Posts
And going back to yesterday's reference to Clockwork Orange. Yes... DEFINITELY... Bush should have to sit in a theater with his eyes taped open and see photo after photo (all 3500+) of our slain soldiers. And today I add to it that he should have to see photo after photo of our maimed soldiers - every missing hand, foot, leg, eye, ear. And while he watches, the book Johnny Got His Gun should be read over a loud speaker.
Those soldiers had lives. Each one of them had families - someone out there somewhere who gave a damn about whether s/he came home alive. Each one has someone mourning his or her death. Each one has someone whose life is forever changed because s/he will not be coming back from Iraq. THOSE are lives.
Cells in a petri dish ARE NOT LIVES. THEY ARE NOT HUMANS. THEY WILL NOT SPEAK, THINK, TALK, CARE, EAT OR BREATH. They are just cells. If not inserted into a womb and carried to term, the cells are nothing at all.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN? How can he have everything so completely wrong in his exceptionally limited mind? Soldiers in Iraq have lives that should not be thrown away. Cells in a dish have nothing - no consciousness, no life.
You know who does have those things? The soldiers who come back from Iraq without body parts. And perhaps with enough support for research and study, scientists could discover how to regrow body parts that could help them reclaim their lives.
And maybe scientists could help people, real thinking, living, talking, breathing, eating people with diabetes and Parkinson's.
President Bush - the whole country is against you... not just generally (though that is true), but specifically on this issue. You are wrong. Completely wrong. In every way wrong.
Put away your veto pen - you don't know how to use it properly. Your toys are all too dangerous and you shouldn't be allowed to use them.
Stem cell research should be supported with every resource we have available.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
This just in...
So Bloomberg's an Independent.
Whose taking the odd's on a third party presidential bid? If it weren't for Barack, I might have to vote for him now... hmmmm.....
Actually - that's it! He's based in New York. I'll work in his campaign when he runs! That would be fun. I can't argue with the people who say he's done a good job - New York is a pretty decent place to live (even for someone like me who is NOT a city mouse). And he is, actually, a Democrat...
Whose taking the odd's on a third party presidential bid? If it weren't for Barack, I might have to vote for him now... hmmmm.....
Actually - that's it! He's based in New York. I'll work in his campaign when he runs! That would be fun. I can't argue with the people who say he's done a good job - New York is a pretty decent place to live (even for someone like me who is NOT a city mouse). And he is, actually, a Democrat...
News Wrap-up
1. Images of war
So the military has imposed restrictions on photographers embedded with troops that require written permission to be granted from the solider before his image can be published. This stems from a case where a soldier's family found out about his injury from a photo in the New York Times. Certainly that's not ideal. And the military's argument is that a soldier has a right to privacy - if s/he doesn't want her/his family to know about an injury that should be the soldier's right. However, as the reporter describes it, this means that he would have to ask a solider who might have shrapnel in his face and broken or burned limbs to look at his images on a lap top and write a permission note for the use of the pictures. Doesn't sound too practical.
The military does allow the photos to be used if they don't identify the soldiers, but the reporter argued that the anonymity detracts from the impact of the image - a nameless soldier doesn't reach the public the way Corporal Smith from Tucson does.
I'm not passionately against the military's position to the extent that a soldier may not want his bloodied body on the front page of the Times and maybe he deserves that much dignity. However, I agree with the reporter that his ability to communicate the realities of war are severely hampered and that this seems suspiciously like another administration attempt to limit the public's exposure to the war - which is the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.
More pictures, more stories, more "real" reality - that's what Americans need; Americans who are so trigger-happy but don't like to know the dirty, ugly, gruesome truth of their decisions. Show it all, I say. It's like when you shove a dog's face in its mess after it has gone in the house. Maybe that's what Americans (and politicians) need.
I'm imagining President Bush in a Clockwork Orange scene being shown the image of every soldier who has died - two images actually: one of the solider alive, laughing, with his family, and one dead in his coffin, or on the field. Make him know, really, know what he has done.
