MommyDi: thanks for the tip. It was most interesting.
I confess to being confused about the Jill Carroll situation. I apparently thought the first tv interview I saw was being conducted by an independent interviewer, and when she said she had not been hit, or even threatened with being hit, she was telling the truth. Now I guess she was being interviewed by one of her captors and was under duress. She has now claimed she has no sympathy for her captors and only said what she did under duress. What I would like to know, first of all, is was she in fact ever hit or threatened with being hit? Was she lying in that interview? I would also like to know if in her previous interview she was also lying. That is, when she said there were lots of lies involved in the Iraqi situation, was she lying? This, I think, is important, because in fact there were lies. Many lies. And they continue to this day. She says she has nothing but contempt for her captors as they killed her interpreter and kidnapped her. I believe her. But does she have any similar contempt for Iraqis in general (I hope not). I assume that anyone concerned enough to get both sides of the story to study Arabic must have had at least an open mind. Don't misunderstand what I am questioning. I have only admiration for her. I believe she truly wanted to get an objective account of what was going on in that unfortunate country. I believe she does have some empathy for Iraqis in general. I believe she doesn't like those who kidnapped and threatened her. I also think she has been put into an impossible position. She doesn't dare claim to have any sympathy for Iraqis as if she does so the right wing nuts will crucify her. And if she doesn't she will probably feel somewhat hypocritical. Isn't it just great that our infallible "leader" has placed everyone in the position of either being for us or against us - no gray areas allowed. No intelligent analysis allowed. No common sense allowed. No truth allowed. Jill Carroll, don't you even suggest that Iraqis may in fact just be human beings like the rest of us - they are all vile terrorists with no human qualities whatsoever.
Still another major general has called Rumsfeld incompetent. Bush still thinks he is great. Sigh.
Rush Limbaugh, fat druggie, has stated publicly that the two black dancers who were apparently raped at a frat party were (are) "hos." Do you think he knows this from experience or is it just another example of his usual diarreah of the mouth (which, of course, it is). You are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Why is Limbaugh allowed to cry absoluely outrageous harmful "horseshit" every hour of every day? Free speech has some limits. Too bad they don't apply to know-nothing warmongering liars like fatso the druggie.
How can one do anything but laugh out loud at our attempts to cut energy use? First of all, no one seems willing to curb the auto industry from building and selling the damndest fleet of gas guzzling monsters ever created. Second, they oppose any forms of public transportation suggested. They don't even want to support Amtrak. Perhaps the biggest laugh of all: in every big city of the U.S., every night of the week, every huge building is fully lit up. I'm not sure but I think this is called "vanity lighting." Can you imagine how much energy could be conserved if all these companies could be convinced to give up their vanity?
Whoever said the U.S. had even half a brain?
Monday, April 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment