May 25, 2004

• As high as that?
• Why do you hate America?
• In other news, 41% of Americans are in denial, stupid, or just plain evil. just kidding. sort of.
• Okay, then, put me down as just plain evil. P.S. Fuck you. just kidding. sort of. but sweet flaming christ, your attitude makes me want to vote for the man.
• So vote for him, goetter. If Jesus or the Bush record tells you he's the man for the job, then you really should vote your conscience. I really hope you're in a clear minority, though. And I hope the election isn't close either. It boggles my mind that someone could look at what's going on in Iraq or at home and think "well, this Bush administration certainly has things under control. Just think what four more years will bring!" The man started a war based on lies, created a huge deficit, and doesn't even pretend to operate outside of corporate interests. But vote for him if you wish. It's a free country. For now.
• If you're gonna vote for someone to spite someone else's attitude, that shoe might just fit. I'm just sayin'...
• Guys, take it outside! We don't want to get fingerprints all over the new paint-job!
• I always learnt that even best friends shouldn't talk about two things, if they know they're gonna disagree: Religion and politics. And with Bush, these two issues are nicely rolled up into one tight, highly explosive, poo-filled package. *sigh*
• MonkeyFilter: one tight, highly explosive, poo-filled package
• Although I admit I'm surprised at Bush's approval rating being as high as it is, I think that's more a reflection of sites like Metafilter and MonkeyFilter where left outranks right. It's certainly not a reason to start insulting the people that would vote for him, anyway, especially when you know odds are some of them are members here. It would be nice, really, if we could steer away from election news, especially since it's not exactly "best of the web" material.
• If Jesus [..] tells you he's the man for the job Then... you got it, i.f.u.! I'd be votin' for Jesus. The fightin' Jesus. The hungry, fightin', nine-hundred-foot Jesus.
• I predict Cheney will gracefully vacate his vice presidential post, citing health concerns, and Dubya will call on a heavy weight like Rudolph "My Son Andrew Is Chris Farley" Guiliani to give him a much needed boost. In September WMD will appear in abundance in occupied Iraq, and in late October, No. 43 will attempt a deathblow by trotting out Osama bin Laden. Kerry will counter by planting a bag of Rold Gold in Bush's TV room. This could be anyone's game, people.
• Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?
• I hear Supply Side Jesus is vying for the Republican nomination now.
• Secretly, I hope Kerry wins. Call it scientific curiosity...
• Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him? hey! you stole that from me!!!! i see mefi has taken it's semi-hourly nap in the outhouse, so i can't bolster my claim with a link. metafilter sure sucks these days. if i was mathowie, i'd be ashamed.
• It would be nice, really, if we could steer away from election news, especially since it's not exactly "best of the web" material. Lord knows the thought of Chimpy's reelection makes me ill. But with all the crap going on it's easy to forget how many Monkeys don't live in the untitled snakes of a merry cow. Won't somebody think of those Monkeys?!
• A good deal of us non-merkuns are very interested in this election. And fucking frustrated that we can't vote George Bush's ass out of power. I'm ambivalent as to whether stuff like this should be posted. On the one hand, it probably isn't the best of the web, but on the other, it doesn't stop the best of the web from actually being posted.
• Good point BBF. And I wish you could help us vote Bush's ass out. *runs off to find a decent link or two*
• I WANT TO BELIEVE
• Does anyone know if he actually got a bump in poll numbers from that little speech at the war college last night? I didn't hear anything terribly inspiring, then I've never felt inspired by him. It's like we have the asshole head of an asshole fraternity running the country. I wonder what middle American thought?
• Independent voters seem to have been especially affected. Overall, 49 percent of registered voters now say they would vote for Kerry, 41 percent for Bush. Now if Kerry can only keep his mouth shut....
• Answered my own question. I wonder if the failure of this administration will help Democrats in congressional races? If this gets bad enough, will we see a mass redistribution of power as we did with the Republican's "Contract with America"?
• I have never felt so strongly about a President as I do Bush. I want him out of office. My brother, who I consider intelligent and thoughtful, feels very strongly that Bush is the Right President for the Times. What bothers me most about this is, no matter how hard I try to see his point of view, I still think he's out of his fucking mind. It seems my country is at least as polarized now as in the Vietnam era. That scares me. I want to fast forward to the happy ending. Thanks for letting me vent.
• Answered my own question. I wouldn't exactly call the WaPo and the Grey Lady the voices of red-state America. /wonders, too
• I have an uber conservative brother (everyone else in the family liberal we have no idea where he came from) and even though I've made a personal choice not to discuss politics with him ever, he goads me and goads me trying to make me crack. As a result, I haven't really talked to him much in a year. It is so hard for me to process watching someone I've seen give mouth to mouth to a bird and cry when it died spout really hateful, uncompassionate blatherings just because. The dichotomy of the way he lives his life and the things he says he believes makes my head want to explode. Sometimes I wish he was just trying to get my goat and secretly hiding a liberal in there somewhere, but I've yet to see it emerge.