2. We don't want anyone to think it isn't going well... too late.
Apparently there are some members of Congress who object to allowing expedited immigration for Iraqis because a massive resettlement of Iraqis in the US might "give the impression things aren't getting better in Iraq - that stability is decreasing, rather than increasing."
I swear to God I think I'm living in a distopian novel. Orwell - Orwell, is that you??? Did you write this nightmare?
Guess what?? Appearance is not a good reason to keep people in a hell hole we created!!! I feel like this should be obvious, but for anyone out there who is unclear - it's not actually going well. Now can we let Iraqis who would prefer to live in peace into our country?
3. Isn't it interesting?
If I were still at RLM or better yet, if I worked for the Daily Show, right now I'd be putting together a montage of the things W considers interesting. From today: "It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy or a potential Palestinian democracy," Bush said."
I think it's interesting when democracies attack otherwise stable countries. I also think it's interesting that he doesn't tie the increase in these attacks to the destabilization of the region caused by his invasion. I also think it's interesting that we have to be afraid of a Cold War with Russia and civil wars ending millions of lives in Africa. And plane hijackings. And corporate excess. And people wearing neon. And then I woke up and it was 1982.
Seriously, I hope Jon Stewart does the montage because what Bush considers interesting is interesting.
4. She's a Man Eater.
I wonder why Man Eater didn't make HRC's short list of theme songs. Today Mrs. Clinton chose Canadian singer Celine Dion's hit "You and I" popularized by Air Canada. A catchy little tune, despite my abhorrence of Ms. Dion's work. ALL of it. Ms. Dion can't hold a candle to Fleetwood Mac and her husband's use of "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" (I'm sure he's thrilled not to have to listen to it any more), but it's probably better than him taking a scene from "My Best Friend's Wedding" and lending her his song.
Now this may or may not be apocryphal, but I remember being told once that W was planning to use "Best of Times" from La Cage Aux Folles as his theme song, until someone told him that it was from a show about two gay guys who save a conservative politician's arse. I hope it's true!!!
So the military has imposed restrictions on photographers embedded with troops that require written permission to be granted from the solider before his image can be published. This stems from a case where a soldier's family found out about his injury from a photo in the New York Times. Certainly that's not ideal. And the military's argument is that a soldier has a right to privacy - if s/he doesn't want her/his family to know about an injury that should be the soldier's right. However, as the reporter describes it, this means that he would have to ask a solider who might have shrapnel in his face and broken or burned limbs to look at his images on a lap top and write a permission note for the use of the pictures. Doesn't sound too practical.
The military does allow the photos to be used if they don't identify the soldiers, but the reporter argued that the anonymity detracts from the impact of the image - a nameless soldier doesn't reach the public the way Corporal Smith from Tucson does.
I'm not passionately against the military's position to the extent that a soldier may not want his bloodied body on the front page of the Times and maybe he deserves that much dignity. However, I agree with the reporter that his ability to communicate the realities of war are severely hampered and that this seems suspiciously like another administration attempt to limit the public's exposure to the war - which is the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.
More pictures, more stories, more "real" reality - that's what Americans need; Americans who are so trigger-happy but don't like to know the dirty, ugly, gruesome truth of their decisions. Show it all, I say. It's like when you shove a dog's face in its mess after it has gone in the house. Maybe that's what Americans (and politicians) need.
I'm imagining President Bush in a Clockwork Orange scene being shown the image of every soldier who has died - two images actually: one of the solider alive, laughing, with his family, and one dead in his coffin, or on the field. Make him know, really, know what he has done.
2. We don't want anyone to think it isn't going well... too late.
Apparently there are some members of Congress who object to allowing expedited immigration for Iraqis because a massive resettlement of Iraqis in the US might "give the impression things aren't getting better in Iraq - that stability is decreasing, rather than increasing."
I swear to God I think I'm living in a distopian novel. Orwell - Orwell, is that you??? Did you write this nightmare?
Guess what?? Appearance is not a good reason to keep people in a hell hole we created!!! I feel like this should be obvious, but for anyone out there who is unclear - it's not actually going well. Now can we let Iraqis who would prefer to live in peace into our country?
