Via Liz: MoveOn.org draws attention to yet another lie from a member of the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, the war on terror is going just swimmingly.
On the other hand, maybe you’re in trouble when even crazy people can see there’s a problem with your logic.
Peace through war. Freedom through repression. The increase in violence is a sign that we’re safer. Patriots do what they’re told without question. Move along now. Nothing to see here. These are not the droids you’re looking for.
There’s some controversy brewing over the Bush campaign’s usage of footage from 9/11 in advertisements after promising they would not try to exploit the events of that day for political gain. I think someone like MoveOn should use the footage too. And here are two unsubtle ideas for what the ads should look like:
Advertisement 1: First, we see a slow motion montage of Bush speaking in various public venues and state of the union addresses while a voiceover intones, “President Bush wants us to believe that America is safer because he’s in the White House.” Second, we see slow motion footage of the Twin Towers collapsing. Voiceover: “Oh, really?” Fade to black.
Advertisement 2: First, we see a slow motion montage of Bush at his ranch, Bush fishing, Bush playing horseshoes, etc. Voiceover: “President Bush took a record number of vacation days during his first year in office.” Second, we see slow motion footage of the Twin Towers collapsing. Voiceover: “Let’s put someone in the White House who’s willing to show up for work when they’re supposed to.” Fade to black.
What ideas do you have for advertisements?
The comic strip Doonesbury is offering $10,000 to anyone who can prove that George W. Bush actually fulfilled his responsibilities for the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
If we need a Constutional amendment banning gay marriage, does that mean that the Constitution as it is currently written permits gay marriage?
Let’s face it. Conservatives are obsessed with sexual intercourse, and by that I don’t mean that they are particularly in favor of it or that they are glad when people enjoy it.
No, what I mean is that conservatives have decided that out of every single “sin” or “virtue” that humans have ever put forward as something to be avoided or embraced, humping is the one that we need to pay most attention to.
“It must be regulated,” says the American political party that makes the most noise about getting the government out of our lives. “What you do in your bedroom is our business. We’ll decide what does and does not go on there. Marriage? Why, that’s just an excuse to have sex. And it’s really about reproduction. Always has been. So if you’re not going to reproduce then no marriage for you. Well, we’ll make exceptions for straight people who can’t have kids, but that’s it!”
In college I had a conservative Christian fundamentalist roommate who said he couldn’t wait to get married so he could have sex. Oh, so that’s what marriage is for. Check. Thanks for the clarification. God can’t get you if have sex when you’re married. You’re safe! It’s a free pass!
Now wait a minute. You’re telling me the gays want to get married, too? But that’s our holy humping ground! They’re gonna ruin everything! Marriage is no longer a safe place if the gays are there, too! How is God going to tell the good humping from the bad humping?
Avarice? Anger? Envy? Greed? Pride? Sloth? None of them hold a candle to Lust in the eyes of the right wing. Well, maybe Sloth. Cadillac driving welfare queens and all that. No need for a Constitutional amendment inspired by staggering acts of avarice and greed, apparently. War profiteering? How dare you even think those words! No, what the country needs to be most concerned with now is the gays.
Does marriage continue into the afterlife? If so, how does divorce work? Do human laws alter what happens in eternity? And if this world is merely a holding station for the hereafter, as GOP “Christians” surely believe, then isn’t my body just an arbitrary shell for my soul? Does my penis go with me when I die? If so, do I at least get a nice clutch purse to carry it in?
Do conservatives honestly believe God is as obsessed with sex as they are?
Put yourself in God’s shoes for a minute. Admittedly, maybe God doesn’t wear shoes. God might not even have feet. But imagine for a minute what it’s like to be responsible for the entire universe. You’ve probably got a pretty busy schedule what with stars devouring each other and black holes causing havoc. You know how it is. Just when you get things the way you like them something falls over or gets spilled.
Next thing you know, someone who keeps calling himself one of your chosen people is praying to you, and because you feel kind of bad about never straightening them out on the whole nomenclature thing, this is a call you feel you have to take. “God, the gays are doing it! I mean they’re not even ashamed about it or anything. They’re … you know … doing it! I think you know what I mean, God. Don’t make me spell it out.”
I have to imagine at this point God heaves a big sigh. All this work at creating an unimaginably vast universe. Beauty as far as the eye can see. Untold numbers of creatures just on this one planet. It would take millions of years just to catalogue all the species and all the variations to be found, much less figure out how to best take care of them.
And what does God get? The greatest number of messages are from the kids who take the short bus to church, the ones who keep asking, “Is this going to be on the test?” The ones who miss the big picture. The ones who never stop feeling bad about feeling good.
It has to be a little frustrating, don’t you think?
Today, Ralph Nader will announce his candidacy for the presidency in the 2004 election, saying, as he did in 2000, that the Democrats and the Republicans are not very different. (A backlash has already begun.)
Really? Look at the positions of the two leading Democratic candidates for president, Kerry and Edwards, available via the Washington Post or on the “issues” pages at the Kerry and Edwards homepages. Compare to the information found on the Bush 2004 website .
Does Nader actually believe that there will be little change in the direction the nation, and the world, takes if Kerry or Edwards unseats Bush?
It’s time to state the obvious. Nader will not win. The best he can do is take votes away from the Democratic candidate and possibly ensure another Bush victory. No one who is planning on voting for Bush is going to be drawn away by a Nader candidacy; look at where he stands on the issues.
This election is not about the “duopoly” of the two-party system. The presidential election is the worst place to take that issue on. Put a third-party candidate in the White House, where s/he will have no party allies in the legislative branch and will be destined to fail, and you will convince the vast majority of Americans that a third party is the last thing this country needs.
You will cement the two-party system, rather than undermine it.
Rather than start with a third-party president, work to put third-party candidates on your city council, in the mayor’s office, in the state legislature, in the governor’s office, in the U.S. Senate, and in the U.S. House of Representatives. Develop a track record of success at making a difference. With that kind of record, a third (or fourth or fifth) party is likely to build the kind of momentum and ethos to be taken seriously and to be effective.