ambivalent imbroglio home

« Welcome Back | Main | Bikes, Brakes, and Cold »

January 16, 2004

Upside Down

What a week. Up is down, down is up. I do not like green eggs and ham. Going to the moon and Mars? Sure, but only if we spend twice as much money immediately on research and development efforts for sustainable energy—wind, solar, biomass, etc. If we don't get serious about developing and using sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, we won't have a planet to live on. Energy and environmental policies have become matters of national security. Just ask Al Gore, who said yesterday in a major speech on the environment:

Instead of spending enormous sums of money on an unimaginative and retread effort to make a tiny portion of the Moon habitable for a handful of people, we should focus instead on a massive effort to ensure that the Earth is habitable for future generations.

If we make that choice, the U.S. can strengthen our economy with a new generation of advanced technologies, create millions of good new jobs, and inspire the world with a bold and moral vision of humankind’s future.

Links to streaming video of Gore's speech are here. Gore used the subject of the environment to illustrate how the Bush administration is the willing puppet of corporate America:

The Bush White House represents a new departure in the history of the Presidency. He is so eager to accommodate his supporters and contributors that there seems to be very little that he is not willing to do for them at the expense of the public interest. To mention only one example, we’ve seen him work tirelessly to allow his friends to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Indeed, it seems at times as if the Bush-Cheney Administration is wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining companies.

While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors he is a moral coward – so weak that he seldom if ever says “No” to them on anything – no matter what the public interest might mandate.

Ah, but Bush is strong and courageous. I mean, he's defending (heterosexual) marriage, isn't he? What absolute crap. You can talk all you want about "strengthening families" or whatever, but if you'd like to reduce the rate of divorce, reduce domestic violence, reduce youth (and overall) crime rates and give children more secure and stable platforms from which to become happy, healthy, productive citizens, then put $1.5 billion into the war on poverty.

And what's this? Kerry and Edwards are now "surging" in Iowa?

A Research 2000 poll released Thursday showed Dean at 22 percent, Kerry at 21 percent, Gephardt at 18 percent and Edwards at 18 percent. The undecided vote was at 13 percent and other candidates were in single digits.

Here's an even more astonishing poll. Gee, I wonder if the media's demonstrable bias against Dean could have anything to do with this.

Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

It's certainly something to consider the next time you hear a constant drumbeat of news against Dean.

Related: What the hell is Michael Moore doing promoting Wesley Clark? Apologies to Musclehead, who's also supporting Clark, but Clark gives me the heebie jeebies. The guy's a cipher, an opportunist, he whines, he "consulted" with the media on the war while at the same time lobbying for the defense industry in congress. He's proven himself to be an establishment compromiser in the same league with Kerry and Gephardt. But what really gets me about Clark is not the guy himself, but what I fear animates too many of his supporters, namely the same fear that keeps so many in Bush's thrall. "He's a General," they say, "so he can protect us." Whatever. We're not going to make the world a better place if we start from fear. As cliche as it sounds, we have to start from hope. And yeah, ok, I understand there may be a thin line between fear and hope, and that his supporters may believe that Clark offers hope for a better future. However, I just don't see what he's done to support such a belief. But hey, he's got the support of Madonna, and now Michael Moore. Yay. The real question is: Does he have a car like this?

And speaking of endorsements: Thank you, Carol Moseley-Braun. I, too, hope the "Men Only" sign on the White House comes down soon, but first we need to get the "President Bush" sign off of the Oval Office door. In addition to the fact that she made a valiant effort against immense odds, I'll remember Moseley-Braun's campaign for the great story she told in a couple of debates about a time when she was young and the toilet was overflowing. Her mom sent her dad to the hardware store to get something to fix the toilet, and her dad brought back a lawn mower. The story illustrated what Bush does with every problem. If terrorism's the toilet, Iraq is the lawn mower. Get it?

Posted January 16, 2004 06:01 AM | election 2004 general politics

I read about the 1.5 billion the other day and was so angry I wanted to spit nails. Still do. Just when I thought it was impossible for me to dislike him more.

The arrogance is pretty astonishing.

Posted by: Raquel at January 16, 2004 02:19 PM

Well, as I have noted somehwere else (not on my blog) the marriage bit is not so bad sl olong as it does not go into the realm of Religious Right wackiness. There are ample studies showing the benefit of certain marriage strengthening programs, but I suppose some folks visceral reaction to Bush (the left) or reaction to government getting involved in marriage (the right) make them immune to research and logic. Ok, so that was a bit sarcastic and I was trying so hard to be nice this year. But seriously, if we can, via government funded programs, help build stable relationships between people for short money, then I wonder why we were not doing it already. I think the reason is that if someone like Clinton has proposed such a program the right would have been apoplectic and it would have never got through Congress. I will concede that one can make the argument about spending priorities, but we can trot that out on any number of issues.

And can we please stop the boo hoo-ing in Camp Dean? The front runner ALWAYS has more negative reporting. That has nothing to do with Dean as it does with the position he occupies. F'ing Christ, you Dean people really need to take the tin foil hats off!

And can we at least be historically accurate and note that it was HoHo who launched the first negative ad in Iowa. And it was HoHo who lambasted the Washington Democrats as Bush Lite and demagogued the fuck out of the Iraq war votes and supposed Congressional Dems' impotence (anyone with half a brain realizes just how little power the minority party has in Congress).

Posted by: justin at January 18, 2004 10:06 PM

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.