"We" are losing patience?

Two Senators, Russ Feingold and John McCain, on opposite sides of the fence with respect to Iraq, visiting there have both reported that we (the U.S.) are losing patience with Iraq. They are supposed to agree on a unity government as quickly as possible (because the American public is turning against the "war"). Can anyone appreciate the hypocrisy, the arrogance, the ignorance, the paternalism, the unreality, the stupidity, the absurdity of this position. WE are losing patience? What in the hell do they think the Iraqis are losing? First of all it is a totally artificial "nation" created by the British out of three separate groups of people who were never a nation in the first place. Now we are trying to insist they become a unified nation just because we say so. The fact that we illegally and immorally invaded them, opened up animosities that had been dormant for years, failed to restore electricity and water, imposed our own candidates for their government, treat them like less than human, invade and beat them in their own homes, humiliate them daily, try to steal their oil, desecrate their marvelous history, museums and archaeological sites, keep them unemployed and in poverty, and maintain an occupancy of their country, AND WE ARE LOSING PATIENCE! American arrogance and stupidity simply knows no bounds.

Well, predictably, a judge has now ordered Abramoff and his partner must be questioned about the murder of the man from whom they fraudulently bought casino river boats. Gee, why should they be questioned? After all, we know who committed the murders (they have already confessed) but we don't really know why. Like who, besides Abramoff, might have benefitted from this? But, as Abramoff is apparently an orthodox Jew, of course he could not be involved. Just as he could not have involved with DeLay. Seemingly religious people never do anything wrong.

In Afghanistan there is the case of a man who converted to Christianity. Converting to Christianity is a crime punishable by death in that culture. While I think this is utterly stupid and mindless beyond belief, and I sincerely hope he will not be executed for it, I am happy in the knowledge that Christians have never killed anyone because of their religious beliefs, especially not Jews, atheists, or Muslims. Oh, yeah, and witches. Those witches were really bad.

The Seattle Repertory Theatre has decided to put on "My Name is Rachel Corrie." This will be the first major theatre company to do it as the New York people have capitulated to the Israelis. Hooray for Seattle!

A couple of nights ago someone commented on this blog to the effect that Rachel Corrie "lived like a terrorist and died like a terrorist." As I know of no evidence for this whatsoever I said so the following day. I also said that the claim she was "accidentally" run over by a bulldozer was absurd. I have been giving some thought to this and looking into it more carefully. I now think maybe she could have been a terrorist involved in smuggling guns into Gaza. Look at her background. She attended Evergreen College, a progressive, experimental College near Olympia, Washington, known to be a serious liberal arts college (that's pretty bad on the face of it). I guess they must be notorious for training terrorists. Then she went to Palestine because of her idealistic beliefs about truth and justice. As she stood in front of that Israeli bulldozer that was about to raze a house full of children I'm certain she was thinking about protecting the smugglers. Why else would she have done such a stupid thing? And of course the bulldozer, armored by Caterpillar for just such a purpose, just "accidentally ran over her."

Oh, by the way, the agressive terrorists in training at Evergreen College picked as their College Mascot, the Geoduck (look it up).

One final observation (my wife gave me this):

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is the new plan going to fix the problem?'

Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:

'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'

Do I really need to comment on this?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------