As The Angry Bear Points out:
You can’t play Three-Card Monte without a mark, a patsy, a sucker. Guess who’s playing the sucker in Greenspan’s shell game?
And, it is you and me folks who are playing that roll. Read the rest here and here.
Shouldn’t we be getting just a little bit angry about getting robbed every day? If our government will not protect us perhaps it is time for a change…and not just presidents.
Well, not really. Aristide may not be everyone’s favorite elected leader but it will be interesting to learn the full story of why the bush administration drove him out of office.
Maxspeak quotes Jeffrey Sachs from the Financial Times (go read the rest):
The crisis in Haiti is another case of brazen US manipulation of a small, impoverished country with the truth unexplored by journalists. In the nearly universal media line on the Haitian revolt, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was portrayed as an undemocratic leader who betrayed Haiti’s democratic hopes and thereby lost the support of his erstwhile backers. He “stole” elections and intransigently refused to address opposition concerns. As a result he had to leave office, which he did at the insistence of the US and France. Unfortunately, this is a gravely distorted view.
And Joe at American Leftist reports that Aristides’ resignation was actually a ‘kidnap’ carried out by Americans.
If these allegations hold up it should make us all wonder just what bush means when he talks about democracy.
Update (a few minutes later): More here and here.
The Talking Dog has some concerns with John Kerry:
There were also Karl Rove style “push-polls” in Iowa and New Hampshire, all while a smirking candidate pretended to stay above the fray. Remind you of anyone? That’s kind of my point: we’ll be replacing one irritating, dirty-rat-bastard Skull and Bones member with another. That’s progress? We’re supposed to be better than them– not just better at being them than them.
Now the dog may just be a little jealous that his choice of candidates has fallen by the wayside. But, really, when it gets right down to the nitty gritty this is pretty much the way it has been for a long time.
For a moment never mind that I’m not a conservative.
A few minutes ago I was thinking about what appears to be the upcoming bush-kerry competition. First, I think bush is a total disaster (and thought much the same of his predecessor). His potential opponent, depending on which aspects of his voting record you review, looks like a bush clone on Iraq or only a bit left of bush when it comes to spending.
So I was thinking that since things happen best in DC when they happen least that the optimal result this time around will be a kerry win along with a few more repuglicans in both the house and senate. About 1 minute later I happened on to Chris Lawrence’s post linked below which is in response to Steven Taylor who has some thoughts on my opening question and reminds folks:
In short, repeat after me: �I will never get exactly what I want all the time from democratic government.�
The only government in which one gets everything one wants is a government in which one is the absolute dictator. Those jobs are hard to come by.
and then points out:
To put it in simple terms: if one is unhappy with aspects of Bush’s administration, this shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the only serious alternative, it would seem, is Kerry.
And recall that all the conservatives who were upset with Bush I’s breaking of the “read my lips pledge” and who said that “it can’t get any worse” helped led to eight years of Bill Clinton.
To which Chris Lawrence replies:
On the other hand, if you�re a conservative�not necessarily a Republican, mind you�a spell of divided government might well be desirable.
…given that Congress is essentially a lock to remain in Republican hands for the forseeable future,* if you�re not much of a social conservative and you make under $200k it�s hard to see what you�d lose under a Kerry (or Edwards) administration.
This is probably good advice for conservatives as well as those who are orthogonal to the demublicans.
Atrios states:
Some day our country is going to have to take a long hard look at itself and wonder why it tolerates massive amounts of violence on TV, but a single Boob is capable of driving us collectively insane.
And Jaquandor asks the same quesion this way:
why are we so incredibly tolerant of things in our popular culture like bullets shredding bodies, limbs being severed, and massive explosions killing hundreds — and yet so incredibly scandalized by a wide-angled shot, lasting for mere seconds, of a female breast whose nipple isn’t even exposed?
The FCC, to the extent it should do anything at all, would do well to ‘take a long hard look’ at this issue.