -- and it's even worse than you've heard.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal
Jan. 15, 2004 _|_ One of the operating political assumptions of the Bush administration is that the checks and balances have essentially been checked. Every Democratic effort to launch an inquiry in the Senate into the Bush administration's actions, from its abuse of intelligence about WMD in Iraq to its energy policy, has been suppressed. The watchdog press has been kenneled. Bush refers to it dismissively as "the filter" and his chief of staff Andrew Card tells the New Yorker this week that it is unrepresentative and there is no reason to treat it otherwise.
But the implacable wall has been cracked by an insider's surprising confessions, "The Price of Loyalty," as related by journalist Ron Suskind. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, fired and forgotten, mild-mannered and gray, appears an unlikely dissident speaking truth to power. He was, after all, the CEO of Alcoa, a pillar of the Republican establishment.
More is involved with him than pride and pique. While O'Neill records slights and is being dismissed by some as a dotty reject, he does more than tell a few tales and confirm a few suspicions. The attack on him, consistent with Bush administration efforts to intimidate anyone who challenges the official version, underscores the inherent fragility of Bush's public persona, upon which rests his popularity. Bush's greatest political asset is his image as a strong, decisive and masterful commander in chief who also happens to be a nice man. Alongside him, Vice President Dick Cheney is viewed as the sagacious Nestor. Unlike other critics and the Democratic candidates, O'Neill's persuasiveness and his long-term damage to these icons comes from having served for years in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and in his firsthand critique of a government radically unlike any before it, especially Republican ones.
O'Neill's threat is to a president unusually dependent in an election campaign on fear and credibility to sustain the sense of power and inevitability.
O'Neill sounds an alarm against an unfit president who lacks "credibility with his most senior officials," behind whom looms a dark "puppeteer," as O'Neill calls Cheney, and a closed cabal. "A strict code of personal fealty to Bush -- animated by the embrace of a few unquestioned ideologues -- seemed to be in collision with a faith in the broader ideals of honest inquiry."
He is upset at the regular violations he sees against his notion of "sound" government. There is, he concludes, "a pattern: either no process, or a truncated one, where efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."
Invading Iraq was on the agenda of the first meeting of the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, which O'Neill attended, months before 9/11, and pushed relentlessly. Regressive tax cuts creating massive deficits were implemented without economic justification as "the administration has managed to kill the whys at every turn."
When the political team distorts basic economic numbers on tax cuts and inserts them into the 2001 State of the Union address, O'Neill yells, "This is complete bullshit!" It is "something that knowledgeable people in the U.S. government knew to be false." The business executive is shocked at the derogation of policy in favor of corporate special interests -- a "combination of confidentiality and influence by powerful interested parties" -- at the expense of even scientific evidence. He learns that moderate Republicans such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, EPA Director Christie Whitman (whose effort to affirm policy on global warming is in her word "slaughtered" by Cheney and the politicos), and he himself "may have been there, in large part, as cover."
These icons were packaged with White House assistance under the imprimatur of Bob Woodward in "Bush At War." In it the president has a searching mind, seeks conflicting advice and puts policy above politics. "He had come to believe that a president should not store up political capital." He has a "philosophy" and a "vision" of "preemptive and, if necessary, unilateral action to reduce suffering and bring peace." Cheney is his wise and trusted mentor, an "efficient, solid rock": "These days he [Cheney] was worried about nothing less than the future of the world." And Bush had "found that when Cheney asked questions it was worth listening to them." These Soviet-style encomiums lack only the parenthetical: (stormy applause).
In O'Neill's firsthand account, however, Bush appears as a bully, using nicknames to demean people. He appears querulous (When Bush orders a cheeseburger and it doesn't arrive quickly, he summons his chief of staff. "'You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting us some cheeseburgers?' Card nodded. No one laughed. He all but raced out of the room"). He appears manipulated ("'Stick to principle' is another phrase that has a tonic effect on Bush" -- it was used by his senior political adviser Karl Rove to push for additional tax cuts). He appears incurious and, above all, intently political. When Bush holds forth it is often to demonstrate that he's not Clinton. He informs his NSC that on Middle East peace "Clinton overreached," but that he will take Ariel Sharon "at face value," and will not commit himself to the peace process: "I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation." Powell is "startled," but Bush reverts in the meeting to "the same flat, unquestioning demeanor that O'Neill was familiar with."
