Flutterby™! : Happy inauguration 2005-01-21 19:33:59.668153+00

Happy inauguration

2005-01-21 19:33:59.668153+00 by Dan Lyke 13 comments

In a world gone mad, mad I tell you (thanks, Lyn), what can we look to for solace and reassurance? That there will always be more David Hasselhoff and more where that came from. And the fans of the second are probably the ones who voted for the first.

(Referring to the weight of evidence against this president, his administration, and the voting masses that continue to live in denial)

Considering the sources used, e.g. CNN, NYT, commondreams, etc. its not really credible is it? Since this is not a political blog I'll stop?

I don't know what sources you'd use other than Fox News, CNN, NYT, the transcripts pu blished by the Whitehouse, etc. Yes, they're all biased and flawed, but in aggregate they tell a pretty consistent story.

And the Jeff, the Europeans have nothing to be proud of, they still praise the 'Hoff.

Rather than researching in detail each of the 100 assertions point-by-point (which very likely would yield even more objective condemnations of this presidency), I agree with Dan's premise that the aggregate prints a very consistent picture. I'll leave it that.

It seems to me that the entire list is composed of 'Liberal bias'. Selected to prove a point, they drop context. I for one do not think its the goverments job to take care of many of the things on the list, so they are silly to me.

Not that I like George, but its now obvious and finally even, admitted, that we have been subjected to liberal bias for decades from all the MSM and its refreshing to know that everyone is begining to admit it.

Casting aside the categories of Cronyism and Corruption (30-38), the Economy (39-51), Education (52-54), Healthcare (55-71), the Environment (72-80), which of the items in categories Iraq (1-11), Terrorism (12-25), National Security (26-29), Rights and Liberties (81-87), and Secrecy (96-100) does one define as "non-silly" and a legitimate function of government? And at a more personal level, how does one defend Bush's partial list of documented Flip-Flops (88-92) and limited personal Biography (93-95) ...?

BTW, in my opinion, I believe the major context for all or most of these categories is "effective government and leadership." It has ZERO to do with partisan bias, or "liberal bias." One can take aim at any presidency, but this particular president presents a much larger TARGET than most, due to his words and actions (or lack of them).

#Comment Re: David Hasselhoff? made: 2005-01-22 22:44:49.771401+00 by: Mark Hughes

"The fish don't know they are in water." - Wow. A statement so deep, it's also shallow. (I could not resist, I know, I'm all wet..).

I tend to completely ignore the media for weeks on time. Sometimes the ONLY political clue I have is from Flutterby. - And then, I'll jump in and get completely immersed. The perspective it gives me is scary. Sure the media has a liberal bias, and the Republicans "in charge" have certainly spuns things their way. But I seldom see anything that rings 100% true on my personal truth detector from either the Democrats, the Republicans or the "M"edia.

What do I know for sure? Not much except the world is a mess. What do I believe? George W. and his simpleton fundemental Christian rightousnous is the fire bringing the world to a boil. I wish I could believe someone capable of winning an election could put an end to the insanity.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-24 22:18:37.729034+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

I, for one, wouldn't say that Bush is a fundamentalist. He doesn't seem that particularly religious to me. For reference, my brother (http://mertaka.openweblog.com/) is someone I would consider more of the fundamentalist persuasion.

Bush isn't isn't using a fundamentalist agenda so much as extreme patriotism. He exploits people's desire to believe what government says while dismantling many of it social programs. This is not a "fundamental Christian righteousness" at work. It is hyper-patriotism merged with a distrust of government "welfare".

I would say that behind the false "hyper-patriotism," that the Neocons are promoting an atmosphere of fear (i.e. the unending "war on terror") in order terrorize the fundamentalist Christians, in order to push their own political agenda down the throats of any naive and uneducated Americans they can find.

I substitute the Neocons for "w," since he is a mere puppet for them. He is the host organism for their cause. Radical neoconservatism is a disease which will ultimately bring America down--far sooner than it would come down otherwise.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-27 17:06:22.427488+00 by: jeff [edit history]

It will be interesting to see the influence that these same players will have going forward. Obviously, highly paid Ahmad Chalabi, is "out."

Very Interesting! Less than 30 minutes after entering the above post, I see the story about Douglas Feith resigning his post:

Feith is the single person on the entire planet most responsible for "creating" the "intelligence" that ultimately is forcing US citizens to continue to burn more than $1B/week in taxpayer money in Iraq. Not to mention the lives which have been destroyed and lost forever.