Fahrenheit 9/11 sets a record for a documentary...
Interesting to note: Moore's movie was shown to under 900 screens, while 2nd place "White Chicks" opened to over 2,700 screens..
Moore's movie took in about 2 million dollars MORE on LESS screens......
What can we deduce from the ol' abacus??
People were very interested in Moore's movie
Amazing.. I thought for sure Michael Moore was going to be kicked out of the country after his movie aired.. Amazing..
Obviously a lot of people want to make up their own mind - and not totally rely upon the conservative machine for stopping short of calling Mr. Moore and evil, un-patriotic American....
....oh yeah - I guess they did that already.....
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Friday, June 25, 2004
The F* Bomb.... oh, and decency....
I remember it wasn't that long ago - I think it was John Kerry who F* Bombed in public.. Well, apparently our VEEP says that it's okay.. Well.. Isn't that lovely..
The irony is that - that same day, the Senate passed something called the Defense of Decency Act that same day.. Isn't it painfully obvious just how hypocritical this whole Conservative movement is right now??
Holy Fuck -- damn -- just got a $275k fine........
The irony is that - that same day, the Senate passed something called the Defense of Decency Act that same day.. Isn't it painfully obvious just how hypocritical this whole Conservative movement is right now??
Holy Fuck -- damn -- just got a $275k fine........
Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Controversy
Yes, this blog is dedicated to the Michael Moore controversy..
*gasps in sarcastic horror*
Okay -- first things first: the disclaimers.. I don't know Michael Moore, not associated with him except for the fact we share the same surname.. I've never seen any of his movies, read any of his books, even looked at his website.. I know that his new movie has generated a lot of fire.. Other than that single little bit I really don't know JACK about Michael..
There..
As everyone is more than aware, he has made a movie that everyone is steaming about.. I've listened half-hearted to the radio pundits calling him "Un-American," "a socialist," and other unmentionables.. More than that, people are associating him with HATE a name that is generally reserved unless you fuck up something really bad.. Think about it: even Saddam wasn't associated with the word HATE.. Now that's bad..
Now..
What bothers me the most is regardless of what someone personally thinks about Moore, his movies, his political beliefs -- whatever -- I need to bring out this one important piece of information:
THE MOVIE HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET!!!!
Ahem..
That is a very telling sign that people just want to HATE Michael Moore because he happens to be "anti-Bush.." So it has NOTHING to do with the movie because NO ONE could have possibly have seen it unless you got some sort of advance showing..
That's not likely..
So instead of being objective, seeing the movie for yourself - there's people out there condemning a movie long before it comes out.. It's a choice to see it - but personally I want to personally witness something before I use such a strong word as HATE...........
*gasps in sarcastic horror*
Okay -- first things first: the disclaimers.. I don't know Michael Moore, not associated with him except for the fact we share the same surname.. I've never seen any of his movies, read any of his books, even looked at his website.. I know that his new movie has generated a lot of fire.. Other than that single little bit I really don't know JACK about Michael..
There..
As everyone is more than aware, he has made a movie that everyone is steaming about.. I've listened half-hearted to the radio pundits calling him "Un-American," "a socialist," and other unmentionables.. More than that, people are associating him with HATE a name that is generally reserved unless you fuck up something really bad.. Think about it: even Saddam wasn't associated with the word HATE.. Now that's bad..
Now..
What bothers me the most is regardless of what someone personally thinks about Moore, his movies, his political beliefs -- whatever -- I need to bring out this one important piece of information:
THE MOVIE HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET!!!!
Ahem..
That is a very telling sign that people just want to HATE Michael Moore because he happens to be "anti-Bush.." So it has NOTHING to do with the movie because NO ONE could have possibly have seen it unless you got some sort of advance showing..
That's not likely..
So instead of being objective, seeing the movie for yourself - there's people out there condemning a movie long before it comes out.. It's a choice to see it - but personally I want to personally witness something before I use such a strong word as HATE...........