The "inscrutable" Cheney emerges as the power behind the throne, orchestrating the government by stealth and leaks to undermine opposing views. He uses tariffs as "political bait" for the midterm elections. When O'Neill argues that out-of-control deficits will cause a "fiscal crisis," Cheney "cut him off. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter,' he said. 'We won the midterms. This is our due.'"
In the end, Cheney fires O'Neill, the first time a vice president has ever dismissed a Cabinet member.
O'Neill's revelations have not been met by any factual rebuttal. Instead, they have been greeted with anonymous character assassination from a "senior official": "Nobody listened to him when he was in office. Why should anybody now?" Then the White House announced that O'Neill was under investigation for abusing classified documents, though he claimed they were not and the White House had eagerly shoveled carefully edited NSC documents to Woodward.
Quietly, O'Neill and his publisher have prepared an irrefutable response. Soon they will post every one of the 19,000 documents underlying the book on the Internet. The story will not be calmed.
I can't wait - SR
edited to add: Interesting that the unofficial brush-off comment leaked from the White House to dis O'Neill would be "Nobody listened to him when he was in office, why should anybody now?" Presumably he was hired by Bush/Cheney because his years of experience with the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations made him someone worth listening to. Unless the moderates really were there just "for cover," as O'Neill alleges. I've always had the impression that Colin Powell is used for PR value and otherwise brushed aside when his views differ dramatically from those of Cheney/Rumsfeld.
edited again to add: Good lord, I just realized I referred to a member of the Reagan administration as a "moderate." We're in serious trouble.
Last edited:
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
Gary, I am also extremely impressed by your essay.minsue said:
Since the United States is such a big rich country, we Americans tend to be self-centered and don't pay a lot of attention to the way the rest of the world relates to us.
Thank you for the eloquent reminder that there is a world outside our borders with people who care about how we behave.
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
shereads said:
Watch it, or next time we send some out of work actor down there to yell "I am Canadian!" on your TV, we'll select a flatulent Frenchman.
Hinterland Who's Who? Me that's who, for my sins.
BTW, for weeks I've been convinced you are either already a very good editor or would be a very good editor. But I'm starting to think you realy ought to be a TV critic.
You'll have to do better than that to guilt me out. Go and give your janitor a hug, if he means that much to you.
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
Re: AHEM. PAGING COLLY & OTHER CLOSET LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
Speaking of the documents, this is in response to often mentioned "stealing of files" as a reason to doubt their veracity.
Excerpt from an AP story 1/13/04:
Complete Story
- Mindy
shereads said:
Speaking of the documents, this is in response to often mentioned "stealing of files" as a reason to doubt their veracity.
Excerpt from an AP story 1/13/04:
Complete Story
- Mindy
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
shereads said:
LOL! Did you ever see the West Wing episode involving a group protesting the distorted maps we were all taught geography on? According to them (and yes, I get all of my statistics from TV shows. Don't you?), Europe, Greenland, and North America are shown as MUCH larger than they actually are. On the world map that they claimed was correct, Africa and South America were much larger and the previously mentioned land masses were much smaller. If it's true, and sadly that wouldn't surprise me, I think we need to circulate a truth in cartography petition.
- Mindy
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
Min and Ken [/QUOTE]
Had no choice but to be on my best behaviour. How do you tell a tell a centurion his/her boss has salad for brains.
"Shekel for a leper. By the way Caesar is a dickhead."
I don't think so.
Glad I didn't upset everyone. I'm not worried about Sher, because I figure the beard will win her over in the end. I may duck if Colly drops in, however, in case I get a running shoe in the teeth.
Had no choice but to be on my best behaviour. How do you tell a tell a centurion his/her boss has salad for brains.
"Shekel for a leper. By the way Caesar is a dickhead."
I don't think so.
Glad I didn't upset everyone. I'm not worried about Sher, because I figure the beard will win her over in the end. I may duck if Colly drops in, however, in case I get a running shoe in the teeth.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
minsue said:
West Wing makes me sad. First, because it's so dignified and idealistic and so unlikely. And second, because creator Aaron Sorkin has been disappeared by the network, and subsequent seasons will probably jump the shark.
