Karl Rove Scares Me

It's not that he can successfully, and easily I might add, manipulate a nation of self-righteous Christians into ignoring all the very valid reasons for voting against George Bush just because Bush takes a stand against gays. It's not that he practices the "Win at all costs" method of campaigning, so dangerous because you can never be sure what he will do to win and hold on to power once he has it. It's not that he had Bush run in 2000 as a great "Uniter", then in 2004 as a great "Divider" with great success. No, it's none of those things. It's because he doesn't look human. He reminds me of a bug in the Men In Black movies, hiding out on Earth in a human costume. He's bloated, his hair doesn't seem to fit, he's too shiny and greasy looking. Maybe after all those years of the Weekly World News printing phony pictures and stories of aliens meeting with and possibly controlling President Clinton, we finally have the real thing. I mean, it's no secret that the man known as Bush's Brain has full access and may even actually be the shadow president himself. It makes you wonder..

But just last week, the guy behind the most divisive American president in history, gave a speech that shows exactly where Bush gets it. Last Wednesday at a fund raiser, he said "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." What a prick. Just like he thinks, and successfully demonstrated that he can at least make a good number believe it I might add, that conservatives have a monopoly on religion, he's now saying conservatives have a monopoly on national pride and support and motivation. As if NO Democrats supported going into Afghanistan and rooting out al Qaeda after 9/11. As if NO Liberals have since died in the mountains of Afghanistan, and later in the streets of Baghdad. ONLY conservatives support this country. Or that's the message he wanted to give, which is as divisive a line as ever. It's clear that Bush learns from the best. After 9/11 the country was more united than it's been since probably WWII, hell Bush wasn't any more liked by Liberals back in summer 2001 than he is now, but after 9/11 he had over 80% approval. So we did support him at one time. Even the world at large had great sympathy for the US, or at least acted like it.

But then something happened.

All that support, all that goodwill, was tossed aside in an unprecedented display of arrogance. Bush did a half-ass job in Afghanistan, which still to this day 4 years later isn't finished, then pulled most of the troops out to go after the prize that he really wanted, which was Iraq. He even had to lie up the reasons for doing it, because the truth simply wasn't enough. And anyone who disagreed with him, was a traitor. He wouldn't say those words of course, he let surrogates like Ann Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly preach it to the masses, but his "you're either with us, or against us" was close enough. All that support, all that goodwill, tossed aside in an instant, so that contractors like Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton could earn billions by building up a country Bush was so eager to tear down. And when those of us said hey wait a minute, this isn't right, we were targeted, ridiculed and dismissed. Many of us even lost long time friends with whom we were suddenly no longer on speaking terms, simply because we didn't blindly follow what Bush was saying. Divisive. With us or against us. Used to great effect in 2002 midterms, and 2004 elections. Liberals were suddenly just as bad as the terrorists. All the dissent, traitorous. Disagree with the government wildly extending their power into your private lives? The so-called Patriot Act? If you didn't agree with the Patriot Act, that makes you what, treasonous? Ann Coulter wrote a book about that very thing. Saw it on the shelves at Wal Mart, where everybody could see it and equate Liberals, Democrats, Treason. This didn't come around by accident, it didn't evolve. It was part of a plan, and it's doubtful that Bush himself came up with it. He's too busy tuning that radio in his head that he thinks he hears god speaking through.

Divisive. Strategy. Rove.

For his comments last week, Rove wouldn't apologize, but it was said later by a spokesman that he really meant MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. Yeah, that's why he said Liberals, all 50+ million of us who voted against his ass last election. Right.

Are We Entitled To An Up Or Down Vote in the Senate? NO

It always just kills me to see these Republicans like Bill Frist acting all humble and saying that every appointee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate, trying to spin it to make themselves not look like the bad guys. This being the same Bill Frist who last month was saying that the filibuster of a judicial nominee was unprecedented, until he was confronted with his own participation in the filibuster of one of Clinton's nominees, Judge Richard Paez, in 2000. But even then, he wouldn't simply say "ok you got me," but instead tried to weasel his way around it with some half-ass explanation about trying to get more information and not to kill a nomination. Even though that judge had been nominated 4 years earlier. Whatever.

