I gotta stop doing this

I love John Stewart. I wonder if he's the anti-Christ. Talk amongst yourselves.

apocalypse

Here's a wonderfully morbid thought for first thing this lovely rainy 9/11 morning -
This goes out to all the Left Behind fans out there - (which means this probably isn't new, but it's fun to bring up again)
What if the group taken that fateful morning now five years ago was an incremental part of the idea of the Rapture?
What exactly then could we say that we've learned since then, and are we any better towards a kingdom of heaven?
Freaky, ain't it?

here they go again - spin the top

Even the press is at it. I thought they'd finally figured out that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. I look at a headline for Cheney and Rice, and what they talk about on the eve of the 5th anniversary of one of the biggest pieces of American war-fronts for the last... oh, say more than hundred fifty years, and what do they talk about. An unrelated foreign event. I don't give a monkey's shillaly about Iraq on 9/11.
They might argue the point of Terrorism. Iraq is a pre-emptive war - you know, that's not the whole story they started with. Originally, they have the part about WMD. Couldn't find them, so it became about the potential to produce this stuff. Then it became a liberating event - change the regime. Who cares if it goes against the Geneva convention to over-throw someone else's government to put in your own (which is what happens with our interim presidents, just remember Iran, or even more recently Afghanistan) we are a country that promotes democracy! We just forget the only way to get a lasting democracy is from the people, not put upon the people.
They had no exit strategy. They just wanted in. For any sort of reason - maybe it could have possibly been because of the faulty information on WMD, or because of a vendetta against Saddam, or it could have been for the oil. Heck, we stayed in Saudi Arabia, not too far of a hop skip and a jump away, so maybe it was just a war of convenience. We want to make sure that the west wins out in the Middle East. Doesn't matter that they hate us for imposing our culture, now we just added a little umph with the military presence. Not to mention made it easier for civil wars to break out in Iraq and Lebanon - and make people from that area hate us even more for the ideological divide in Islam that promotes war on Israel - the only country which we back over there, 100%.
Actually, you could go so far as to say that 9/11 is connected with Iraq - in a backwards way; because of our culture, and connections with Israel, and our incompetent presence in that area, we invited 9/11. Doesn't matter that five years later we still haven't caught the "bad guy" who master minded/funded the whole bid, and we cant' keep Afghanistan stable much less put enough people in Iraq to get by. We just know that this whole terrorism thing is a big plot against the US because we're peace loving people.

And the idealogue's in session

Three days from the big double bang. And has anything really changed?
Okay, I'll admit there is heavier security on planes, considering the recent scare with liquid products. However, does that really mean we're any safer than we were? Is it really a physical safety that a government can provide, or an ideological one?
Considering fiscal policy, physical resources are a limited resource. Ideas are a commodity you can hit the sky with and still have more. It's the physical resources in which our government of business has tapped, and unsuccessfully considering the movement of these "public" goods. This only highlights yet another argument in favor of privatization of such commodities, but then there would be less restrictions on how the goods get destributed. Is there an equilibrium?
I go back to the idea of ideas. Legal mandates are a pain in the ass, but they have good heart. Unfortunately, once they hit the legal part, politics takes over and strips it of it's best possibilities. This is a problem of which has been a problem for some time. These legal eagles have to try and fight for the fat, and the only way they can do it is through compromise (who would have thunk it with such a wide ideological gap now adays, well they say we're the most divided we've ever been...)
This is where the constituency can hold power. These poor humble representatives are only a handful of people dealing with a boat load of issues. They can't do it all alone. And no matter how intimidating it might seem to try and get in contact with them, they do work for us. We pay their salaries. We are the best possible resource they have - a backing. Sometimes fiscal, but people make a better change on ideas. Money can be efficient, but not in a public setting. It's actually a waste to spend some of this money - power may make it seem like it's being effective, but it's only for a few, and goes against the ideas of public goods. Public goods are meant for the many, not the few. This is why the taxes are being cut the way they are - the constituents who talk are the ones who have the financial interest to do so. I say we all have a financial interest - it's our money being squandered on inefficient public programs! If there's going to have to be fights in congress over how power is to be lobbied, there needs to be better "representation." Now, I put the word in quotes, because then this is where the heavy ideas of - well, isn't that what our senators and representatives are supposed to be - or even the lobbiests? Yes, and no. Something left to stagnate too long becomes ineffective or pompous. Yet in the case of the house of representatives, something that only has so much time has to make good on what they pass. They have a better chance of listening to what their constituents want because they have a somewhat smaller base, but primarily because they want to get re-elected. Senators kind of listen, but they mainly have a bigger constituency. How often do you think Bush gets time to look at the polls?
Problems are meant to be squawked about.

From the minimalist in me

I was of another blog, but I decided I needed to branch out from under the wing of my English class, from which this blog obsession started.
I admit my bias is politics. I am a political science grad student, and wish very dearly to remember what news looks like - I've had my head stuck in books for days, and the news has been the last thing on my mind.
Primarily this adversion to news is also because of one major problem I've found after reading lots of books and being on hiatus for 8 months from school - Bush is going to be a prevalent hot topic, and as hot topics go, there will be no resolution until action is taken against him (or other hot topics). This is not something the news has the balls to attempt, primarily because in theory they're supposed to be objective third parties, but also because they're funded by my hot topic's underlings.
Now, I will also admit that's some pretty strong language considering there is plenty to be said about the democrats, or for the left leaning in general. But one kind of book I did read and found persuasive shows that backbone doesn't have a party, it just needs something to stand up against. Bush supposedly had backbone (according to one cartoonist's perspective) when talking to the UN about sanctions against Iraq, well, I say Al Qaeda had backbone driving a plane into the world trade centers. They were willing to stand up against the oversimplified enemy US. No one who does these kinds of action, Al Qaeda or Bush has all the facts that allows for thoughtful deliberation as to empathize with the people they feel massive heat against. I understand crimes of passion, but sometimes there needs to be a cap on leaders with this hot headedness.
I do not support those who bash Bush without knowledge of him. I only support those who analyze this man's actions and why he did what he did rather than make value judgments on his policies, because I can be just as spitfire as the next guy (I know what he does is stupid.)
In this country, there is a need to know what drives us - is it really the words of our leader, or is it what this country is supposed to stand for? Who gets to decide that? Is it the people with money, is it the people in power (which some would say are synomous) or is it you? Do you want to be heard? Do you want to assert that you matter too? Just think of what Bush was before 2000 - a Connecticut Cowboy who happened to get a governor's seat. Public office isn't something that unattainable - because if it were that hard to get in, Bush would never have made it past buying cowboy boots in Texas.
And here the brain deflates for the night...