Anytime someone plays Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms or who's-his-name's Hallelujah as the soundtrack to a dramatic cliffhanger, I cry like a child. And then there was the Christmas episode where Depressed Speech Writer arranged a military funeral for a homeless bum and the funeral procession was intercut with the children's choir singing "Little Drummer Boy" for the President back at the White House and the rifle corps aimed their guns and...Sorry, I have to go cry now. Usually I cry in the bathtub so it doesn't upset the dog. I wish Aaron Sorkin could be President. Coke habit or not, he's so smart and sensitive.
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
Originally posted by shereads
West Wing makes me sad. First, because it's so dignified and idealistic and so unlikely. And second, because creator Aaron Sorkin has been disappeared by the network, and subsequent seasons will probably jump the shark.
This season is a definite disappointment to me, but I expected it to be. After it was announced that Sorkin was leaving, one of the producers stated that the writing would be just as good. He said something along the lines that, "the only thing that will be different is that it won't have the banter." That depressed the hell out of me since the banter was what made the show good.
Anytime someone plays Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms or who's-his-name's Hallelujah as the soundtrack to a dramatic cliffhanger, I cry like a child. And then there was the Christmas episode where Depressed Speech Writer arranged a military funeral for a homeless bum and the funeral procession was intercut with the children's choir singing "Little Drummer Boy" for the President back at the White House and the rifle corps aimed their guns and...Sorry, I have to go cry now. Usually I cry in the bathtub so it doesn't upset the dog.
I've seen that Christmas episode a number of times and I always end up crying like a baby.
I wish Aaron Sorkin could be President. Coke habit or not, he's so smart and sensitive.
I agree wholeheartedly. That's the main reason the show is often depressing. I watch it and wonder why on earth it can't be like that in real life.
- Mindy
West Wing makes me sad. First, because it's so dignified and idealistic and so unlikely. And second, because creator Aaron Sorkin has been disappeared by the network, and subsequent seasons will probably jump the shark.
This season is a definite disappointment to me, but I expected it to be. After it was announced that Sorkin was leaving, one of the producers stated that the writing would be just as good. He said something along the lines that, "the only thing that will be different is that it won't have the banter." That depressed the hell out of me since the banter was what made the show good.
Anytime someone plays Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms or who's-his-name's Hallelujah as the soundtrack to a dramatic cliffhanger, I cry like a child. And then there was the Christmas episode where Depressed Speech Writer arranged a military funeral for a homeless bum and the funeral procession was intercut with the children's choir singing "Little Drummer Boy" for the President back at the White House and the rifle corps aimed their guns and...Sorry, I have to go cry now. Usually I cry in the bathtub so it doesn't upset the dog.
I've seen that Christmas episode a number of times and I always end up crying like a baby.
I wish Aaron Sorkin could be President. Coke habit or not, he's so smart and sensitive.
I agree wholeheartedly. That's the main reason the show is often depressing. I watch it and wonder why on earth it can't be like that in real life.
- Mindy
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
minsue said:
Jesus, that is such a perfect Corporate Suit viewpoint on the taking over of someone else's creative product. The writing will be exactly the same, but without the clever part.
I bet the network wanted Aaron Sorkin gone when they saw Martin Sheen curse God and stub out his cigarette on the floor of the Washington Cathedral.
"Well gosh...That was uncalled for."
"I know; we don't condone littering, do we?"
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
The New Rules (Or, Why I Might Need HBO)
From BillMaher.com comes additional proof that my man is an equal-opportunity offender, and forever politically incorrect.
New Rule: Jewish people have to start fucking. The Jewish population in America dropped five percent in the last decade, which may explain why this country's finances have gone to shit! Breed, you Sons of Abraham, breed! We need you. Israel needs you! Kobe Bryant, Robert Blake and Phil Spector need you! Without Jews, who's going to write all those sitcoms about blacks and Hispanics?
And speaking of the Jews, New Rule: Barbie is a Shiksa. Now, while the rest of the world honored the second anniversary of 9/11 by cracking down on terrorism, the people responsible for the attack zeroed in on the real problem facing the world: Barbie. That's right. Saudi Arabian police declared Barbie offensive to Islam as well as a "Jewish doll," and banished her from the kingdom. Barbie was then whisked to the French Riviera in a private jet where she was plied with cocaine and drinks and then raped all night by 2,000 Saudi princes.
Barbie a "Jewish doll"? Oh, I guess there's some evidence for that. It's true, when you put Ken on top of her, she just lays there. But maybe that's because Ken is gay. Which is why it always says he comes separately.
Anyway, Saudi Arabians, if you're worried that Barbie is offensive to Islam, you have no idea how offensive we can be. We've got Christians, Jews, lesbians, pork chops, ass-less chaps, loud music. And that's just at one restaurant in West Hollywood.
The truth is, the Saudis and the terrorists who extort their support at our expense are all about the purity of the 7th century until it suits their needs. If the West is so tainted, why don't they stop using our technology. This week, bin Laden put out a new videotape. Guess who invented videotape? Not anybody named Abu. Same goes for satellite phones, computers, SUVs and everything else the terrorists used to hatch their evil plans. They were all invented by the Infidels. The last new idea coming out of Arabia was something about stonings at night when it's cooler.
You know, I don't know where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but I do know one place he's never been: the Patent Office. If we're so bad, then why don't you go back to homing pigeons and camels and those big curved swords. Because if there's anything more annoying than an evil doer, it's a hypocritical evil doer.
From BillMaher.com comes additional proof that my man is an equal-opportunity offender, and forever politically incorrect.
New Rule: Jewish people have to start fucking. The Jewish population in America dropped five percent in the last decade, which may explain why this country's finances have gone to shit! Breed, you Sons of Abraham, breed! We need you. Israel needs you! Kobe Bryant, Robert Blake and Phil Spector need you! Without Jews, who's going to write all those sitcoms about blacks and Hispanics?
And speaking of the Jews, New Rule: Barbie is a Shiksa. Now, while the rest of the world honored the second anniversary of 9/11 by cracking down on terrorism, the people responsible for the attack zeroed in on the real problem facing the world: Barbie. That's right. Saudi Arabian police declared Barbie offensive to Islam as well as a "Jewish doll," and banished her from the kingdom. Barbie was then whisked to the French Riviera in a private jet where she was plied with cocaine and drinks and then raped all night by 2,000 Saudi princes.
Barbie a "Jewish doll"? Oh, I guess there's some evidence for that. It's true, when you put Ken on top of her, she just lays there. But maybe that's because Ken is gay. Which is why it always says he comes separately.
Anyway, Saudi Arabians, if you're worried that Barbie is offensive to Islam, you have no idea how offensive we can be. We've got Christians, Jews, lesbians, pork chops, ass-less chaps, loud music. And that's just at one restaurant in West Hollywood.
The truth is, the Saudis and the terrorists who extort their support at our expense are all about the purity of the 7th century until it suits their needs. If the West is so tainted, why don't they stop using our technology. This week, bin Laden put out a new videotape. Guess who invented videotape? Not anybody named Abu. Same goes for satellite phones, computers, SUVs and everything else the terrorists used to hatch their evil plans. They were all invented by the Infidels. The last new idea coming out of Arabia was something about stonings at night when it's cooler.
You know, I don't know where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but I do know one place he's never been: the Patent Office. If we're so bad, then why don't you go back to homing pigeons and camels and those big curved swords. Because if there's anything more annoying than an evil doer, it's a hypocritical evil doer.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Gary Chambers said:
Had no choice but to be on my best behaviour. How do you tell a tell a centurion his/her boss has salad for brains.
"Shekel for a leper. By the way Caesar is a dickhead."
I don't think so.
Glad I didn't upset everyone. I'm not worried about Sher, because I figure the beard will win her over in the end. I may duck if Colly drops in, however, in case I get a running shoe in the teeth.
[/QUOTE] Running shoes, even my comfy hand me downs cost too much to throw, even if the target is a transpalanted Brit hiding out in the icy wilds of Canada
Considering it's cold enough here to have me seriously considering the fur lined bra in one of the lingerie catalogs I get I would say whatever punishment your essay earns you, you have alreay paid you prennace in full My only real objection is when you characterize BushCo as a band of Criminals. Whenever I hear that phrase my little historian's mind shoots straight to Nazi and Japanese propaganda decrying FDR & his Criminal band. I don't doubt a through investigation at BushCo would turn up a few criminals, but I think here you were letting your own anger and prejudice get the better of you. The essay was powerful and concise as it was. It would have been less offensive without the inflamatory rhetoric.
Of course I am probably the only one here who has read back issues of Der Spenner so it may be just me that it hit the wrong way.
-Colly
