The idea of "weather weapons", I should think, has an ancient history, rooted perhaps in the prophets of old, who called forth rain and shut up the heavens with fervent prayer. But here is a serious look at the idea, called "The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction." I hang my head in sorrow, not because such speculations are true, but because there are real people who believe such things are true.
Religiously, conservatives may believe in the Virgin Mary or the Book of Mormon. But liberals may believe that Shirley MacLaine "channels" an ancient spirit; or that Tarot Cards are more than a parlor game gone awry; or that crystals and pot and patchouli move the soul toward the transcendent; or that Christian Science is right when it teaches that the material world does not exist at all other than as an illusion of "Mortal Mind". No one is exempt, it seems, from the wildly speculative, and no political party is exempt from embracing the foolish.
But I must say that the wild speculations regarding President Bush's culpability in everything bad confronting humanity is enough to make me seek citizenship on some other planet. I believe in the Virgin Mary. I do not believe George Bush is the source of my sorrow, my woe, my plight.
***
This is no gross slip into narcissism. But I have found someone to blame not only for the Katrina disaster, but also for the Iraq War and even September 11. And that someone is right here: I am to blame.
You see, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. I put him in office (and he never stole my vote). I put a Bush sign at the end of my driveway; I wrote letters in support of his candidacy to various newspapers. I wanted him to be president.
Hence, I am to blame for 9/11, Iraq and Katrina. Had I not expended effort to secure George W. Bush's election, he would not be in the position he is now, or has been in for the last 5 years. Hence, the nearly 3,ooo victims of 9/11 would be alive today had I placed Al Gore in office. Hence, the nearly 2,000 dead American soldiers would be alive today had Mr. Gore, and perhaps his successor, John Kerry, maintained control of the executive branch of America's government. Hence, no or very few people would have died in Katrina had a Democratic president been in power; the levees would not have broken, and the FEMA response would have been swift and total, unhindered by the Department of Homeland Security, which would not have existed at all because Democrats would have prevented 9/11 from occurring in the first place.
Mea culpa! Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. It is indeed all my fault.
As a Republican (I only joined the party a few months ago, by the way), I have brought great despair on this nation. I am indeed a Repugnant (as one loving Democrat refers to me), and I am the cause of the "Two Nations"-syndrome separating Americans one from another.
I bid you all, please, blame me.
And now, my apology.
Please, my dear, sad Democratic brothers and sisters, please know that had I only believed in the competence in just one of your candidates, just one, I would have not voted for George W. Bush. Please know that had you produced one, just one, dynamic candidate, and not the insipid, stilted and posturing Al Gores or John Kerrys of your party, I would have gladly voted for that candidate. But, you see, how colossal must your party's failings be if George W. Bush, by ALL accounts a mediocre candidate, could beat your party's very best? And please, spare me the idea that Bush stole an election in 2000 when YOUR PARTY controlled the entire executive branch of government at the time. Bush trounced Kerry in 2004, not in numbers but in outcome, since it was clear Republicans were voting for a President they did not love. Can you imagine what will happen to your party when the Republicans put forth a candidate they adore?
So, you see, I was almost entirely bound by your party's utter incompetence in getting leadership to the forefront of the national discussion. Even now, as Joe Biden wows us with his intellectual tepidity at the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination hearings, there is not a single member of your party that knows what SHOULD happen in America. Your entire party seems only to know what SHOULD NOT happen. But such knowledge is not leadership. It is complaining.
Of course, I can posit for you the names of at least a dozen local men and women, all prolific letter writers to local newspapers; folks who can barely organize their personal lives who nonetheless know exactly HOW to be President of the United States. These people (and there must be dozens in every town) know how to manage tax cuts "for the wealthy", surpluses and deficits, war and its insurgents, and natural and man-made disasters without–and this is capital–the good sense of knowing how to take care of their own lives. You know them: they are the copy-editor who could be a better publisher than his paper's owner; the accountant who could be a better CEO than the man currently in place; the parent who could be a better school principal than the buffoon in the front office. Please, I beg of you, let me nominate any of these for president, if you surely believe that these represent your very best.
Truly, it warms my heart to think that people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Harry Reid and local letter-writer George Duncan not only will be happier without Republicans in office, they will be nicer, less snide, and thoroughly more affable souls with anyone but Bush at the helm. Now if each of these Democrats could find one leader among them who was not as flaccid as John Kerry, then we might all find the world just oozing with peace and joy.
But it truly warms my heart too, to realize that, if the Democrats believe none of this tragedy and war and terrorism would have occurred had they held power, then I am not to blame at all. They are.
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved
Who To Blame
This is no gross slip into narcissism. But I have found someone to blame not only for the Katrina disaster, but also for the Iraq War and even September 11. And that someone is right here: I am to blame.
