Things that Suck
1. Karl Rove
2. The Kelo Decision
3. Torture
4. The War
5. John Bolton
You know those surveys where they ask "Do you think that overall the country is heading in the right direction?" I never know how to answer, because it's a ridiculously broad question. But this week, I have no such reservations. Things are looking pretty bad on the political front.
1. So Karl Rove thinks all liberals are sissy traitors, huh? And the White House is standing behind his comments? Well, with all due respect, fuck you Mr. Rove, and fuck you, too, Mr. Bush.
For the last week, we've been told that Senator Durbin's comments comparing American torture with that practiced by totalitarian regimes was so beyond the pale that the Senator should be forced to walk on his knees five miles across broken glass before apologizing to every member of the armed forces personally. But Karl Rove's comment? Perfectly acceptable. The White House finds it "puzzling" that anyone would object.
Fuck that. As a liberal who most certainly does not think that terrorists need therapy (they need a bullet in the brain or a 500-pound bomb in the gut) I want a personal apology from Rove. What's say, Karl? Are you man enough to admit your error?
2. The Supreme Court thinks it's okay for private property to be seized by eminent domain and given to other private citizens/corporations? Wait, when did this become a communist country? I thought our system was supposed to be based on individual property rights. But I guess the 4 liberal justices + 1 proved me wrong.
Well, guess what? When Walmart comes for my house, I'm coming for yours, Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter.
3. This hasn't really been much in the news recently, but y'know, aren't we still torturing/murdering inmates and not really coming clean on it?
Are we going to start acting like a civilized country any time soon, or is it anything goes?
4. Oh, and remember that war in Iraq thing? It's still going on. And we're not winning. And the President doesn't really seem terribly concerned.
I mean, it's been over two years now, and there's no end in sight. The solution? More of the same. Here's a different idea - how about anything else? More troops might be a good place to start. But that would require admitting error, and that seems unlikely (see number 1).
5. Can we drop the fiction that John Bolton is going to walk into the U.N. and magically the place will start working perfectly? That's the best argument conservatives have come up with for why an untrustworthy, incompetent, undiplomatic (more precisely, anti-diplomatic) bully should become ambassador the United Nations, but it's complete hogwash. If confirmed, Bolton will instantly become the least popular guy at the U.N., meaning that he will accomplish zero. I agree that the U.N. needs reforming, but this isn't the way to do it.
2 comments:
1) On Rove, meh, whatever, he filled Dean's role. I did, however, like Jonah Goldberg's response: Pounding the table about how Democrats aren't insecure therapy-seeking wimps doesn't seem like a very helpful argument for the Democrats to be having in the national media.
2) I've already blown my load on Kelo, but I don't like seeing Karl Rove above it on anyone's list.
5) Actually, I think Bolton best represents what I want to see in a UN Ambassador: Take no shit, and actually, you know, represent us. I think Bolton boils down to one aspect: what people think the Ambassador should be. The left sees it as a diplomatic post, and thus hates Bolton. The right sees it as a representative one, and thus loves him. It's rare an issue can be boiled down that easily, but I think it's accurate.
1) So Democrats are just supposed to roll over and take it whenever a Republican calls them cowards? I for one am sick of hearing from conservatives about how Democrats/liberals hate the country, don't support the troops, and are little pansy queers. If a Republican wants to criticize a *specific* Democrat, go ahead, but these "all liberals are pinko commies" crap is childish and intended mostly to distract from the things that the White House isn't accomplishing. Remember, Rove didn't qualify his remarks at all - he intended them to apply to everyone left of center, including millions of people who support the war on terror.
2) The list wasn't in any particular order. If it was, the outrages would be as follows: War, Torture, Kelo, Rove, Bolton. Because the first two actually involve, y'know, life-and-death issues.
3) Ambassador/Representative, Tomayto/Tomahto. That's like the freshman congressman/senator who claims he'll go to Washington and "shake things up." When was the last time that worked? Bolton is going to have to negotiate with people from other countries (4 of whom have veto power over the Security Council), and given that he seems not to believe in multilateralism under any circumstances, they're not going to be in any mood to vote for anything he wants to pass.
Besides, how good of a nominee could he be considering that the Republican controlled Senate hasn't confirmed him yet? Yes, I know, the Democrats have the power to prevent a floor vote, but most UN Ambassadors are confirmed unanimously.
Post a Comment