Saturday, January 20, 2007

The mother of all hypocrisy

Get this! George W. Bush, our sort-of president, has announced a National Sanctity of Human Life Day. This is the guy who is personally responsible for the deaths of perhaps as many as one million people (perhaps even more) as a result of his "war" and sanctions against Iraq. An illegal, immoral, and totally unnecessary "war" that occurred simply because of his desire to be known as a "War President" and his cronies desire to control the black gold of the Middle East. How does he have the gall to even mention the Sanctity of Human Life? This is man with no shame and apparently little understanding of even the most fundamental of human rights (like the right not to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed for no apparent reason). I guess he will be able to boast to his ultra-right evangelistic mob that he has prevented any useful purpose for embryos that were just otherwise destroyed. And of course he can claim to have forced thousands of babies to be born to parents who couldn't afford them, didn't want them, and that will most likely end up neglected and abused if not simply abandoned. So you see, he is not only a "compassionate conservative" but a real sanctity-of-life dude. I sometimes wonder if he was actually born of human parents as he seems to lack virtually all basic human qualities such as thought, emotion, empathy, understanding, decency, conscience and even curiosity. A lot of people, however, thought he would be a great guy "to have a beer with," one of the most important qualities for a president of the most important and powerful nation on earth (and in charge of the most destructive weapons ever conceived by mankind). Don't forget, a democracy cannot survive and succeed without a well informed citizenry (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha). I guess you just win some and lose some.

Surprise of surprises! Hillary Clinton announced today that she is going to run for president. Who would have thunk it? Now until 2008 we are going to hear millions upon millions of words dedicated to the question of whether a woman can be elected president in the United States. My wife says no way. I'm not so sure. But I wouldn't vote for Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because she's really a Republican. Of course what I think isn't going to matter anyway. The corporations in charge will tell us who the candidates will be (both basically Republican) and we will be presented with another Hobson's choice. It is even more inevitable than death and taxes. But let me ask you, what would you do if you had to choose between Hillary (presumably a democrat) and, say, McCain (presumably a Republican)? I don't like to think about it.

There are many other candidates at the moment, both Democratic and Republican. So, would you vote for a Hispanic (Richardson)? How about a Mormon (Romney)? An African-American (Obama)? A wealthy self-made trial attorney (Edwards)? An anti-war Republican (Hagel)? An anti-war Democrat (Biden)? An ultra conservative Republican (Brownback)? A pretty much unknown Vilsack? A raving lunatic (Gingrich)? How about another Bush (Jeb)? A previously failed war hero (Kerry)? Then there is old Al Gore (too little experience and not someone you would like to have a beer with)? Finally, there is Dennis Kucinich (probably, besides Gore, the only entirely sane candidate who has been consistently anti-war, pro-environment, and (hooray) anti drug war from the beginning). But he is (ugh) a vegetarian and a peacenik. The powers that be have decided long ago that he should just be ignored. I guess there may be others I have forgotten or who have not been mentioned as yet. God bless 'em all. Let the corporate powers sort them out. Once this happens we can decide not to vote at all or, as usual, vote for the least offensive of the two. It's the American way!

No comments: