Even though I'm trying to make sure things stay political around here, that doesn't mean that the random shit and mindless drivel is going away. Let's get back to that, shall we?
Before we go further, I'm not sure if I went as ad hominem as I could have in that last post. Just to make sure, I'll add this to the discussion:
Maggie Gallagher is a fat, ugly, stupid cunt.
Phew, it feels good to get that out of the way. Now, moving on.
You know what's fucked up? I order something and have it sent via UPS, and it takes 4 days to get here. However, I have something sent to me from the same people, only by regular postal service. For some reason, that only takes 3 days, even though UPS is presumably more expensive.
So anyway, what did I receive in the mail yesterday? The first disc of the Full Metal Panic soundtrack, which I've listened to about 34 times so far. What can I say, I like it. Good soundtrack, good show. Some people don't care for the action and robot fighting, but I like it. It just adds to all the other great things in the show. Sure, the high school comedy stuff is still the best part, but I find it even more amusing placed in the context of all the serious fighting and shit. The show has action, adventure, comedy, chicks and romance - what more can you ask for?
The second season/series is good stuff as well. Definitlely "mindless entertainment," which is also fine by me. So far, I've watched two episodes. Er, depending on how you want to number them, so maybe you'd call it the first three... I'm just going to refer to each download as an "installment" from here on out. Since the focus is on the high school stuff, one thing lacking so far from the first two installments is the Captain. I really hope they find a way to work her in, because I have so totally fallen for her in the first series.
Saturday, September 13, 2003
All week, I've been feeling as if I'm losing focus here at Fuck Everything.
I sense some of you are confused.
"Focus? What the fuck? This place never had any focus." But it seems like I've had lots more random shit about what Google searches brought people here, or new linkers (which I want to do to acknowledge people who are nice enough to link to me, but it is somewhat self-aggrandizing), or random shit that's going on with me. I suspect that people care less about my life than they care about my opinions.
That being said, it's time to work some more on that "opinion" part. More specifically, do it in one of my favorite manners: through weak, mostly ad hominem attacks on conservatives. In getting back to my decaying roots, I also decided to try something new. I went ahead and printed up the article I'm about to attack and comment on, and scribbled down some notes and commentary as I went along. I scanned the document, and posted it online. I don't know how readable it or my comments will be, though. It looks OK on my 1024x780 laptop screen, but it may come out shitty for others. If anyone really cares, I can find a better way to post the original JPEGs, since the online photo album thing scales them for some fucking reason.
About a month ago, I came across a Weekly Standard article entitled What Marriage is For. From the teaser, I could see that it was going to piss me off - some conservative bitch was going to talk about gay marriage and single parents. Since I knew I was going to get mad from reading it, I decided to get up, walk around, and have a snack first.
Well, about a month later, I found myself ready to take on the article, so here we go. My annotated copy can be found here, and the original can be found here.
I think I've made my opinion on gay marriage fairly well known. I don't buy into the bullshit that it's going to destroy the foundations of marriage as we know it. All it will do is force an evolution as to what marriage is for our weak-minded society: evolution from a narrow view of only being between a man and a woman to a more enlightened view of being a union by two people who love eachother.
Maggie, naturally, thinks that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. In her article, she proceeds to do everything she can to push this idea on us, just as conservatives have been trying to do for years. Like all those other conservatives, she fails to make any sort of case as to why things should be how she says they should. Her continual argument is the same bullshit one we hear used to justify things like censorship: it's for the children.
The whole purpose of marriage, for her, is to produce and raise children. She almost makes it seem like marriage is the only way to have children. Then, of course, she points out things like teen pregnancy and horny guys causing out-of-wedlock pregnancies. For her, of course, a man and woman married are the only ones she sees fit to be parents. Nuts to that, I say. There are plenty of married men and women, god-fearing Christians nonetheless, who are totally unfit to have children. Like the kind of people who drop their newborns or name their kid "Maximilian" or "Terra Hymen."
Many points made in the article had me saying "no fucking shit, lady," like when Maggie tells us that children are the only way for our species to survive. She obviously doesn't have any respect for her readers if she feels the need to re-iterate things like this. Then again, her core audience believes in stupid bullshit like virgin birth, so nevermind. Her "survival" of the species point is completely useless to her argument - humans can make babies and continue to survive with and without marriage because, as she was kind enough to point out, you don't have to be married to have a baby.
The converse of that is true - you don't have to have children to be married. Lots of married couples have no children, and lots of them will never have children. Since children are not always involved, it's completely unfair to base your whole argument on children.
In the end, Maggie makes no substantial claim for her beliefs. She simply thinks that children should be raised in a home consisting of their two biological parents, a man and a woman. She doesn't come right out and say it, but I suspect her ideal environment is a Christian home. She presents the weakest of cases, giving us her opinion as if it were well-accepted fact. She isn't the first to do this, and definitely won't be the last. She doesn't give any sort of research that proves children cannot be raised well outside of her ideal situation. In fact, she even wanders into this creepy realm where she repeatedly makes mention of the need to "reconcile the needs of children with the sexual desires of adults." I know it's not what she was going for (probably), but it still creeped me out to hear "children" and "sexual desires of adults" mentioned in the same sentence at least twice in the article. As such, I made some inappropriate comments in my notes.
In addition to not proving that children cannot be well raised in non-traditional homes, she neglects the fact that children can be poorly raised in traditional homes. As I've pointed out, some parents are just shitty parents. Others are good parents, but the parents hate eachother. Maggie, however, implies that it's good to "encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of the Children." That is just fucking stupid, because a facade like that is just going to end up damaging kids even more in the long run. If one parent has to go away, or the parents just need to be apart, then so be it. Idealism doesn't always work itself into ideal conclusions, but you've gotta do what's practical and what's best.
Yes, divorce is hard on the kids who are involved, but people never give kids credit for how tough they can be. At least, kids from my generation were tough enough to handle divorce. Furthermore, they can handle being raised by just one parent if need be, which brings me to my next point.
The issue over single parenthood has been a sore spot with me for 24 years. I am sick and fucking tired of the bullshit attacks on single parents. Is it the optimal situation? No, but that doesn't mean it can't work out very well in the end. Do some single parent homes have problems? Of course. But the continual attacks on single parents are a monumental fucking insult to the single parents who work their ass off and do an amazing job of raising their kids.
As you may have already guessed, I grew up without one of my parents being around. I was essentially raised by my mother and grandparents, so it wasn't exactly a single-parent situation, but it was still not what Maggie would have wanted. You know what? I've turned out just fine. Cynical, sure, but still not that bad. There are plenty of other kids just like me, hell, maybe even some who learned to play nice with the other kids (we call those kids pussies, however).
Of course, for all the kids who managed to grow up in non-Maggie homes and still not do drugs or kill anyone, there are plenty of single-parent homes that have had problems. Maggie tries to make a very weak link between things like poverty, crime, and drug abuse and single parent homes. Here's an idea: instead of finding a scapegoat like single parents, how about we try and find the real root cause of societal problems?
While we're talking about societal problems, we might as well tackle marriage itself. Maggie says marriage is in "crisis," which we've heard time and time again from others. Yeah, I think marriage may be going through a rough patch, but not because of the threat from gay marriage. I'm no expert on the subject, but I can report on what I see. I can easily see why the divorce rate is so high, just from seeing kids getting married way too fucking young, oftentimes to people they don't fucking belong with. I've seen lots of kids (and by kids, I'm talking early twenties) who are too impatient, or too insecure, or too whatever, so they decide to get married long before it's necessary. I can at least cut some slack to people who do find themselves a good partner who they'll stay with, but I can't forgive someone for marrying someone who's a bad match for them. Like Chris rock says: "Life is hard? No it isn't - life is looooong. Especially if you make the wrong choices." Well, I suspect that lots of people are making the wrong choices in their impetuous youth, and when they realize it, they end up divorcing.
Like I said, that's just one reason why I think the divorce rate is so high, mainly because I've seen so much of it despite having such a small sample set of friends to choose from. If this is happening with so many of the few people I know, I suspect it's happening on a much larger scale elsewhere. So, again, Maggie, why don't you start going after the real root cause of the divorce issue? Hey, maybe we can even team up and start a program aimed at promoting to teens the idea of abstaining from marriage until they're ready.
Maggie wants us to live in this perfect world, where men and women fall in love, make babies, and we live on forever in our human glory. Well, sometimes parents are assholes and pack up and leave. Other parents are lost tragically. Some end up realizing they don't belong together because, hey, people make mistakes. But you know what? Lots of kids turn out fine nonetheless. If kids can survive these adverse situations, I think they can survive in a world of gay marriage. What kids need to is be loved and cared for, regardless of who those things are coming from.
Again, though, using children to support your idea is a nonsense tactic that's just designed to evoke sympathy for your cause. In the end, marriage is the joining of two people who love eachother, and an expression of that love they feel. Or, lots of times, an expression of the love they feel for the other person's money. Either way children are often added as an element to the equation of marriage, but not always.
In the end, conservative attacks on gay marriage are nothing but an ignorant opinion wielded in an attempt to force their views on the rest of the world. The comparisons to those who fought civil rights for minorities is dead on: you are discriminating against a group for who and what they are, with no logical or rational basis to even begin to support your bigoted views.
Yes, Maggie, you and your friends have lost.
I sense some of you are confused.
"Focus? What the fuck? This place never had any focus." But it seems like I've had lots more random shit about what Google searches brought people here, or new linkers (which I want to do to acknowledge people who are nice enough to link to me, but it is somewhat self-aggrandizing), or random shit that's going on with me. I suspect that people care less about my life than they care about my opinions.
That being said, it's time to work some more on that "opinion" part. More specifically, do it in one of my favorite manners: through weak, mostly ad hominem attacks on conservatives. In getting back to my decaying roots, I also decided to try something new. I went ahead and printed up the article I'm about to attack and comment on, and scribbled down some notes and commentary as I went along. I scanned the document, and posted it online. I don't know how readable it or my comments will be, though. It looks OK on my 1024x780 laptop screen, but it may come out shitty for others. If anyone really cares, I can find a better way to post the original JPEGs, since the online photo album thing scales them for some fucking reason.
About a month ago, I came across a Weekly Standard article entitled What Marriage is For. From the teaser, I could see that it was going to piss me off - some conservative bitch was going to talk about gay marriage and single parents. Since I knew I was going to get mad from reading it, I decided to get up, walk around, and have a snack first.
Well, about a month later, I found myself ready to take on the article, so here we go. My annotated copy can be found here, and the original can be found here.
I think I've made my opinion on gay marriage fairly well known. I don't buy into the bullshit that it's going to destroy the foundations of marriage as we know it. All it will do is force an evolution as to what marriage is for our weak-minded society: evolution from a narrow view of only being between a man and a woman to a more enlightened view of being a union by two people who love eachother.
Maggie, naturally, thinks that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. In her article, she proceeds to do everything she can to push this idea on us, just as conservatives have been trying to do for years. Like all those other conservatives, she fails to make any sort of case as to why things should be how she says they should. Her continual argument is the same bullshit one we hear used to justify things like censorship: it's for the children.
The whole purpose of marriage, for her, is to produce and raise children. She almost makes it seem like marriage is the only way to have children. Then, of course, she points out things like teen pregnancy and horny guys causing out-of-wedlock pregnancies. For her, of course, a man and woman married are the only ones she sees fit to be parents. Nuts to that, I say. There are plenty of married men and women, god-fearing Christians nonetheless, who are totally unfit to have children. Like the kind of people who drop their newborns or name their kid "Maximilian" or "Terra Hymen."
Many points made in the article had me saying "no fucking shit, lady," like when Maggie tells us that children are the only way for our species to survive. She obviously doesn't have any respect for her readers if she feels the need to re-iterate things like this. Then again, her core audience believes in stupid bullshit like virgin birth, so nevermind. Her "survival" of the species point is completely useless to her argument - humans can make babies and continue to survive with and without marriage because, as she was kind enough to point out, you don't have to be married to have a baby.
The converse of that is true - you don't have to have children to be married. Lots of married couples have no children, and lots of them will never have children. Since children are not always involved, it's completely unfair to base your whole argument on children.
In the end, Maggie makes no substantial claim for her beliefs. She simply thinks that children should be raised in a home consisting of their two biological parents, a man and a woman. She doesn't come right out and say it, but I suspect her ideal environment is a Christian home. She presents the weakest of cases, giving us her opinion as if it were well-accepted fact. She isn't the first to do this, and definitely won't be the last. She doesn't give any sort of research that proves children cannot be raised well outside of her ideal situation. In fact, she even wanders into this creepy realm where she repeatedly makes mention of the need to "reconcile the needs of children with the sexual desires of adults." I know it's not what she was going for (probably), but it still creeped me out to hear "children" and "sexual desires of adults" mentioned in the same sentence at least twice in the article. As such, I made some inappropriate comments in my notes.
In addition to not proving that children cannot be well raised in non-traditional homes, she neglects the fact that children can be poorly raised in traditional homes. As I've pointed out, some parents are just shitty parents. Others are good parents, but the parents hate eachother. Maggie, however, implies that it's good to "encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of the Children." That is just fucking stupid, because a facade like that is just going to end up damaging kids even more in the long run. If one parent has to go away, or the parents just need to be apart, then so be it. Idealism doesn't always work itself into ideal conclusions, but you've gotta do what's practical and what's best.
Yes, divorce is hard on the kids who are involved, but people never give kids credit for how tough they can be. At least, kids from my generation were tough enough to handle divorce. Furthermore, they can handle being raised by just one parent if need be, which brings me to my next point.
The issue over single parenthood has been a sore spot with me for 24 years. I am sick and fucking tired of the bullshit attacks on single parents. Is it the optimal situation? No, but that doesn't mean it can't work out very well in the end. Do some single parent homes have problems? Of course. But the continual attacks on single parents are a monumental fucking insult to the single parents who work their ass off and do an amazing job of raising their kids.
As you may have already guessed, I grew up without one of my parents being around. I was essentially raised by my mother and grandparents, so it wasn't exactly a single-parent situation, but it was still not what Maggie would have wanted. You know what? I've turned out just fine. Cynical, sure, but still not that bad. There are plenty of other kids just like me, hell, maybe even some who learned to play nice with the other kids (we call those kids pussies, however).
Of course, for all the kids who managed to grow up in non-Maggie homes and still not do drugs or kill anyone, there are plenty of single-parent homes that have had problems. Maggie tries to make a very weak link between things like poverty, crime, and drug abuse and single parent homes. Here's an idea: instead of finding a scapegoat like single parents, how about we try and find the real root cause of societal problems?
While we're talking about societal problems, we might as well tackle marriage itself. Maggie says marriage is in "crisis," which we've heard time and time again from others. Yeah, I think marriage may be going through a rough patch, but not because of the threat from gay marriage. I'm no expert on the subject, but I can report on what I see. I can easily see why the divorce rate is so high, just from seeing kids getting married way too fucking young, oftentimes to people they don't fucking belong with. I've seen lots of kids (and by kids, I'm talking early twenties) who are too impatient, or too insecure, or too whatever, so they decide to get married long before it's necessary. I can at least cut some slack to people who do find themselves a good partner who they'll stay with, but I can't forgive someone for marrying someone who's a bad match for them. Like Chris rock says: "Life is hard? No it isn't - life is looooong. Especially if you make the wrong choices." Well, I suspect that lots of people are making the wrong choices in their impetuous youth, and when they realize it, they end up divorcing.
Like I said, that's just one reason why I think the divorce rate is so high, mainly because I've seen so much of it despite having such a small sample set of friends to choose from. If this is happening with so many of the few people I know, I suspect it's happening on a much larger scale elsewhere. So, again, Maggie, why don't you start going after the real root cause of the divorce issue? Hey, maybe we can even team up and start a program aimed at promoting to teens the idea of abstaining from marriage until they're ready.
Maggie wants us to live in this perfect world, where men and women fall in love, make babies, and we live on forever in our human glory. Well, sometimes parents are assholes and pack up and leave. Other parents are lost tragically. Some end up realizing they don't belong together because, hey, people make mistakes. But you know what? Lots of kids turn out fine nonetheless. If kids can survive these adverse situations, I think they can survive in a world of gay marriage. What kids need to is be loved and cared for, regardless of who those things are coming from.
Again, though, using children to support your idea is a nonsense tactic that's just designed to evoke sympathy for your cause. In the end, marriage is the joining of two people who love eachother, and an expression of that love they feel. Or, lots of times, an expression of the love they feel for the other person's money. Either way children are often added as an element to the equation of marriage, but not always.
In the end, conservative attacks on gay marriage are nothing but an ignorant opinion wielded in an attempt to force their views on the rest of the world. The comparisons to those who fought civil rights for minorities is dead on: you are discriminating against a group for who and what they are, with no logical or rational basis to even begin to support your bigoted views.
Yes, Maggie, you and your friends have lost.
You know what pisses me off? The fact that, despite all these years, people don't fucking understand how eBay works. No, I mean how it really works. You know what I mean: how none of the bidding matters for most items, because it all comes, literally, to the last second of the auction. That's when people bid like mad and the winner is determined. Obviously, the winner is determined at the very end; that's the nature of auctions. If you've ever lost an item at the last possible second to some fucking prick, though, you know what I mean.
So why the fuck do people bother bidding before the last 10 seconds of the auction anyway? I can understand if you're not going to be able to be online right when the auction closes, and slow connections and such can be an issue. You just put in your highest bid at the last time available to you, then pray. That's what I had to do with the Gadgetmobile, except I didn't pray. I know that not even Joe Pesci can help me when it comes to winning on eBay - it's all luck as to what assholes you're up against.
Anyway, yeah, if you can be there at auction's end, there is no fucking point in bidding before the end. You're just fucking everybody, you asshole! Including yourself! Bidding beforehand does nothing but drive up the final price for the winner, who may be you. Do us all a favor and knock it the fuck off, will 'ya? Quit being so damn stupid. Unless, of course, if you're just trying to drive the price up on purpose because you know you're not going to win against some bastard who you get the feeling has set an unreasonable max bid. In that case, when you are driving it up on purpose like I do sometimes, you are just an asshole.
So why the fuck do people bother bidding before the last 10 seconds of the auction anyway? I can understand if you're not going to be able to be online right when the auction closes, and slow connections and such can be an issue. You just put in your highest bid at the last time available to you, then pray. That's what I had to do with the Gadgetmobile, except I didn't pray. I know that not even Joe Pesci can help me when it comes to winning on eBay - it's all luck as to what assholes you're up against.
Anyway, yeah, if you can be there at auction's end, there is no fucking point in bidding before the end. You're just fucking everybody, you asshole! Including yourself! Bidding beforehand does nothing but drive up the final price for the winner, who may be you. Do us all a favor and knock it the fuck off, will 'ya? Quit being so damn stupid. Unless, of course, if you're just trying to drive the price up on purpose because you know you're not going to win against some bastard who you get the feeling has set an unreasonable max bid. In that case, when you are driving it up on purpose like I do sometimes, you are just an asshole.
While trolling around for pr0n, I somehow came across this little gem: Woody Allen's short story, The Whore of Mensa.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Hey, it's OK, we're in a jobless recovery. Oh, wait, that other stuff isn't recovering like they expected, either? Fuck. Wait, don't worry, the tax cuts will - oh, yeah. Shit.
This site has some fucking funny shit. Or at least, it amused me on this late Friday afternoon. My favortie is the Detroit one.
I don't know why I keep doing this, but here are a shitload more searches that have brought visitors here:
marriage is bullshit
Hacking school cracks open new career option
doax hoax pics
fuck everything
fuck ariel sharon
19 highjackers
looking for girls dates and wants to fuck
naked miliatry men
Sheeting, fuck
school+14 years+girls+fuck
contributing to delinquincy of a minor
12 years lolys pics
I'm kinda proud of that "marriage is bullshit" one. And the tactic to get hits by mentioning pr0n is working as well. The odd thing is, it's rarely one coherent phrase that every brings people here - search engines are flagging words spread across different pages. Oh well, whatever works.
I'm also real glad to see that my use of language and choice in topics are drawing in so many pedophiles. I can't even begin to tell you how proud I am of that. I am so going to get in trouble for this 'blog, even though I'm not the boyfucker or the one looking for 12-year-olds.
However, someone searching for "lolys pics" just further cements my belief that that one guy I saw on the road this week was referring to his lolicon on his license plate.
marriage is bullshit
Hacking school cracks open new career option
doax hoax pics
fuck everything
fuck ariel sharon
19 highjackers
looking for girls dates and wants to fuck
naked miliatry men
Sheeting, fuck
school+14 years+girls+fuck
contributing to delinquincy of a minor
12 years lolys pics
I'm kinda proud of that "marriage is bullshit" one. And the tactic to get hits by mentioning pr0n is working as well. The odd thing is, it's rarely one coherent phrase that every brings people here - search engines are flagging words spread across different pages. Oh well, whatever works.
I'm also real glad to see that my use of language and choice in topics are drawing in so many pedophiles. I can't even begin to tell you how proud I am of that. I am so going to get in trouble for this 'blog, even though I'm not the boyfucker or the one looking for 12-year-olds.
However, someone searching for "lolys pics" just further cements my belief that that one guy I saw on the road this week was referring to his lolicon on his license plate.
You know what I miss? AdCritic. Back when that site was in its original incarnation, it was the fucking best. What few decent commercials there were you could usually find on there. They had all sorts of other useful shit, too, like telling you what music was played in what commercial. AdCritic, naturally, went away after awhile. It's been back for awhile, but the new owners want to charge you nearly $100 a year to subscribe to the site. Fuck that. Don't ask why, I just suddenly got nostalgic, and was reminded that it's never going to be good again.
Why are they even bothering to make another Batman movie? Didn't they learn their lesson when the last couple were reviled as being something along the lines of the worst pieces of shit ever? Does it not tell them something that even George Clooney said the one he was in sucked?
Maybe the Democrats are just being whiny bitches, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are being excluded on purpose so the Republicans can hammer out a bill favorable to companies in the energy business instead of doing anything that will actually be helpful.
"What they are really saying is unless you do it their way, they don't want to play," Mr. Tauzin said. "Well, I am tired of hearing harping by people who don't want to play." Ummmm, isn't that exactly what you're doing, Billy? Excluding Democrats because they won't play crooked Republican ball?
Yeah, I know, not like the Democrats aren't owned by special interests, too. But like Bill Maher (who's not a Democrat) says, they're at least owned by a slightly less scary group of special interests.
By the way, what self-respecting adult in the public light goes by "Billy" anyway? Shouldn't you have stopped going by Billy, I don't know, when you were five? Well, there is Billy Bob Thornton, but I think it's pretty obvious that he has no self-respect, since, after all, he goes by Billy Bob.
You're right; I'm probably just being cynical. It'll all work out, and I know this when I think back to the good 'ol days of Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. When Dick Cheney, a great American, valiantly stood up and asked: "Energy companies of America: What can your country do for you?"
"What they are really saying is unless you do it their way, they don't want to play," Mr. Tauzin said. "Well, I am tired of hearing harping by people who don't want to play." Ummmm, isn't that exactly what you're doing, Billy? Excluding Democrats because they won't play crooked Republican ball?
Yeah, I know, not like the Democrats aren't owned by special interests, too. But like Bill Maher (who's not a Democrat) says, they're at least owned by a slightly less scary group of special interests.
By the way, what self-respecting adult in the public light goes by "Billy" anyway? Shouldn't you have stopped going by Billy, I don't know, when you were five? Well, there is Billy Bob Thornton, but I think it's pretty obvious that he has no self-respect, since, after all, he goes by Billy Bob.
You're right; I'm probably just being cynical. It'll all work out, and I know this when I think back to the good 'ol days of Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. When Dick Cheney, a great American, valiantly stood up and asked: "Energy companies of America: What can your country do for you?"
Well guys, it was a nice try. Even though the attempt wasn't successful, it's nice to see some Democrats standing up and taking risks, even if it doesn't always work out.
So, I managed to make it through September 11th once again with the TV only on once. Well, once if you don't count my playing Dead or Alive: Xtreme Barbie Doll Dressup or watching anime. Those, of course, don't count, since I was pretty sure there weren't going to be any hollow September 11th tributes.
For some reason, the only time regular TV has been on these past two years has not been of my choosing, and both years it's been ESPN. That's about as good as it gets; they still have their bullshit September 11th stuff, but it's not as bad (I suspect) as what's going on to get ratings on the other channels.
Like I said, it's not like I'm trying to avoid thinking about that mess, but I'm just going to get even more pissed off if I see any "tribute" designed only for political and/or monetary gain. For me, the best way I could think of going through September 11th was to just do what I would normally do. That's not any sort of a tribute, obviously, but it's better than trying to manipulate people's emotions to get those ad or campaign dollars up.
While we're on the subject of assholes taking advantage of September 11th, here's Krugman's take on the Administration with regards to September 11th.
For some reason, the only time regular TV has been on these past two years has not been of my choosing, and both years it's been ESPN. That's about as good as it gets; they still have their bullshit September 11th stuff, but it's not as bad (I suspect) as what's going on to get ratings on the other channels.
Like I said, it's not like I'm trying to avoid thinking about that mess, but I'm just going to get even more pissed off if I see any "tribute" designed only for political and/or monetary gain. For me, the best way I could think of going through September 11th was to just do what I would normally do. That's not any sort of a tribute, obviously, but it's better than trying to manipulate people's emotions to get those ad or campaign dollars up.
While we're on the subject of assholes taking advantage of September 11th, here's Krugman's take on the Administration with regards to September 11th.
... And one more link, courtesy of John (no, a different John). Roll over the link to my site, and I'm described as "A pissed off guy." That's about right.
Here's a new link this morning. Not really sure what this guy's page is about; it's kinda hard to read. From what I can gather, he's a gay teen who likes Sherl Crow pictures, and he may have bronchitis. He does have women posting on his messageboard, though, and I'm jealous. Why do gay guys get all the chicks?
Regardless, the link is appreciated, as always.
Regardless, the link is appreciated, as always.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Even though comments weren't exactly getting heavy use, I decided to implement the new system I mentioned coming across last week. This one looks much cleaner than those stupid SquawkBox comments, and there's none of that IP address recording nonsense. It looks like BlogSpeak is run by just one guy, and who knows if I can trust him. I'll take my odds on one guy over potentially a bunch of guys, though.
Well, you know what, fuckers? It is going to get worse if you don't vote this piece of shit out of office next November.
The problem is, people won't do it. The reason why is summed up in what that 35-year-old from Lake Villa said. As long as we see "a little bit more aggressiveness out of that office get public confidence back that we're secure," that'll be good enough for most people. The problem is, just because the public thinks we're secure doesn't mean that we actually are. The government is real good at putting on their dog and pony show to make us think a lot is being done to make us safer. As long as people think they're safe, they don't care enough to delve deeper and see if we're actually safe. Like, remember how before September 11th, we all thought we were safe? Well, that's where we are again. And things will look and feel safe, and the government will be looking as if they're doing a good job, until we're attacked again and see what fucking idiots we are yet again.
The problem is, people won't do it. The reason why is summed up in what that 35-year-old from Lake Villa said. As long as we see "a little bit more aggressiveness out of that office get public confidence back that we're secure," that'll be good enough for most people. The problem is, just because the public thinks we're secure doesn't mean that we actually are. The government is real good at putting on their dog and pony show to make us think a lot is being done to make us safer. As long as people think they're safe, they don't care enough to delve deeper and see if we're actually safe. Like, remember how before September 11th, we all thought we were safe? Well, that's where we are again. And things will look and feel safe, and the government will be looking as if they're doing a good job, until we're attacked again and see what fucking idiots we are yet again.
This looks like it could be a cool show - giving us some more insight as to who really runs this country. I can't imagine why people in congress would be giving them any sort of hard time over it.
This has got to be the worst 'blog I have ever seen. I know I'm being "World's Biggest Asshole" here, but c'mon. You spend more time indoors than I do if the theme of your weblog is Caitlin from Final Fantasy VIII coupled with a bunch of inspirational crap.
Man, I almost feel bad about posting this one, especially after ripping on that guy's Enterprise wet dream 'blog last week. Obviously, I don't feel too bad since I'm going to end up posting it. Look, I know I'm a bad person for being this way. I think my 'blog sucks, too, and I have no right to be criticizing. However, if I bought into that "no right" bullshit, I wouldn't have a site.
Man, I almost feel bad about posting this one, especially after ripping on that guy's Enterprise wet dream 'blog last week. Obviously, I don't feel too bad since I'm going to end up posting it. Look, I know I'm a bad person for being this way. I think my 'blog sucks, too, and I have no right to be criticizing. However, if I bought into that "no right" bullshit, I wouldn't have a site.
Okay, so I just realized why I was getting so many hits from LOVEFURY. On its sign-in page, Blogger has a section for "10 most recently published blogs," as well as "blogs of note," and LOVEFURY recently got added to the latter. So, like a true asshole, I've been leeching off Tiberius' success. However, I'm not a total asshole, so I'll put in a plug for his new 'blog dedicated to movie reviews.
Speaking of "blogs of note," what would it take to get those Blogger bastards to notice my 'blog? I'm sure calling them "bastards" will be a big help. Plus, I'm sure they'd really want the title Fuck Everything in semi-permanent form on one of their main pages.
Speaking of "blogs of note," what would it take to get those Blogger bastards to notice my 'blog? I'm sure calling them "bastards" will be a big help. Plus, I'm sure they'd really want the title Fuck Everything in semi-permanent form on one of their main pages.
Why is it that every fucking online store is affiliated with Amazon.com now? I just found out that Fluke put out a new album recently, and of course, it's an import because we get nothing but shit in this country. So I check Amazon. "Usually ships in 3-4 weeks." What the fuck is that shit? I could just fly overseas and get it sooner. How hard is it for someone to put it in a fucking envelope and send it to me? Anyway, since Amazon sucks, I check other places, like Virgin and CDNow, who I discover are all "powered by Amazon.com," which is a bunch of shit. Yeah, my nuts are powered by Amazon, but they won't take four weeks to reach you. So, clearly, I can find this thing, but waiting a month for it is utter bullshit. Hey, Blackjack, what's that one site you go to for finding import shit? I know I can track it down, since I'm the King of Finding all Shit that Interests Me, but it's 2 AM and I'm tired.
Here's yet another reason why the Japanese are better than we are. When a woman has an unwanted child, she doesn't throw it in the dumpster like some wasteful American girl - she puts it in the fridge and saves it for later.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
So here's my four-and-a-half second fansub review for the night.
Onegai Twins is so deliciously dirty, and I just love it.
Has anyone else watched any Green Green? What the fuck is up with that show?
Watched the first episode of R.O.D. The TV. We'll have to see where that one goes, now that it's no longer vaporware. It's just not gonna be the same without Miss Deep and Zaaa Papaaaaaa, but there's room for a Yomiko cameo. If nothing else, though, the first episode taught us one thing: no matter how hard the government tries, they cannot make airplanes 100% safe.
Onegai Twins is so deliciously dirty, and I just love it.
Has anyone else watched any Green Green? What the fuck is up with that show?
Watched the first episode of R.O.D. The TV. We'll have to see where that one goes, now that it's no longer vaporware. It's just not gonna be the same without Miss Deep and Zaaa Papaaaaaa, but there's room for a Yomiko cameo. If nothing else, though, the first episode taught us one thing: no matter how hard the government tries, they cannot make airplanes 100% safe.
Just in case you'd forgotten, civil liberties are under attack in this country.
Okay, that's enough complaining and random anecdotes... for now. Time to get my Onegai Twins on.
Okay, that's enough complaining and random anecdotes... for now. Time to get my Onegai Twins on.
So I was thinking of the whole abstinence thing again for some reason, and was reminded of a story. Relax, it's not going to be a story that will make you sick, most likely. If it does, you are way too sensitive, and I'm not sure how you've made it through any of this 'blog. Of course, if this is your first time here, you're on your own.
Anyway, I was thinking of the day our 6th grade homeroom teacher was telling us this story about a girl named Terra Hymen. And... That's about it. I'm pretty sure that's the whole story - there was some girl in real life whose parents actually named her that. Great story, huh? I knew about sex well before that, but I was previously unaware of intricate details like the hymen. I'm pretty sure that's when I learned - our teacher just explained it to us. Now, this wasn't to the whole class, just a smaller group of students who had congregated. Still, who needs sex ed when you have homeroom?
That reminded me of another incident from homeroom that year. Another day, our teacher for some reason was talking about how "fighting solves everything." Apparently, there was some guy or kid he knew who used to say that. So, he's talking about how "fighting solves everything" as I'm taking roll (I was always a goody-goody in school), and I'm like "yeah, if you beat the crap out of 'em." That was like one of my proudest moments in school - I got to say the word "crap" up in front of everyone without getting into trouble.
Getting to say "crap" was probably the best it got until senior year of college. We had to give a series of presentations about our senior project. The project we chose was to design a simple 16-bit CPU. Anyway, in the first presentation, we were giving an overview of what we were planning to do. We also made mention of things we'd like to do if we had enough time. I'm up there, telling everyone the features our CPU will have, adding that "if we get really ballsy, we can add a floating-point unit." What was great was that the rest of the class filled out feedback forms, and someone actually made mention of the fact that I "probably could have chosen a better word besides 'ballsy'." And I'm like, no way, fuck that - I got to use the word "ballsy" in a semi-serious presentation in front of a group of people.
Anyway, I was thinking of the day our 6th grade homeroom teacher was telling us this story about a girl named Terra Hymen. And... That's about it. I'm pretty sure that's the whole story - there was some girl in real life whose parents actually named her that. Great story, huh? I knew about sex well before that, but I was previously unaware of intricate details like the hymen. I'm pretty sure that's when I learned - our teacher just explained it to us. Now, this wasn't to the whole class, just a smaller group of students who had congregated. Still, who needs sex ed when you have homeroom?
That reminded me of another incident from homeroom that year. Another day, our teacher for some reason was talking about how "fighting solves everything." Apparently, there was some guy or kid he knew who used to say that. So, he's talking about how "fighting solves everything" as I'm taking roll (I was always a goody-goody in school), and I'm like "yeah, if you beat the crap out of 'em." That was like one of my proudest moments in school - I got to say the word "crap" up in front of everyone without getting into trouble.
Getting to say "crap" was probably the best it got until senior year of college. We had to give a series of presentations about our senior project. The project we chose was to design a simple 16-bit CPU. Anyway, in the first presentation, we were giving an overview of what we were planning to do. We also made mention of things we'd like to do if we had enough time. I'm up there, telling everyone the features our CPU will have, adding that "if we get really ballsy, we can add a floating-point unit." What was great was that the rest of the class filled out feedback forms, and someone actually made mention of the fact that I "probably could have chosen a better word besides 'ballsy'." And I'm like, no way, fuck that - I got to use the word "ballsy" in a semi-serious presentation in front of a group of people.
Hey, so in addition to tabbed browsing and the pop up blocker, you know what else Mozilla can do? Block images from servers you tell it to block images from. This is great for keeping a lot of banner ads from appearing. Not only do I not have to look at that shit, but it also helps load times when you're on a dialup connection.
Hey, so who the fuck is Colin Farrell, and why the fuck do people keep making such a big deal about him? I hear a bunch of name dropping with this guy, so I presume he's the "it boy" of the moment or some such bullshit. Am I so out of touch with Hollywood and pop culture that I don't know who's "popular" or "in" anymore? Christ, I hope so.
So, since it was already on when I got home, I decided to watch Star Trek Enterprise's season premiere. Yup, still lame. It's not as if it's horribly awful like Cop Rock or Sports Night, it's just so fucking sub-par for Trek when I think of the original or Next Generation. It's almost like the Star Wars prequels are to that universe, only Enterprise doesn't have the shittiest actor ever (that kid who played Anakin in Episode II).
There are lots of problems with Enterprise which just make it seem like Voyager II. The writers don't give a shit about coming up with good, original stories (which may not even be possible with as much Trek as there's been). They could care less about continuity with established storylines from other series (you know, like the fact that it was well established that there were only six Starfleet ships named Enterprise... and yes, I know, that's fucking nerdy nitpicking, but it's not good when you can immediately destroy the premise of the show like that). Again, like Voyager, I could give less than a shit about virtually all of the characters. Scott Bakula is rather stiff, but cool, and Tripp is a good guy. That's about it - everyone else sucks. The Doctor is supposed to be quirky and kooky, I guess, but he's just annoying. Malcolm is the ship's bitch. Then there's Big Lips Blalock, who's apparently supposed to be hot, even though she isn't. I don't know about Hoshi. She was a real annoying, whiny bitch in the beginning. She actually started to get cool after she got laid in one episode, but I don't know if it took. Who am I forgetting? Oh yeah, Travis, who everyone forgets because he doesn't do anything.
Supposedly, this season the Enterprise is going to hunt Osama. No, I'm serious. From what I've read, the end of last season had some unknown species attacking Earth, September 11th-style. This season, they're taking on new crewmembers, the NARCs or something, and they're going to hunt after the new bad guys, the Xindi, who we've never, ever heard of in the later/earlier shows (depending on how you look at it), even though you'd think we would have if they had attacked Earth like that. There's supposed to be more action, and more sex! Big fucking deal. Remember how Jeri Ryan was really hot, and Voyager still sucked? In all fairness, though, in addition to being hot, Seven of Nine was a fucking cool character in the beginning when she was a total bitch. But, just like Abby on Law and Order, they softened her up and took all the fun out of the character.
Anyway, yeah. We'll see if I get back into watching Enterprise or not, but I'm not counting on it. One of the main reasons I fell out of the loop was because it was just too uninteresting to bother remembering or setting the timer for. Shit, I forget to watch or am too lazy to tape shows that are really good, like Real Time or Scrubs. If Enterprise is on, I might watch it, like I did tonight. But chances are you won't hear me saying "Hey, can you wait an hour? Enterprise is on."
There are lots of problems with Enterprise which just make it seem like Voyager II. The writers don't give a shit about coming up with good, original stories (which may not even be possible with as much Trek as there's been). They could care less about continuity with established storylines from other series (you know, like the fact that it was well established that there were only six Starfleet ships named Enterprise... and yes, I know, that's fucking nerdy nitpicking, but it's not good when you can immediately destroy the premise of the show like that). Again, like Voyager, I could give less than a shit about virtually all of the characters. Scott Bakula is rather stiff, but cool, and Tripp is a good guy. That's about it - everyone else sucks. The Doctor is supposed to be quirky and kooky, I guess, but he's just annoying. Malcolm is the ship's bitch. Then there's Big Lips Blalock, who's apparently supposed to be hot, even though she isn't. I don't know about Hoshi. She was a real annoying, whiny bitch in the beginning. She actually started to get cool after she got laid in one episode, but I don't know if it took. Who am I forgetting? Oh yeah, Travis, who everyone forgets because he doesn't do anything.
Supposedly, this season the Enterprise is going to hunt Osama. No, I'm serious. From what I've read, the end of last season had some unknown species attacking Earth, September 11th-style. This season, they're taking on new crewmembers, the NARCs or something, and they're going to hunt after the new bad guys, the Xindi, who we've never, ever heard of in the later/earlier shows (depending on how you look at it), even though you'd think we would have if they had attacked Earth like that. There's supposed to be more action, and more sex! Big fucking deal. Remember how Jeri Ryan was really hot, and Voyager still sucked? In all fairness, though, in addition to being hot, Seven of Nine was a fucking cool character in the beginning when she was a total bitch. But, just like Abby on Law and Order, they softened her up and took all the fun out of the character.
Anyway, yeah. We'll see if I get back into watching Enterprise or not, but I'm not counting on it. One of the main reasons I fell out of the loop was because it was just too uninteresting to bother remembering or setting the timer for. Shit, I forget to watch or am too lazy to tape shows that are really good, like Real Time or Scrubs. If Enterprise is on, I might watch it, like I did tonight. But chances are you won't hear me saying "Hey, can you wait an hour? Enterprise is on."
A couple more notes from Walt's report.
First, I am sick of this bullshit term "al Qaeda-type" fighters or terrorists. Just take a look at it, folks. The Bush administration's attempt to tie Iraq in with al Qaeda is so fucking weak that they have to resort to comparing anybody who picks up a gun or a bomb to al Qaeda. Shit, I criticize the US government and our foreign policy, so by their standards, I must be al Qaeda-type (sadly, some people would say just that, I'll bet). I know I don't have to repeat this for any of you, but any fucking terrorist could be considered "al Qaeda-type." This, of course, is just a limp dick attempt to make a mental connection between al Qaeda, the guys who really attacked us on September 11th, and the new guys, who are just pissed that we're in Iraq. The phrase is lame and it's despicable, but it's simple and stupid enough that people will probably buy it anyway.
The other thing is this worry that more terrorist attacks might occur on the 11th. There's always this worry that it's going to coincide with something - the anniversary, 4th of July, end of Ramadan, whatever. But does anyone remember September 11ths of yore? Remember how that day never meant anything before 2001? The only reason anyone could come up with for the terrorists picking that date because it could be read as "911." That's a pretty weak link.
We are in serious fucking trouble if they're worried about "a logical time for attacks," because the terrorists don't care about logical times. They care about inflicting maximum casualties, and they're not going to be so simple-minded as to do something at a time when we're thinking it might happen, and as such, at a time when we're marginally more ready. After all this time, I can't believe that they're still acting like the terrorists are stupid. Believe it or not, I don't care for Osama and the lot of them, but they are a bunch of smart motherfuckers. Clearly, they are, since they have the only remaining Superpower destroying itself from the inside. Considering the nature of terrorism, I don't have much hope that we'll ever win the war on it. I have even less hope as long as we continue to underestimate the enemy and give them more of what they want - excuses to come and kill us - while we tear down the freedoms and institutions that make us different from them.
First, I am sick of this bullshit term "al Qaeda-type" fighters or terrorists. Just take a look at it, folks. The Bush administration's attempt to tie Iraq in with al Qaeda is so fucking weak that they have to resort to comparing anybody who picks up a gun or a bomb to al Qaeda. Shit, I criticize the US government and our foreign policy, so by their standards, I must be al Qaeda-type (sadly, some people would say just that, I'll bet). I know I don't have to repeat this for any of you, but any fucking terrorist could be considered "al Qaeda-type." This, of course, is just a limp dick attempt to make a mental connection between al Qaeda, the guys who really attacked us on September 11th, and the new guys, who are just pissed that we're in Iraq. The phrase is lame and it's despicable, but it's simple and stupid enough that people will probably buy it anyway.
The other thing is this worry that more terrorist attacks might occur on the 11th. There's always this worry that it's going to coincide with something - the anniversary, 4th of July, end of Ramadan, whatever. But does anyone remember September 11ths of yore? Remember how that day never meant anything before 2001? The only reason anyone could come up with for the terrorists picking that date because it could be read as "911." That's a pretty weak link.
We are in serious fucking trouble if they're worried about "a logical time for attacks," because the terrorists don't care about logical times. They care about inflicting maximum casualties, and they're not going to be so simple-minded as to do something at a time when we're thinking it might happen, and as such, at a time when we're marginally more ready. After all this time, I can't believe that they're still acting like the terrorists are stupid. Believe it or not, I don't care for Osama and the lot of them, but they are a bunch of smart motherfuckers. Clearly, they are, since they have the only remaining Superpower destroying itself from the inside. Considering the nature of terrorism, I don't have much hope that we'll ever win the war on it. I have even less hope as long as we continue to underestimate the enemy and give them more of what they want - excuses to come and kill us - while we tear down the freedoms and institutions that make us different from them.
God fucking damn it, Walt is still alive?
For anyone who didn't watch coverage of the war with me (which excludes about 6 billion people) back when we were in "combat," Walter Rodgers, or as he was simply known to me, Walt (biting tone), was my fucking arch nemesis. It all started one of the first nights when they were driving across the desert, and he was waaaaaaaaay too excited to be driving over fucking sand in a personnel carrier. He was the one who coined that stupid phrase "wave of steel." Yeah, that fucker.
Then there was another night where we the The Airport Formerly Known as Saddam International was under seige. Walt wasn't at the airport, oh no, he was on the road to the airport. Apparently, we'd blown up some sort of Iraqi tank or armored vehicle of some sort, and there were a couple of dead Iraqis laying around. I was doing something else at the time (probably downloading pornography or chatting with other perverts), and just left the TV on. Walt proceeded to describe the scene, in detail (not many details... shit's on fire, people are dead), like seven fucking times before they either cut away from him or I just turned the shit off.
There were a couple of times when someone in the media died or was killed. When I first heard the news, I got a little flutter of hope - "Was it Walt?" Then, when I found out that it wasn't, "Fuck!"
For anyone who didn't watch coverage of the war with me (which excludes about 6 billion people) back when we were in "combat," Walter Rodgers, or as he was simply known to me, Walt (biting tone), was my fucking arch nemesis. It all started one of the first nights when they were driving across the desert, and he was waaaaaaaaay too excited to be driving over fucking sand in a personnel carrier. He was the one who coined that stupid phrase "wave of steel." Yeah, that fucker.
Then there was another night where we the The Airport Formerly Known as Saddam International was under seige. Walt wasn't at the airport, oh no, he was on the road to the airport. Apparently, we'd blown up some sort of Iraqi tank or armored vehicle of some sort, and there were a couple of dead Iraqis laying around. I was doing something else at the time (probably downloading pornography or chatting with other perverts), and just left the TV on. Walt proceeded to describe the scene, in detail (not many details... shit's on fire, people are dead), like seven fucking times before they either cut away from him or I just turned the shit off.
There were a couple of times when someone in the media died or was killed. When I first heard the news, I got a little flutter of hope - "Was it Walt?" Then, when I found out that it wasn't, "Fuck!"
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
So this is the fucking coolest t-shirt I've seen in awhile. It's not often I come across apparel that requires knowledge of both C/C++ and 1984 to fully understand.
So apparently the 12-year-old girl who was being sued by the RIAA has already settled. I hope that this doesn't go away despite the settlement, and the story lingers for awhile just to show what cold-blooded fuckers the RIAA is.
More horrific happenings in Israel.
At this point, I think the only way "to put an end to the killing" would be for aliens from outer space to show up and obliterate the region. Anything short of that, and all the hatred and killing isn't going to stop.
At this point, I think the only way "to put an end to the killing" would be for aliens from outer space to show up and obliterate the region. Anything short of that, and all the hatred and killing isn't going to stop.
Here's another view on the whole abstinence issue, but forth in a much more coherent and professional manner than I'm capable of. This once again comes from our friends across the pond, where they seem to have a much healthier, more realistic, and ultimately more compassionate way of approaching teenage sexuality.
So on my way to work today, I drove past a guy whose license plate read "LOLYS." And I'm thinking to myself, you know, having a lolita complex is one thing, but is it a good idea to be announcing it on the license place of your fucking car? It was a guy driving, so clearly, this couldn't be anything but a lolicon reference.
So apparently Paramount has realized that the fans care so little about Enterprise that they're adding the words "Star Trek" to the official title for the third season. Yeah, you fucks, that's why no one was watching: because they didn't realize it's supposed to be Star Trek. It has nothing to do with the fact that the show sucks, and that you should quit raping Roddenberry's corpse already.
Hey, and just as we were discussing the degredation of civil liberties to bolster the illusion of security. As an added bonus, you won't even know if you're part of the test next year. There is so much comforting information in that article that it just boggles the mind.
Here's yet another example as to why the RIAA is a buch of fucking assholes. This is just more evidence as to how all these lawsuits are nothing but a McCarthyistic witch hunt. The amnesty program is further support of this, since it's not available to those already being sued, and obviously not to those who have already settled. Why wasn't the amnesty program available to them at the time? Because the RIAA hadn't announced it yet - they had to make an example of those other people first.
Also, in case you're wondering why I was reading Fox News, I wasn't. This was originally linked off of Assdot, and I figured I already took the time to read one story about the ridiculousness of suing a 12 year old girl and that there was no sense in reading another and just getting more pissed. Speaking of this 12 year old and the early lesson she's getting in her "Why America Sucks" education, what's next for her? Having Ashcroft show up at her house and forcefully take her to a Silver Ring Thing meeting?
If they actually go forward with this bullshit, it will be yet another example as to why I'm pissed at this place.
Also, in case you're wondering why I was reading Fox News, I wasn't. This was originally linked off of Assdot, and I figured I already took the time to read one story about the ridiculousness of suing a 12 year old girl and that there was no sense in reading another and just getting more pissed. Speaking of this 12 year old and the early lesson she's getting in her "Why America Sucks" education, what's next for her? Having Ashcroft show up at her house and forcefully take her to a Silver Ring Thing meeting?
If they actually go forward with this bullshit, it will be yet another example as to why I'm pissed at this place.
So it's been over six years since I graduated high school, but I don't seem to remember my history classes being particularly unfair to America.
I'm sure most of the people who come here think I hate America. Well, I don't. Sorta. You see, America and I have a complicated relationship. I love the ideals that this country was founded upon. Freedom, equality, religious tolerance - just to name a few. Granted, that looks a little weak, considering it was laid down by a bunch of white, slave-holding land owners. Whether the founding fathers were hypocritical or not (and they were), I think the principles that were supposed to define this country are able to stand on their own merits.
Oh, and I will make a definite stand that I hate our leaders. The Bush Administration, the weak-ass democrats - they all fucking suck. I think my opinion on Washington is already well known, however.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that I hate what we, as a country, have become. I think we are running down a dangerous path that is causing us to stray more and more from those founding ideals. We've become a nation where civil liberties are curttailed in the name of (the illusion of) safety. We have a good number of people who think government promotion of Christianity is OK. We have a populace that is still afraid of things like homosexuality. We have a culture of corporate greed that every one of us feeds off of and feeds into. We run around the world cramming our religion and our system down people's throats. There's obviously plenty of other shit we do, too. All in all, I think we're squandering a whole lot of potential. America is becoming the tall, attractive, smart, funny guy who ends up marrying the worst human being possible. Few things piss me off more than unrealized or discarded potential.
America isn't alone, and we're not the only country who does some or all of the things I've mentioned. Since I live here, though, it makes it easier for me to see what we're up to, and puts me in a better position to criticize.
Yes, of course, I'm only mentioning the bad things, just like this report is accusing the educational system of doing. But you know what? I've always viewed that as my job. It's easy to look at the good side of things. If we just looked at the good and not the bad, we'd never work on any of the bad stuff and make any progress. Also, the uglier elements of American history cannot be ignored. I'm hearing a call for "balance," but I'm severely doubtful in this day and age as to just how much balance they want.
If you're worried about kids not being patriotic enough, tell that to our government first. Tell them to start acting more patriotic. No, I mean real patriotism, not wearing an American flag lapel pin just in case you're photographed, while you pass legislation cynically titled the PATRIOT act.
One thing I definitely agree with is the call for more study of non-democratic societies. A lot of kids will be able to better appreciate what we have in our society just by seeing it juxtaposed with societies that don't have the freedoms that we do have. Well, the freedoms that we have for the time being, at least. Lots of them will be able to draw their own conclusions and develop their own sense of what America is to them without having it preached to them. Yes, they're not all going to fall in line with some people's ideals of what an American citizen should be, but that's what happens in a free society where people are allowed to be free thinkers (I'm pretty sure we have a few of those left). You know what? That's a good thing, that idea of people forming their own diverse opinions.
Oh, and for Christ's sake, let's see a little more study of people who aren't white.
The reason why I'm so pissed at this country is because I know we can do better. Okay, at this point I've gotten really skeptical as to whether or not we can pull it off, but I think we definitely should be trying harder and doing better. You wanna know what helped me develop this opinion? Amongst other things, my history classes when I was back in school. Despite showing our darker moments, they showed me that the United States has accomplished some truly remarkable things. I want to see more of that now and in the future, and I'm not afraid to look on our often ugly past and increasingly ugly present as a motivational tool.
I'm sure most of the people who come here think I hate America. Well, I don't. Sorta. You see, America and I have a complicated relationship. I love the ideals that this country was founded upon. Freedom, equality, religious tolerance - just to name a few. Granted, that looks a little weak, considering it was laid down by a bunch of white, slave-holding land owners. Whether the founding fathers were hypocritical or not (and they were), I think the principles that were supposed to define this country are able to stand on their own merits.
Oh, and I will make a definite stand that I hate our leaders. The Bush Administration, the weak-ass democrats - they all fucking suck. I think my opinion on Washington is already well known, however.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that I hate what we, as a country, have become. I think we are running down a dangerous path that is causing us to stray more and more from those founding ideals. We've become a nation where civil liberties are curttailed in the name of (the illusion of) safety. We have a good number of people who think government promotion of Christianity is OK. We have a populace that is still afraid of things like homosexuality. We have a culture of corporate greed that every one of us feeds off of and feeds into. We run around the world cramming our religion and our system down people's throats. There's obviously plenty of other shit we do, too. All in all, I think we're squandering a whole lot of potential. America is becoming the tall, attractive, smart, funny guy who ends up marrying the worst human being possible. Few things piss me off more than unrealized or discarded potential.
America isn't alone, and we're not the only country who does some or all of the things I've mentioned. Since I live here, though, it makes it easier for me to see what we're up to, and puts me in a better position to criticize.
Yes, of course, I'm only mentioning the bad things, just like this report is accusing the educational system of doing. But you know what? I've always viewed that as my job. It's easy to look at the good side of things. If we just looked at the good and not the bad, we'd never work on any of the bad stuff and make any progress. Also, the uglier elements of American history cannot be ignored. I'm hearing a call for "balance," but I'm severely doubtful in this day and age as to just how much balance they want.
If you're worried about kids not being patriotic enough, tell that to our government first. Tell them to start acting more patriotic. No, I mean real patriotism, not wearing an American flag lapel pin just in case you're photographed, while you pass legislation cynically titled the PATRIOT act.
One thing I definitely agree with is the call for more study of non-democratic societies. A lot of kids will be able to better appreciate what we have in our society just by seeing it juxtaposed with societies that don't have the freedoms that we do have. Well, the freedoms that we have for the time being, at least. Lots of them will be able to draw their own conclusions and develop their own sense of what America is to them without having it preached to them. Yes, they're not all going to fall in line with some people's ideals of what an American citizen should be, but that's what happens in a free society where people are allowed to be free thinkers (I'm pretty sure we have a few of those left). You know what? That's a good thing, that idea of people forming their own diverse opinions.
Oh, and for Christ's sake, let's see a little more study of people who aren't white.
The reason why I'm so pissed at this country is because I know we can do better. Okay, at this point I've gotten really skeptical as to whether or not we can pull it off, but I think we definitely should be trying harder and doing better. You wanna know what helped me develop this opinion? Amongst other things, my history classes when I was back in school. Despite showing our darker moments, they showed me that the United States has accomplished some truly remarkable things. I want to see more of that now and in the future, and I'm not afraid to look on our often ugly past and increasingly ugly present as a motivational tool.
Monday, September 08, 2003
So my FHM subscription hasn't run out, unfortunately. On the cover of this month's issue, they're announcing "Jenny McCarthy - She's back!" And all I can say is, fuck. I hate Jenny McCarthy.
I used to have this huge thing for Jenny McCarthy when she was first in Playboy. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh, the October '93 issue. She was fucking hot back then. I did quite a bit of practicing my hand/eye coordination with that issue. But you know that thing where she started talking? That didn't work out so well. I'm not saying all pretty women should keep quiet, just the ones who are stupid and obnoxious. I'm not saying I wouldn't have still had sex with her, but her attractiveness waned over the years, due in part to the fact that I couldn't stand her.
So there we go. I busted out the issue. Still looks the same, would still have sex with her as long as she kept her trap shut. You know, the trap that words come out of. Again, not as hot as the good ol' days, but not bad considering that she must be like 80 years old now.
Speaking of Playboy, the one area where I've seen fit to give them some money and not feel too stupid about it is with their Special Editions. Like tonight, they got another chunk of change out of me for all the issues I've missed in the past several months, with the exception of "Voluptuous Vixens," which is just pluto-sized silicone tits extravaganza. I hate that issue with a passion. "We don't care if they're pretty - they have huge breasts!" I could go on about this country's big tit obsession, but we'll leave that rant for another time. Anyway, the rest of the SEs usually have a good number of hot women (some fake, of course, others natural), and few words to bother with. It's not that I dislike reading, it's just that it's Playboy. If you're really reading Playboy for the articles, let's face it - you're an asshole.
Ahhh, who am I kidding? Hotties or not, I'm such a tool.
I used to have this huge thing for Jenny McCarthy when she was first in Playboy. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh, the October '93 issue. She was fucking hot back then. I did quite a bit of practicing my hand/eye coordination with that issue. But you know that thing where she started talking? That didn't work out so well. I'm not saying all pretty women should keep quiet, just the ones who are stupid and obnoxious. I'm not saying I wouldn't have still had sex with her, but her attractiveness waned over the years, due in part to the fact that I couldn't stand her.
So there we go. I busted out the issue. Still looks the same, would still have sex with her as long as she kept her trap shut. You know, the trap that words come out of. Again, not as hot as the good ol' days, but not bad considering that she must be like 80 years old now.
Speaking of Playboy, the one area where I've seen fit to give them some money and not feel too stupid about it is with their Special Editions. Like tonight, they got another chunk of change out of me for all the issues I've missed in the past several months, with the exception of "Voluptuous Vixens," which is just pluto-sized silicone tits extravaganza. I hate that issue with a passion. "We don't care if they're pretty - they have huge breasts!" I could go on about this country's big tit obsession, but we'll leave that rant for another time. Anyway, the rest of the SEs usually have a good number of hot women (some fake, of course, others natural), and few words to bother with. It's not that I dislike reading, it's just that it's Playboy. If you're really reading Playboy for the articles, let's face it - you're an asshole.
Ahhh, who am I kidding? Hotties or not, I'm such a tool.
Well then, tell your son to quit being so fucking stupid. Of course, at that point in the conversation, it's not clear as to whether or not he's still talking about negative things said about Dubya. "And he'll do OK." "Just OK? Gee, thanks for the rousing vote of confidence, Dad!"
What the fuck is up with Paula Zahn asking such stupid fucking questions? No, I mean besides the fact that she's a fucking idiot. Oh, wait, there's my answer. "Are you able, at a point in your life now, where you can read a piece that's negative and just say, "I'm not going to finish that"?" I know the man is 79 years old now, but he used to be fucking President. I think he's pretty well able to decide whether or not he's going to finish reading something that's pissing him off.
You know, I've gained more and more respect for Elder Bush as time has gone by. Mainly, the time that has passed and allowed me to see what a shitty president his son is. At least H.W. seems to have a decent sense of humor.
What the fuck is up with Paula Zahn asking such stupid fucking questions? No, I mean besides the fact that she's a fucking idiot. Oh, wait, there's my answer. "Are you able, at a point in your life now, where you can read a piece that's negative and just say, "I'm not going to finish that"?" I know the man is 79 years old now, but he used to be fucking President. I think he's pretty well able to decide whether or not he's going to finish reading something that's pissing him off.
You know, I've gained more and more respect for Elder Bush as time has gone by. Mainly, the time that has passed and allowed me to see what a shitty president his son is. At least H.W. seems to have a decent sense of humor.
Okay, so I've been mulling over my abstinence post from earlier, and realized a couple of things.
I sort of undercut my points about low self-esteem when I said I'd make it a goal to sleep with teenage girls (again, all within legal bounds) if it were actually a realizable goal. Ending up with me, whether I was their age or my age now, would most definitely leave them with feelings of low self-worth. Then again, I suppose that supports another point I made - it doesn't always work out well, but that's one of the risks. Plus, it's not like I'm going to have the opportunity to lower the self worth of anyone younger, my age, or older, so it remains a non-issue.
The other thing I realized is that if these kids are stupid enough to buy into this abstinence bullshit, then we really are better with them not having sex. This feeds into my desire to see some people remain chaste to keep stupid people from having children. Hell, maybe I'll start my own abstinence campaign, the "People stupid enough to listen" campaign. Yeah, maybe. But I still hate this collective sense of dirtiness and wrongness, a lot of which, again, stems from when we're younger and fed a bunch of nonsense.
I sort of undercut my points about low self-esteem when I said I'd make it a goal to sleep with teenage girls (again, all within legal bounds) if it were actually a realizable goal. Ending up with me, whether I was their age or my age now, would most definitely leave them with feelings of low self-worth. Then again, I suppose that supports another point I made - it doesn't always work out well, but that's one of the risks. Plus, it's not like I'm going to have the opportunity to lower the self worth of anyone younger, my age, or older, so it remains a non-issue.
The other thing I realized is that if these kids are stupid enough to buy into this abstinence bullshit, then we really are better with them not having sex. This feeds into my desire to see some people remain chaste to keep stupid people from having children. Hell, maybe I'll start my own abstinence campaign, the "People stupid enough to listen" campaign. Yeah, maybe. But I still hate this collective sense of dirtiness and wrongness, a lot of which, again, stems from when we're younger and fed a bunch of nonsense.
You know, I might get in line with the abstinence people if they were working off a platform of trying to keep stupid people from breeding. But oh no, it has to be this stupid Christian bullshit. I'm not going to make any bones about it and simply say "religious"; it's those fucking Christians.
I've got all sorts of random commentary on this one. The topic is too irritating to put together a coherent, focused rant. Much like every other post I've made.
The reason why preaching abstinence pisses me off is two-fold. First of all, it is completely unrealistic. Your teen years are all about those "raging hormones," and if kids really want to fuck, they're gonna fuck. Even the kids who get into this whole abstinence thing eventually fall off the wagon, from the sounds of it. If the kids are going to have sex, for god's sake, let's just hope they do it in the safest manner possible. It'd be nice if they had some guidance in knowing ways to make it safer. Aren't we supposed to be a pragmatic people?
The other reason why the abstinence brigade infuriates me is because their cause leads to nothing but unhealthy attitudes about sex. It just perpetuates this bullshit, puritan notion that sex is dirty and bad. It leads to unnecessary feelings of guilt and low self-worth. Yeah, sometimes you do fuck up and have a legitimate reson to feel bad about a sexual encounter. But you shouldn't feel bad just because you think sex is always bad, because it isn't. In many cases, if you lose "your self-respect, and arrive at the altar at some unspecified future date as damaged goods," it's only a matter of perception. You view yourself as not worthy of respect for having sex, or you view yourself as damaged goods just because you've bought into the bullshit and you perceive yourself as such. Furthermore, you're going to feel that way if other idiots have bought into the bullshit as well. Don't listen to them; we just established that they're idiots. I know, easier said than done.
Okay, that was marginally coherent. Things break down from here on out.
Virginity is this stupid, nearly arbitrary bullshit notion that we put waaaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on. People act like losing your virginity is like getting a lobotomy - suddenly, you're a different person. Well, you shouldn't be different just because you've had sex. There may be some physiological differences, but there shouldn't really be a psychological difference. Now you're the same fucking person, who's been introduced to the wonderful world of fucking.
"No sex before marriage" is a completely arbitrary line in the sand which does nothing but try and push the Christian view of marriage on everyone. Think about it: if you end up with someone, there's at least a chance that you're going to be having a decent amount of sex in the future. If so, your first time is not going to matter all that much. It may be a nice, special memory (but maybe not), but it isn't going to have that much of an impact on anything once you've had sex enough times. And why should it? It was just one time. Stop living in the past.
Well, having a decent amount of sex with your partner unless, of course, you're a cold, frigid person who still thinks sex is bad. And I can't imagine why someone would still have a bad attitide about sex, even after marriage. I doubt it's something they developed as a teenager.
Look, if you want to wait until marriage, that's fine. I'm not saying everyone should be having sex just for the sake of having sex. Just don't hold back because someone told you Jesus is going to get mad, or because someone told you it's "bad" without any real justification. Disease and pregnancy are just excuses; they don't care about any of those issues. They just want to you be "pure" and "Christian" and "boring" just like them. Now that I think about things, why is Jesus watching anyway, that fucking pervert?
Yes, sex can complicate things. Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy and disease. Yes, sex can ruin relationships. And yes, sex is not always a happy and fun thing. But you know what? Under the right circumstances, sex is fun. It's a great thing to share with someone you care about, or, hell, someone you don't care about. As long as the other person is having fun too, or if nothing else, at least there willingly (gotta account for the fact that, well, some people just don't perform well).
It's always laughable to hear teenage boys saying they've committed themselves to abstinence. No, you fucking loser, you're not having sex because no one will fuck you. I should know; we can smell our own. You're pretending to have control in a situation where you really have little, if any control. Unless of course if you want to pay for it, but I don't wanna and a lot of teen boys probably just don't have the money.
If I weren't such a worthless, unattractive, uninteresting loser, I would make it my goal to have safe sex with as many teenage girls as possible, providing it was all legal.
It's real nice to see all these smart parents pushing the topic of sex on their 12 year-olds. That girl might not have cared for awhile, but now she's well on her way towards developing an unhealthy attitude about sex.
I promise you, the best gift you can give your wife insofar as she's concerned is something with a big sparkly diamond in it. "Gee, thanks honey, your virginity. I feel so much luckier than Jack's wife and her new 3-carat pendant."
I only wish there was some sort of "epidemic" of oral sex, or if there is, that I could somehow get caught up in it.
Also, if I see any unmarried girls wearing this silver ring, I'm going to... I'm going to... Nevermind.
I've got all sorts of random commentary on this one. The topic is too irritating to put together a coherent, focused rant. Much like every other post I've made.
The reason why preaching abstinence pisses me off is two-fold. First of all, it is completely unrealistic. Your teen years are all about those "raging hormones," and if kids really want to fuck, they're gonna fuck. Even the kids who get into this whole abstinence thing eventually fall off the wagon, from the sounds of it. If the kids are going to have sex, for god's sake, let's just hope they do it in the safest manner possible. It'd be nice if they had some guidance in knowing ways to make it safer. Aren't we supposed to be a pragmatic people?
The other reason why the abstinence brigade infuriates me is because their cause leads to nothing but unhealthy attitudes about sex. It just perpetuates this bullshit, puritan notion that sex is dirty and bad. It leads to unnecessary feelings of guilt and low self-worth. Yeah, sometimes you do fuck up and have a legitimate reson to feel bad about a sexual encounter. But you shouldn't feel bad just because you think sex is always bad, because it isn't. In many cases, if you lose "your self-respect, and arrive at the altar at some unspecified future date as damaged goods," it's only a matter of perception. You view yourself as not worthy of respect for having sex, or you view yourself as damaged goods just because you've bought into the bullshit and you perceive yourself as such. Furthermore, you're going to feel that way if other idiots have bought into the bullshit as well. Don't listen to them; we just established that they're idiots. I know, easier said than done.
Okay, that was marginally coherent. Things break down from here on out.
Virginity is this stupid, nearly arbitrary bullshit notion that we put waaaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on. People act like losing your virginity is like getting a lobotomy - suddenly, you're a different person. Well, you shouldn't be different just because you've had sex. There may be some physiological differences, but there shouldn't really be a psychological difference. Now you're the same fucking person, who's been introduced to the wonderful world of fucking.
"No sex before marriage" is a completely arbitrary line in the sand which does nothing but try and push the Christian view of marriage on everyone. Think about it: if you end up with someone, there's at least a chance that you're going to be having a decent amount of sex in the future. If so, your first time is not going to matter all that much. It may be a nice, special memory (but maybe not), but it isn't going to have that much of an impact on anything once you've had sex enough times. And why should it? It was just one time. Stop living in the past.
Well, having a decent amount of sex with your partner unless, of course, you're a cold, frigid person who still thinks sex is bad. And I can't imagine why someone would still have a bad attitide about sex, even after marriage. I doubt it's something they developed as a teenager.
Look, if you want to wait until marriage, that's fine. I'm not saying everyone should be having sex just for the sake of having sex. Just don't hold back because someone told you Jesus is going to get mad, or because someone told you it's "bad" without any real justification. Disease and pregnancy are just excuses; they don't care about any of those issues. They just want to you be "pure" and "Christian" and "boring" just like them. Now that I think about things, why is Jesus watching anyway, that fucking pervert?
Yes, sex can complicate things. Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy and disease. Yes, sex can ruin relationships. And yes, sex is not always a happy and fun thing. But you know what? Under the right circumstances, sex is fun. It's a great thing to share with someone you care about, or, hell, someone you don't care about. As long as the other person is having fun too, or if nothing else, at least there willingly (gotta account for the fact that, well, some people just don't perform well).
It's always laughable to hear teenage boys saying they've committed themselves to abstinence. No, you fucking loser, you're not having sex because no one will fuck you. I should know; we can smell our own. You're pretending to have control in a situation where you really have little, if any control. Unless of course if you want to pay for it, but I don't wanna and a lot of teen boys probably just don't have the money.
If I weren't such a worthless, unattractive, uninteresting loser, I would make it my goal to have safe sex with as many teenage girls as possible, providing it was all legal.
It's real nice to see all these smart parents pushing the topic of sex on their 12 year-olds. That girl might not have cared for awhile, but now she's well on her way towards developing an unhealthy attitude about sex.
I promise you, the best gift you can give your wife insofar as she's concerned is something with a big sparkly diamond in it. "Gee, thanks honey, your virginity. I feel so much luckier than Jack's wife and her new 3-carat pendant."
I only wish there was some sort of "epidemic" of oral sex, or if there is, that I could somehow get caught up in it.
Also, if I see any unmarried girls wearing this silver ring, I'm going to... I'm going to... Nevermind.
You know, with all the vile shit that must go into the food McDonald's sells, you think you'd see more of this.
So it looks like the Brits are getting nervous, as British defence secretary Geoff Poon is sending more troops. I'm not sure what the exact number is - some say 1,000 more, others 1,200, up to 3,000.
I guess my assertion that the 20,000 non-US troops were "mostly British" was somewhat misleading. Their numbers are in the 10-11,000 range. I thought I had read somewhere that the numbers were closer to 20,000, but apparently my memory sucks. Still, the British are the second largest contingency over there in Iraq. I seem to remember the next biggest groups being 2,000 or so Australians (again, could be wrong, memory sucks), and don't forget those Polish commandos.
I guess my assertion that the 20,000 non-US troops were "mostly British" was somewhat misleading. Their numbers are in the 10-11,000 range. I thought I had read somewhere that the numbers were closer to 20,000, but apparently my memory sucks. Still, the British are the second largest contingency over there in Iraq. I seem to remember the next biggest groups being 2,000 or so Australians (again, could be wrong, memory sucks), and don't forget those Polish commandos.
It has arrived: the greatest day ever. The culmination of over two decades of collecting. The Gadgetmobile is in the motherfucking house.
The thing that always irked me was that I was just dying to know how the toy was going to work. Actually, if it was going to work at all. I wasn't sure how they were going to pull off the conversion from car to van, and actually make it look good. Now, after amost exactly 20 years (the prototypes are dated 1983), I have the answer.
I had completely forgotten about the fact that the Clawmobile was also supposed to be made, because I was more interested in the Gadgetmobile back then. As it turns out, the Clawmobile is fucking sweet, too.
You'd think that people might clean up the shit they're hawking on eBay, but I guess that's because most people aren't me. A sponge and some soapy water helped; but I'm not sure if there's any way to get rid of that "Twenty year-old toy" smell. It may be time for something lemon fresh.
Anyway, I'll post some pics later on, because these things really are fucking cool. It's neat that I have them now, and got to pay a bunch of money for them, but these would have been a blast back in the 80s. I can just picture myself running around my grandparents' house playing with 'em.
I think it's official: I am the fucking best at finding shit. It might take 20 years, but if it's out there, somewhere, I'll find it. Whether or not it found its way to store shelves is apparently not an issue.
The thing that always irked me was that I was just dying to know how the toy was going to work. Actually, if it was going to work at all. I wasn't sure how they were going to pull off the conversion from car to van, and actually make it look good. Now, after amost exactly 20 years (the prototypes are dated 1983), I have the answer.
I had completely forgotten about the fact that the Clawmobile was also supposed to be made, because I was more interested in the Gadgetmobile back then. As it turns out, the Clawmobile is fucking sweet, too.
You'd think that people might clean up the shit they're hawking on eBay, but I guess that's because most people aren't me. A sponge and some soapy water helped; but I'm not sure if there's any way to get rid of that "Twenty year-old toy" smell. It may be time for something lemon fresh.
Anyway, I'll post some pics later on, because these things really are fucking cool. It's neat that I have them now, and got to pay a bunch of money for them, but these would have been a blast back in the 80s. I can just picture myself running around my grandparents' house playing with 'em.
I think it's official: I am the fucking best at finding shit. It might take 20 years, but if it's out there, somewhere, I'll find it. Whether or not it found its way to store shelves is apparently not an issue.
So fucking what? This is so bloody important that it makes the front page of CNN's website, just because of Alonzo Mourning co-owning the place?
CNN really sucks ass. Yeah, I know I link to them all the time, but it's not because of stellar reporting. Basically, just to get an idea out there as to what the fuck is going on. Jesus, are we going to hear about everything bad that happens that's vaguely related to an NBA star thanks to this Kobe shit?
CNN really sucks ass. Yeah, I know I link to them all the time, but it's not because of stellar reporting. Basically, just to get an idea out there as to what the fuck is going on. Jesus, are we going to hear about everything bad that happens that's vaguely related to an NBA star thanks to this Kobe shit?
Okay everyone, extremely long post here. I ended up not seeing or hearing Bush's address, but I did read through the transcript provided by the White House to CNN. It's repeated here, with running color commentary by me. Christ, I hope someone reads this, because this took over three hours.
Good evening. I have asked for this time to keep you informed of America's actions in the war on terror.
I'm real sure Bush went and asked "Please, please Mr. Cheney, can I go out and bullshit the American people for awhile? Also, why do I have the feeling I'm not going to feel very informed by the time I'm done with this?
Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress.
Systematic? By systematic, you mean going into one nation after another with no plan as to what the fuck we're going to do when we get there?
What new responisbilities? What new sacrifices? Going to the mall and spending more? National resolve? Where the fuck is that at? Oh, you mean our resolve to not sacrifice or to not take on new reponsibilities?
September 11th reference count: 1
America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.
If I hear the word "coalition" paired with the word "broad" ever again to describe our work in Iraq, I'm going to throw up.
Also, the word "humane" does not belong anywhere near the words "military campaign." No matter what, war is barbaric. Sometimes necessary, although not in this case.
For a generation leading up to September 11, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.
The thing that makes terrorism so insidious and hard to stop is that it has no heart of power, you idiot. The rest of this is just bullshit macho posturing.
September 11th reference count: 3
This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the longsuffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly - yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.
My guess here is that the implication is that everything we've done in Iraq was and is vital to our security. Well, now it's vital to our security, thanks to how well we're fucking things up over there.
Also, saying that the task is "worthy" of our country and pointing out how we're helping those "longsuffering people" is just sanctimonious bullshit trying to make us look all noble. The administration, and a good deal of the American people, don't give a shit about the people of Iraq. We're over there for purely selfish reasons, so knock it off already.
The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and on the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat.
Blah, blah, blah. Aren't Iraq and Afghanistan supposed to be free now? Then why in the hell are all these "terrorists" in Iraq who weren't there before? And why is Afghanistan such a mess? From what I understand, warlords and the Taliban still have a decent grip on that country.
Right now, my money is on "an exporter of violence and terror."
The terrorists thrive on hatred of the infidels and money that comes from oil. End of story.
Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, I thought I had heard the last of that goddamn statue. That's our whole claim to fame over there - we knocked over a statue. Good for the fucking tuna. Get over it.
Democracy isn't the antimatter to hateful ambitions. Even if we do manage to set up democracy over there, the success of which I am far from convinced of, it's not going to magically make the people who hate us not hate us anymore.
Also, I think we were the ones who threw that country into chaos when we fucking invaded and started shooting people. I'm not saying the people aren't better without Saddam, but give credit where credit is due. Plus, we haven't exactly done a stellar job thus far in containing the chaos.
Some of the attackers are former members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny.
Yeah... ?
Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The North of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the South, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups.
"Predominantly"? Well, if that's the case, it shouldn't be all that bad, right? Oh, wait? The south too? Fuck.
"Generally stable" and "moving forward. Wow, that's not vague.
Though their attacks are localized, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists have done great harm. They have ambushed American and British service members -- who stand for freedom and order. They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy -- the symbol of a peaceful Arab country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over a hundred Muslims at prayer -- bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings.
"Great harm"? Doesn't sound like it matters that they're "predominantly" in one area or another or if things are "generally stable," does it?
I didn't know we stand for freedom and order. Did you know that? I'm glad they told me, because I didn't know. Okay, well, I'm still confused on the order part.
The bad guys are going after things that "stand for" and "represent" and are a "symbol of." Geez, they must be mad or something.
This violence is directed, not only against our coalition, but against anyone in Iraq who stands for decency, and freedom, and progress.
No, they're directed against our coalition, and by our coalition, I mean the United States.
There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.
Wow, "blind rage" and "strategic goal." They have one up on us with that goal part.
Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure.
Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Sorry to do this again, but let's say it together, children: the neoconservatives planned long, long ago to depose Saddam Hussein. It's more than evident thanks to the Project for a New American Century.
Iraq now has plenty to do with the war on terror, but only because of the self-fulfilling prophesy of invading Iraq and causing all these terrorists to stream into the country.
I feel more secure already.
September 11th reference count: 4 (although kind of a stretch on this one)
America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping the Iraqi people in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own.
Oh, yes, yes, yes! I have so been waiting for someone big to bring up Japan and Germany after World War II! Time for a little history lesson.
I continually hear it brought up how people said that we could never bring democracy to Germany and Japan after World War II. We succeeded, and if we did it then, we can do it now in Iraq. This is a complete fallacy. Post-WWII Germany and Japan were so different from Iraq that the comparison is invalid.
Why is it a fallacy? Oh, I don't know, maybe because Germany and Japan had experience with democracy prior to WWII.
Hitler was involved in a democratic election that led to his post of chancellor in Germany. The people wanted Hitler in power. They wanted a strong leader who would right the wrongs of Versailles. Yes, Germany descended into a fascist nightmare, but it came out of a crumbled democracy.
Japan lived in feudalism until 1868, but by 1890 they had their shit together and a constitution and parliament were in place. Their parliament was limited in power, and the electorate was somewhat small (only males who paid over a certain amount of taxes were allowed to vote). Still, they were a capitalist, constitutional nation. Yes, Japan descended into a militarist nightmare, but it came out of a crumbled democracy.
Even though we were rebuilding nations that were definitely not democratic at the time, the people of both Germany and Japan had experience with democracy in the years prior to WWII. I don't know about in Germany, but in Japan a lot of the politicians and bureacrats from before the war became part of the new democracy after the war. There are really no seeds for democracy in Iraq right now, and the people don't have much of a concept of living under a democratic system.
Quit fucking using Japan and Germany as an example, OK?
The only place where the comparison might be valid is with the bad stuff. We did commit years and resources. Like how the official occupation of Japan lasted seven years, and over half a century later we still have a strong military presence there.
Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives -- destroying the terrorists -- enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq -- and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.
Strategy? Do you think they just put this together last night? Because this is the first I've heard of a strategy, and I'm not hearing many specifics on how these goals are going to be met.
First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens. Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in custody. We are sending a clear message: Anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.
Well, the surest way to prevent future attacks on our soldiers would have been to not get involved in the first place, but that's a moot point no matter how many times I bring it up (and say it's a moot point).
Stop trying to imply that things are so much easier over there now. The phrase "end of major combat operations" doesn't mean shit when there's still a lot of combat going on.
More bullshit posturing.
Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.
Yeah, we're real commited to international cooperation, now that we have no fucking choice. Which is yet another reason why the international community is just falling all over themselves to help us out.
Those 20,000 joining us: almost entirely British. You know you have a weak coalition when the #3 guy is Poland. Look, nothing against Poland, but they're not really a military powerhouse these days. And it is just a handful of them, at that.
Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, led by America.
"Some countries have requested..." Oh, so we're listening to others now?
No, from what it sounds like, it'd be a group of additional targets being bossed around by the Americans.
I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized
world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.
Bush, you don't recognize shit.
Our "friends"? You mean the "cheese eaters" and the "chocolate makers" and the "scheisse film producers"? Real nice talk about your friends.
The security council resolutions said nothing about removing Saddam from power, and we made no secret that was our intention.
It would be nice if we had let this be a cause for the civilized world, and not a cause for America and America alone. God fucking damn it, will you fucking pricks get it through your heads that you fucked up big time in the diplomatic ring by pissing everyone off, and that's why no one wants to help us?!
Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We are helping to train civil defense forces to keep order -- and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law -- and a facilities protection service -- and Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders -- and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country -- and we are accelerating the training of more.
Oooohhhh, sovereignty! That's such a big, grown-up word, Georgie! (He pronounced it right in his speech, didn't he?)
More bullshit about the coalition of the imiginary.
From what I hear, the governing council isn't exactly a real effective governing body.
Restoring basic services? This shit is still going on? Shouldn't this have been taken care of long ago? As our friend Kazami-sensei from Onegai Teacher would say, saiyu senji koyo!. Priority fucking one, assholes!
Oh, wait, maybe they're restoring them after all of the fucking sabotage that's been going on. You know, because things are "generally stable."
Speaking of Onegai Teacher, apparently we're "accelerating" something! This is going to be a great summer! Sex with the hot teacher for everyone!
Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution, and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.
Again, it's irrelevant now, but the timetable and all that really should have been worked out beforehand. "Now they must rise," because we left them with little fucking choice.
Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which we expect will cost 66 billion dollars over the next year. This budget request will support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Thorough"? Somehow I doubt it. But $87 billion, hey, that's great. Should go nice with the already expanding deficit. And what exactly is that $87 billion going to pay for? I guess we'll see.
"This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security." It is also essential to Halliburton.
What, were we considering ending our support of the troops? "Sorry guys, you're on your own over there." Oh yeah, supporting them by keeping them over there indefinitely until they come home to the land of slashed veterans benefits.
The "keeping our word" to the people of Afghanistan would have me rolling on the floor if it wasn't for the fact that it's not funny. That is just being a stunningly huge asshole right there.
Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan, and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.
Again, quit making vague demands from other nations to pitch in. The rest of the world isn't going to ask "how high?" when we say "jump!", unless of course they're Tony Blair.
The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the days of the dictator -- to the miseries and humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons. And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
The trials are far from over. Yes, Saddam was a fuck. But just because he's gone doesn't mean that it's magically better over there. Of course, no one needs to be reminded of this, with the exception of Bush.
"For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons." Wow. There is more bullshit packed into that sentence than I think I have ever seen in my entire life.
Considering what's going down in Israel, and the fact that Iran has nuclear ambitions (just to name two examples out of many), I think there will be plenty of fear for many, many years to come in the Middle East. Oh, yeah, and the rest of the world, too. I think there's some shit going on there as well. As if Saddam was the only threat to a Star Trek-like utopia.
Saddam was neither very aggressive (yeah, he did things like invade Kuwait, which were promptly put to a stop) nor did he possess terrible weapons. Well, he did possess weapons, but not at the time we were all up in arms about it (namely, six months ago).
No going back to the days of "false comfort"? I don't know about you, but to me, checking shoes and taking away nail clippers while doing cavity searches on 87 year old quadriplegics fucking redefines false comfort.
What is "terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength" supposed to mean? That doesn't make any sense. Or does it? Is Bush's speechwriter trying to imply that it wasn't the enforcement of American hegemony that led to al Qaeda attacking us? They attacked us because they perceived us as weak, and not because they were fucking pissed at our actions around the world? I'm not saying America had it coming, but to say that our continual meddling worldwide had nothing to do with bringing on September 11th is fucking ludicrous.
September 11th reference count (not including mine): 5
The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our armed forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, and so far from home.
Don't get me started on how well the intelligence services have beared their burdens.
The rest of this is just needless ass-kissing. "We support our troops!"
The Americans who assume great risks overseas understand the great cause they are in. Not long ago I received a letter from a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He wrote about his pride in serving a just cause, and about the deep desire of Iraqis for liberty. "I see it," he said, "in the eyes of a hungry people every day here. They are starved for freedom and opportunity." And he concluded, "I just thought you'd like a note from the 'front lines of freedom.'" That Army captain, and all of our men and women serving in the war on terror, are on the front lines of freedom. And I want each of them to know: Your country thanks you, and your country supports you.
Let's do a quick poll and see who really understands the "great cause" they're in.
Also, what the fuck else is the captain of the 3rd infantry going to say in a letter to the president?
"Dear President Fuckhead,
Thanks for getting us involved in this awful mess with no end in sight. We're enjoying being shot at and killed by these seekers of liberty. It's fucking hot here, so thanks for that too.
Fuck you,
Captain "Fuck George Bush in the ass" McSoldier"
Fellow citizens: We have been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed. Yet Americans are responding with courage and confidence. We accept the duties of our generation. We are active and resolute in our own defense. We are serving in freedom's cause -- and that is the cause of all mankind.
"We accept the duties of our generation" by making a mess for future generations to deal with. And more empty posturing and vague talk about freedom.
September 11th reference count: 6 (another vague one; this didn't get as bad as I had thought)
Thank you, and good night. And may God continue to bless America.
God doesn't give any more of a shit about America than he does about athletes and rap stars. If he did, we wouldn't be dealing with things like September 11th. Also, isn't it belief that God is on someone's side what got us into this mess in the first place?
Ahhh, yes, I feel so totally informed right now. We're right, the world is wrong, no one else can have any say, but please give us troops and money. The same bullshit, only now we have a price tag on just how much bullshit costs.
Good evening. I have asked for this time to keep you informed of America's actions in the war on terror.
I'm real sure Bush went and asked "Please, please Mr. Cheney, can I go out and bullshit the American people for awhile? Also, why do I have the feeling I'm not going to feel very informed by the time I'm done with this?
Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress.
Systematic? By systematic, you mean going into one nation after another with no plan as to what the fuck we're going to do when we get there?
What new responisbilities? What new sacrifices? Going to the mall and spending more? National resolve? Where the fuck is that at? Oh, you mean our resolve to not sacrifice or to not take on new reponsibilities?
September 11th reference count: 1
America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.
If I hear the word "coalition" paired with the word "broad" ever again to describe our work in Iraq, I'm going to throw up.
- "the former regime sponsored terror" - Has this been proven? Definitely not to the extent that Saddam and Osama were lovers.
- "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" - Yes, back in the 80s when your dad was busy funding him.
- "for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council" - yeah, but considering that Saddam didn't appear to have those nasty weapons, it looks like he was doing it just to be a cranky bitch.
Also, the word "humane" does not belong anywhere near the words "military campaign." No matter what, war is barbaric. Sometimes necessary, although not in this case.
For a generation leading up to September 11, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.
The thing that makes terrorism so insidious and hard to stop is that it has no heart of power, you idiot. The rest of this is just bullshit macho posturing.
September 11th reference count: 3
This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the longsuffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly - yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.
My guess here is that the implication is that everything we've done in Iraq was and is vital to our security. Well, now it's vital to our security, thanks to how well we're fucking things up over there.
Also, saying that the task is "worthy" of our country and pointing out how we're helping those "longsuffering people" is just sanctimonious bullshit trying to make us look all noble. The administration, and a good deal of the American people, don't give a shit about the people of Iraq. We're over there for purely selfish reasons, so knock it off already.
The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and on the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat.
Blah, blah, blah. Aren't Iraq and Afghanistan supposed to be free now? Then why in the hell are all these "terrorists" in Iraq who weren't there before? And why is Afghanistan such a mess? From what I understand, warlords and the Taliban still have a decent grip on that country.
Right now, my money is on "an exporter of violence and terror."
The terrorists thrive on hatred of the infidels and money that comes from oil. End of story.
Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, I thought I had heard the last of that goddamn statue. That's our whole claim to fame over there - we knocked over a statue. Good for the fucking tuna. Get over it.
Democracy isn't the antimatter to hateful ambitions. Even if we do manage to set up democracy over there, the success of which I am far from convinced of, it's not going to magically make the people who hate us not hate us anymore.
Also, I think we were the ones who threw that country into chaos when we fucking invaded and started shooting people. I'm not saying the people aren't better without Saddam, but give credit where credit is due. Plus, we haven't exactly done a stellar job thus far in containing the chaos.
Some of the attackers are former members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny.
Yeah... ?
Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The North of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the South, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups.
"Predominantly"? Well, if that's the case, it shouldn't be all that bad, right? Oh, wait? The south too? Fuck.
"Generally stable" and "moving forward. Wow, that's not vague.
Though their attacks are localized, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists have done great harm. They have ambushed American and British service members -- who stand for freedom and order. They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy -- the symbol of a peaceful Arab country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over a hundred Muslims at prayer -- bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings.
"Great harm"? Doesn't sound like it matters that they're "predominantly" in one area or another or if things are "generally stable," does it?
I didn't know we stand for freedom and order. Did you know that? I'm glad they told me, because I didn't know. Okay, well, I'm still confused on the order part.
The bad guys are going after things that "stand for" and "represent" and are a "symbol of." Geez, they must be mad or something.
This violence is directed, not only against our coalition, but against anyone in Iraq who stands for decency, and freedom, and progress.
No, they're directed against our coalition, and by our coalition, I mean the United States.
There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.
Wow, "blind rage" and "strategic goal." They have one up on us with that goal part.
Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure.
Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Sorry to do this again, but let's say it together, children: the neoconservatives planned long, long ago to depose Saddam Hussein. It's more than evident thanks to the Project for a New American Century.
Iraq now has plenty to do with the war on terror, but only because of the self-fulfilling prophesy of invading Iraq and causing all these terrorists to stream into the country.
I feel more secure already.
September 11th reference count: 4 (although kind of a stretch on this one)
America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping the Iraqi people in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own.
Oh, yes, yes, yes! I have so been waiting for someone big to bring up Japan and Germany after World War II! Time for a little history lesson.
I continually hear it brought up how people said that we could never bring democracy to Germany and Japan after World War II. We succeeded, and if we did it then, we can do it now in Iraq. This is a complete fallacy. Post-WWII Germany and Japan were so different from Iraq that the comparison is invalid.
Why is it a fallacy? Oh, I don't know, maybe because Germany and Japan had experience with democracy prior to WWII.
Hitler was involved in a democratic election that led to his post of chancellor in Germany. The people wanted Hitler in power. They wanted a strong leader who would right the wrongs of Versailles. Yes, Germany descended into a fascist nightmare, but it came out of a crumbled democracy.
Japan lived in feudalism until 1868, but by 1890 they had their shit together and a constitution and parliament were in place. Their parliament was limited in power, and the electorate was somewhat small (only males who paid over a certain amount of taxes were allowed to vote). Still, they were a capitalist, constitutional nation. Yes, Japan descended into a militarist nightmare, but it came out of a crumbled democracy.
Even though we were rebuilding nations that were definitely not democratic at the time, the people of both Germany and Japan had experience with democracy in the years prior to WWII. I don't know about in Germany, but in Japan a lot of the politicians and bureacrats from before the war became part of the new democracy after the war. There are really no seeds for democracy in Iraq right now, and the people don't have much of a concept of living under a democratic system.
Quit fucking using Japan and Germany as an example, OK?
The only place where the comparison might be valid is with the bad stuff. We did commit years and resources. Like how the official occupation of Japan lasted seven years, and over half a century later we still have a strong military presence there.
Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives -- destroying the terrorists -- enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq -- and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.
Strategy? Do you think they just put this together last night? Because this is the first I've heard of a strategy, and I'm not hearing many specifics on how these goals are going to be met.
First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens. Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in custody. We are sending a clear message: Anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.
Well, the surest way to prevent future attacks on our soldiers would have been to not get involved in the first place, but that's a moot point no matter how many times I bring it up (and say it's a moot point).
Stop trying to imply that things are so much easier over there now. The phrase "end of major combat operations" doesn't mean shit when there's still a lot of combat going on.
More bullshit posturing.
Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.
Yeah, we're real commited to international cooperation, now that we have no fucking choice. Which is yet another reason why the international community is just falling all over themselves to help us out.
Those 20,000 joining us: almost entirely British. You know you have a weak coalition when the #3 guy is Poland. Look, nothing against Poland, but they're not really a military powerhouse these days. And it is just a handful of them, at that.
Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, led by America.
"Some countries have requested..." Oh, so we're listening to others now?
No, from what it sounds like, it'd be a group of additional targets being bossed around by the Americans.
I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized
world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.
Bush, you don't recognize shit.
Our "friends"? You mean the "cheese eaters" and the "chocolate makers" and the "scheisse film producers"? Real nice talk about your friends.
The security council resolutions said nothing about removing Saddam from power, and we made no secret that was our intention.
It would be nice if we had let this be a cause for the civilized world, and not a cause for America and America alone. God fucking damn it, will you fucking pricks get it through your heads that you fucked up big time in the diplomatic ring by pissing everyone off, and that's why no one wants to help us?!
Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We are helping to train civil defense forces to keep order -- and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law -- and a facilities protection service -- and Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders -- and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country -- and we are accelerating the training of more.
Oooohhhh, sovereignty! That's such a big, grown-up word, Georgie! (He pronounced it right in his speech, didn't he?)
More bullshit about the coalition of the imiginary.
From what I hear, the governing council isn't exactly a real effective governing body.
Restoring basic services? This shit is still going on? Shouldn't this have been taken care of long ago? As our friend Kazami-sensei from Onegai Teacher would say, saiyu senji koyo!. Priority fucking one, assholes!
Oh, wait, maybe they're restoring them after all of the fucking sabotage that's been going on. You know, because things are "generally stable."
Speaking of Onegai Teacher, apparently we're "accelerating" something! This is going to be a great summer! Sex with the hot teacher for everyone!
Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution, and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.
Again, it's irrelevant now, but the timetable and all that really should have been worked out beforehand. "Now they must rise," because we left them with little fucking choice.
Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which we expect will cost 66 billion dollars over the next year. This budget request will support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Thorough"? Somehow I doubt it. But $87 billion, hey, that's great. Should go nice with the already expanding deficit. And what exactly is that $87 billion going to pay for? I guess we'll see.
"This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security." It is also essential to Halliburton.
What, were we considering ending our support of the troops? "Sorry guys, you're on your own over there." Oh yeah, supporting them by keeping them over there indefinitely until they come home to the land of slashed veterans benefits.
The "keeping our word" to the people of Afghanistan would have me rolling on the floor if it wasn't for the fact that it's not funny. That is just being a stunningly huge asshole right there.
Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan, and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.
Again, quit making vague demands from other nations to pitch in. The rest of the world isn't going to ask "how high?" when we say "jump!", unless of course they're Tony Blair.
The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the days of the dictator -- to the miseries and humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons. And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
The trials are far from over. Yes, Saddam was a fuck. But just because he's gone doesn't mean that it's magically better over there. Of course, no one needs to be reminded of this, with the exception of Bush.
"For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons." Wow. There is more bullshit packed into that sentence than I think I have ever seen in my entire life.
Considering what's going down in Israel, and the fact that Iran has nuclear ambitions (just to name two examples out of many), I think there will be plenty of fear for many, many years to come in the Middle East. Oh, yeah, and the rest of the world, too. I think there's some shit going on there as well. As if Saddam was the only threat to a Star Trek-like utopia.
Saddam was neither very aggressive (yeah, he did things like invade Kuwait, which were promptly put to a stop) nor did he possess terrible weapons. Well, he did possess weapons, but not at the time we were all up in arms about it (namely, six months ago).
No going back to the days of "false comfort"? I don't know about you, but to me, checking shoes and taking away nail clippers while doing cavity searches on 87 year old quadriplegics fucking redefines false comfort.
What is "terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength" supposed to mean? That doesn't make any sense. Or does it? Is Bush's speechwriter trying to imply that it wasn't the enforcement of American hegemony that led to al Qaeda attacking us? They attacked us because they perceived us as weak, and not because they were fucking pissed at our actions around the world? I'm not saying America had it coming, but to say that our continual meddling worldwide had nothing to do with bringing on September 11th is fucking ludicrous.
September 11th reference count (not including mine): 5
The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our armed forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, and so far from home.
Don't get me started on how well the intelligence services have beared their burdens.
The rest of this is just needless ass-kissing. "We support our troops!"
The Americans who assume great risks overseas understand the great cause they are in. Not long ago I received a letter from a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He wrote about his pride in serving a just cause, and about the deep desire of Iraqis for liberty. "I see it," he said, "in the eyes of a hungry people every day here. They are starved for freedom and opportunity." And he concluded, "I just thought you'd like a note from the 'front lines of freedom.'" That Army captain, and all of our men and women serving in the war on terror, are on the front lines of freedom. And I want each of them to know: Your country thanks you, and your country supports you.
Let's do a quick poll and see who really understands the "great cause" they're in.
Also, what the fuck else is the captain of the 3rd infantry going to say in a letter to the president?
"Dear President Fuckhead,
Thanks for getting us involved in this awful mess with no end in sight. We're enjoying being shot at and killed by these seekers of liberty. It's fucking hot here, so thanks for that too.
Fuck you,
Captain "Fuck George Bush in the ass" McSoldier"
Fellow citizens: We have been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed. Yet Americans are responding with courage and confidence. We accept the duties of our generation. We are active and resolute in our own defense. We are serving in freedom's cause -- and that is the cause of all mankind.
"We accept the duties of our generation" by making a mess for future generations to deal with. And more empty posturing and vague talk about freedom.
September 11th reference count: 6 (another vague one; this didn't get as bad as I had thought)
Thank you, and good night. And may God continue to bless America.
God doesn't give any more of a shit about America than he does about athletes and rap stars. If he did, we wouldn't be dealing with things like September 11th. Also, isn't it belief that God is on someone's side what got us into this mess in the first place?
Ahhh, yes, I feel so totally informed right now. We're right, the world is wrong, no one else can have any say, but please give us troops and money. The same bullshit, only now we have a price tag on just how much bullshit costs.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
So the second anniversary of September 11th is this week. Great. I'm not trying to be snide or flippant about it. I really have a tough time whenever I see September 11th images like the ones of the twin towers ablaze. I didn't know anyone killed or injured in the attacks on the WTC or the Pentagon (remember how the Pentagon was attacked, too, but that always seems to get ignored?), so I can only imagine what it must be like for someone who did. I just get real tired of the news media cramming the images of September 11th down our throats to get their ratings up. Yes, I know it's what networks do to get ratings and to survive, but it's still fucking disgusting. It's also unnecessary - it's not as if we're going to fucking forget. As if I'm ever going to forget getting a call from my grandmother, telling me I need to turn on the TV because something awful had happened. As if I'm going to forget only able to think "this is bad" because at first that horrible understatement was all my mind could put together. Like I'll forget driving to class that day, continually saying to myself "Lower Manhattan is being evacuated. The Pentagon is on fire." And as if I'm going to forget how the world really did change with the shitstorm that has ensued.
Last year, I made it a goal to not watch any TV or read any news media on the 11th. I wasn't in denial or trying to bury thinking about it. September 11th has reshaped and redefined so many things that I couldn't live in denial even if I wanted to, which I don't. Again, I just don't need those images being replayed over and over again, because I can just conjure them up in my mind if I really want to make myself feel even shittier. I don't need all of the tributes/publicity stunts/ratings grabbers which totally bastardize the tragedy. And I don't need to be reminded how America was supposed to change, how America was supposed to better herself after September 11th, but didn't.
Last year, I made it a goal to not watch any TV or read any news media on the 11th. I wasn't in denial or trying to bury thinking about it. September 11th has reshaped and redefined so many things that I couldn't live in denial even if I wanted to, which I don't. Again, I just don't need those images being replayed over and over again, because I can just conjure them up in my mind if I really want to make myself feel even shittier. I don't need all of the tributes/publicity stunts/ratings grabbers which totally bastardize the tragedy. And I don't need to be reminded how America was supposed to change, how America was supposed to better herself after September 11th, but didn't.
So I know I should really watch or listen to Bush's speech, but I have dinner plans and will probably miss it. Damn. Actually, I really cannot stand to watch or listen to Bush's speeches because he's A) full of shit and B) an awful, awful public speaker. It's really embarassing for America that we have a 'leader' who's less articulate than someone delivering a speech while being fucked by an eight-dicked walrus.
Quick side note before getting to the main rant: I'd really like for someone to poll 'ordinary Iraqis' and ask them if they're really living without the fear of being under a dictatorial regime anymore.
I realized that our efforts to get other nations involved in The War Against Terror (TWAT; I didn't make that up, I saw it on a page linked from Jay's 'blog) in general and Iraq in specific is laughable on another front. I remember after the attacks some people saying that the world didn't change on September 11th, America just joined it. What they meant was that other nations had been struggling with terrorism for years, and the US had been lucky enough up to that point to not have any immediate terrorist threats. As such, we weren't exactly bending over backwards to help others in their already existing war on terrorism. Now that it's necessary (since we've faced a large-scale attack) and politically convenient, we're all for fighting terrorism. So, Donny, maybe you can see why your assertion that more nations need to join in the global war on terror is going to fall on some deaf ears. It doesn't help that you're making this claim in Afghanistan, where we're fucking up just like we did after they drove the Soviets out.
Of course, our ignoring the global war on terror wasn't just the Bush Administration's fault; it had been going on for years. Was America obligated to help everyone else fight terror before we thought it was a serious issue? You can make a case either way. Yeah, it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, America, like all nations, tends to act in a self-important manner. Regardless, we really should know what to expect when we start 'challenging' other nations to throw money and troops at our causes. Especially when we've done nothing but foster an atmosphere of enmity with enemies and allies alike.
Quick side note before getting to the main rant: I'd really like for someone to poll 'ordinary Iraqis' and ask them if they're really living without the fear of being under a dictatorial regime anymore.
I realized that our efforts to get other nations involved in The War Against Terror (TWAT; I didn't make that up, I saw it on a page linked from Jay's 'blog) in general and Iraq in specific is laughable on another front. I remember after the attacks some people saying that the world didn't change on September 11th, America just joined it. What they meant was that other nations had been struggling with terrorism for years, and the US had been lucky enough up to that point to not have any immediate terrorist threats. As such, we weren't exactly bending over backwards to help others in their already existing war on terrorism. Now that it's necessary (since we've faced a large-scale attack) and politically convenient, we're all for fighting terrorism. So, Donny, maybe you can see why your assertion that more nations need to join in the global war on terror is going to fall on some deaf ears. It doesn't help that you're making this claim in Afghanistan, where we're fucking up just like we did after they drove the Soviets out.
Of course, our ignoring the global war on terror wasn't just the Bush Administration's fault; it had been going on for years. Was America obligated to help everyone else fight terror before we thought it was a serious issue? You can make a case either way. Yeah, it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, America, like all nations, tends to act in a self-important manner. Regardless, we really should know what to expect when we start 'challenging' other nations to throw money and troops at our causes. Especially when we've done nothing but foster an atmosphere of enmity with enemies and allies alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
