BuzzFlash Mailbag for April 8, 2008

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here. You also may register to post articles yourself at BuzzFlash.net; or send urls for BuzzFlash.com to consider posting to: www.buzzflash.com/contact/newstip.

Subject: Truly Funny

McCain was reading a well-written speech, on a roll, aspiring to oratory but faltering -- his age, I have the same issue, of high-minded manure about our success in Iraq. The television coverage of his speech was interrupted by a large by-line: "Breaking News" that major fighting had broken out in Baghdad. Double digit dead, hundreds fleeing. 4 U.S. killed.

Baghdad, btw, is the capital of this country we occupy and secure. In the great success of our Surge, journalists have to pay $300 for a ride into town from the airport in an armored vehicle, wearing helmets and flak jackets, and they have to pay $2500 a month for their own security while working in the safety of the capital, where even inside the heavily secured Green Zone U.S. diplomats are advised to were helmets and flak jackets and work inside heavily reinforced bunkers.

Without the "Surge," which is doublespeak for substantial, permanent, and extremely expensive escalation of U.S. forces, the danger, instability and fighting would be much greater.

TWIGA

This notion is apparently going to be the scapegoat for McHeinous coming to power. It's a sure bet that all the media blitz is for disillusioning even more the already confused or complacent public.

There are elements to a mind's psyche that the media likes to play out in increments that "slowly cook the frog."

I say this is one of those wolves played out in sheep's clothing.

They draw a conclusion of Obama's vulnerability by a contrived "Bradley effect" against the Clintons' bringing the race element to attention.

This is a trap for fools to forget the real goal of citizens to endeavor against.

This is an attempt to "dumb you down" and distract you from what's really going on.

Michael Chevalier
Cedar Rapids, IA

Why not pick a winner?

It's crass, its opportunistic, and it certainly isn't the Democratic Party's forte, but, hey, let's be different this year. Let's forget the Hillary mantras: "She always bounces back, she's down but not out." Instead, let's look at the facts: Hillary is underfunded, not gaining in popularity, and has trouble with her staff. This is hard to accept, because if we Dems acted on our firmest principles, we would go with Hillary. In many ways, it's her turn. She's worked hard for this, and let's face it, it's time for a women Prez.

Traditionally, in presidential picks, we Democrats are all about principles. In 1972, America was against the war, so we picked the most sincerely anti-war candidate. In 1984, Reagan had spent four years gutting the federal government, so we picked a candidate who was honest and upfront about raising our taxes to undo that damage. In 1988, we believed with Michael Dukakis in the principle of high politics, that the lies being spread about him, would come to naught. He assured us that Lee Atwater's transparent fabrications would not be swallowed whole by the voting public.

In the three elections noted above, Democrats lost by record landslides. 

Now, somebody tell me ... Why do we have to go through all that again? We have this other guy. He's dazzling, he's photogenic, Hollywood-ready, and everyone who meets him likes him. Everyone that meets him falls for him. He rises to his challenges with style and grace. Yeah, style, I know. Kind of odd for us. He turned that Reverend Wright thing into an opportunity to say that he identifies with whites who feel cheated by affirmative action and are tired of being called racists for wanting safe neighborhoods.

I'm thinking, "How did he do that? How did he turn that around?" He's so capable, it's nauseating, and I want to find fault with him just for that. We don't get guys like this very often. It's not natural for us Democrats. He's ... what's that word again? Oh, yeah. A winner.

He already acts like a President. My guess is people will start calling him President Obama right around October. Wanna hear something worse? In business schools, they're already studying "The Obama Brand." Kinda makes your skin crawl, but you know what? He'll win, and all that "bring people together" stuff he talks about? He'll probably be able to pull it off, at least in the short run.

For us Democrats used to getting the tar beat out of us election after election, running with a winner will feel strange. But just this once, let's treat ourselves.

Celeste

Subject: Generally Speaking

So today General David Petraeus will sit before Congress and try to mesmerize them with all the mentions of misleading metaphors. We all know that in the eyes of the General the surge has worked. And that will be the first lie.

This hasn't been a surge but rather an escalation. It's just that George W. Bush and his staff of spurious spin doctors found "surge" to be acceptable to the public as a means of selling an otherwise unacceptable escalation. Sort of like the "We don't torture" remarks of a particular President who shall remain nameless, while a Vice President named Dick sought for the legalization of same. (Just don't ask Mr. Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who spent 10 months in a Syrian prison, or Mr. Murat Kurnaz, the German citizen who got to know the accommodations of services of GITMO first hand.)

Generally speaking General Petraeus will betray us with metaphors of examples of the success of the escalation in some remote province or neighborhood or a now open market in Iraq. You can be certain that Al Qaeda will be brought forth (although no mention will be made of the fact that they were not present in Iraq until we invaded). There will be the remarks of gratitude of those that have lost their lives, but no numbers will be mentioned.

