Thursday, November 20
Now this is a good idea.
Wednesday, November 19
I've started listing to NPR's Morning Edition (that's the news, for you heritics that don't know what National Public Radio is) in the mornings to wake me up. For American news, NPR isn't half bad; they generally make at least a nod towards objective reporting and recognize that other countries besides America do, in fact, exist, which is more than CNN (aka "the civilian arm of the Republican propaganda machine") bothers to do.
It's generally pretty alarming. I've been avoiding the news like the plague since I came back to this country, and damn, was there a reason for that. On the bright side, occasionally something comes up that's truly amusing - like the nugget of news that came up this morning while NPR was covering the ridiculous state visit to Britain. It appears that Bush will not be delivering his only major speech of the visit to the British Parliment because, it was agreed, the atmosphere of the Brit Parliment would be "too rowdy" for Mr. Bush. It appears that when Bush addressed the Australian Parliment there were "hecklers," and officials are determined to prevent any such thing happening, and Mr. Bush has been promised a receptive and respectful audience of Iraqi-war supporting members only.
Well, my goodness! You mean to tell me that the British Parliment still has a spine? Well, really! Don't they know that it's their duty as duly (and rightfully) elected representatives of the people to bow down to their leader and unquestioningly support his decisions? Don't they realize that dissent labels them traitors, sympathizers, enemies of "our troops", dirty Commies, and most of all, terrorists?
And don't they realize that our brave, noble commander-in-chief is so terribly fragile that these voices of dissent are dangerous to him? I mean, look at the way he's protected from seeing demonstrations against him or protestors, the careful screening of audiences that he is allowed to personally see, even if it means spending five billion dollars to clear every living human being out of the streets of London to assure it. For that matter, look at the minor invasion of London with gun-toting, grim-mouthed security people whose sole purpose is to keep those nasty frightening Brits away, the insane and unprecidented amounts of security that surround the President at all times. It ought to be clear that the President is deeply offended (or should we say frightened?) by any threat, verbal or physical, to his own precious self.
That there's a word for people who behave like this, and that it is "coward", is not the point. The point is that Mr. President should never have to see these disturbing things, and certainly he should never have to hear an opinion that disagrees with his own or, perish the thought, suffer hecklers! Our President's intellect is to... delicate... to be subjected to such acid commentary. Free speech be damned; the President is a great leader, like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and did they have to suffer jeers and heckling from their audiences?
Don't answer that.
Heavens, you'd think this was a democracy or something.
It's generally pretty alarming. I've been avoiding the news like the plague since I came back to this country, and damn, was there a reason for that. On the bright side, occasionally something comes up that's truly amusing - like the nugget of news that came up this morning while NPR was covering the ridiculous state visit to Britain. It appears that Bush will not be delivering his only major speech of the visit to the British Parliment because, it was agreed, the atmosphere of the Brit Parliment would be "too rowdy" for Mr. Bush. It appears that when Bush addressed the Australian Parliment there were "hecklers," and officials are determined to prevent any such thing happening, and Mr. Bush has been promised a receptive and respectful audience of Iraqi-war supporting members only.
Well, my goodness! You mean to tell me that the British Parliment still has a spine? Well, really! Don't they know that it's their duty as duly (and rightfully) elected representatives of the people to bow down to their leader and unquestioningly support his decisions? Don't they realize that dissent labels them traitors, sympathizers, enemies of "our troops", dirty Commies, and most of all, terrorists?
And don't they realize that our brave, noble commander-in-chief is so terribly fragile that these voices of dissent are dangerous to him? I mean, look at the way he's protected from seeing demonstrations against him or protestors, the careful screening of audiences that he is allowed to personally see, even if it means spending five billion dollars to clear every living human being out of the streets of London to assure it. For that matter, look at the minor invasion of London with gun-toting, grim-mouthed security people whose sole purpose is to keep those nasty frightening Brits away, the insane and unprecidented amounts of security that surround the President at all times. It ought to be clear that the President is deeply offended (or should we say frightened?) by any threat, verbal or physical, to his own precious self.
That there's a word for people who behave like this, and that it is "coward", is not the point. The point is that Mr. President should never have to see these disturbing things, and certainly he should never have to hear an opinion that disagrees with his own or, perish the thought, suffer hecklers! Our President's intellect is to... delicate... to be subjected to such acid commentary. Free speech be damned; the President is a great leader, like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and did they have to suffer jeers and heckling from their audiences?
Don't answer that.
Heavens, you'd think this was a democracy or something.
Blogarama
