Opinion Page

Life is starting to look better each day. Thank God I have politicians to keep me entertained. Yesterday I saw a quote from Bob Graham, wannabe presidential candidate from Floriduh. He was attending the NAACP Forum in Miami Beach, not because he gave a shit about black people, but because he needs all of the support that he can kiss up to, because he's a long-shot candidate at best. Some people love this invisible Senator, even though he's been on the public teat for years. I remember him for his Governor's Summer Program for Gifted Students, which I was lucky enough to attend one year. Funded with state money, I was given the opportunity to attend an 8-week program that included college-level Marine Biology and Oceanography, as well as SCUBA training. I had a great experience that summer. I have to tip my hat to Dan Bentley-Baker, our teacher, and one of my mentors. But I also remember Bob Graham as promising not to raise taxes, and I remember watching the state's sales tax go from 4% to 6% (a 50% increase!!) during his administration. Thank God he promised not to raise taxes. Imagine if that was his goal - how far he could have gone! Anyway, Bob decided to show the world how smart he was at the NAACP Forum when he was asked to comment on the non-issue of Bush's State of the Union speech, specifically the 16 words where he referenced a British Intelligence report (which some say has origins with the French Secret Service, others say Italian Intelligence) where he stated that we've learned that someone has said that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy nuclear material from Niger. Now, I don't know of any sane person who doesn't think that Saddam would buy any nuclear material that he could get his hands on, since he has stated that his intent was to build nuclear weapons to use on his enemies, which was directed at Iran and Israel (strange bed-fellows indeed!). Back to Graham's comment. He said that he wasn't using the "3-letter word" (referring to "lie", so often and erroneously used to describe Bush's use of the report), and instead preferred to use the "5-letter word, deceit". Now you see why I laugh so much. This was a blunder of Quayle-like proportion, and shows his ignorance and contempt in one swoop. He tried to take a swipe at a political adversary, even though Congress voted around 3 months BEFORE his SOTU address to use military action to remove Saddam Hussein. Also, Clinton had said essentially the same thing in 1998, and no one wants to accuse him of lying. Of course, he's a convicted perjurer, so that would be redundant.

It's telling that in 2000 the Democrats accused Bush of not having enough intelligence. Now, they're accusing him of having too much.

Now, if you believe that those 16 words were a lie, here's something to think about. So what? Who the fuck cares? Was that really the only compelling reason to remove Hussein from power? We authorized his removal without hearing those words, so what did they change? There were 17 UN resolutions that didn't mention them, so were they all that important? Did his use of WMD and "ethnic cleansing" (a nice term for genocide) alone not warrant his removal? Did his sponsorship of terrorism not warrant removal? Did his invading of other countries not warrant his removal? So what if Bush said that he tried to buy nuclear material. I'd be willing to bet that Hussein DID try to buy something, if not that. But he's still a mass murderer, and oppressed 24,000,000 people. Doesn't that matter any more? Since the people that are trying to turn a non-issue into something big (with the help of a gutless media) are looking for anything to discredit the man in charge, is this the best that they can come up with? Is this man who resides at 1600 doing such a bad job that we can only question this one thing? No one with an IQ over 68 can say that the Iraqi people aren't better off today than they were a year ago. No one can say that our military victory wasn't the quickest and least-costly (in terms of human life on BOTH sides of the battle). I don't think he's done anything wrong in that area. Now, if you want to attack Bush, look for something more substantive to hang your hat upon. Go after his lust to get religion into our legal system, or his hard-on to increase the size of our government to almost Orwellian levels. If you're a hawk, question why he hasn't sent tens of thousands of troops into Pakistan or Iran to drag the body of bin Laden back here for a public burial. But leave the Iraq thing alone. We were on the right side of that battle, morally and militarily.

On a completely unrelated note, as a parent, I've started to look with "new eyes" at the children's stories that we all know. What I find amazing is the slant of all of these stories. Why wasn't Goldilocks charged with breaking & entering or misdemeanor burglary? Why wasn't the old witch charged with attempted murder? Do you really think the FDA approved the use of the phrase "magic beans" without imposing harsh fines upon the dealers? Even better, think of most of the moralistic stories. They almost all have anti-Capitalist ideals. The rich people are always portrayed as greedy. The heroes are almost always poor, working people. Karl Marx couldn't have written them better. Rumpelstilskin is about a greedy king who extorts a poor worker to make him richer at any cost, even the life of her child. Pick a story, the bias is there. Snow White is a homeless women who takes up with mine workers and overthrows the greedy, vain Queen. Cinderella is again cast in the worker role while her proletariat step-sisters party. It's amazing when you look at the stories again. If you can look at them with open eyes, you will see it too.

OK, I've avoided the subject long enough. Pat Robertson. What a knucklehead! If brains were handed out on Thursdays, he was in line on Monday. His "700 Club" for years has perplexed me. How did it get its name? I think I've figured it out. Seven hundred must be the COMBINED IQ of his viewers. His latest outpouring of verbal diarrhea was that he's asking God to cause 3 Supreme Court Justices to retire. At least he didn't ask God to strike them dead. Just make them retire. Here's a news flash, Pat. They ALL will retire (or die on the bench) eventually. Just don't try to take credit for it. It's obvious that he's trying to get Justices on the bench who will bend to his ultra-right-wing thinking. Luckily, I don't know of 3 judges who are that crazy. Being a judge by definition means that you should remain impartial, and judge issues according to the law, not your own personal beliefs. The fact that human bias creates judges with differing viewpoints is already stretching their judicial leeway. A judge is supposed to not get emotionally involved with his decisions - they should be a matter of law. The people taking sides are supposed to be the litigants. The fact that we have Justices who take sides should be a warning to us that the system is in danger of failing. Instead of heeding that warning, we're more worried about getting "our people" in there to do "our work". That's how we ended up with that shit-bag of a "decision" in the Michigan Affirmative Discrimination case. I can't believe a court actually said that it's Constitutionally acceptable to discriminate against people on the basis of race. Their decision is as rational as if they said that businesses could have a "whites only" policy. Once you allow people to discriminate on the basis of race, you can't then not allow the converse of the same policy, or the decision is biased and flawed. And anyone who condemns Clarence Thomas' decision that Affirmative Discrimination is no longer the "compelling interest" that it once was should also condemn sending some lard-ass like Ted Kennedy to Africa to talk about starvation. Those natives were hoping that someone would stop filming long enough to get Ted into a large pot with some carrots and celery. While I agree that there was a time in this Country when there was a compelling need for set-asides for people who were only recently given access to a system they were excluded from, after 4 or 5 decades and 2 generations, we have to make a choice. Either AD has made life better for some people, in which case the system has done its purpose, and it's time to put that system to rest, OR the system was flawed and isn't going to work, and should be scrapped for something that DOES work. Now, I look at the results. We have AD benefitting people in the legal system to the point of them becoming a Supreme Court Justice. We have black people in cabinet posts, and as Presidential advisors, and as Secretary of State. Here in Georgia we have lots of black millionaires who have benefitted from AD programs. The recently-departed Maynard Jackson used minority programs to get lucrative concessions at Hartsfield Airport. He was a millionaire BEFORE he got those set-asides and grants, though. He even got one for his wife. So, I think the system has benefitted persons along the way. Now, it's time to put it to rest. It's time to let people succeed of fail on their own. There are plenty of scholarships to help those that need help affording tuitition assistance, and in some states, like Georgia, you can get free tuition, housing, and books if you maintain a "B" average in high school, hardly a challenge these days with grade inflation. Hell, it wasn't even hard for me to skate by with a 3.8 GPA without studying at all. So, you have to wonder how much it is really helping, versus the costs and effects that it has. You don't want society to backlash by looking at graduates as beneficiaries of a system, but rather as hard-working students. If they get in on their own merits, that's easier to do.

See what else I have to say Previous day's rant

Go to Top

If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, please let me know.

Home