Selfish Hedonist

"As we move forward in helping the Iraqi people build a free and democratic future, the enemies of freedom seek to derail that transition, and it's important that we continue to go after the Saddam [Hussein] loyalists and the terrorists who want to turn back to the past," McClellan said.

That's Scott McClellan, and the bolding is mine. This quite is from today's press briefing as word was coming down about the 22+ dead and 50+ injured in the attack on an AMERICAN MILITARY BASE!

I guess all our base are belong to them.

I know it's been stated before, but come on ... I really hate and distrust the Sunni insurgents who seem to be happy to kill indiscriminately, and there's no question that majority rule in Iraq will not be kind to them, so it's not that much of a stretch to call them "enemies of freedom." However, it is also incontrovertable that Iraq is currently under occupation - despite what the government and CNN would have you believe - and our plans to keep major military installations there (along with the largest "embassy" in the world) plus have many of the major functions of government outsourced into private American corporations' hands mean that actual sovereignty is not coming up in anyone's Magic 8 Ball. A good debate can be had about the interplay between sovereignty, democracy, and "freedom" but it's not one anybody in government or the media really wants to have.

But never do these media reports quote someone who calls McClellan on their shit. The closest they get is a poll showing that Americans don't think the war is quite as hot shit as they thought 20 months ago. And anyone brave enough to say that their rhetoric is upside-down gets crucified - and more important, disinvited to reappear in quotes or on teevee or on fucking NPR.

Not only was I late to work today, and missed the 147 by mere seconds after waiting for the 92 to take off for far too long, but I had to see the front pages of the Trib and the Sun-Times blaring that Illinois governor Rod Blagojevic wanted to introduce a patently unconstitutional bill to outlaw the sale to minors of violent & sexually explicit video games. Rod, this has been decided, mkay? By the Seventh Circuit. Which you're in. The gross thing is that this will be a popular decision with people who confuse their personal moral code for the state's legal code.

Sigh.

The worse, most flatulent thing I read about this were the Gov's comments on radio station WLS this morning. And I quote:

You can expect of course, the usual suspects to challenge us in court. The (American Civil Liberties Union) And you know, just an editorial comment, they get all bent out of shape when, you know, a judge posts the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.

And you know, I don't know about you, but I support each one of those Ten Commandments. But it's OK for some 6-year old to play a violent video game where the 6-year old is the participant who decapitates a police officer and then urinates on him.

Somehow, a 6-year-old has a right to do that, but a judge can't put the Ten Commandments up. So things are somewhat upside down when it comes to the ACLU in my mind.

Yeah yeah, nobody wants to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU, blah blah blah. How bizarre is it, though, to put yourself in Alabama judge Roy Moore's camp when making an analogy? Why oh why did I vote for this jerk? And how DARE you say you agree with "every single one" of the Ten Commandments, and at the same time be a supporter of the death penalty! What part of "thou shalt not kill" is negotiable, Rod?

If you live in this state, please contact the governor and your state senator and representative to express your feelings (if you have any) about this mockery.

Oh, and check out this little propaganda site: www.safegamesillinois.org. I'm wondering if even this site doesn't have constitutional problems? Can a game listed as violent appeal to be removed from the official "bad video games" list? What if the violence is in context of something more uplifting?

Yeesh.

I don't like the outright lying. About what we're facing in Iraq, about whether we could have had any idea about the makeup or strength of the insurgency, about the supposed authority of the Iraqi provisional whatever. Most of that is so transparent, however, that I don't blame the government or even the media: you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that what's coming out of their mouth & what's the truth have no relation to each other most of the time.

What I fucking HATE however are the lies of omission. Not telling us how many Iraqi civilians have died - at the hands of the U.S. or the insurgents. There is no excuse for that: we run that country, and clearly have the ability to count every last limb blown off of every last Iraqi. I mean, they announce the number of insurgents who we kill, right? And don't you think they'd have an interest in painting the insurgents as even worse (to the Iraqis themselves) by showing how many regular Iraqis have died? No, because then the real scope of what we're facing becomes more clear. It's not dead-enders, not remnants, not foreign holy warriors. It's something else entirely, and it's far bigger than we'd imagined. Fallujah was supposed to be a Sunni paradise by now. But Marines are still getting killed there.

Meanwhile, around 1,300 American soldiers have died in this conflict. Nearly 10,000 have been wounded. Part of me feels like some of these guys WANT to die: they reinlist, refuse to question the rationale of this war, vote for Bush. Better a hero's death than a meaningless life in modern-day America? With our reality shows and Scott Petersons? Given "support the troops" means something other than "attend their funerals" or "sign their death letters" and (talking about a different war but the same administration) they fucking forgot to tell us that NFL star Pat Tillman died from friendly fire.... I wonder: does anybody really care about these men and women other than as symbols?

And is this what Bush meant when he said he wanted to create a "culture of life"?

Whatever you do, please do not visit this site.

Thank you.

Dear CBS:

According to the United Church of Christ, you rejected an ad from them because it seemingly indicated that the organization accepted gays and lesbians. The UCC said you said that because the Bush Administration had proposed an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, the ad was unacceptable. To me, this makes no logical sense. Could you please explain how one has anything to do with the other? I mean, it's not like the UCC's commercial takes a stand on any piece of legislation, or the proposed amendment itself. Even if the amendment were to become law, it wouldn't affect churches in the least, who are allowed to perform gay wedding ceremonies -- and to disallow gay wedding ceremonies -- and always will be under the First Amendment. It's freedom of religion. Are you somehow confusing the separation of church & state here? Please explain.

More fundamentally, I'm concerned by your seeming acceptance of a kind of backdoor state censorship. If the Bush Administration, for instance, proposed legislation against increased fuel efficiency, would you stop a car company from advertising for its cars that have greater fuel efficiency? What exactly ARE your standards for accepting or declining advertising - as long as it doesn't piss off the president? Jerry Falwell?? Please tell me.

I love the Amazing Race more than I've ever loved a show before. But I will have to consider boycotting CBS entirely if this situation is not explained or, hopefully, resolved with the UCC being able to advertize. I would love to hear from you why and how this happened.

Thanks very much,

Jonathan Kelley
5335 N. Clark St. #2
Chicago, IL 60640
(312) 420-2558