Watching "Head of State" the other day, I tripped across an interesting line exchange...
Geller: "We should attack Lewis' record."
Lassiter: "How can we attack Lewis' record when Mays doesn't HAVE a record?"
Well, it was something to that affect. And so it led to this question: How does Bush attack Kerry's war record when Bush doesn't HAVE a record?

Enter the very sad campaign. Bush knows there is NO way to fight Kerry on any front concerning war. Kerry's been to war, Bush hasn't. Kerry could've used his family's connections to skate out of going to the biggest meat grinder our government has ever fed it's countries children into, but he didn't. Bush, on the other hand, did just that. Went the safe route into the national guard, knowing he'd stay home, and even skated out of that. MAYBE Kerry went home too early. But so did Bush, and he wasn't even in the shit. So how can Bush possibly stand up to anything Kerry says about the reality of war?... Find reasons to question that reality.

People are lying. That's really all there is to it. Hence, the very sad campaign. Kerry's fellow Swift boat members, including the man he plucked out of the water suring the event in question, stand by his side. Other vets say that Kerry lied to get his medals, that the events weren't as Kerry has said. So someone, somewhere, is lying.

Could it be the few vets that the Republicans have dug up to spew their anti-Kerry rhetoric which have recanted their claims? How about George Elliot, Kerry's commanding officer who originally recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, and then appears in the tv spot saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam" but later told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry? Talk about flip-flops.
See, he signed one affidavit saying that Kerry hadn't told inteh truth about how he killed an enemy soldier. Then he said this to the Globe...

George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

And later changed that statement as well...

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

The soldiers claiming that Kerry's third Purple Heart (the one that allowed him t go home early) and his Bronze Star under false pretenses were not members of his Swift Boat. None of them have first-hand knowledge of the events, none of them were eye witnesses. And none of Kerry's Swift Boat team have conradicted anything he's said.

So who do you suppose is lying?

Out. Right. Lies. It's disgusting. When one person is clearly outranked in his service to our country in time of war during his youth, he has no choice but to lie to make the other look bad. A very sad campaign, indeed.

I'm not sure why Bush followers still believe in him. All I've ever heard are hypotheticals and misleading claims, the same hypotheticals Bush has used to justify his actions over the last three years. Again, I say three, because until 9/11/01, Bush spent more time on vacation that any other President, so he wasn't actually doing anything. But there haven't been any successful attacks on our soil since 9/11, right? And the hypotheticals are always there... What if Saddam got those nukes together and wanted to bomb us? What if the terrorists try to attack again? What if we show any hesitation/sensitivity/forethought that delays our actions? Right, George. In case you haven't looked it up, after terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, when was the next attack? There wasn't one between 94 and 01. Not because Bush ramped up national/homeland security. And it wasn't because Clinton ramped up security either. Clinton had a smaller army and defense budget. Listening to George's claims, you'd think America was a much safer place, wouldn't you? Based on what? Obviously, you can't base it on the number of attacks since 9/11, since the match the number of attacks in the Clinton admin after his first bombing. But, oh yeah, Clinton got a blow job, so everything else is immaterial.

George rules by fear with a constant hypothetical threat. And for this campaign, his threat is that Kerry can't defend this country the way he can. That's all he has. Bush has made no great strides in ANYTHING other than warfare.
The ecomomy sucks. Healthcare sucks. The job market sucks. Social Security sucks. Education sucks. The environment sucks. Our reason for invading Iraq sucks. Our reason our kids are dying in Iraq sucks. Our reason for not going after Saudi Arabia for their role in Al Quaeda sucks. Our inability to catch the man responsible for 9/11 sucks. Our role in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict sucks. Our ignoring world relationships and world opinion sucks.
Do I need to keep going? Are we really safer now than we were four years ago when we're making enemies faster than we can kill them? Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? Or are you more afraid? Is there anything you can think of that's better now than it was four years ago? ANYTHING? Please let me know, because I can't think of any.

I was reminded recently of a GREAT piece written by Kurt Vonnegut called "Cold Turkey", in which he speaks on how we are all so damningly dependent on fossil fuels that sometime in the near future, we're all going to have to quit cold turkey. Along the way between introducing and concluding this point, Kurt touches rather frequently on Jesus, his works, his words, his meaning, and how they play into today's politics. Or more precisely, how they DON'T play into today's politics. And it reminded me again of how W. has made it crystal clear that he is a man of Christ in his beliefs, and gone on to prove otherwise in his actions.