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
"Collaborative Relationships"
Militant Vow to Assassinate Iraq Premier
None of this should be surprising.. None of this should be having anyone in shock or awe.. None of this should be met with mouth gaping open..
If anything this should serve as a warning (again): we're not welcome over there.. A pretty healthy contingent is going to continue to wage this war - no matter the costs.. The major difference is before 9/11, there was a belief that many of these groups just didn't have the ability to throw anything more than stones at their potential enemies..
9/11 changed all that..
Not only can they throw something more than stones - but they did a pretty good job at running planes into the World Trade Towers.. They got our attention and our President originally started off on the right path: through Pakistan.. Instead of crushing them - he stopped.. He turned his attention into what has turned onto a country solely on this premise:
From Fox News: "Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks."
Great.. But I have one follow-up question for Dick: "Mr. Vice-President, if we are securing all possible 'collaborative relationships' with Al Qaeda, can we expect to attack France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia anytime in the near future??" Because I'm a little fuzzy on exactly a "collaborative relationship" is - as it applies to what happened on 9/11..
Let's consider this a little outside the box:
Many nations their hand in training Al Qaeda back in the day: Cold War.. Remember?? Let's also not forget that WE legitimized Iraq AND Al Qaeda.. We helped with training, funding, weapons, etc.. So we're fighting a war - a war on terrorism - with someone that WE assisted, WE trained, WE funded, and WE armed.. So should we start by invading California??
No - no - we won't do that.. We're really good at placing blame in other directions and really really good at disassociating ourselves when we have to blame something we did.. I'm not trying to let this become a partisan thing - because every administration has done it (yes, even Reagan I'm afraid..)
Blame the CIA, blame the 7 troops of the Abu Ghraib prison, blame the INS, blame Clinton, blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Rummy, blame Tenet, blame the liberal press, blame Michael Moore, blame Air America -- blame whoever you see fit.. The problem remains: no one is taking responsibility for it and showing the gumption of taking that responsibility: why??
Because it will ruin their chance for advancement in the future..
Bush knows that if he accepted responsibility for what happened that it would be the equivalent of political suicide.. So the chess pieces are maneuvered in a way that will try to protect Dubya..
Let Me put it in simpler terms:
Bush is putting his own political career ahead of the responsibilities of securing and bringing those people to Justice who attacked our country.. He's lost focus in the war on terror.. It's speculative how much of a role Iraq had in the affairs of international terrorism, but if the 9/11 commission's report is any indication, we went into Iraq under questionable pretenses..
Instead of going to northern Africa, southeast Asia, and continue to vacuum the Afghanistan, Pakistan border - we focused on ONE country, ONE man - and have nothing to show for it.. We should've continued to expel the Al Qaeda cells across the world - but the choice was made to invade Iraq..
"Collaborative Relationships" is an interesting way to end this blog.. Because I'm questioning the real collaborative relationships with this administration and where their focus has gone since 9/11..
None of this should be surprising.. None of this should be having anyone in shock or awe.. None of this should be met with mouth gaping open..
If anything this should serve as a warning (again): we're not welcome over there.. A pretty healthy contingent is going to continue to wage this war - no matter the costs.. The major difference is before 9/11, there was a belief that many of these groups just didn't have the ability to throw anything more than stones at their potential enemies..
9/11 changed all that..
Not only can they throw something more than stones - but they did a pretty good job at running planes into the World Trade Towers.. They got our attention and our President originally started off on the right path: through Pakistan.. Instead of crushing them - he stopped.. He turned his attention into what has turned onto a country solely on this premise:
From Fox News: "Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks."
Great.. But I have one follow-up question for Dick: "Mr. Vice-President, if we are securing all possible 'collaborative relationships' with Al Qaeda, can we expect to attack France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia anytime in the near future??" Because I'm a little fuzzy on exactly a "collaborative relationship" is - as it applies to what happened on 9/11..
Let's consider this a little outside the box:
Many nations their hand in training Al Qaeda back in the day: Cold War.. Remember?? Let's also not forget that WE legitimized Iraq AND Al Qaeda.. We helped with training, funding, weapons, etc.. So we're fighting a war - a war on terrorism - with someone that WE assisted, WE trained, WE funded, and WE armed.. So should we start by invading California??
No - no - we won't do that.. We're really good at placing blame in other directions and really really good at disassociating ourselves when we have to blame something we did.. I'm not trying to let this become a partisan thing - because every administration has done it (yes, even Reagan I'm afraid..)
Blame the CIA, blame the 7 troops of the Abu Ghraib prison, blame the INS, blame Clinton, blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Rummy, blame Tenet, blame the liberal press, blame Michael Moore, blame Air America -- blame whoever you see fit.. The problem remains: no one is taking responsibility for it and showing the gumption of taking that responsibility: why??
Because it will ruin their chance for advancement in the future..
Bush knows that if he accepted responsibility for what happened that it would be the equivalent of political suicide.. So the chess pieces are maneuvered in a way that will try to protect Dubya..
Let Me put it in simpler terms:
Bush is putting his own political career ahead of the responsibilities of securing and bringing those people to Justice who attacked our country.. He's lost focus in the war on terror.. It's speculative how much of a role Iraq had in the affairs of international terrorism, but if the 9/11 commission's report is any indication, we went into Iraq under questionable pretenses..
Instead of going to northern Africa, southeast Asia, and continue to vacuum the Afghanistan, Pakistan border - we focused on ONE country, ONE man - and have nothing to show for it.. We should've continued to expel the Al Qaeda cells across the world - but the choice was made to invade Iraq..
"Collaborative Relationships" is an interesting way to end this blog.. Because I'm questioning the real collaborative relationships with this administration and where their focus has gone since 9/11..
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Many Thoughts
Lots to cover, but in no particular order:
No connection found between Iraq and 9/11.. Hmm.. What was the response from the White House?? The report was "irresponsible." It's very interesting that the White House chose a single word that acts so deadly to their policies and administration.. Obviously the word: "irresponsible" can quickly be applied in our rush to Iraq - or the fact that Al Qaeda remains an elusive threat..
I also find it troublesome that we have political and military leaders that are assessing the terroristic situation "like a cancer.." Meaning that you may get rid of most of it, but it'll always be there in some manner.. That's lovely.. Let's face a little music: we're not LIKED in the Middle East right now.. By continuing this policy of forging ahead blindly, we are ENCOURAGING the cancer to spread.. That's problematic..
Martial Law in Iraq?? Looks like it's going to happen.. I'm not so sure the Iraqi people are going to like this arrangement either.. Especially since our troops are still going to be over there.. Many consider the new Iraqi government to be a puppet to this administration - which I can't see how the Bush regime can't shake this troublesome perception.. More music please: The fact we're over there is going to CONTINUE these attacks even more..
American Contractors in the Middle East First of all, I sympathize for the family that lost their husband, their father, their neighbor.. I can say with certainty that no one wanted to see Mr. Johnson killed.. But here's where I start thinking a little bit askew.. I'm very concerned for *anyone* who happens to be in Iraq right now.. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the press or someone who is on humanitarian relief.. If you're an American - you're a target.. If you're anyone associated with the coalition - you're a target..
At some point - don't we have to say: look, if you go over to Iraq - you're taking your life in your own hands.. I'm not trying to be cold-hearted to the Johnson family - but clearly they knew that this could have been a possible outcome.. If we believe blindly that "just because we're Americans, we're safe" then we're running as blind as our President..
Mr. Johnson must have at some point accepted the potential risk of something bad happening to him.. When you stop and think about it - it's no different than the men and women currently serving overseas, or if you're a police officer, a fire fighter, or some who works on a fishing boat or drives an 18 wheeler.. Risks are taken everyday.. We try to mitigate those risks to make sure accidents and other avoidable events are handled properly.. Unfortunately it happens.. By going to Iraq, every contractor, every worker, every single one must be aware of the potential risks.. I don't like the fact that we're at war with a seemingly invisible enemy - but we're at war with them.. When you piss off a hive of bees, they just don't go flying away -- they're pissed off and they want to come after you..