• Well, things have just gotten ugly lately. We've reached a point where we can't conceive of the other person's justifications -- ideological extremism has a way of doing that, whether you're talking about the current administration or a frothing radical. That's not to say that there is no such thing as an indefensible position (personally I think the current administration has given us plenty of examples, but that is my opinion), but libs and neocons seem to occupy two different planets, each thinking the other's population must comprise the largest mob of morons and liars that humanity has ever seen. I'm positive that we can repair the political damage, both here and abroad, given that we've seen worse and survived it. But screaming at each other ain't gonna fix it. Dismiss me as a Bush-hater if you will, but I think a less divisive president is the first step. Then we can try getting back to a calmer and more open dialogue.
• Here are my thoughts on the news of Bush's approval rating drop. I noticed he also took hits in the Fox poll (especially regarding Iraq.)
• I need to make a point about the mefi thread "Bush Campaign ran fundraising/vote-seeking from call centers in India" so I'll do it here, and if some mefite thinks it interesting they can pass it on. Some people on mefi defended the practice on the basis that people were being paid $9.25 an hour, but this is a mistake. The article said they "worked on a $9.25 per hour per person billing rate" which is completely different: it means that the US company they hired charged that much, took a cut, and outsourced the work to another company, which took their own cut, and sent the work to India, where the call-center administrators got their own cut. The Indians working the phones probably got less than $1 an hour (or whatever the going rate is in India).
• I feel much, much better after spending some time here: http://bushislord.com/
• I hear you Kimberly this girl i like a lot has a conservative stripe but I don't know why. Near as I can figure (with help from our esteemed monkey f8x) the outrageous acts Bush & Co. perpetrate simply aren't documented or exposed enough to call them for what we lefties think. i.e. big energy interests writing environmental policy. And so, no argument is sucessful, no events change their minds. Maybe Abu Gharib is different in that sense alone - for ONCE there are pictures, there are reports from "trusted" sources (military) and Bush is unable to spin it quickly or successfully - it's a different scandal animal.
• pete: Show her this.. It shows how the American Petroleum Institute wrote a Presidential Executive Order, and Bush just signed it as is. I remember once seeing a copy of the memo that went with it...something along the lines of "Here's what we'd like to see in the National Energy Policy...have Bush sign it". If I can dig it up I'll post it here.
• He contended that the institute did not get much of what it wanted in the draft order that it shared with the Bush administration If you would have only read the next paragraph... In no where in that NYT article did it say "bush just signed it as is". One passage of the XO reads very similarly to a passage in the API draft, and that passage highlighted a law that was already on the books but ignored. All in all a very weak and unsubstatiated claim to convince a conservative to hate Bush. If anything, you would cause her to dig her heels in further.
• blogRot: If you would have only read the other 19 paragraphs... I'm amazed how you can take an entire article about the API's influence over the presidency, pick out the one sentence about the API president's denial of said influence, and claim that it refutes the entire argument. But I'm not trying to convince you. Please continue to pretend the danger's not real.
• yeah! a lot like that!
• Pete, Rocket -- if she's anything like me, she'll wade through that, then look at you, and say, "Yes? So? What's your boeuf?" /uncompassionate tool of corporate interests
• seriously. you did read the article, no? ahhhh... you read into it only what you wanted to read. Did I say that one comment refuted *your* argument? (which is different from the article's argument) And it wasn't even a denial on his part. He clearly inferred that he got some of what he asked for. You claim that the API Cronie Company handed a draft to the executive and Bush signed it "as is". that was your quote, yes? "As is?" (I'll let you scroll back up and check your handywork.) The fact was that *some* parts of the XO look similar to the draft that API submitted. It is in the article. You still have no convincing nor valid argument. You are not going to convince any Fundy with your statement and that NYT article to back you up that the Big Oil writes laws for the Bush regime.
• Deep thought: If you were a conservative, what would it take to get you to seriously consider abandoning Bush? Lefty papers wouldn't do anything. The media probably can't bias enough anymore without blowing its cover. Frankin isn't even funny anymore. Strap him/her down to a chair and make 'em watch Michael Moore's latest 24/7?
• I got it pete_best! Give her some Heinz 57 sauce at lunch and she'll be flip-floppin like Kerry in no time.
• Deep thought: If you were a conservative, what would it take to get you to seriously consider abandoning Bush? What makes you think I'm not a conservative? On many issues, I am. Four years ago my choice for prez would have been McCain (if I was an American, that is). So the answer to your question is "Not much". I abandoned Bush when the GOP selected him as their man. Everything he has done since that day has just solidified my disdain for him and his cabal.
• And as for conservatives who keep dismissing all evidence and demanding "proof", consider this: Michael Jackson has never been "proven" of any wrongdoing. Would you trust him with your children? I think that, even without proof, the evidence is enough to at least vote these guys out of office, wait four years, and elect a conservative who isn't hell-bent on bringing about the second coming.
• If you were a conservative, what would it take to get you to seriously consider abandoning Bush? I am a (admittedly atypical) conservative, and I am considering abandoning Bush (though I didn't vote for him last election, I had been considering voting for him this election), for several reasons: first, Bush's administration does not represent a great many of the traditional Republican ideals: fiscal restraint, smaller government, emphasis on individual liberty, etc. Second, as an atheist, I find the Republican party's (and the Bush Administration's in particular) willingness to god-ify politics distasteful - I understand that the Religious Right forms a good deal of their voting base, but I feel their pandering to it tinges the political process with theism to an extent I don't like. Third, while I am typically pro-business, I believe that government's job is to create a level playing field for business, to cater to it, and the Bush Administration has proved to be a rather gleeful advocate for specific businesses, rather than an objective rulemaker ensuring that the framework within which business operates is fair and reasonable while promoting free trade and open markets. They have done nothing to rein in corporate abuse of the public trust, they have voiced support for free trade while actively working toward trade restrictions, and they have done nothing about government's penchant for artificially supporting certain industries (i.e., the agrobusiness sector) to the detriment of both the market and the consumer. In regards to individual liberties, despite what I see post 9/11 as a temporary curtailment of certain freedoms in furtherance of security (i.e., random searches at airports, added security on subways), the Bush Administration does not seem to favor increased civil liberties: their opposition to gay marriage, for example, is notable, as well their willingness to tolerate police abuses of their temporarily increased powers, does not endear them to me. I am also a strong believer in the power of democracy, and this administration is rather cavalier with the idea of the primacy of the citizenry, and all too quick in my opinion to denigrate the rights of the people. I mislike aristocrats (unless they exhibit a strong sense of noblesse oblige) and this administration is full of them.
• Then there's the 400 pound gorilla: the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq. I originally supported the war, and still do to an extent. I also believe that toppling Hussein was (and could be again) a valid effort toward defanging international terror. However, the Bush Administration has demonstrated not only a significant level of incompetence in protracting that war, and a willingness to continue with plans that are based in that incompetence (i.e., the Powell Doctrine), that it may very well be that the Iraq War is irretrievably tainted, and the curtailment of terror stunted. I also believe that, while unilateralism is not the sin that it is always cast to be (consider Britain's unilateralism in fighting Germany early on), it does not seem to have been the smartest play here. And while initially a government may seem to be acting contrary to what is viewed as logical, they are required over time to justify those actions. This administration has not. With that, the Iraqis seem to be demonstrating that our help is neither wanted nor needed, and I tend to believe that a nation, if they are not violent or adventuresome, ought to be free to act as it likes without outside interference unless that interference is requested. I don't see that here, and so (here on Mofi) I have advocated pullout from Iraq, coupled with a renewed and serious effort to wean the US from Middle eastern oil, neither of which the Bush Administration seems willing to ever consider, let alone do. I don't know that I will vote for Kerry in the Fall - I typically like to cast my vote for a 3rd Party candidate if I am able (I voted Nader in '00). However, I am quite unlikely, pending some radical changes in the direction of the Bush administration, to vote for Bush next election. That's just one man's opinion, which doesn't mean much in this world, but there you go.
• That's NOT cater to it, in the first part up there about business, sorry.
• I tend to believe that a nation, if they are not violent or adventuresome, ought to be free to act as it likes without outside interference unless that interference is requested. Let me clarify that one: I believe that the world ought to make up it's mind as to whether they want the US to serve as the world's policeman, or not. Now, we are ever in a damned-do/damned-don't situation, which makes us pick and choose what places and peoples we help. That's capricious, and ultimately doesn't help (I feel that ignoring Rwanda [and Africa in general] is one of the true travesties of governmental capriciousness in our time). Until the world, probably through the UN, announces it's decision as to whether it wants us to use our military and economic might uniformly, we ought to avoid getting involved in places where the likelihood of insurgency is high OR we ought to force the UN to unreservedly approve (and by hell HELP) our efforts. I understand the vagaries of realpolitik, but it is in these places specifically where those temporal struggles for poltical advantage ought to be shelved.
• What makes you think I'm not a conservative? It was more of an at-large question than a pointed one. Why compare Bush to Michael? Why not Hitler, or Stalin, or Castro? Comparing a President to an assumed child molester just lessons your position. I'd chunk rocks at Jackson if he came anywhere near my son. I have advocated pullout from Iraq -A cut-and-run like Clinton all over again. One would think Bush's popularity would be because he's stinking sticking to his guns. -As for spending, I have a sneaky suspicion he is using the limited effect government spending has on the domestic economy to propel the economy forward, thus a reason for not abandoning the agrobusiness, et al. during this term (it is contrary to the ideals of conservatives, but they aren't making a scene about it). A bright economic forecast and economy only beholdens his party to him. -Government expansion (homeland defense) seems warranted considering the new threat. I have heard only half hearted complaints from the right on that. -Free trade does no good to the American economy if there are no benefits (profits) for the motherland. Why would he bite the hands that feed him? Republicans sleep soundly. -A President who doesn't cave to an institution (UN) that has no respect for the US Constitution only strengthens his position within the Repub ranks. And this isn't a democracy Fes. The 'primacy of the citizenry' exists in ideologue fairy tales and the shadows of failed governments. McCain isn't running, nor is Gulianni. Sometimes I feel they're clinging to Bush because of no viable alternative. The Democrats and Republicans are too institutionalized, each on its own quest for power. I wonder if enough voters sit out this election, would they stop and take notice?
• Why compare Bush to Michael? Why not Hitler, or Stalin, or Castro? Comparing a President to an assumed child molester just lessons your position. Read it again. I din't compare the two. I used Jackson as an example of how one might reasonably base a decision on evidence, without absolute proof.
• Like I say, I'm an atypical conservative, on that apparently lives in an ideologue fairy tale :) stinking sticking to his guns. More like sinking behind his guns. The middle east has eaten every western political interloper. I think that the US should abandon the region - almost literally. Oil has made the middle east disproportionately influential in the world; weaning ourselves from their petroleum teat will do more to our benefit than any hundreds of thousands of troops. A bright economic forecast and economy only beholdens his party to him. Some deficit spending in a recession is warranted, and tax cuts are usually not only a pleasant but economically sound idea (tax *reform* would be ten times better). But running up collosal deficits is not wise economic policy. Government expansion (homeland defense) seems warranted considering the new threat. Not warranted (we already have myriad intelligence services, including the FBI, whose purview 'homeland security' rightly is) and terrorism was not a new threat (Lebanon, Marine barracks, USS Cole, etc.) The stakes just got higher. I've seen this sort of thing in the business world a hundred times. A problem previously ignored escalates into something that can't be ignored, but rather than let the people who are already supposed to be handling said problem leave to handle it? A new, improved, useless committee of people unfamilar with the problem and unqualified to handle it get tapped to take care of things, with the idea that new blood will make a difference. Free trade does no good to the American economy if there are no benefits (profits) for the motherland. No. Free trade is the essence of free market capitalism, and is it's own reward, since in an environment where every corporation operates under the same rules, real competition results in lower prices, increased production efficiency, and best use of resources. The problem with American free trade is that no other country cares to play by the same rules,, most have histories of rather unfree trade, and some barely have capitalism at all.
• A President who doesn't cave to an institution (UN) that has no respect for the US Constitution only strengthens his position within the Repub ranks. Agreed. I'm not huge fan of the UN. But I am sick to death of going in to world hotspots, with or without UN backing, and then getting strung up as the whipping boy. The UN is here to stay, most likely. Time for us to get it - and the world - to stop acting like petulant teenagers, and that means involvement. Sometimes I feel they're clinging to Bush because of no viable alternative. Much the same as the Dems and Kerry. How many times have you heard the phrase "Anyone but Bush" uttered from the Left? Is this a way to choose a candidate? Kerry, observed objectively, is a flawed presidential contender; Dean would have been a far better choice. And yet, the idea got loose that he couldn't win against Bush, and that Kerry, though some ineffable quality taht no one can seem to define, could. I am sick of people thinking that voting is about winning and losing! it's not. It's about voicing your preference. Are we so empty politically that we must be on the "winning" team (what do YOU win?)? I find the assertion that a vote cast for a candidate that can't possibly win ridiculous. I vote for whom I think is best, for my own reasons, and winning be damned. I'd rather say what I think, than take comfort in saying what most people happen to say. I wonder if enough voters sit out this election, would they stop and take notice? Sure they would - briefly. As a statistical curiousity. Discounting the electoral college, if three votes are cast, Bush gets two and Kerry gedts one? Bush gets to be President over us all, not just the three who voted. I'd venture that politicians prefer low voter turnout, since it narrows the field of undecideds and clears the statistical fog, and it pumps up the relative importance of the True Believers. It isn't the ideologues that sit home on election day.
• Bush defends Exxon's record profits He was, however, not under oath. Not that it would matter.
• Bush & Exxon.