Way to go, Hawkeyes.
You didn't believe the hype and let the media annoint Hillary.
Obama wins in Iowa, and gives one hell of a speech in the process. I feel like history maybe in the making.
Update: Nathan tells us true (and with a Bloom County reference to boot!).
"I am at once very pleased and freaked the fuck out right now.
I personally don’t buy the whole 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation' meme, but assuming I’m wrong tonight’s Iowa caucus results say some mighty interesting things about the state of the union and where it might be going. Obama’s my man, and has been pretty much from the get-go. Although Kucinich far more represents me on the issues, both Dennis and I knew in our heart of hearts that he’s not likely to be president any time this decade. He threw his support behind Barack and so did I. Likely for similar reasons. "
Given the last seven nightmare bizarro world years, its easy to be pensive about the future: Bush has done everything to make sure there is no future. Indeed, he is very much like those idiots who used to hang on Short Vine, who thought that Johnny Rotten's warning/lament about "No Future" was a mission statement. So hope is in short supply, but there is a light over at the Obama-stein place.
Now, I'm not gonna go all gooey yet, especially because there still so many ways for Hillary to fuck this up, but I have to tell you: I woke up today feeling great. Election day 2004 was waiting on a miracle, because this is George Bush we're talking about, and like his father, I won't and didn't trust him as far as I can throw him, and I knew some shit was going to go down and -lo and behold-a terror alert in OHIO?!!?
No, I feel great. Like a new dawn is coming. Really, not just a choice between the lesser of two evils, but like something else is going down.
I'm stoked.
Oh, and Huckleberry can suck it. I don't care how much he likes The Ox.
Showing posts with label Just say no to Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Just say no to Hillary. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2008
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
"If there's a new way/ I'd be the first in line/ It had BETTER work this time"
just another hilariously inept Wizard photoshop creation.
As we hear the low drums of death on the horizon, as Bush Co. work out their war jollies in an apocalyptic circle jerk with certain members of the alleged "opposition party"-which has, incidentally, failed to crawl from the slime and grow a vertebrae, congressionally speaking- as well as the fucking ghouls in their own patriotism, over the new Eurasian Front (or is it Eastasian Front? I get so confused), I can't help but have the hook from this metal classic (skip to the bottom of my playlist) rattling around in my head.
Peace sells...but who's buying?
Certainly not the presumptive front-runner, the media annointed, darling of the G.O.P, Hillary Clinton, going as Vic Rattlehead this Halloween, who has voted, with frightening consistency, like a Neo-Con. She's talking diplomacy, but, hey, she's caved time and time again to the NeoCons-almost to the point that one would think she's trying to tell us something. Certainly, a google search using the terms Hillary Clinton Neo Con would illustrate that I am not alone...
I don't think Hillary is a NeoCon, though. That would mean that she had some core ideological notion of governance. No, Hillary is an opportunist and naked careerist, simple as that. Only a careerist would make the argument that dumbass George Bush fooled 'em into voting for war in Iraq (and will likely fool her into voting for a war with Iran).
It's funny, because to many on the right, Hillary is the embodiment of socialism. Of course, they would be wrong, just as its wrong to call Hillary "liberal". Hillary's nothing but power hungry, gladhanding the corporate intersts, giving the HMO's a big sloppy one with her health care proposal, raking in the big corporate bucks.
It is this kind of politics, from the ostensible political binary, that has gotten us here in the first place. How do you think the "c.e.o" President stole the election in the first place, and who's interests does he serve?
Do you think a Hillary Clinton presidency will be any different? Really?
I know at this point that my near and dear Democrat friends and readers think that I've retreated into some infantile Green Party rhetoric, but dammit, at what point do we say enough's enough? We have a President now who is trying to throw our Republic over the cliff, and I'm expected to get excited about someone who is standing with her toes curled over its precipice?
The last eight years have shown exactly what the half measures of the Democratic party have gotten us, the Carville/Nosferatu Triangulation Doctrine: The Forces of The Right Wing, the extreme Right Wing, have knocked our dicks in the dirt as they went three, four, five measures the other direction. Our unwillingness to upset the apple cart has insured more of us will go without apple pie this holiday season, and for the forseeable future.
As of right now, I don't have a candidate-still. I was kind of feeling Obama, but that "homo-saved" reverend, who appeals to the basest of the base-superstitious bigots who happen to be black and democrats has left me with an uneasy feeling, one I'm not sure I can live with.
I don't know...
UPDATE: Hillary drops the ball, and, if you have a penis, it's your fucking fault.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Hillary, who once claimed to be "the feminist" is a disgrace to feminisms here and around the world.. She gets called on her bullshit, and its everybody's fault but hers. Blaming everybody else-sounds vaguely like some BushCol. shit to me.
Friday, September 28, 2007
2013: the Year We, uh....nevermind.
Yup...That's what she said. I mean, you can't have a proper quagmire without the time, the treasure, and the wasted lives, right?
Except in this case, she gets to be Nixon to Bush's Johnson (ick...sorry about that one).
Nixon ran on ending the war as well, but instead expanded it, and with all the sabre rattling going on concerning Iran, will Hillary be the one to bomb Cambodia, so to speak. I wouldn't put it past her, considering, as Maher eloquently noted, she claims that she was "fooled" by dumb ass George Bush, that she believed Dick Cheney. Are you kidding me? If I didn't know these two numbnuts from Adam, and they walked up to me on the street, and they told me the sky was fucking blue, I still wouldn't believe them. Smartest woman in the world? She's not the smartest woman in Washington.
Folks, I hate to turn my humble little corner of cyberspace into a hate Hillary outpost, but I cannot be loud enough in this assertion: She is the wrong turn for our Republic, which sits on the precipice of either a new dawn for our real creed, or the cynical commodification of ostensible freedom.
Which is it?
Oh yeah, and the torture thing: How craven is this person? A five year old knows that the "good guys" don't torture. Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!!
Except in this case, she gets to be Nixon to Bush's Johnson (ick...sorry about that one).
Nixon ran on ending the war as well, but instead expanded it, and with all the sabre rattling going on concerning Iran, will Hillary be the one to bomb Cambodia, so to speak. I wouldn't put it past her, considering, as Maher eloquently noted, she claims that she was "fooled" by dumb ass George Bush, that she believed Dick Cheney. Are you kidding me? If I didn't know these two numbnuts from Adam, and they walked up to me on the street, and they told me the sky was fucking blue, I still wouldn't believe them. Smartest woman in the world? She's not the smartest woman in Washington.
Folks, I hate to turn my humble little corner of cyberspace into a hate Hillary outpost, but I cannot be loud enough in this assertion: She is the wrong turn for our Republic, which sits on the precipice of either a new dawn for our real creed, or the cynical commodification of ostensible freedom.
Which is it?
Oh yeah, and the torture thing: How craven is this person? A five year old knows that the "good guys" don't torture. Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!!
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Naivete
An interesting turn of events, really, that Barack Obama, answering the critics who say he doesn't have any ideas, comes up with a doozy: Finding Al Quaeda. And exacting the long deferred revenge.
It's a symptom of the universe at this point, with all eyes on the junior senator from Illinois, long praised as a "rock star" without ideas, who has, nevertheless, become major glitch in the coronation of Hillary Clinton.
What's interesting, however, is that the establishment Democrats are all piling on Obama because of this:
"Barack Obama promised that as president he would consider military strikes against terrorists in Pakistan if the country refused to root them out."
Now, its not like he's making this shit up: There really are terrorists in Pakistan, and Mushareef said that if they keep quiet, and not play their music too loud (not blow anything up in Pakistan), they can stay.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make them a rogue state, according to Bush, as they are harboring terrorists. Why would we talk shit about Syria and Iran, and give Pakistan a pass. Kind of like how we gave a pass to the Saudis.
My bet would be that, like the Saudis, who came to kill us, no of this really matters to Bush, because the rich capitalists tend to stick together, and when there's oil to be had, bet on the bribes.
Okay, we all know that Bush and Cheney are traitors, but this doesn't really explain how or why the anti-Bushs, the Democrats, who are going to fix everything, who promised to prosecute the war on terror correctly, would pile on like this? Is it not a reasonable idea to actually attack terrorists where they are.
Obama, similarly, was attacked as "naive" (the handle they're trying to give him) for having the audacity to say he would reach out to Iran and other "bad guys". Hillary, in a gross overestimation of her diplomatic skills, said that she wouldn't be fodder for propaganda (as if Sean Hannity doesn't exist) and, presumably, Obama would be (if only he'd threaten to nuke their asses).
See, the thing is, folks, is that we are presumably back to the old "Devil You Know" game that re-elected goddamned George Bush. The devil, in this case, is Hilllary, and this time, she's the establishment candidate. Should Hillary win, we might get thrown a few bones-a universal health care plan that, like auto insurance, makes Health insurance required by law, and thus, dropping a sweetheart deal into the laps of the HMOS. Or she'll pull out a few soldiers from a Iraq, and maybe leave the Mercenaries (the ones with no oversight) to play the part of the Right Wing Death Squads, but change? Please.
To think that Hillary Clinton would change anything fundemental, that which we need if our nation is to survive...
That's naive.
It's a symptom of the universe at this point, with all eyes on the junior senator from Illinois, long praised as a "rock star" without ideas, who has, nevertheless, become major glitch in the coronation of Hillary Clinton.
What's interesting, however, is that the establishment Democrats are all piling on Obama because of this:
"Barack Obama promised that as president he would consider military strikes against terrorists in Pakistan if the country refused to root them out."
Now, its not like he's making this shit up: There really are terrorists in Pakistan, and Mushareef said that if they keep quiet, and not play their music too loud (not blow anything up in Pakistan), they can stay.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make them a rogue state, according to Bush, as they are harboring terrorists. Why would we talk shit about Syria and Iran, and give Pakistan a pass. Kind of like how we gave a pass to the Saudis.
My bet would be that, like the Saudis, who came to kill us, no of this really matters to Bush, because the rich capitalists tend to stick together, and when there's oil to be had, bet on the bribes.
Okay, we all know that Bush and Cheney are traitors, but this doesn't really explain how or why the anti-Bushs, the Democrats, who are going to fix everything, who promised to prosecute the war on terror correctly, would pile on like this? Is it not a reasonable idea to actually attack terrorists where they are.
Obama, similarly, was attacked as "naive" (the handle they're trying to give him) for having the audacity to say he would reach out to Iran and other "bad guys". Hillary, in a gross overestimation of her diplomatic skills, said that she wouldn't be fodder for propaganda (as if Sean Hannity doesn't exist) and, presumably, Obama would be (if only he'd threaten to nuke their asses).
See, the thing is, folks, is that we are presumably back to the old "Devil You Know" game that re-elected goddamned George Bush. The devil, in this case, is Hilllary, and this time, she's the establishment candidate. Should Hillary win, we might get thrown a few bones-a universal health care plan that, like auto insurance, makes Health insurance required by law, and thus, dropping a sweetheart deal into the laps of the HMOS. Or she'll pull out a few soldiers from a Iraq, and maybe leave the Mercenaries (the ones with no oversight) to play the part of the Right Wing Death Squads, but change? Please.
To think that Hillary Clinton would change anything fundemental, that which we need if our nation is to survive...
That's naive.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Ghost of the Machine, part IV: George's Ghost
Finally, we left to consider the Machine, and elucidate the title of this series.
Typically, we think of the "ghost in the machine" much as we think of gremlins: an unexplained malfunction, or breakdown, of equipment.
This we can explain, because this we have brought on ourselves. At the end of the day, despite however painful the road, however much we regret being asleep, we got the government we deserve.
There are no ghosts in this machine of government. George Bush and his President, Dick Cheney, the Hamlet and his Ghost, are not infestations of a particular virulent ideology, and are likely not historical anomolies.
While Hamlet is driven mad to avenge the death of his father, no such motivation exists in this tragedy. Instead, George's ghost, in his spectral fourth branch, is the trace of what has always been, made material. This administration has manifested its extra-constitutional reach with a maliciousness that is shocking, and, in an inversion of the Shakespearean tragedy (or perhaps no inversion at all) is that ghost is more important than the protagonist. Or that the protagonist, acting in the stead of the ghost, becomes a kind of illusory overlay for the ghost, who, by will, becomes more material. Hamlet becomes a kind of ghost because he ceases to think critically, becoming only a vessel for the revenge of his father, who is materialized by Hamlet's actions. Hamlet becomes a kind of golem, with a singular purpose.
But the "ghostly" Cheney is not Ghost of the Machine, either, in the same way that Hamlet's father materialized through Hamlet's singular actions, though Cheney himself is constituted through ideology and materialized in its malicious praxis, in the activities of disinformation, propagation, and historical malfeasance. Cheney himself is another agent, the man behind the curtain, while the big green disembodied figure head blusters about being "The Decider".
The Ghost of the Machine is, simply, that a machine, as defined and programmed according to a Constitutional Schematic, exists at all. The Ghost of the Machine is the notion that the Machine is a ghost, an illusion to keep us satiated while we are "freely" choosing between coke and pepsi, the illusion that ideology plays no part in our lives, the illusion that we can learn nothing from Marx because of the Soviet Union, the illusion that our form of capitalism is the best thing since coke. Or pepsi.
What that ghost conceals is what all ghosts reveal: Foul play. It's not that the machine has been infested with ideological agents, it that the machine has been replaced by ideological agents, golems of capital: Corporate Personhood.
These "persons" are ideological agents, but not like the true believer or the bureau/technocrat made cynical as a jailers, but real golems, created for vicious accumulation capital by rich oligarchies. Their speech is freer than ours. They literally get away with murder. Their voices shout down ours.
Thus, behind that illusory ghost of democracy-machine is Fortress America, with its guard tower "manned" by these golems, consciousless monsters in the machine gun nests, guarding the wall.
Typically, we think of the "ghost in the machine" much as we think of gremlins: an unexplained malfunction, or breakdown, of equipment.
This we can explain, because this we have brought on ourselves. At the end of the day, despite however painful the road, however much we regret being asleep, we got the government we deserve.
There are no ghosts in this machine of government. George Bush and his President, Dick Cheney, the Hamlet and his Ghost, are not infestations of a particular virulent ideology, and are likely not historical anomolies.
While Hamlet is driven mad to avenge the death of his father, no such motivation exists in this tragedy. Instead, George's ghost, in his spectral fourth branch, is the trace of what has always been, made material. This administration has manifested its extra-constitutional reach with a maliciousness that is shocking, and, in an inversion of the Shakespearean tragedy (or perhaps no inversion at all) is that ghost is more important than the protagonist. Or that the protagonist, acting in the stead of the ghost, becomes a kind of illusory overlay for the ghost, who, by will, becomes more material. Hamlet becomes a kind of ghost because he ceases to think critically, becoming only a vessel for the revenge of his father, who is materialized by Hamlet's actions. Hamlet becomes a kind of golem, with a singular purpose.
But the "ghostly" Cheney is not Ghost of the Machine, either, in the same way that Hamlet's father materialized through Hamlet's singular actions, though Cheney himself is constituted through ideology and materialized in its malicious praxis, in the activities of disinformation, propagation, and historical malfeasance. Cheney himself is another agent, the man behind the curtain, while the big green disembodied figure head blusters about being "The Decider".
The Ghost of the Machine is, simply, that a machine, as defined and programmed according to a Constitutional Schematic, exists at all. The Ghost of the Machine is the notion that the Machine is a ghost, an illusion to keep us satiated while we are "freely" choosing between coke and pepsi, the illusion that ideology plays no part in our lives, the illusion that we can learn nothing from Marx because of the Soviet Union, the illusion that our form of capitalism is the best thing since coke. Or pepsi.
What that ghost conceals is what all ghosts reveal: Foul play. It's not that the machine has been infested with ideological agents, it that the machine has been replaced by ideological agents, golems of capital: Corporate Personhood.
These "persons" are ideological agents, but not like the true believer or the bureau/technocrat made cynical as a jailers, but real golems, created for vicious accumulation capital by rich oligarchies. Their speech is freer than ours. They literally get away with murder. Their voices shout down ours.
Thus, behind that illusory ghost of democracy-machine is Fortress America, with its guard tower "manned" by these golems, consciousless monsters in the machine gun nests, guarding the wall.
This panopticon, which circumscribes every discourse, is not absolute, for the very illusion its walls and towers hide behind is the seed of its destruction: The "trace" of democracy only reminds the inmates of what they long for, the real, not ostensible, not surface, not coke vs. pepsi, not "less filling, tastes great" politicking, but REAL DEMOCRACY. The establishment is superficial expression of Fortress America, with all its prejudices, its death trip consumerism, "serious" people, preemptive wars, dreams of absolute market-empires, the homogeneity of going everywhere in the world, and finding a Big Mac: This is fascism in a clown suit. This is now.
Let us look to what can be, should be, must be:
"So when I speak of a 'democracy to come', I don't mean a future democracy, a new regime, a new organisation of nation-states (although this may be hoped for) but I mean this 'to come': the promise of an authentic democracy which is never embodied in what we call democracy. This is a way of going on criticising what is everywhere given today under the name of democracy in our societies. This doesn't mean that 'democracy to come' will be simply a future democracy correcting or improving the actual conditions of the so-called democracies, it means first of all that this democracy we dream of is linked in its concept to a promise. The idea of a promise is inscribed in the idea of a democracy: equality, freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press - all these things are inscribed as promises within democracy. Democracy is a promise. "
Keep the promise. Think through surfaces. Keep the promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)