But with John Bolton, as with last month's judges, they are solemnly saying the same thing about how appointees deserve a simple up or down vote, which they do not and here is why. In an honestly-run government, an up or down vote would make sense. However, in most cases today, this Congress is not honest or trustworthy. They have no intention of actually debating the merits of a paricular candidate, they simply want to rubber-stamp whatever President Bush hands them to do. And given his past history, there is nothing logical about Bush nominations-- he almost seems to pick the worst possible candidate (who he likely owes a favor to, or at least to a supporter) for nearly every position, or he'll pick the most evangelical or the one most likely to serve his agenda. With an unreasonable man in the gorilla position throwing nominees against the wall to see what sticks, you simply cannot approve without debate. And that's just what this Republican-controlled Congress intends to do at every turn. It's not good for the 49.999% who voted against him, and it's not good for the country as a whole.

America's Worst, Err, First Choice For Diplomat

John Bolton, President Bush's cherry-picked representative of the US to the United Nations still has not been confirmed by the Senate, and doesn't look like he ever will. Senator Bill Frist, R-TN, even said there wasn't much point in continuing to ask for a vote anymore. Besides Democrats, even some Republicans have their doubts as to whether or not the loudmouthed, angry and arrogant man should represent us in delicate negotiations on the world political scene-- one where the United States' reputation is probably as low as it will ever be (unless of course, Bolton somehow does get nominated, in which case the floor's the limit.) The man who has a history of abusing subordinates, rampaging around the halls of Washington, and notoriously saying the UN wouldn't miss 10 stories if they were suddenly lopped off the top, would seem to be stalemated as he should be.

But fear not, happy conservative campers, because we have a holiday recess of Congress coming up in a couple of weeks. Bush is ignoring questions on if he will simply use a recess appointment to put "Mad Dog" Bolton in place anyway, bypassing Americans altogether. He's done it before, he will likely do it again. In Bush's world, where he claims God speaks to him and tells him what to do so he just does it, "we the people" simply don't matter. Unless you funnel enough money into his party, that is. Even though Bush "won" the last election by the slimmest of margins, and received the most "No" votes in history, he feels he has the god-given right to do whatever he pleases. Spendin' all that political capital he "earned". Usually, his Republican-controlled Congress simply rubber-stamps it, but in this current impasse, it seems like a few of them are having a bit of conscience. Bush will do what he wants, and leave the mess to Karl Rove to clean up and spin into something positive. How you can spin "shits on at least 50% of the citizens' wishes to favor his elite 1%" into something positive is beyond me, but Rove has done that a hundred times in the past 5 years, and will likely continue to earn his keep for the next three.

Justice Served

Edgar Ray Killen found guilty of manslaughter. Will the Klan pull their own version of the LA Riots of '92?

It's still a shame that it took so long to bring this man to justice, when the only reason why he wasn't already convicted back int he 1967 trial was because one juror out of 12 could not convict this sham of a preacher. Hopefully this shows the world that this is a new Mississippi, and that people like Senators Lott and Cochran are anomolies, relics of an embarassing past that we're turning our back upon.

More Crap Printed In The Clarion Ledger, 6/18/2005

Evolution theory a 'puff of fuzzy logic'

In his letter ("Science of evolution one of 'bedrocks'," June 9), Allen Stickley writes that "The science of evolution is one of the bedrocks of our understanding of science."

If by "bedrock" he means "rife with hoax, misrepresentation, and outright fraud," and if by "science" he means "unsubstantiated superstition," then I suppose I could agree with him.

The purpose of evolution is not to explain the origin of any species; but rather, to explain God away in a puff of fuzzy logic.

Lane Russell
Hattiesburg

To borrow from Charlie Brown...

"Auuuuuuuuuugh!"

