George Bush: "Blah Blah Blah"

I really tried to pay attention to the President's speech tonight, to listen carefully, but it was hard. My ears kept hearing, "blah blah blah, terrorists, blah blah, 9/11, blah terrorists, blah blah...", and so forth. My mind wandered a lot. So what did I get from his speech? I now have a strong suspicion that Mr. Bush doesn't know anything about terrorists. Terrorism is the last resort of a desperate struggle. He obviously doesn't know that terrorism in this country did not start in September of 2001. It didn't start with the Weatherman attacks in the 1970's. Or with those who resorted to violence in the struggle for civil rights. Or with the labor movement. Or John Brown. Terrorism in this country began with the colonial insurgency. It always begins with desperate people fighting for a desperate cause.
The terrorists in Iraq don't hate freedom, or democracy. They hate foreign invaders. So in dealing with them, it might help to look to our own history, to see what will make the terrorists stop their indiscriminate violence. They stop when the change they want happens, when they're no longer desperate. They want us out of Iraq.
I heard many commentators after Bush's speech who agree with me that we should have a plan to leave Iraq. I heard them also say, we shouldn't "cut and run". I say, if they can't build a government without our soldier's blood, they don't deserve peace, democracy, or freedom. We did more than enough already. We can make some war reparations, but the insurgents are fighting against us. They will continue to fight us as long as we're there. It does not matter that we have the greatest military in the world, we can never win. Just ask the British. We beat them with soldiers that were barefoot and starving. There will never be peace in Iraq until we leave. Having a plan for the withdrawal will not strengthen the insurgency, it will be the end of the insurgency. The sooner we leave, the more legitimacy their own government will have. It will be theirs, built by them, deriving it's power from the consent of the governed - not built on the bones of American soldiers.
Unfortunately, when given history, and the facts, all Bush seems to hear is, "blah, blah, blah."

No, Dick Cheney, You Suck!

Dick Cheney, you have some nerve. Howard Dean is exactly the kind of person, the kind of human, that any of us should want to represent their party. He's honest. He's passionate. And while you and yours have tried to paint him as some loose cannon psycho, he has more than shown that he can at least keep vulgarities from spewing out of his mouth. So since I know he won't, I have to say it. Go fuck yourself.

Hillary Doesn't Suck!

I listen to liberal talk radio every day. I love it. This morning, the hosts and callers were debating the pros and cons of a Clinton '08 presidential run. I love Hillary, but I think an important lesson of the last election is that this country is split pretty much down the middle. 50-50. So for any candidate to win, they must suck voters from the other side to their side. And as much as I love Hillary, I know that she doesn't suck.

How do I know? Well, I have my very own "Center for the Study of Republican Minds". I also call it "My Parent's House". While George Bush blew hard enough to keep my dad from voting for him, John Kerry didn't suck hard enough to get that vote. It went to the Libertarian candidate. But my dad isn't typical of most republican voters. He's all about gun control and fiscal responsibility. My mother is a very typical woman republican. The only way to get her to vote for a democrat is to run Jimmy Carter. A Southern church-goer. They both agree, they would have voted for John Edwards if he had been the presidential nominee. But never, in a million years, not even if the republicans run a baby-eater, will they vote for Hillary. And these are people who are open to being sucked.

So, to liberals who think we should run Hillary, that she's the best candidate, that we're just being cowardly not to turn her out, I say, she is great, and good, and she would make a great president. But she won't, because she cannot get elected. Not in 2008, and maybe not ever. For now, we need to be focusing on 2006, on getting more of the good guys into congress. Having a democratically controlled congress will give us the opportunity to show what we will do, given the power. Which will make it easier for any of our potential presidential candidates to get elected. When the time comes, we should select a candidate from the large group of people who have a real chance of taking the White House. Which, unfortunately, does not include anyone who has already lived there.

Treating Children Like Adults

On Monday, jury deliberations in the trial of Christopher Pittman, of South Carolina, will begin. He is on trial for the murders of his grandparents, which he committed when he was twelve years old. He is being tried as an adult, and could be sentenced to life in prison, if convicted. His defense is that he was not responsible because of Zoloft. I have big problem with this situation. I have a child who is twelve, a child who had a bad reaction to Zoloft. He has Aspergers Syndrome, and was prescribed Zoloft to help regulate his mood. We were warned by our doctor to watch him CLOSELY, and if he became more agitated, more prone to anger, or unable to sleep, to stop giving him the medication. So after just after a couple of weeks, it was very apparent to his teachers, and myself, that this was happening, and we stopped the Zoloft, and tried another medication, Depakote. It worked beautifully. So I have personal experience with the good and the bad of a drugged child.

But back to young Christopher Pittman. I don't know if a bad reaction to his meds is a defense for murder. But I do know that murder is an adult action, and a twelve year old is not an adult. If a twelve year old can be held responsible for his or her behaviour by the same standard as an adult, then they should have the whole adult package. Let's let them vote. If they can commit murder as an adult, then they can certainly make an adult decision on who they want to vote for. If they meet the physical standards, let them join the armed forces. We could also get rid of all those pesky child labor laws - if they want to work eight hours a day, let them. Also, if they can with an adult's judgement, commit a murder, they can surely be adult enough to consent to sexual relations. So why are there so many people in prison for sex with twelve year olds? Because a twelve year old is not able to make an adult decision about sex. Or voting. Or career choices. Or killing.

If an adult commits a murder, or any other crime, then yes, they're responsible. Responsibility is what separates a child from an adult. In any other situation, like work, driving, voting, sexual consent, drinking, no one would consider a person under the age of sixteen an adult. And there are some responsible adults than can be held accountable for this crime. His parents who were not acting responsibly for him - they left him in the care of an abusive grandparent. Teachers who failed to watch for that abuse and report it. The doctor who prescribed him a drug known to have adverse effects, and failed to monitor his health. But in this case, the responsible adults have decided that a twelve year old has the blame.

The Creepy Puppet Show

Most of my friends consider me rather fearless. Reckless actually. I'm the mom who sometimes puts a snake in the cookie jar, because hey, that's hillarious. But I have to admit, I have a little phobia. Puppets. Not to be confused with Muppets, who taught me how to read. No, I get the willies big time when there's puppets around. Especially marionettes. And those ultra creepy ventroliquist dolls.

So, you might be able to understand my horror at the "free" Iraqi elections this weekend. I know, they haven't counted the votes yet, but is there really any doubt about which group of individuals is going to control Iraq? That's right. The Puppets.

If I'm wrong, then I will totally apologize for insinuating that maybe these weren't entirely honest elections. However, I have a history book. So I have seen a trend. Unfortunately, my government hasn't noticed the success rate of the puppet governments. It's not very high. See, any government gets its authority from the consent of the governed. (Props to Jefferson). And I've heard so many people on the right and left cry that we just can't leave Iraq now. We have to see this through. We have to guide them through the process of democracy. Maybe that's exactly what we shouldn't be doing. We certainly owe them, big time. And we should continue to rebuild, and funnel cash into their infrastructure, that we ruined. Usually (always), people don't feel free unless they take that freedom for themselves. Even if we force the greatest, most benevolent government on them, it will still be forced. Some people love the puppet show. I think it's creepy.

UPDATE: I'm wrong, and I am totally apologizing. It appears that our puppets are not leading in the Iraqi elections. The Shi'ite Islamist groups are leading. And I'm sure that our government didn't rig the elections so that our puppets would lose power to groups that could possibly (probably) align themselves with Iran (also ruled by Shi'ites). So these elections must have been honest. And I'm sure this whole democracy in Iraq thing is going to work out great for us.

Bush: Really an Evil Genius

I've read a lot of articles, seen serveral documentaries that support the claim that George "the shrub" Bush is a simpleton, being led to evil policy by evil genius henchmen, and henchwomen. We'd like to think that, a little. After all, one time when he was elected, it was by a popular majority. Probably. He's so likable, it would be a shame if so many of us could be fooled by his charm into electing an evil psycopath to be president of our country. It would be tragic. But I think it is exactly what happened. Hitler didn't become evil because he listened to evil advisors, he listened because he was evil. Bush is listening to people who tell him what he likes to hear. Evil.
But he's a great Christian, born again, ya da ya da. Whatever. When we watch a movie, and there's torture, we know who the bad guy is. Even if it's not gross torture, just a little tying them up in an uncomfortable position, keeping them cold, scaring them with vicious dogs. We know who the bad guy is. The neocons would have us believe that this is justifiable against terrorists. Really, I have to agree, if bad things happen to bad people, that's justice. But if we're the ones doing those bad things, then we're the bad guys too.
So I wonder, who let us become the bad guys? America used to stand for something. When the U.S.S.R. put people in jail just for their beliefs, we thought that was wrong. When Timothy McVeigh, the terrorist, was caught he was tried, convicted, and humanely executed. His rights were never violated by America. But that was a long time ago. Like, ten years. Things are different now. Because the terrorists are brown and heathen. So the rules are gone. The rules we founded our nation on.
So how do I know that George Bush is THE GUY who made us the bad guys? The guy who likes a little (alotof) mild torture. The guy who doesn't love the Constitution. The guy who decides to make war on unarmed nations. The guy who wants to give old people and orphans a chance to starve so there will be more money in the stock market. I know because he's the guy who had, and has the power to stop all this evil. If he liked the Constitution, he would have never nominated John Ashcroft in the first place. Suspected terrorists wouldn't be detained in secret for years with no indictments, no lawyers. If he thought torture, in any form is wrong, he wouldn't have nominated Alberto Gonzales, another evil guy who thinks that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint". If he hated war against the helpless, he would have made sure that Iraq really was a threat before he started killing their citizens and our soldiers. Maybe give the U.N. inspectors a couple of months, especially when THE WHOLE WORLD wanted us to wait. Maybe give our military a little more time to gear up for war. And if he wanted to protect the security of the empoverished elderly, widows, and orphans, maybe he wouldn't be wouldn't be telling us to act now, without thinking, on the Social Security "crisis". Which might hit in about 40 years. So he's evil, for sure.
But how do I know he's an evil genius, not just a dupe? Come on. I have children. They're just like me. His parents are smart. No one doubts that. So unless that good Christian lady, Barbara Bush, partied like little George when she was pregnant, yeah, he's smart. And he looks like his dad, so I know there was no retarded milk man involved. So he's smart. And evil.