More Bush Love
I haven't been hiding out on purpose, but with my trip last weekend and then school really rolling, I haven't had a chance to write. Or rather, I started a long blog about the trip and it's still sitting in draft form. I haven't resolved the issues I talk about in the post below, but I'm still slogging, or blogging, ahead.
There is an article I enjoyed right here about a phenomenon I missed in the media, lawmakers staining their index fingers. It is possible in five years Iraq will be a democracy the way Bush envisions it; I have grave doubts however. The apparent landslide in the Shiite vote (could that have been a surprise to anyone) the so-far silence on the part of the Sunnis, the daily death toll in American and Iraqui life.
I would like to resort to choice, navy-quality profanity at the moment but I will refrain and instead focus my energy on my ideas: did not Bush and his people really believe the Iraqi's would welcome the americans, would open mcdonald's and begin watching american idol, joyfully consuming in their new freedom? I think he did believe this. And this vision was so myopic, so jingoistic, so baldly ignorant of the stark social, political, and theological realities of that country it spooks me. And if we begin to think 1500 dead american soldiers isn't many (not to mention tens of thousands of other dead people) imagine, say, the entire floor section at an arena concert there one minute, forever gone the next. The silence of those empty seats. With grievers, including children, enough to fill the rest of the hall.
Which brings me to social security. I know very little about this, I admit again. I know I can already put away a fair chunk of change each month on top of social security (which I'm not in anyway being a teacher) into private holdings now if I can afford it. Retirement is already partially privatized via 401s and 403bs and all that stuff I barely comprehend. And even my STRS somehow draws on investements which give it, I believe, a better return than social security. But I've read too many accounts by qualified journalists who tell me social security is not headed for any kind of disaster at all. Why, then, is Bush telling us it is? Could it be he actually is using fear to press his point?
For the truth is what he wants, and he probably believes this is best for all, is all that social security money to shuttle off to wall street. Sure, the stock market has averaged more than social security over the century, well over. I might end up with more dough to retire on if my entire retirement is invested into corporate america. But then again, I might now. I have reservations about doing away with SS and programs like it because they provide a near certain security blanket for millions of people. Of course, if things went truly awfully sour in the market and the retirement accounts of millions went south, those in power in wall street, those with true money, would be mildly affected.
I guess what bothers me most is I think 1)Bush believes what he's told too easily and lacks long-term insight and 2) he's lying, again, to get what he wants accomplished. SS is not headed for disaster, he simply wants those billions channelled into wall street, invested, to perhaps give us all more when we quit work. Of course the boost this would give to corporate america is hard to imagine; suddenly, billions more bucks to work with. And as happens with our mutual funds now, the working person like myself makes a little, builds some wealth, while those with true wealth get much more wealthy.
I suppose privatizing SS would help those too poor to invest. But how would that money be invested and managed, and what security, if any, would there be, what federal insurance, on those deposits? Show me security and I might support SS reform of some kind, though I heard the challenges to making this kind of change are large and expensive ones.
But why tell me that SS is headed for disaster, that it will be bankrupt and must be completely overthrown, or that the war in Iraq was all about wmd, imminent terrorist threat, or democracy either (how can you liberate people who may not all want to be liberated using military force?). Bush doesn't understand either situation in my opinion; they are too complex, too vast, too human. Like Polk, Bush's brashness may lead him to accomplish most of his goals. Manifest destiny. Remember that?
I have to go guys. I know most of you, save Mike, probably don't give a whit about this. It's time for me to shop, begin cooking, and keep working on my online classes so I can have some kind of weekend. But I just had to blog about my government. I oppose so much of what it does these days it makes me dizzy. I may be wrong; maybe in ten years I'll vacation in Falluja itself and feel really a part of things, you know. Then again, maybe not.
I have to make sweeping statements, but so much conservative rhetoric I hear from the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh is sophomoric crap. Lies and fear. I'd say more, but I really do have to go.
Love you all, even the Bushies among you, and I mean that sincerely.
There is an article I enjoyed right here about a phenomenon I missed in the media, lawmakers staining their index fingers. It is possible in five years Iraq will be a democracy the way Bush envisions it; I have grave doubts however. The apparent landslide in the Shiite vote (could that have been a surprise to anyone) the so-far silence on the part of the Sunnis, the daily death toll in American and Iraqui life.
I would like to resort to choice, navy-quality profanity at the moment but I will refrain and instead focus my energy on my ideas: did not Bush and his people really believe the Iraqi's would welcome the americans, would open mcdonald's and begin watching american idol, joyfully consuming in their new freedom? I think he did believe this. And this vision was so myopic, so jingoistic, so baldly ignorant of the stark social, political, and theological realities of that country it spooks me. And if we begin to think 1500 dead american soldiers isn't many (not to mention tens of thousands of other dead people) imagine, say, the entire floor section at an arena concert there one minute, forever gone the next. The silence of those empty seats. With grievers, including children, enough to fill the rest of the hall.
Which brings me to social security. I know very little about this, I admit again. I know I can already put away a fair chunk of change each month on top of social security (which I'm not in anyway being a teacher) into private holdings now if I can afford it. Retirement is already partially privatized via 401s and 403bs and all that stuff I barely comprehend. And even my STRS somehow draws on investements which give it, I believe, a better return than social security. But I've read too many accounts by qualified journalists who tell me social security is not headed for any kind of disaster at all. Why, then, is Bush telling us it is? Could it be he actually is using fear to press his point?
For the truth is what he wants, and he probably believes this is best for all, is all that social security money to shuttle off to wall street. Sure, the stock market has averaged more than social security over the century, well over. I might end up with more dough to retire on if my entire retirement is invested into corporate america. But then again, I might now. I have reservations about doing away with SS and programs like it because they provide a near certain security blanket for millions of people. Of course, if things went truly awfully sour in the market and the retirement accounts of millions went south, those in power in wall street, those with true money, would be mildly affected.
I guess what bothers me most is I think 1)Bush believes what he's told too easily and lacks long-term insight and 2) he's lying, again, to get what he wants accomplished. SS is not headed for disaster, he simply wants those billions channelled into wall street, invested, to perhaps give us all more when we quit work. Of course the boost this would give to corporate america is hard to imagine; suddenly, billions more bucks to work with. And as happens with our mutual funds now, the working person like myself makes a little, builds some wealth, while those with true wealth get much more wealthy.
I suppose privatizing SS would help those too poor to invest. But how would that money be invested and managed, and what security, if any, would there be, what federal insurance, on those deposits? Show me security and I might support SS reform of some kind, though I heard the challenges to making this kind of change are large and expensive ones.
But why tell me that SS is headed for disaster, that it will be bankrupt and must be completely overthrown, or that the war in Iraq was all about wmd, imminent terrorist threat, or democracy either (how can you liberate people who may not all want to be liberated using military force?). Bush doesn't understand either situation in my opinion; they are too complex, too vast, too human. Like Polk, Bush's brashness may lead him to accomplish most of his goals. Manifest destiny. Remember that?
I have to go guys. I know most of you, save Mike, probably don't give a whit about this. It's time for me to shop, begin cooking, and keep working on my online classes so I can have some kind of weekend. But I just had to blog about my government. I oppose so much of what it does these days it makes me dizzy. I may be wrong; maybe in ten years I'll vacation in Falluja itself and feel really a part of things, you know. Then again, maybe not.
I have to make sweeping statements, but so much conservative rhetoric I hear from the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh is sophomoric crap. Lies and fear. I'd say more, but I really do have to go.
Love you all, even the Bushies among you, and I mean that sincerely.
Comments
Regarding Iraq, the man has blood on his hands and so does his constituency. In 2000 we could have pleaded ignorance but his re-election demonstrates to the world that as a society we were willing to overlook his bloodlust, greed, stupidity, and narrow mindedness because we allowed him and Karl Rove to scare us or dupe us. I'm not sure which is worse.
When the next round of terrorist attacks come, and they will, I'm sure those responsible will say something to that effect.
As for SS, anybody who steps away long enough to look into the matter will know that Bush and company have manufactured a crisis. The changes he proposes are ideological in nature. Pure and simple. There is no clamoring for reform because it is not needed. The same is true of his now silent talk of reforming the tax code. Besides, isn't there a war going on that he should be focused on? It is Iraq all over again. He took his eyes off Afghanistan, the real war on terror, to go after an ideological goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein.
George W. Bush is a very bad man. God help America.
thanks for the intense comments; I should write on current events more often; special thanks to Amanda for writing a long, and well-informed intelligent response (and you may post comments here of any length) and to Mike, again, for sharing my rage.
I read today Americans as a majority once again favor the Iraq war since the election....do they know who is winning that election, that Bush's plants are being blown out of office, that the Sunni's may respond with continued violence to their loss of power?
And I like Amanda's point on SS: it was intended for the working poor. Very nice, very true.
I didn't discuss laissez faire economics in this post, but when I think of that, I think of working conditions ninety years ago before the unions began...six day work weeks, ten or twelve hours a day or more, low pay and no health care or retirement or anything. The reason Nike, and so many others, are making their 100 dollar shoes in Malaysia, etc.
I finally saw Moore's film The Big One, and his interview with Nike's CEO is impressive.
But by now I might as well be blogging. Thanks again to all.
t