I'm sorry for the Johnson family and friends.. It shouldn't have happened.. It was more than a possibility that it could happen.. And unfortunately it did happen..
Freedom of Religion I don't have an adequate segue for this topic.. The courts recently upheld the pledge of allegiance saying that the words: "one nation under God" remains in.. Okay - I grew up with the pledge - and I personally don't have an issue with it.. But what transpired on one of the radio programs was very unique.. The host was on a rant about how we are a nation founded on Christianity.. But we fled Britain not just for taxes, but for freedom of religion.. That to Me says: being able to practice your religion and spiritual beliefs within certain confines of the law..
Okay - I'm agreeable to that..
But then it went deeper.. The host was basically condemning the gentleman who raised this issue to begin with - that being an atheist was bad.. Well regardless of how we practice our spirituality, every one of us is and should be protected.. A religion doesn't need to have a God in order to practice.. There are many other spiritual avenues that don't follow the Christian ideology or follow "God" or the various derivative teachings thereafter..
I have an ever growing concern though when we start blending religion and the law.. It has been made very clear that religion and the law should be divisible -- but I strongly do not believe that the Pledge of allegiance fosters the mandate that "YOU WILL BELIEVE IN GOD..." No - it doesn't say that.. It's a reminder of who we are, what liberties we have, and that which should be protected.. Even if you're practicing religion that does not have a God - the fact that you're protected to practice your religion at ALL is somewhat of a miracle in these times..
Stem cell research Briefly: I'm very glad to see that Nancy Reagan is spearheading this movement on the conservative side of the aisle.. While we can't be positive had this been in place long before Reagan's death - what effect it could have, but for Me, or for anyone else in the future - this is very significant.. The longer we delay - the more people that will have to be tortured into living a life where the science is there for consumption but our government forbids it..
Interesting how the conservative movement is SO DEDICATED in their right to life argument yet they are so hypocritical when it comes having the ability to saving people because the technology says it's possible..
Interesting how the conservative movement is SO DEDICATED in the right for life - yet we remain in Iraq and expose incredibly good, dedicated people in harms way when there has been an evident misappropriation of responsibility for the intelligence and 9/11..
No connection found between Iraq and 9/11.. Hmm.. What was the response from the White House?? The report was "irresponsible." It's very interesting that the White House chose a single word that acts so deadly to their policies and administration.. Obviously the word: "irresponsible" can quickly be applied in our rush to Iraq - or the fact that Al Qaeda remains an elusive threat..
I also find it troublesome that we have political and military leaders that are assessing the terroristic situation "like a cancer.." Meaning that you may get rid of most of it, but it'll always be there in some manner.. That's lovely.. Let's face a little music: we're not LIKED in the Middle East right now.. By continuing this policy of forging ahead blindly, we are ENCOURAGING the cancer to spread.. That's problematic..
Martial Law in Iraq?? Looks like it's going to happen.. I'm not so sure the Iraqi people are going to like this arrangement either.. Especially since our troops are still going to be over there.. Many consider the new Iraqi government to be a puppet to this administration - which I can't see how the Bush regime can't shake this troublesome perception.. More music please: The fact we're over there is going to CONTINUE these attacks even more..
American Contractors in the Middle East First of all, I sympathize for the family that lost their husband, their father, their neighbor.. I can say with certainty that no one wanted to see Mr. Johnson killed.. But here's where I start thinking a little bit askew.. I'm very concerned for *anyone* who happens to be in Iraq right now.. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the press or someone who is on humanitarian relief.. If you're an American - you're a target.. If you're anyone associated with the coalition - you're a target..
At some point - don't we have to say: look, if you go over to Iraq - you're taking your life in your own hands.. I'm not trying to be cold-hearted to the Johnson family - but clearly they knew that this could have been a possible outcome.. If we believe blindly that "just because we're Americans, we're safe" then we're running as blind as our President..
Mr. Johnson must have at some point accepted the potential risk of something bad happening to him.. When you stop and think about it - it's no different than the men and women currently serving overseas, or if you're a police officer, a fire fighter, or some who works on a fishing boat or drives an 18 wheeler.. Risks are taken everyday.. We try to mitigate those risks to make sure accidents and other avoidable events are handled properly.. Unfortunately it happens.. By going to Iraq, every contractor, every worker, every single one must be aware of the potential risks.. I don't like the fact that we're at war with a seemingly invisible enemy - but we're at war with them.. When you piss off a hive of bees, they just don't go flying away -- they're pissed off and they want to come after you..
I'm sorry for the Johnson family and friends.. It shouldn't have happened.. It was more than a possibility that it could happen.. And unfortunately it did happen..
Freedom of Religion I don't have an adequate segue for this topic.. The courts recently upheld the pledge of allegiance saying that the words: "one nation under God" remains in.. Okay - I grew up with the pledge - and I personally don't have an issue with it.. But what transpired on one of the radio programs was very unique.. The host was on a rant about how we are a nation founded on Christianity.. But we fled Britain not just for taxes, but for freedom of religion.. That to Me says: being able to practice your religion and spiritual beliefs within certain confines of the law..
Okay - I'm agreeable to that..
But then it went deeper.. The host was basically condemning the gentleman who raised this issue to begin with - that being an atheist was bad.. Well regardless of how we practice our spirituality, every one of us is and should be protected.. A religion doesn't need to have a God in order to practice.. There are many other spiritual avenues that don't follow the Christian ideology or follow "God" or the various derivative teachings thereafter..
I have an ever growing concern though when we start blending religion and the law.. It has been made very clear that religion and the law should be divisible -- but I strongly do not believe that the Pledge of allegiance fosters the mandate that "YOU WILL BELIEVE IN GOD..." No - it doesn't say that.. It's a reminder of who we are, what liberties we have, and that which should be protected.. Even if you're practicing religion that does not have a God - the fact that you're protected to practice your religion at ALL is somewhat of a miracle in these times..
Stem cell research Briefly: I'm very glad to see that Nancy Reagan is spearheading this movement on the conservative side of the aisle.. While we can't be positive had this been in place long before Reagan's death - what effect it could have, but for Me, or for anyone else in the future - this is very significant.. The longer we delay - the more people that will have to be tortured into living a life where the science is there for consumption but our government forbids it..
Interesting how the conservative movement is SO DEDICATED in their right to life argument yet they are so hypocritical when it comes having the ability to saving people because the technology says it's possible..
Interesting how the conservative movement is SO DEDICATED in the right for life - yet we remain in Iraq and expose incredibly good, dedicated people in harms way when there has been an evident misappropriation of responsibility for the intelligence and 9/11..
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Yeah - whatever.....
I was listening to Hannity the other day..
It's really ironic how this whole Reagan funeral is turning so political.. The long story short - Hannity is parading around everything that Reagan did (which is okay in My book since it's merely reporting what history has already written about..) But here's the part I didn't like:
"I bet all of the Democrats can't stand themselves...."
He later referred to the funeral as:
"You can't get better press opportunities like this...."
Now who is being the "in your face" kind of person now?? If we are supposed to be remembering a President who made a profound impact (regardless if you think it was positive or not) then why is it that Hannity has taken it upon himself to drive the wedge further between the democrats and the republicans??
I was looking at one of the political cartoons this week about Reagan's death - and one of the best ones I saw was how the republican elephant and democrat donkey were lamenting the loss of Reagan while Bush stood away from the pair looking off in a different direction.......
I found it compelling because Reagan did reach across the ideological lines where it didn't matter where you were - he could reach out to you.. In a lot of ways he is being considered a very moderate President.. I'll agree considering what we have in the White House today.. To this day - I don't think Bush even knows who he is or where he is in the spectrum of things..
Back to Hannity -- I'm disillusioned that at a time of possibly BOOSTING your party's reputation, there was a conscious choice to drive the wedge further.. Congratulations Hannity, I really hope you know what you're doing for the sake of your party.. You had a golden opportunity here and BLEW IT..
Hannity's golden response: yeah, whatever..
It's really ironic how this whole Reagan funeral is turning so political.. The long story short - Hannity is parading around everything that Reagan did (which is okay in My book since it's merely reporting what history has already written about..) But here's the part I didn't like:
"I bet all of the Democrats can't stand themselves...."
He later referred to the funeral as:
"You can't get better press opportunities like this...."
Now who is being the "in your face" kind of person now?? If we are supposed to be remembering a President who made a profound impact (regardless if you think it was positive or not) then why is it that Hannity has taken it upon himself to drive the wedge further between the democrats and the republicans??
I was looking at one of the political cartoons this week about Reagan's death - and one of the best ones I saw was how the republican elephant and democrat donkey were lamenting the loss of Reagan while Bush stood away from the pair looking off in a different direction.......
I found it compelling because Reagan did reach across the ideological lines where it didn't matter where you were - he could reach out to you.. In a lot of ways he is being considered a very moderate President.. I'll agree considering what we have in the White House today.. To this day - I don't think Bush even knows who he is or where he is in the spectrum of things..
Back to Hannity -- I'm disillusioned that at a time of possibly BOOSTING your party's reputation, there was a conscious choice to drive the wedge further.. Congratulations Hannity, I really hope you know what you're doing for the sake of your party.. You had a golden opportunity here and BLEW IT..
Hannity's golden response: yeah, whatever..
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Anyone Taking Bets??
Problem #1: Most Iraqis don't like us over there..
Problem #2: Most Iraqis don't want to have *jack* to do with democracy or anything remotely close to looking "American.."
Problem #3: We, the US, approved of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to be the current leader of the Iraqi people..
Now for the math:
Problem #1 + Problem #2 + Problem #3
Has anyone started taking bets of how long Prime Minister Iyad Allawi plans to be in power - even if we're still over there in a security role - even if we are in the process of leaving, cutting back our forces, etc..
Has anyone thought about exactly how Mr. Allawi is in a very very dangerous position right now?? Anyone else see the life expectancy for any US supported individuals having the lifespan of a fly??
I kinda feel sorry for the guy really.....
Problem #2: Most Iraqis don't want to have *jack* to do with democracy or anything remotely close to looking "American.."
Problem #3: We, the US, approved of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to be the current leader of the Iraqi people..
Now for the math:
Problem #1 + Problem #2 + Problem #3
Has anyone started taking bets of how long Prime Minister Iyad Allawi plans to be in power - even if we're still over there in a security role - even if we are in the process of leaving, cutting back our forces, etc..
Has anyone thought about exactly how Mr. Allawi is in a very very dangerous position right now?? Anyone else see the life expectancy for any US supported individuals having the lifespan of a fly??
I kinda feel sorry for the guy really.....
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Reagan
Like a lot of people - I have mixed feelings about Ronald Reagan's passing.. Personally - I know this may be hard to swallow - I actually liked most of what he did when he was President.. That said - I'd take Ronald over The Dub anyday.....
The passing of a President usually gets a lot of airplay.. I do recall though that Nixon didn't get the air time that Reagan is getting.. I think there are several reasons why this is the case, but most notably: Reagan was more likable than Nixon.. He had his moments - no denying that.. But as a person of character - he was really good..
Darby and I talked about it tonight.. She thought that as Presidents went, Reagan probably leaned on his staff more than other Presidents, that somehow he didn't have the experience to lead the country than others.. I'm not sure I fully agree with that, but I don't think it's a mystery that Reagan probably relied upon his staff for decisions.. I also don't think that's a bad thing.. Because the input of 20 people on a decision should be better than just one person.. I think Bush is proving that right now..
One little observance I made tonight.. It was when Nancy was escorted by VP Dick Cheney to the casket.. When I looked at her response, body language, etc. the only thing I wondered was whether that was drawn up as a publicity moment.. Nancy looked really confused and unsure of whether to be up there - and what to be doing up there.. Considering she's already spent this past week traveling with the casket - now there had to be one more photo op for the administration..
I have no idea if that was the intent, the situation, or what -- but something wasn't right with how she was reacting.. Nancy has always been a very calm, very natural person in front of a crowd or on TV.. Here it looked like she was being "guided" where to be, where to stand, where to go, what to do...... It's a slight point.. I don't know if there was something going on..
I do know this though - I feel for her, the family and for those that were close to this man.. Love him or hate him - he was a statesman.. I don't think he did much for the economy and I reject the notion of needing "Reaganomics" for the country, but I'm also not a business or finance major, so I can't really say for sure.. I do know that he stood his ground and had a lot of good fortunes that happened in his administration.. He got the hostages out of Iran.. He stopped the Soviet Union.. Assisted in the taking down of the Berlin Wall.. And I actually remember that the world felt safe.. Amazing what a decade and a half can do, eh?? Considering when you've had two republican presidents and a democrat since then..........
One last thought before I close this: I was surprised to hear about Tenet's resignation - but can anyone say that this is really shocking?? Surprised yes, shocking - hardly.. Tenet really dug himself a couple of holes - and *still* didn't find any WMD.. Oops.. Here's the setup: with Tenet gone -that's great news for the White House because the blame will have appeared to shift on to him and not Bush.. Which is still My anger spot: there's STILL no responsibility for these lapses - only excuses.. Business as usual.. Short term memories will abound...
The passing of a President usually gets a lot of airplay.. I do recall though that Nixon didn't get the air time that Reagan is getting.. I think there are several reasons why this is the case, but most notably: Reagan was more likable than Nixon.. He had his moments - no denying that.. But as a person of character - he was really good..
Darby and I talked about it tonight.. She thought that as Presidents went, Reagan probably leaned on his staff more than other Presidents, that somehow he didn't have the experience to lead the country than others.. I'm not sure I fully agree with that, but I don't think it's a mystery that Reagan probably relied upon his staff for decisions.. I also don't think that's a bad thing.. Because the input of 20 people on a decision should be better than just one person.. I think Bush is proving that right now..
One little observance I made tonight.. It was when Nancy was escorted by VP Dick Cheney to the casket.. When I looked at her response, body language, etc. the only thing I wondered was whether that was drawn up as a publicity moment.. Nancy looked really confused and unsure of whether to be up there - and what to be doing up there.. Considering she's already spent this past week traveling with the casket - now there had to be one more photo op for the administration..
I have no idea if that was the intent, the situation, or what -- but something wasn't right with how she was reacting.. Nancy has always been a very calm, very natural person in front of a crowd or on TV.. Here it looked like she was being "guided" where to be, where to stand, where to go, what to do...... It's a slight point.. I don't know if there was something going on..
I do know this though - I feel for her, the family and for those that were close to this man.. Love him or hate him - he was a statesman.. I don't think he did much for the economy and I reject the notion of needing "Reaganomics" for the country, but I'm also not a business or finance major, so I can't really say for sure.. I do know that he stood his ground and had a lot of good fortunes that happened in his administration.. He got the hostages out of Iran.. He stopped the Soviet Union.. Assisted in the taking down of the Berlin Wall.. And I actually remember that the world felt safe.. Amazing what a decade and a half can do, eh?? Considering when you've had two republican presidents and a democrat since then..........
One last thought before I close this: I was surprised to hear about Tenet's resignation - but can anyone say that this is really shocking?? Surprised yes, shocking - hardly.. Tenet really dug himself a couple of holes - and *still* didn't find any WMD.. Oops.. Here's the setup: with Tenet gone -that's great news for the White House because the blame will have appeared to shift on to him and not Bush.. Which is still My anger spot: there's STILL no responsibility for these lapses - only excuses.. Business as usual.. Short term memories will abound...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
