ah, mattdatt proudly shows off his red, white and blue that he flashed at us a bit back when he mentioned his listening of rush limbaugh.
i stand nowhere near datt's position of the regular archie bunker every american man. the attack at "people supposedly smarter than me, re: us" is a classic set-up for an us v. them argument. (those darn smarty-pants think they know everything!) then there is the lump it or leave it. i've often thought the inverse, if you can't deal with people discussing what they think of they way our government is run then YOU go somewhere else, like back to puritan new england to burn some witches, or singapore to cane some kids smoking weed, or heck, to saudi arabia; a place that we seem to be trying to match in cynicism. nevermind that anne coulter and rush limbaugh and other such celebrity starved vermin spent plenty of time criticizing loudly during the last administration. maybe when its about killing someone its alright to criticize, but if you are wondering why people are killing each other, well then, f u. i guess vietnam never happened.
the old saw about ww II is then dragged out. the globe was a much, much larger place then and thanks to god-fearing pro-american hitler-loving fascists like lindbergh we did not have irons in every fire at that time. big talk about 'you'd be speaking german right now if it wasn't for...' forgets that there was a grip of pat buchanans and right-wingers who were not so worried about nazi germany (maybe it appealed to them in some way?), and desperately wanted us to leave the struggle to the europeans, which they would have lost. it wouldn't have mattered much i guess, because our standard of living would have gone up dealing with wonderful folks like krupps. great.
but the fact is, we do have fingers in all the pies and that is not always bad, but folks like datt love the great power but are not really so interested in the great responsibility part. he makes the point that our interest in the middle east is because of petroleum and that they need us. i'd say the need is fifty-fifty; if you don't have s.u.v's how are you going to get yer out-of-control kids to the mini-mall with the mega theater and then to the chain restaurant? how are you gonna haul all that chit back from sam's and walmart? how?? can't take the train, its unamerican. walk? don't be ridiculous, plus the homeowners association doesn't allow bike riding.
i'm kidding a bit obviously, but i'd be more than happy to give the F U to countries like saudi arabia. but is dick cheney and the rest of corporate america, the ones that created our wonderful standard of living, ready for this?
i guess that is the rub for me. i like living in america, but i don't think that our involvement in parts of the world has anything to do with living standards, helping women or freedom. i think it has to do with cash grabs. if george bush et. al. could have bought off the taliban so that they could pipe oil through there to turkey and thus tell the saudi's to take a flying leap, well then, i'd wager we'd be calling the islamic nutz freedom fighters for sticking up for their beliefs in magic and life after death and such just like us, they have a religion too!
it's this kind of dollar as the end all that i cannot stand and i think that especially these days we are seeing that businesses are not around to make this country great, or to make something the best way that they can, or rather, they are, but 'the best way they can' translate into making the most cash, for the fewest at the top, at the expense of others and as cheaply as possible.
henry ford was an asshole, but at least he made something for fuck's sake. everyday we hear about companies, very, very large companies who have cooked books, lied to people, misrepresented themselves - basically lied, cheated and stolen. what if your friend or neighbor or screaming kid did this, would YOU approve? is this what the founding fathers had in mind? is this what their supposed 'god' told them to do?
my roommate said; 'haven't we known all along that corporations were corrupt?'
and i thought, well, perhaps but few seemed to care when they were corrupt and got away with it. getting away meaning that shareholders made money, peoples retirement funds existed and the market grew. but now we have seen some of the very mighty NOT get away from it. the market suffers, the small people suffer, the big people are exposed as liars and crooks and will do minimal time - eventually having a drink and a laugh in the bahamas years from now recounting their salad days. they won't suffer, they won't really pay, they won't be dragged through the streets like mousollini (sp?) as they should.
but what really happens is, and my roommate's question reminded me of this, is that more and more cynicism is created. how can i support the buffoon we have as a president if he is a puppet for big bizness/ and religious nuts who have proven time and time again that they are insane/untrustworthy or just plain greedy for greeds sake.
even in their greed they do nothing but amass the wealth, at least the railroad baron's made fucking RAILROADS.
i dare corp. america to give the heave ho to the saudi's. i suppose they would if we'd fuck up alaska for them. this administration couldn't be more beholden to oil power. its not inspiring, its depressing. we get platitudes and are supposed to console ourselves with moronic stickers and flags, when the grand goal is more money for the fat-cats.
aren't christians supposed to give money away?
f them.
a side note from the st. louis dispatch
The Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words "under God" until 1954 when Congress inserted them to stress the contrast between the United States and "godless communists." The government can't force a school child to recite the Pledge. But an atheist from Sacramento said his daughter was injured by having to listen to her teacher and classmates recite the reference to God.
Veteran U.S. District Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a Nixon appointee, agreed. He concluded that Congress had inserted the reference for a solely religious purpose and that it amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of one form of religion -- monotheism. Reciting the Pledge, he wrote, is to "swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
the nixon relationship kills me. at least that bastard didn't let swine like ralph reed too close.
the posturing in the wake of this is retarded. do i think it will stand? no chance. but on the way home i heard on talk radio, a christian complaining about this and remarking that "we don't tell 'them' not to teach evolution in schools." i was hot and tired and wished and wished i had a phone to call this jackass - two words - scopes trial. the religeous nuts tried to keep evolution from being taught in schools, and they lost. i guess 'tradition' doesn't have much to do with history.
i'm going to keep an eye on the '
intelligent design' crowd. f them too.