Generally speaking the General will make no mention of the s**t that floats in the streets or of the great poverty that is now so common in Iraq. The General will not mention the millions of educated Iraqis that have fled their nation to seek shelter and safety elsewhere because of our invasion. General Petraeus will not refer to the killing fields that were once neighborhoods or of the past when people practicing different faiths lived peacefully as neighbors.

The General will speak of the linkage. The linkage of Iran to the raging insurgency. The General will not mention the linkage of the United States to the insurgency, pre-invasion no insurgents, post-invasion lots of insurgents. Nor will the General mention the linkage of the United States to those events of Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons to kill his own citizens, the chemical weapons came from the United States, with several cabinet members of George W. Bush being part of the deal. There are photos of handshakes and words of praise. But that linkage will not be mentioned.

The best kept secret of the insurgency is that the majority of those captured are Saudis, not Iranians, but the brutality of the Saudis much like the mass murder of Saddam Hussein is acceptable at this time and therefore no linkage need be revealed. No, rest assured that the good little general will beat the drums of war against Iran.

George W. Bush believes war is good for the economy, and the economy sucks so therefore we need more war, and the General will do his part to sell it. It is sad to know that before the event begins it will be filled with misleading statements, lies, innuendo, and dance steps that ought to earn the General a spot on "Dancing with the Stars." It is equally sad to know that regardless of the size of the lie, or in lives lost ,that Republicans will not waiver from their support of the Bush War.

As we amble in the darkness we will once again be deceived.

Jim Ridout
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Subject: Ill. Law Would Bypass Electoral College

The article about the new Illinois law going to proportional representation for electors to the electoral college presents a principle which is quite laudable, but the way it was apparently enacted is potential political suicide for Democrats. This is a good idea that was enacted in a potentially bad way for Democrats.

The law apparently goes into effect if states which represent 270 electoral votes all decide to proportionally award their electors. That's great if it's a mix of both red and blue states that do this. But what if it's only traditionally blue and purple states that pass these laws? We will have then given away our presidential elections for who knows how long?

To make this really fair and effective, this sort of law shouldn't go into effect unless a lot more states approve it, so we can insure that both red states and blue states are doing this equally. The bar needs to be well over 270 electoral votes -- I'd personally say it should be around 350 to 400, rather than a mere 270.

From talking to people about this concept over the past few years, Democrats are much more open to this idea of proportional representation than Republicans (witness our primary system as just one example; ours is proportional and the Republicans' is winner take all).

This is exactly how a law can have unintended consequences. Proportional representation is a great idea, but it has to be enacted with great care. If we rush to put a law into effect in a bunch of blue states and no red states, we guarantee the Republicans will win and actually increase the chance that the electoral college result will be different than the popular vote totals.

Imagine if California and New York enacted these laws, but Texas and red states didn't. Think about how that would harm the chance of Democrats for years into the future.

I sincerely hope that any other states considering enacting these laws make sure that the bar for the law becoming active is much higher than 270 electoral votes. We need to be sure we are not giving away the farm in our attempt to eliminate the unfairness of the electoral college.

Marihelen

"By feeding us his brand of 'Yes, the going's tough but the Surge is working, patience, we need just a bit more time."

"While in Iraq eleven more of our loved ones were martyred last week."

"Cause of death?"

"President George Bush's lies about those nonexistent weapons of mass destruction."

"Contributing conditions?"

"A General who puts war-pimping ahead of the lives and welfare of his own troops."

"Why would he do this?"

"It's called selling out."

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: What Does "Troop" Mean Anyway?

Could we stop using the word "troop" when we mean "soldier"? I think "troop" must be short for "trooper," I don't know, but I DO know I hate the impersonality of the word. Personally, I think the government started using it to keep from reminding us these are real people dying, not just a bunch of numbers.

Some people may say I'm arguing semantics, but words really do have power. We should use the correct one here.

Jill Dew
Ryland Hgts., KY

[BuzzFlash Note: The Online Etymology Dictionary shows "troop" as meaning "soldier" in the US going back to 1911. There's an online discussion from last year of the point you make, here.]

yeah everybody wants to be with the winner! what exactly is the democratic party platform? ha ha ha just the other side of the same dirty coin, dems and repugs. with the ammunition the dems have had to get rid of these war criminals, oooops and yet, nothing is done. just more money to spend in a money laundering corporate campaign, complicity with the corporate media....... yeah the same folks that brought you the iraq war... funny, innit? gotta love first woman speaker of the house nancy's bold audience with the dalai lama.... ha ha ha hey john "mcbush" mccain the manchurian candidate... a cancer riddled zombie vampire if there ever was one, with condi!!! hey, yeah THAT condi as vp running mate!!! great, a black! and a woman!!! hoooooray!!!! green party platform? hah really? how you can support either of these dem candidates? with the terrible job they have done no spines, no testes, or how about "guts"? looks like mc bush has it... the dems shoot themselves in the foot again.... who needs a hunting partner like cheney? D.I.Y.!!!!!!

A BuzzFlash Reader

The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18.

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati