Friday, October 28, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
politics: Someone wanna buy BushCo an Iain Banks book?
From 'A Few Notes on the Culture', an essay about Iain M. Banks's fictional galactic society, in The State of the Art:
... In all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind.
... In all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind.
Monday, October 03, 2005
politics: Brazen and stupid
I'm back! *phew* It's been awhile. Much has happened in the mean time, both in my personal life and in the life of the nation as a whole, that I've left uncommented on. Had a lovely trip to Northern California, saw some good music, drank some good wine. Now I'm back, wide awake and refreshed. And ready to take on Ken Mehlman's e-mail from this morning.
He headlines it, "Harriet Miers Needs Your Help." To me, I know I'm biased, but that's reason enough to oppose her, sight unseen.
But the fact that BushCorp nominated this woman in the first place demonstrates, sharply and with great shouting, that they care more about loyalty than about the good of the country. And it demonstrates BushCorp's total tone-deafness to the American public and current events.
Do they not see the collapse of credibility of their public officials? Do they not see the plunging poll numbers, indications that their long honeymoon is, at long last, drawing to a close?
And if they do, what excuse do they have for throwing a lawyer with absolutely no experience as a judge up on the parapet, a candidate for one of the most important judicial posts in the country?
So anyway. Back to Kenny-boy.
"Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench."
Excuse, please? How is she qualified? How do we know she's a fair-minded individual? Gimme something to go on here. Seriously. As for 'legislating from the bench ...', Ken, please get some new jargon. This stuff's getting old and tired. And get your guys all on board: Arnie wants legislation from the bench in California to protect him from the representative will of the people of California embodied in the state legislature.
Oh, and this part made me laugh: "President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process." Can anyone seriously imagine Skippy thinking anything through thoroughly and deliberately without guffawing uncontrollably?
Ah, yes, and there's this nugget: "They (the Democrats) have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote." Erm, so even if they did, what information is out there that would enable anyone not operating on pure and unadulteratedly blind faith to allow her a fair hearing?
I'm sure she's a nice woman and a perfectly competent lawyer. But I know lots of people like that who I wouldn't recommend for a Supreme Court post. And it seems obvious to me how little Kenny thinks of his rank-and-file minions that he can send out blather like this e-mail and not even worry about telling his own people why they should support this woman's nomination. He can assume that simply because he says it's so, that legions of cognition-deficient Republican worker drones will max out the phone lines of Capitol Hill professing their undying devotion to a woman whose name they didn't even know before yesterday.
And he's probably right.
He headlines it, "Harriet Miers Needs Your Help." To me, I know I'm biased, but that's reason enough to oppose her, sight unseen.
But the fact that BushCorp nominated this woman in the first place demonstrates, sharply and with great shouting, that they care more about loyalty than about the good of the country. And it demonstrates BushCorp's total tone-deafness to the American public and current events.
Do they not see the collapse of credibility of their public officials? Do they not see the plunging poll numbers, indications that their long honeymoon is, at long last, drawing to a close?
And if they do, what excuse do they have for throwing a lawyer with absolutely no experience as a judge up on the parapet, a candidate for one of the most important judicial posts in the country?
So anyway. Back to Kenny-boy.
"Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench."
Excuse, please? How is she qualified? How do we know she's a fair-minded individual? Gimme something to go on here. Seriously. As for 'legislating from the bench ...', Ken, please get some new jargon. This stuff's getting old and tired. And get your guys all on board: Arnie wants legislation from the bench in California to protect him from the representative will of the people of California embodied in the state legislature.
Oh, and this part made me laugh: "President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process." Can anyone seriously imagine Skippy thinking anything through thoroughly and deliberately without guffawing uncontrollably?
Ah, yes, and there's this nugget: "They (the Democrats) have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote." Erm, so even if they did, what information is out there that would enable anyone not operating on pure and unadulteratedly blind faith to allow her a fair hearing?
I'm sure she's a nice woman and a perfectly competent lawyer. But I know lots of people like that who I wouldn't recommend for a Supreme Court post. And it seems obvious to me how little Kenny thinks of his rank-and-file minions that he can send out blather like this e-mail and not even worry about telling his own people why they should support this woman's nomination. He can assume that simply because he says it's so, that legions of cognition-deficient Republican worker drones will max out the phone lines of Capitol Hill professing their undying devotion to a woman whose name they didn't even know before yesterday.
And he's probably right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)