3. Isn't it interesting?
If I were still at RLM or better yet, if I worked for the Daily Show, right now I'd be putting together a montage of the things W considers interesting. From today: "It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy or a potential Palestinian democracy," Bush said."
I think it's interesting when democracies attack otherwise stable countries. I also think it's interesting that he doesn't tie the increase in these attacks to the destabilization of the region caused by his invasion. I also think it's interesting that we have to be afraid of a Cold War with Russia and civil wars ending millions of lives in Africa. And plane hijackings. And corporate excess. And people wearing neon. And then I woke up and it was 1982.
Seriously, I hope Jon Stewart does the montage because what Bush considers interesting is interesting.
4. She's a Man Eater.
I wonder why Man Eater didn't make HRC's short list of theme songs. Today Mrs. Clinton chose Canadian singer Celine Dion's hit "You and I" popularized by Air Canada. A catchy little tune, despite my abhorrence of Ms. Dion's work. ALL of it. Ms. Dion can't hold a candle to Fleetwood Mac and her husband's use of "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" (I'm sure he's thrilled not to have to listen to it any more), but it's probably better than him taking a scene from "My Best Friend's Wedding" and lending her his song.
Now this may or may not be apocryphal, but I remember being told once that W was planning to use "Best of Times" from La Cage Aux Folles as his theme song, until someone told him that it was from a show about two gay guys who save a conservative politician's arse. I hope it's true!!!
Monday, June 18, 2007
Rowland... Rowland - that name rings a bell
Oh ya, that's because he's the guy who managed to get elected Governor of the great state of Connecticut three times. And then he went to prison for corruption.
I can't possibly waste too much time recounting this man's various evil-doings, but I simply can't pass on the opportunity to comment on today's article in the Washington Post. In it, Rowland is quoted saying, "She (Rell) threw me under the bus when it got rough..." By "rough", does he mean when it became perfectly clear that he was going to be held accountable for his illegal activity? Is he serious???
Now I'm no big fan of Jodi Rell. I find it hard to believe that there is no one in Connecticut better suited to the job of governor than she. And though she claims to be unpolitical, even lackluster M.J. would have had to be extremely dull not to realize that Rowland's goose was cooked. And had the situation been reversed, Rowland would have thrown her to the wolves and played poker that night in his basement without giving it another thought.
Poor Mr. Rowland... it had to be tough seeing the sitting Lt. Governor stand by, uh, the law of the state, rather than, um, him.
And it makes it pretty clear, doesn't it, why he was a rising star in the Republican party? This emphasis on loyalty above competence, above law, above the people he governed? Had he just managed to stay out of prison a few more years, he could have been the next Attorney General.
I can't say I've missed J.R. But it was fun to hear from him today. But with my vast PR background, I'd have to counsel him to stay quiet a bit longer....
I can't possibly waste too much time recounting this man's various evil-doings, but I simply can't pass on the opportunity to comment on today's article in the Washington Post. In it, Rowland is quoted saying, "She (Rell) threw me under the bus when it got rough..." By "rough", does he mean when it became perfectly clear that he was going to be held accountable for his illegal activity? Is he serious???
Now I'm no big fan of Jodi Rell. I find it hard to believe that there is no one in Connecticut better suited to the job of governor than she. And though she claims to be unpolitical, even lackluster M.J. would have had to be extremely dull not to realize that Rowland's goose was cooked. And had the situation been reversed, Rowland would have thrown her to the wolves and played poker that night in his basement without giving it another thought.
Poor Mr. Rowland... it had to be tough seeing the sitting Lt. Governor stand by, uh, the law of the state, rather than, um, him.
And it makes it pretty clear, doesn't it, why he was a rising star in the Republican party? This emphasis on loyalty above competence, above law, above the people he governed? Had he just managed to stay out of prison a few more years, he could have been the next Attorney General.
I can't say I've missed J.R. But it was fun to hear from him today. But with my vast PR background, I'd have to counsel him to stay quiet a bit longer....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)