It's so brutally painful to watch, really. See, I'm not a Christian, but I have MUCH respect for the man they worship. I just wish that many of the "religious right" had as much respect for his teachings as I do. Do any of them REALLY think that their lord and savior, Jesus Christ would approve of all the hatred they spread in his name? In fact, I truly belief that if anyone could make Jesus step up the schedule on his second coming, it's the religious right. If I were a man of principal (and I am), and of love (and I am that too), and millions of people were wandering around trying to keep people separate and below them in MY name, I'd be rather quick to show up and put a stop to it. Of course, where Jesus and I differ is that I'd probably lay the smack down on every one of them. Jesus would likely give them a lecture, forgive them, and move on. Hence why HE'S the Christ, and I'm just a mere mortal.

So for me, living in a country where our leader says that God is on our side, and it is a good and righteous thing for us to bomb the living shit out of any country filled with brown people, is kind of unnerving. Living in a place where "all men are created equal", except those of color, those without money, those with two X chromosomes, and those who happen to fall in love with members of their own gender... Well that makes me more than a little angry. See, I get angry when I can't escape constant hypocrisy. And being ruled by a government that claims to be better than others because it is founded on Christian principles and the belief in equality and freedom, and one that believes in the separation of church and state, while being forced to follow Christian beliefs by people who couldn't be less Christ-like if they were all anti-Christs... Well, that's outright maddening.

But maybe I'm not best to point out these problems, when my inspiration has already done so with such simplicity and beauty. Maybe you should hear it from him...

>>>
Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was only 4, ran 5 times as the Socialist Party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning:

As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I'm of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools or health insurance for all?

How about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

And so on.

Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney stuff.

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
<<<

That's the great Kurt Vonnegut. I love him. And at the end of this Rambling, I'll post the link to that full piece, so you can love him too. Or hate him. That's entirely up to you. You have that freedom.

Isn't that beautiful? "You have that freedom." You have the freedom to completely disagree with me. You have the freedom to think that I am scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, piece of shit. Now, because I'm what some people would call a Liberal, I think your opinion is just as vaild (or just as invalid) as mine. And if you do feel that way about me, that's fine by me. A bit of a change from what a conservative might say, isn't it? Saying those things about a conservative would be horrific, wouldn't it. I'd be considered very inapporpriate. I'd be called even worse that that. And if enough people read my horrific, inappropriate opinion, that conservative, and every other they can email, phone, and fax would be on a warpath to shut me down. Because you see, as Michael Moore so clearly put it, "That's the difference between us. Our side says, 'If we don't like it, we won't go see it.' Their side says, 'If we don't like it, nobody can see it.'"

In the eyes of the conservatives and the religious right, anything that doesn't meet their standards of conduct, or fall into agreement with their beliefs, needs to be eradicated. They'll always tell you it's to protect the children, but it's not. It's to protect their own way of living. They'll tell you that Jesus wouldn't approve, and they'd be right. But Jesus would forgive and love. Not ignore. Not try to eliminate. Not shun. He would forgive and love.

In fact, while my opinion may be small and insignificant right now, it is shared by many others with much higher profiles who are being targeted for elimination as we speak. And do you know what? Jesus loves Howard Stern. And he loves Michael Moore. And Rockstar, the makers of Grand Theft Auto... and Kevin Smith even when he made Dogma... and Janet Jackson and her right breast... he EVEN loves Michael Jackson. And he loves the brown people on the other side of the planet that we're busy killing, even though they don't believe he's the Christ. So while our government and the religious right target these people for elimination from the public eye because of all the things they do that aren't Christian enough to be accepted by them, the Christ their faith is named for LOVES those people. He forgives them and he loves them and opens his arms to them.

Amazing isn't it?

All this talk about faith and religion by our government and those that pay to help make the decisions, and they really don't have much faith do they? They really don't try very hard to be like the man they worship, do they? They really don't are about the separation of church and state, do they? No, no, and HELL no. Jesus was a socialist and a liberal. And what are the majority of his followers?

Welcome to the very real hypocrisy of religion in our government: We must live by certain selected beliefs of the religion subscribed to by our government, whether we (OR the people making the rules) actually live by the beliefs put forth by it's founder, while telling all other countries that are led by different religions that Church-states are evil and should be done away with, even if by force.

Figure that one out. And get back to me if you do.

Oh, and go read Vonnegut for yourself. He's much better at this than I am. =)