Actual Letter to The Clarion Ledger on 6/17/2005

Killen case nothing but a 'show trial'

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

The media's attempt to condemn Edgar Ray Killen before the trial should be no surprise, however.
Brother Killen was never proven to have belonged to any group. Not only did he not associate with any group, he never even knew who the civil rights workers were until he heard what happened to them.

The media ignore those facts. Not only is this show of a trial ridiculous, the federal government has violated his constitutional rights by trying him again. The government, as this case, has repeatedly got away with illegal reprosecution of old civil rights cases. No one yet has spoken up or tried to prevent these cases from being brought back up the last decade and a half.

It's also disgusting that Circuit Court Judge Marcus Gordon hasn't thrown out this case. Of course, as usual, the powers-that-be continue these show trials of old civil rights cases. It is also disgusting the judge continues the trial with Brother Killen being in poor health. If it was someone like the black militant Jackson Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth I. Stokes, the judge would have given him a TV and a couch to take home and delayed the trial til he died.

Also, remember that civil rights workers were communists. The Soviet Union was behind the civil rights movement. The liberal establishment, as usual, ignores these facts. The civil rights workers were sent to Neshoba for one reason, to stir up trouble and cause social chaos, which the whole Marxist-civil rights was set up to do.

Civil rights did not do anything but destroy everything.

If show trials like this continue, where does it stop?

God bless Brother Edgar Ray Killen.

Craig Haden
Braxton

I don't know if they printed this moron's letter to show what a dope he is, or to counter the claims people make against the paper daily that it's biased towards liberals, or what. I like to think they did it to expose this guy for what he is.

Why Should The Senate Have to Apologize For Past Lynchings?

Better question is, why shouldn't they?

For decades, people were drug out of their homes, out of their vehicles, picked up off the street, brutally beaten and murdered by angry mobs. Many of these instances were treated like festive occasions, with members of the mob openly posing for photographs, smiling, pointing at the dead human being(s) swaying from the tree behind them or charring in the nearby bonfire. You'll even see children in some of these old time photographs. I can't imagine what parent would involve their small children in such horror, but there they were. And it hasn't been long enough, there are likely still some old timers you pass in the mall or at the grocery who remember those times and maybe even participated in them, and it's also likely that you might encounter some people who wish they could go back to the "good old days." All because the Senate blocked passage of anti-lynching bills that were passed by the House and supported by several presidents of the day and there wasn't a federal law to stop (or at least slow down) the lynchings from happening.

Historians record thousands of lynchings between the 1880's and the 1960's, with my home state of Mississippi leading the pack. A shameful record indeed, but Monday we had an opportunity to atone for it. A purely symbolic gesture, that could never bring those lives back, but it was nevertheless a step out of Mississippi's dark past into a hopefully better future. And what better timing too, with the spotlight shining on Mississippi as the Emmit Till case is reopened and justice is finally pursued.

Except for one small problem. Or rather, two.

Mississippi's two Republican senators, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, would not sign on for support. There were other Republicans who held out, sure, but these are my senators, representing me. Even though the Republican-controlled Senate held a voice vote presumably so those who weren't going to commit were protected by anonymity, the list of names came out anyway. I haven't read if Lott had an excuse yet, but after the Strom Thurmond fiasco that cost him his majority leadership role, maybe he thought it best to stay completely mum. Cochran on the other hand, said he wouldn't sign on because he hadn't personally done anything to apologize for. Well guess what, Senator, it ain't about you! You're up there to represent ALL of us, not yourself personally. Besides, that's just an excuse anyway, because your supporters won't put up with you apologizing for them either lynching blacks or wishing they could. Same with Trent Lott, whatever his excuse eventually turns out to be. What kind of people are they beholden to that they can't make this symbolic gesture against racism and lynching? And why do all these friggin' "values voters" keep electing them? Bunch of hypocrites, the whole lot of them.

The last time Trent Lott paid tribute to Mississippi's racist past, it cost him his leadership. Hopefully this time it will cost him his job. With any luck, he'll be holding the door for Thad Cochran on the way out as well. Mississippi deserves better, and until these relics of the past are gone, we're never going to be able to move out of the redneck joke books and forward into the 21st century.