You see, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. I put him in office (and he never stole my vote). I put a Bush sign at the end of my driveway; I wrote letters in support of his candidacy to various newspapers. I wanted him to be president.
Hence, I am to blame for 9/11, Iraq and Katrina. Had I not expended effort to secure George W. Bush's election, he would not be in the position he is now, or has been in for the last 5 years. Hence, the nearly 3,ooo victims of 9/11 would be alive today had I placed Al Gore in office. Hence, the nearly 2,000 dead American soldiers would be alive today had Mr. Gore, and perhaps his successor, John Kerry, maintained control of the executive branch of America's government. Hence, no or very few people would have died in Katrina had a Democratic president been in power; the levees would not have broken, and the FEMA response would have been swift and total, unhindered by the Department of Homeland Security, which would not have existed at all because Democrats would have prevented 9/11 from occurring in the first place.
Mea culpa! Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. It is indeed all my fault.
As a Republican (I only joined the party a few months ago, by the way), I have brought great despair on this nation. I am indeed a Repugnant (as one loving Democrat refers to me), and I am the cause of the "Two Nations"-syndrome separating Americans one from another.
I bid you all, please, blame me.
And now, my apology.
Please, my dear, sad Democratic brothers and sisters, please know that had I only believed in the competence in just one of your candidates, just one, I would have not voted for George W. Bush. Please know that had you produced one, just one, dynamic candidate, and not the insipid, stilted and posturing Al Gores or John Kerrys of your party, I would have gladly voted for that candidate. But, you see, how colossal must your party's failings be if George W. Bush, by ALL accounts a mediocre candidate, could beat your party's very best? And please, spare me the idea that Bush stole an election in 2000 when YOUR PARTY controlled the entire executive branch of government at the time. Bush trounced Kerry in 2004, not in numbers but in outcome, since it was clear Republicans were voting for a President they did not love. Can you imagine what will happen to your party when the Republicans put forth a candidate they adore?
So, you see, I was almost entirely bound by your party's utter incompetence in getting leadership to the forefront of the national discussion. Even now, as Joe Biden wows us with his intellectual tepidity at the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination hearings, there is not a single member of your party that knows what SHOULD happen in America. Your entire party seems only to know what SHOULD NOT happen. But such knowledge is not leadership. It is complaining.
Of course, I can posit for you the names of at least a dozen local men and women, all prolific letter writers to local newspapers; folks who can barely organize their personal lives who nonetheless know exactly HOW to be President of the United States. These people (and there must be dozens in every town) know how to manage tax cuts "for the wealthy", surpluses and deficits, war and its insurgents, and natural and man-made disasters without–and this is capital–the good sense of knowing how to take care of their own lives. You know them: they are the copy-editor who could be a better publisher than his paper's owner; the accountant who could be a better CEO than the man currently in place; the parent who could be a better school principal than the buffoon in the front office. Please, I beg of you, let me nominate any of these for president, if you surely believe that these represent your very best.
Truly, it warms my heart to think that people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Harry Reid and local letter-writer George Duncan not only will be happier without Republicans in office, they will be nicer, less snide, and thoroughly more affable souls with anyone but Bush at the helm. Now if each of these Democrats could find one leader among them who was not as flaccid as John Kerry, then we might all find the world just oozing with peace and joy.
But it truly warms my heart too, to realize that, if the Democrats believe none of this tragedy and war and terrorism would have occurred had they held power, then I am not to blame at all. They are.
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved
4 comments:
> I believe in the Virgin Mary. I
> do not believe George Bush is
> the source of my sorrow, my woe,
> my plight.
You believe in the Virgin Mary. In the same breath you reject all possibility of supernatural in this instance. How is that rational?
(I am not suggesting Bush "produced" Katrina, just trying to work out how those two ideas don't clash)
> And please, spare me the idea
> that Bush stole an election in
> 2000 when YOUR PARTY controlled
> the entire executive branch of
> government at the time.
Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)
"A series of contentious court cases ensued regarding the legality of county-specific and statewide recounts. After machine and manual recounts in four counties, and with Bush still prevailing, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of all counties. The Bush campaign appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in its mid-December decision in Bush v. Gore, overturned the decision and halted all recounts. (Critics have pointed out that a number of the justices were appointed by his father, contending that they should have recused themselves, although that position too was subject to much criticism.)"
This mistake cost Bush his worldwide popularity. He should have let the recount go on. If he was so sure of winning, what would he have to lose? The controversy caused by this ruling is what has lead to all the trouble today and I cannot see him regaining his popularity on any significant scale.
> Bush trounced Kerry in 2004, not
> in numbers but in outcome, since
> it was clear Republicans were
> voting for a President they did
> not love. Can you imagine what
> will happen to your party when
> the Republicans put forth a
> candidate they adore?
The Bush administration launched a massive media campaign against "terror". As far as I could tell, many voted for him not out of trust but because they were worried about the international situation - something, no doubt, most Americans are not used to...
Please don't take offence at this message. I just wanted to share my take on the issue.
InfoLands
Dear Infolands,
Thank you for taking me to task. You do not offend me in the least. I am grateful for your watchfulness.
1. I do not entirely understand your criticism regarding my belief in the Virgin Mary and that George Bush is not responsible for my sorrow. I do not attribute to Bush theistic or quasi-theistic qualities. He is not a god, nor does he have the power of divination or sorcery. He did not "cause" Hurricane Katrina, nor do Americans possess the kind of controls over the atmosphere requisite for weather ever to be used as strategic weaponry.
To me, belief in Christian theology is both rational and suprarational. Rationally, Jesus either rose from the dead, or he did not. That's rational, and even the earliest Christians believed this story based on reason. But reason is not itself "rational": one does not use reason to discover reason, or to prove that it corresponds to reality. Reason, language, knowledge: each of these are rooted in faith.
Let me put it this way. You've perhaps heard of the "transcendental ego" (Immanuel Kant's term, though there are others who have described this). It is an epistemological concept based on something akin to this: I see a tree. I see a bird. I see a bird in a tree. But I do not see I.
In other words, humans have the capacity (and this too is debatable, but bear with me) to act as subjects (I) who perceive objects (trees, birds, etc). But humans do not have the capacity to make themselves objects of their own consciousness. If someone says, "I examine myself all the time," the proper response is, "If that is true, who is doing the examining?" I cannot make myself an object of my own observation, because it is impossible to be both perceiver and perceived; to be the knower and, simultaneously, the known. Thus, belief in my very SELF is an act, not of reason, but of faith.
It is this rather hastily drafted position that informs my own epistemology. I believe in reason, I believe in faith, and the two inform each other. But reason is always BASED on faith; whereas faith is not always based on reason (though, in the final examination, I believe faith is never contrary to reason). Faith is suprarational.
2. The Florida election was not quite as clearly defined as your Wikipedia article suggests. If memory serves me well, the Gore campaign, backed by an entirely partisan Florida court, initially only wanted limited recounts in Florida, with divergent criteria used to decide "voter intent". That this subjectivism was going to be deployed to determine a NATIONAL election was too much for conservatives.
Now, for those who are outside the United States, let me assure them that the whole process that led to the Bush victory was ENTIRELY democratic. It was not a decision based on fiat, nor was it an act of theft.
You see, the United States Supreme Court is composed of justices nominated by a President in power. Moreover, each of them is approved by majority vote in the US Senate. Hence, voters have a say–have a role–in the composition of the court: how they vote and who they vote for determines the political leanings of the court. If a Democratic presidential candidate wins election, he or she will appoint justices that appeal to that Democrat, and will appeal to that portion of the electorate which voted Democratic. The same goes for Republicans. If they win an election, they will get to choose who goes on the Supreme Court.
George W. Bush benefited from the democratic process which is America. He did not choose these justices; he did not appoint them. Other American voters did, through their victorious elected officials (ie. the presidents elected to appoint them). And it was not George W. Bush's fault that Democrats repeatedly failed to win control over the Presidency or the Supreme Court (except for Clinton's eight-years) in order to shape the Court in that party's image.
Those who do not fully understand the democratic process in this country do not understand that the power of the justices on the Supreme Court is a direct result of how the electorate votes. Democrats have had countless chances to change the shape of the court, and they have failed repeatedly. No one has ever suggested that the justices who sit on the Supreme Court were placed there unfairly, unjustly, or undemocratically.
But in a true twist of irony and proof of the democratic process in this country, the same US Supreme Court which contravened a partisan state court's opinions in Bush's favor in 2000 has ruled against the Bush administration several times in the last four years, proving that it is not HIS court.
3. If you are going to point out the Bush campaign launched in 2003-4 that highlighted the terror threat, a campaign preying on fear, then you must also point out the Kerry campaign which also preyed on fear. Do you know the list of things that Kerry and the Democrats wanted me to fear? Well, here's just a short list:
A) The War on Terror was a distraction from Osama bin Laden, who was a real threat running around with impunity.
B) The Iraq War made Americans LESS safe.
C) The Bush administration was going to destroy social security, and leave countless elderly begging for help.
D) The Bush administration was going to destroy Medicaid/Medicare, and it would gut public education.
E) The Bush administration would continue to tax the poor and give tax breaks to the rich (never pointing out that the poor in this country do not pay income tax at all).
F) Bush was spreading the military too thin.
G) Bush was going to take away a woman's right to abortion.
H) Bush was only interested in big oil, and in creating a theocracy.
I) Bush was incompetent, and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were the real presidents.
J) Bush lied about 9/11, Iraq, and his own military past. In other words, he was a deceiver.
K) Bush wanted to oppress homosexuals by opposing gay marriage.
These are just a few of the scare tactics dumped on this country every minute of every day. If anything, it is the Democratic Party in America that is the party of fear. Does anyone think that suggesting Bush ignored New Orleans because it is mostly inhabited by blacks is NOT fear-mongering? How about the Kyoto treaty mythology: that had Bush and the Republicans signed that treaty, the weather in the Gulf would be less severe? How about dragging out justice John Roberts' past in an effort to convince people that he is scary? Or that Republicans only care about 'tax cuts to the rich and bashing homosexuals,' as one recent commentator suggested? Are these things offered to soothe people's nerves, or incite them to paranoia and delusion?
I do not know if I've answered your concerns, but I've tried. I thank you for keeping me on my toes.
Peace to you, always.
BG/Contratimes
Hi again,
1. If you can believe that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus - and therefore believe in devine intervention - I don't see how you can easily dismiss the notion of devine intervention over Katrina... In other terms, if you sometimes admit that supernatural things can occur then you have to admit that other occurrences may be supernatural. Of course, you might believe they are not but you cannot outrule the idea completely. I think that is what I am trying to say.
2. Although I do agree that political parties use fear to sway public opinion and earn votes, I find the threat of terrorist attacks much more scary than most of your points A through K (except maybe point B that could be interpreted that way, I guess). And I have read truely disgusting comments concerning for example the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners. Some people seemed to think it was OK because a "majority were bound to be terrorists". This of course is a load of twaddle and I believe the media are largely responsible for this kind of rubbish attitude towards foreigners. These people seem to think they live in the only free country, the only true country, the best country, the right country when I am afraid there is no such thing. It is time people realised that America doesn't stand alone at the top of the world. There are other equally important players.
What it boils down to is I know for a fact some people were prepared to sacrifice things that would have benefited them directly solely because they were scared of war, bombings, etc. Not because they believed Bush would be a good leader, just because they felt he was more aware of the threat and its extent.
A final note on Kyoto, I think it is a mistake for the US not to participate. I think it is essential for the world that the United States show support for this kind of initiative. Of course, the more informed members of the public realise that the treaty isn't really enough but it is at least a start and I felt the US withdrawal was a disappointment.
Thanks for reading ;) - this turned out quite a long ramble really (it wasn't meant to).
InfoLands
Dear Infolands,
You've not rambled at all. I am the one who rambled. In fact, early this morning, around 4 am, I awoke realizing that my earlier answer to you was pathetic. I am glad that you came back to clarify your question, but I confess that I was awakened by that clarity as well, and I should have understood your first question immediately.
I do believe in the supernatural. And I do not believe that Katrina happened iin the midst of random chance in a sea of chaos. I believe that there is a God. But what I've said is that "blaming God" for Katrina is not a particularly wise thing, unless one does so in a truly Christian way, which is, I believe, to blame God in Christ for all suffering and sin (that IS the crucifixion, is it not, where God takes the blame, submitting to worldly capital punishment?). I simply have a hard time hearing God being blamed for the bad when the same blamers never praise him for the good. Moreover, did God build the levees in New Orleans? Did he build a single house below sea-level? Did he issue any evacuation orders? Did he demand people huddle on cots in the Convention Center?
No, he did not.
And George Bush did none of those things, either.
As for the Bush campaign using terror ...again, the Democrats continue to use that threat every day in this country. Every SINGLE day we hear all kinds of dire warnings, eg.Osama bin Laden is still on the loose; Americans are less safe than ever before; If we did so poorly in New Orleans how will we do in a nuclear or chemical war? and on and on, ad infinitum. Just having Democrats insist that Iraq is a distraction to the REAL threat is mere scaremongering. There is no balance that tips in either party's favor here: both are using terrorism, which is a real threat, to their advantage.
You are right: America is not the only country on the planet, nor is it the only bastion of decency. But it is a great country, irrespective of the complaints of those inside and outside its borders. I saw a quote the other day by Tony Blair. It might have been phony, but it struck me. He was talking about America when he said, "The greatness of a country is measured by how many want to get in and how many want to get out" (or something like that). Even those (the celebrities among us) who promised to us all that they'd leave America if George Bush were elected have remained, they have not fled to Holland or Sweden or Brazil. They've stayed right here.
There really is no perfect place this side of heaven, is there?
Peace.
BG
Post a Comment