A Quick Message About This Past Weekend And Why I Didn't Blog

There were several points Saturday evening when I sat down in front of my computer and started to write about Sept. 11th, 2001 and how it affected me, my community, and my life. And that's when it hit me - it didn't.

I don't say that to imply that the actions of that day had no relevance to my world view, that they didn't provoke any type of reaction within me that caused me to ask dozens of questions. It's that it didn't affect me like it did those that were there that day.

This is where liberal/progressives like myself and my conservative opponents differ greatly.

More often than not, you will read pieces by the likes of Michelle Malkin, the over-hyped Pam Gellar, Ann Coulter, Dick "Hell Yeah I Dig Toe Suckin" Morris, George Will, as well as commentary from people like Limbaugh and Hannity that is filled with nothing more than fear-mongering rather than rational perspective.


I scanned through the cable news channels just to get a sense of the tone and tenor of the days broadcast choices. Predictably, Fox"News" replayed their coverage of that day and quite literally framed every other news piece around the attacks. CNN and MSNBC, however, chose to take a less partisan stance and do straight news reporting without using the deaths of nearly 3000 as packaging material.

It's not the politicization of Sept. 11th, 2001 that has gotten to me, it's the commercialization. It's become too much for me.

At one point, not but a year after that horrible day, I told myself that the "paranoid patriotism" running rampant across our nation was going to gestate into a canted and poorly understood vision of American history. We can see that this has come to fruition with Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Tea Baggers, and blogs run by some of the more prominent conservative talking heads in this country.

From the actions of those opposing Park51 to people insisting that we are less safe now that Obama is in office, we are seeing precisely what the terrorists were wanting - to throw our nation into unparalleled distress.

There are many aspects of that day that cause me to question the standard and accepted narrative that has been established. But let's be clear - I'm not even aligning myself with the "birthers' in any fashion, as it's simply my nature to question what has been put before me - especially since we have a treasure-trove of video and audio footage to pour through.

To put it into a more concise and clean package - Sept. 11th, 2001 is something that I simply can't write about or view through the same lens as conservatives do. It's not a talking-point generator for me, it's a day that I want to know what really happened and how we can prevent it from happening again.

And with that in mind, with the reactionary nature of the modern conservative in mind, I can but wonder how they are going to use the 10th anniversary to draw attention to themselves, make money, and scare the living shit out of people.

Is this day bound to become a music festival like Bonnaroo where people like Toby Keith, Ted Nugent, and Lee Greenwood will play for thousands of "fans" in order to spread patriotism and love of America? I mean, Hannity has already tried that scam and been exposed by one of his own. So we already know they are willing to stoop to that low.

How else can conservatives co-opt that day that changed a nation?

I fear that we will start to see the posters and ticket prices come January.

Hype And Hysteria

In which we see Beck and his "I'm so happy to be here Mr. Beck can I wash your undercarriage" side-kick drone on like a bad comedy duo about something that Palin and Beck are going to be doing on - wait for it...................Sept. 11th.



And we are to believe that this is the same man that said "oh, it's just a coincidence that my rally at DC is on the anniversary of the famous speech by Martin Luther King Jr. at the same location"?

Also, this from the man who is one of the figure-heads of the movement that proclaims with shrieking tones that no one should co-opt Sept. 11th 2001.

And while there is the theory pushed ( and then immediately denounced within the same piece ) by prominent conservative blog Hot Air that this will finally be the day that Palin will tell the world the horrific news that she is going to run for President, I find it quite odd that they would even postulate this.

Sure, the back-peddle within the same piece says precisely what most sane people would also say - that a conservative co-opting Sept. 11th to make an announcement like this would be even greater than what Glenn Beck just did last weekend; or even equal to the press release that Park 51 was going to be built in Manhattan. There are certainly more comparisons, but are we really to believe that conservatives would become enraged even if the "Mother Teresa" of their movement decided she wanted to build her own personal bathroom on the epicenter where Towers 1 and 2 fell?

But is this nothing more than Part II of the Beck/Palin "Let's Use The Anniversary Of Something Important To Make A Rambling Speech About Something That Will Do Nothing But Boost Our Q-Score" Tour? If so, I'm guessing the next date will be in Hawaii on December 7th, only the two will be a few miles away from the USS Arizona - but only if Jan Brewer declines to show up.

What is this all about really? The rallies, the hype, the hysteria, the constant media attacks that don't seems to make much sense the further we get away from Jan. 20th 2009. Are people like Beck and Palin so enamoured with image, fear, and a distorted view of history that they have completely lost the plot?

The answer, I'm guessing, is yes.

Late To The Party - Again

So, after mulling it over for a few hours last night and this morning, I'm actually going to give my few cents on Rep. Weiner's best impersonation of a British Parliamentarian for the CSPAN audience.



But it didn't stop there, as King and Weiner were on Hannity's radio program not long after the two were interviewed on Fox"News".



And while conservatives - from Limbaugh's specious theories to Michelle Malkin's sidekick invoking former Soviet rulers on down to Allahpundit's all too predictable, faux-intellectual, analysis of the moment - are more than willing to spin any direction they can to get away from the very simple fact that they refused to help those they they claim to idolize, it shouldn't come as a surprise that these are the same people that invoke the deaths of nearly 3000 people as often as most of them brush their teeth.

It's become reflexive nature for conservative Republicans to block any and everything a Democrat does - be they liberal, progressive, moderate, or even one of the alleged "Blue Dogs". This, to me at least, is the moment where it's really turned around on them and shown them for who they really are.

If you take a look at what Limbaugh and Allahpundit had to say about this, you'll notice that they are framing this episode as Democrats trying to shove in amendments regarding immigration when, in point of fact, this was about preventing Republicans from larding up the bill with what Karoli at Crooks And Liars calls "poison pill amendments". And that's precisely what they would have done. Democrats tossed up what should have been an easy ball for Republicans to hit out of the park and since they didn't get to manipulate the outcome, they opted to hurl the bat into the stands and run off to the dugout and cry.

The various aspects of this legislation and how conservatives screwed it up ( again ) aside, I think that it's high time that Weiner let his passion be shown. Conservatives can't handle the fact that Democrats have that fire for their country burning inside them, so their only option is to paint their opposition as completely unhinged lunatics. Sure, it works for their base, but it doesn't extend beyond that. Unfortunately, that's far too often all the traction that the meme du jour needs - the right conservative parroting something that ultimately amounts to nothing. How do you think Andrew Breitbart has made it as far as he has?

It's a shame that not more Democratic Representatives don't have Mr. Weiner's passion.

Tea Bagging Truthers

This is interesting news - Glenn Beck may have just destroyed a Tea Bagger's chance at winning public office.

TV and radio commentator Glenn Beck dismissed the candidacy of Debra Medina when she left open the door to a conspiracy fringe group that believes the U.S. government might have been behind the 9-11 destruction of the World Trade Center.

Beck, a leading personality for conservatives, asked her point blank if she believed such a theory.

"I don't have all the evidence there, Glenn," Medina replied. "So I'm not in a place - I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there so I've not taken a position there."

Here's the audio.



To me, at least, this makes a great deal of sense - that a "Truther" would align themselves with the Tea Baggers. After all, this is the movement that thinks Obama was born in Kenya, claims the 2010 Census will be used to round up people into concentration camps, believes ACORN stole the election, and holds up Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck as a religious trinity. It all fits.

Truth-be-told, in the right circumstances, Beck would be a "Truther" himself. He is, after all, the man who has spun countless conspiratorial nonsense on Fox"News" for over a year. He's just not paid to be one - yet.

Some in the conservative movement are calling this "heartbreaking" news. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Exit question - is Beck going to be thrown under the metaphorical bus by the Tea Baggers this year? By that, I mean will his own brand of paranoid delusions ultimately be his downfall?

The Imagery Of Hypocrisy

Ed Morrissey unleashed his famously flaccid righteous indignation upon the DSCC today.

Why, you ask? It was a campaign ad citing Scott Brown's close ties to Wall Street that features two buildings from the WTC complex. This didn't sit well with dear Eddie's delicate sensibilities:

Has anyone ever seen a major campaign this badly handled in one short week? Most of the blame goes to Coakley, but the DSCC was the group that sent Michael Meehan to help with messaging this week. His first contribution was to commit assault and battery on a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Now the DSCC chooses an image of the World Trade Center, Ground Zero on 9/11, to represent Wall Street and to attack Brown. That’s not just “distasteful and disrespectful” to someone who served in the war on terror and remains in the National Guard to this day, it’s flat-out stupidity.

Conservatives like Ed shouldn't be so eager to castigate someone for using WTC imagery. After all, they are the group that has the market cornered on using the deaths of nearly 3000 people for their own political and personal gain.

Beauty And The Geek

Complete with a contrived New York setting that includes a view of both the Statue Of Liberty and "Ground Zero", a pre-tapped Beck/Palin interview aired last night to what had to have been a salivating tea-bagger crowd.

After visualizing people like Rich Lowry sitting in their leather Lay-Z-Boys with their open robes, warm lubricant at the ready, I noticed that Palin seemed a little uncomfortable. I'm not entirely sure why, as the editing suite occupied by the Fox"News" producers would do any and everything to ensure that she didn't come off as the rank amateur that she still is.

The start of the interview set the overall tone - of Beck doing his smoothest R&B vocalist impersonation while spoon-feeding Palin those juicy tidbits that only he can conjure up. Truth-be-told, it was rather creepy watching Beck essentially profess his psycho-sexual fantasies of her in a diary entry that he read to her. It was like the nerdy kid in high-school professing his love to the head cheerleader during open assembly the last day of senior year.

The interview was largely predictable - glittering generalities from Palin and talks about how the modern conservative has the market cornered on patriotism.

From talks about the symbolism of Lady Liberty to the location where the interview was taped ( and Palin let is slip that this most certainly wasn't live ) on down to who her favorite founder was ( guess what her answer was - "all of them" ) Palin didn't seem too thrilled to be with the man that stakes his very livelihood on manufacturing the conspiracies that Palin herself thrives on from time to time. She was simply there to gain exposure, period.

But more to the pre-taped atmosphere that Beck and Palin were in. Beck always does his program live, always. This isn't Palin's niche, as she has known to shove her foot vertically down her flag-sucker on more than one occasion. She was in the same situation with O'Reilly and every time that Greta felt it necessary to jaunt up to Alaska and stalk her family while her husband gave Sarah political advice. Simply put, it's the Fox"News" way of making sure that Palin's image is polished to a refined shine so she can come off as a successful television personality.

At the end of the interveiw, the average voter - Republican or Democrat - came away with absolutely no new knowledge about Palin. She's still the same gimmicky superstar that conservatives believe has the capacity to run this country. And to that end, they are still as wrong and delusional as day one.

Revisions And Projections

I often wonder how James Carvelle can live with this woman.



Is this the new talking-point, that Sept. 11th 2001 didn't happen on Sept. 11th 2001? Dana Perino did this same thing on Sean Hannity's Fox"News" program and went unchallenged - would you expect otherwise?

But to claim that it was the Clinton administration that started the recession is somewhat of a resurgence of an old talking-point that had died out several years ago. March 2001 was the exact date of the start of Bush's first recession. And that's something that you're never going to hear from conservatives - that Bush was President during two recessions that started while he was in office.

Why Didn't This Play Out Differently?

While this has been a point that has been continually validated by the Right, it's not focused on enough.



While it is interesting to note that conservatives and former members of the Bush administration continually laud Bush's complete lack of reaction as the appropriate course of action, this was the first signifier that we had that George W. Bush completely lacked any sort of leadership capabilities in the face of a national emergency.

Not only that, but where were the Secret Service during this? There was a verified attack on the nation and they weren't concerned about getting the president to safety? And not only that, but the remaining members of the Bush administration staff that were there seemed to show some signs of concern. Was it over the situation in New York City or was is that the man that they had to answer to simply sat there, an utter look of confusion playing across his face, and did nothing? Did they quesiton his ability to lead at this point, or were they just as confused as he. After all, there had been intel delivered to them for over a month that this may happen.

Naturally, it is to be expected that Fox"News" would give airtime to someone like Andrew Card to continue the validation process of a man that prefered to just sit there than act.

Some Thoughts For Your Day

- Rather than sit at home watching the endless loops of the planes hitting the WTC towers, why don't you engage your community by volunteering.

- So, John Stossel goes to Fox. Like we are shocked. Perhaps they thought that Geraldo's mustache needed an opening act.

- Congressman Wilson is getting some interesting covering fire from Fox"News" ( again, I know you're shocked ) but also by Pat Buchanan over at MSNBC. This morning, he claimed that Wilson has been donated more money than his opponent since the airing of his "I'm Sorry, Now Give Me Cash" commercial.

- What is the 9/12 Project about anyway? It's been touted as another in the long line of pointless "tea parties", so what does that have to do with the day after 9/11?

- If conservatives are so up in arms over Obama's "Czars", then why aren't they decrying O'Reilly's very public statements that the Bush administration should have had more "czars"?

From The Vaults: A Sept. 11th 2001 Diary From Daily Kos

Here's something that I wrote back in 2007 on DailyKos about how conservatives were merely using that horrible day as a slogan and had no problem with that at all.

--------------------------------------------------------

September 10th started out just as plainly and hum-drum as any Monday that semester at Western Kentucky University. Classes @ 915am, then off to work just after lunch. The next day, I had to be in court with my two roommates. There was a palpable buzz in the air, murmurings of a plane, New York, and then the baliffs and police made everyone leave the building. I didn't see it happen live on TV. But, my friends and I watched the seemingly endless loops of footage as they poured in. And then, the strangest thing happened. As the afternoon set in on Bowling Green, Kentucky, lines of cars poured into gas stations. Every single station in town ran out of gas before 8pm. It was surreal, how the fear that would later be stoked within the population was already ablaze. More murmurs of 'Arabs', oil, money, and retaliation filled the air.

Six years later, i keep thinking back to the image of all those cars at all those gas stations. Why?

Six years later, i keep thinking back to the thousands of bumper stickers on mini-vans, SUVs, trucks, and cars: 'never forget', 'support our troops', 'where were you', and 'let's roll'.

Six years later, i keep thinking back to what that day meant and what it has become. My emotions from that day and the days since then stem not just from my lack of perspective, or my geographical frame of reference, or my confusion, but from the fact that since that day the neo-conservatives and their mouth-pieces in the media have turned it into nothing more than a slogan, and excuse. It was the day that gave them carde blanche.

Bush used it as validation for his Iraq debacle and in speech after speech after speech. Fox'News' has used it to attack virtually anyone and everyone that is against the war, anyone that wishes to debate immigration from a differing perspective, anyone that questions the 'official' story of how the attacks happened. Rudy Guiliani is using it to try and become president. Michelle Malkin used it to sell books, as did Sean Hannity and many others. They use it because of how well fear motivates, and how that fear benifits them.

Malkin had this to say on her blog today:

The 9/10 crowd stubbornly refuses to connect the dots to see any connection at all between 9/11 and the Iraq war

That makes absolutely no sense at all. That day in September had nothing to do with Iraq until the current Republican administration made their ham-fisted connection and sold it like so much snake-oil to the American public. It wasn't until all the poor planning, the spin, the conjecture, the hype, and the fear were poured on that those two things became inextricably linked.

Malkin even goes further, and feels necessary to show a photo of a man thowing himself out of one of the windows of the WTC. Why? For what f**king reason does this woman feel the need to exploit his death? What reason does anyone on the side of the neo-conservative movement have for exploiting all the deaths on that day? Do they think it gives them power? Do they honestly believe that they are being reverent to the memories of those that died?

That day has created a vast array of feelings within just about everyone in America. For some it was confusion. For others, fear, or hatred, anxiety, or loss, and sadness. For me, it seems have created a disconnection with my country in a way. I can sympathize with loss, but not loss on this level. I can see the tragedy replayed ad infinitum on television, but the same emotions of that day are gone. But most of all, I feel disconnected from those that are meant to represent me in government. I feel disconnected from the initial story of how that day transpired. Not because i believe George W. Bush is directly responsible, but because i believe that there is information that we still don't know about. I feel disconnected from the media and how certain viewpoints are stiffled or silenced all together.

I wish i could look on this day as a day of remembrance. But, i jsut can't. I can't seem to get over the knowledge that this day has become the day that people like Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and thousands of other neo-con beasts will forever use as their attention-whore flag. "Look at me, I have a TV show, a radio show, a newspaper column, a blog and I will use the deaths of thousands of people to do whatever I want!"

Those that died that day deserve better. Their families deserve better. We all deserve better.

Malkin goes on to say in her blog today

It’s not just a once-a-year slogan.

My daughter was born one year and one day after September 11th, 2001. She just turned 5 and has no idea about that day six years ago. I don't know when she'll realize it or what she will think about it. The only thing that i hope for is that she will think for herself and not let fear motivate how she sees her world.

Even now, I can't seem to correctly articulate how I feel. In all probability, this diary will be lost amongst dozens more that remember this day in one fashion or another. The only thing that I know is that a tragedy has been turned into a marketing tool over the last 6 years, and it continues to make me sick.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- Ever notice that conservatives excuse bad behavior by claiming others have done it before, so that makes their idiocy alright? So is it not a suprise that when Congressman Wilson shouted that Obama was a "liar" that the Right ran to dig up a video from 2005 where there were Democrats ( can they prove it was only Democrats? )mumbling in disapproval of Bush's attempt to convince Congress to overhaul Social Security.

- Be fully prepared for more "be very afraid, we're all about to die" nonsense from conservatives tomorrow. They talk about the nation coming together in remembrance, but have serious problems with Obama's idea of a national day of service on Sept. 11th. Isn't the idea of honoring the memories of the dead a coming together of America to serve in any way you can?

Was Anything The Van Jones Said Untrue?

While Glenn Beck, conservative bloggers, and Fox"Nation" rejoice in that same masturbatory fashion they do everytime they think they've won anything, one has to wonder exactly what it was that Van Jones said that was incorrect.

The conservative Right have wrongly accused Jones of being a race-baiter while discussing Columbine and the role that black youth did not play in that horrible day. So what is so wrong, so evil, with that statement? Can you think of any school shooting that is perpetrated by blacks? Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't blacks that commit crimes, nor is it to say that whites are responsible for all crimes as well.

Also, one has to but merely glance at statements made by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or even the most marginal of conservative pundits on Fox"News" to realize that Jones' "crackhead" statement about Bush is hardly something to wet your knickers over.



Virtually everytime a black man or woman - actually anyone that isn't white - ascends to a position of even moderate power or influence, the reactionary Right will cry foul over any and everything that they say.

But what of Jones' statement about Sept. 11th? While many people have a wide range of opinions on what happened that day, it is a fact of life that people's attitudes and ideals and points of view change over time. While I once held that the Bush administration had a very prominent role in what happened that day, after researchig for the past 8 years, I now believe that their role was merely tangentical at best. So, is Jones' shift in opinion from several years ago any different that others? Who is to say, who is to judge this? Certanly not Glenn Beck.



And what of Jones' remarks on pollution and the role that "whites" play in polluting minority neighborhoods? It turns out that that statement is actually rooted in factual analysis.

Though more covert than racism of the past, contemporary racism exists in housing—as discussed with the problems of ghettos—healthcare, and environment. Minorities receive less healthcare than white Americans due to the cost of insurance. A low socioeconomic status prevents them from affording insurance and healthcare in general. This creates a division between the services given to minorities and to white Americans. Also, due to the location of ghettos and other low value housing units, they receive higher amounts of pollution than white Americans. Polluting industries and busy freeways are often located near minority neighborhoods; “The combination of exposure to environmental hazards and unemployment discrimination establishes a sinister correlation between race and health” (White, 68). Thus, contemporary practices contribute to the inequality of the races.

one analysis of data collected by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, conducted by The Associated Press in 2005, found that blacks are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger.

Another study, released by Bullard in March, ranked the top 10 metropolitan areas in the U.S. with the largest number of minorities living in neighborhoods that contain hazardous waste facilities. Houston was second, behind only Los Angeles, featuring 10 such neighborhoods where the total population is more than 78 percent minority. (Chicago ranked fifth, with nine neighborhoods containing hazardous waste facilities where the total minority population is nearly 72 percent.)

While it is inescapable that Glenn Beck is very white and Jones is black, it can be too convenient of a statement to claim that Beck is a dyed in the wool racist. However, this is the trap that conservative continually find themselves in. They are so eager, so on the edge of thei seats to call someone a racist, that they often make rather racially charged statements of their own. But you can't point this out. If you do, you are labeled a "reverse racist". And the definition of that, if there even is one, is continually shifting and morphing dependant on the particular news cycle that people like Beck find themselves in.

The main problem I see in all of this is that Jones resigned. I can understand and appreciate why he did it, but it was ultimately a poor choice, as it validate the inane ramblings of the conservative movement. It has created the illusion that people like Glenn Beck are actually a source of credible information. The Obama administration has to stop giving in to any and everything the conservative Right says and does. They need to be partisan, get things done, and show some fucking spine. I understand that you have to make political decisions in order to secure any chances of attaining goals in the future, but they need to start acting like progressives I thought they were.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

Over the weekend, I had these questions rolling around in my brain-pan and thought I would share.

- Why are conservatives so upset that Obama is calling for the nation to come together in service for their country on Sept. 11th? Are they upset that someone is trying to use the day in a positive light to honor those that died? Are they losing the ability to use the deaths of thousands as a tool of fear, nothing more than a slogan?

- What is really going to happen during Glenn Beck's "9/12 Project" thing that is allegedly going to take place in Washington? Considering the very real fact that no person within the conservative movement has the ability to bring out the crazies the way he does, is someone going to get hurt - or worse?

- Do conservatives not realize that you can't just "turn off" the internet?

- The fringe segment of the GOP ( which is growing larger by the week ) should really decide if Obama is a Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, or Fascist. Do they not realize that he can't be all 5?

- When is TOOL coming out with a new album?

- Exactly how many seniors, that are able to collect Social Security and take advantage of Medicare benefits, have started refusing them since they are so afraid of Socialism now? I'm guessing none.

- I wonder what children of uber-conservatives ( like Malkin, Hannity, and O'Reilly ) think about other kids their age. After all, children aren't born racists, or sexist, or nativists, or think Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Jesus.

- Who's going to be a Bonnaroo next year?

- Why doesn't Lawrence O'Donnell have his own show on MSNBC?

If It's Not Worth Discussing.....

Ed Morrissey from Hot Air says of the Wanda Sykes roast of Rush Limbaugh:

If we’re still talking about it tomorrow, the only person that benefits is Sykes.

Apparently, Ed doesn't realize the nature of the controversial joke.

By default, most of comedy is controversial in nature, as many topics are seen as taboo in everyday conversation. We have all laughed at joke about fat people, people with drug problems, racism, bigotry, ignorance, and mental disorders - of which Limbaugh covers all those bases. This doesn't necessarily make us bad people, but we ( meaning those of use with a fully functioning brainsteam ) tend to look back at what we laughed at and wonder what made it so funny.

Morrissey is more concerned with making his readership believe that he holds some sort of moral high-ground, like he wouldn't laugh at a joke that some of his friends considered "in poor taste". But rather than delve into Ed's "if this had been said about someone that I agree with" meme - which ultimately does nothing but muddy the discussion - it's interesting to look at what Ed says about what we shouldn't say.

It's well into "the day after discussion" that Morrissey thinks should have ended. But why? For what greater purpose should Wanda Sykes' comments not be addressed?

In a rather quick diary on DialyKos, I talked about 4 things that proved, to me, why Limbaugh wouldn't have been the 20th hijackers on 9/11. There wasn't much discussion to follow, but it allowed me to get some thoughts out as to why Sykes' joke was not just funny in a ridiulous sort of way, but ultimately wrong.

And for those that are relying more on Morrissey's retort to Wanda offending his delicate sensibilities, if they had seen Sykes lay down her verbal assault, they would have heard a healthy dose of people voicing their distaste for her and her words. Sure, some laughed, but is this indicative of these people being downright evil and hating their country? No, but Ed would have you think so.

Controversial comedy, when done right, makes people think about the world around them. Lenny Bruce and George Carlin were masters of it. People have tried since them, but end up coming off like rank amateurs and are roundly criticized for their ineptitude. Is Sykes in the same catagory as a Carlin, Bruce, or Bill Hicks? No, but she's not entirely a slouch either. For me, she's hit or miss on most days. Her performance at the White House Corespondance Dinner didn't come close to Colbert's skewering of Bush and his administration. It was just ok. The Limbaugh joke was the peak of the night. I almost wish her entire bit been in that vein.

What would the day-after discussion been if that were the case?

By and large, this isn't about 9/11 as much as it is about Limbaugh, Sykes, as well as Morrissey ( and those that agree with him ) being on the losing end of an election. His camp has used the memories of the dead in order to excuse their ignorance and love of an administration that virtually destroyed large cross-sections of America over the last 8 years. So, his complaints that Sykes is maligning the dead are moot.

The difference between Sykes' comedy routine at the WHCD and Limbaugh is that it's a fairly safe assumption to say that Sykes isn't being serious, Limbaugh is.

Hannity Just Linked Mexico To "9/11"

Just caught the tail-end of an interview with Hannity and J.D. Hayworth of Arizona ( former Congressman ) and Hannity linked illegal, Mexican immigrants with "9/11"

WHAT?

more on this tomorrow when I can watch the whole interview and try to get grasp on this rampant lunacy.

Paranoid Patriotism Makes You A Real American? According To The Fox"News" Website It Does.

Fox"News", never one to let the chance to inject the deaths of over 3000 people and the unfathomable loss of others into a story, has as their lead-story on their website a tale of a "real American".

This portion really struck me as what Fox considers a "real American" to be:

In the days after the attack, Krimstein said he felt an overwhelming desire to hang an American flag in his home, something he says he probably would not have done before the attacks. So he ran down to a “25-cent store,” bought a small flag on a wooden stick and taped it outside the window of his apartment.

“I think I wanted to hang the flag so much because I just kept hearing in my head over and over again that we had been attacked, that what we stand for — our freedom, our ideals — was under siege,” he said. “I was really struck by how much of a threat freedom in our society was to some people.”

Now, it would be more than unfair to slight this man, and his family, for expressing their patriotism in this way. There is nothing wrong with it. But, in the context of the story, the way that Fox has "framed" it, the man's fear has coaxed this dormant desire to look to a symbol for comfort.

True, symbols have power. But, is it symbolism or action that makes our country great?

On September 11th, 2001, I was in college at Western Kentucky University. After hearing of the attack, seeing it played ad infinitum on every channel imaginable, I saw the entire town flocking to gas stations, filling up their cars, rushing here and there speculating on what would happen next.

This tragedy had caused an entire community to consume on a mass scale.

There was no gas in Bowling Green, Kentucky for 2 days after that.

They would be consumers on another level.

Flags, in all kinds of sizes.

Stickers on cars, on trucks, SUVs ( lots of those ), windows on houses, shops, gas station, small flags on car radio antenna, big flags on virtually every building you could think of.

"Patriotism" motivated by fear.

The conservative movement teaches fear of people of "another color", another ethnicity, of people from California, of people that went to a certain school, of poor people, people who don't vote the way they do, of news networks, of gays, even fear of yourself at times.

If you don't have a flag on your house, if you don't think that a flag lapel pin matters, you are not a "real American".

Conservative Idiocy Knows No Bounds

Apparently, this Mike Meehan guy thinks he knows a thing or two about political advertising and national security.

CNN) -- A Florida man is using billboards with an image of the burning World Trade Center to encourage votes for a Republican presidential candidate, drawing criticism for politicizing the 9/11 attacks.


Businessman Mike Meehan says he has put up three billboards such as this one around Orlando, Florida.

"Please Don't Vote for a Democrat" reads the type over the picture of the twin towers after hijacked airliners hit them on September, 11, 2001.

Mike Meehan, a St. Cloud, Florida, businessman who paid to post the billboards in the Orlando area, said former President Clinton should have put a stop to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda before 9/11. He said a Republican president would have done so.

"I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we'd had a Republican president at the time," Meehan said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."

But Democrats and Republicans are saying Meehan shouldn't be using a 9/11 image to make a political point.

"This is a blatant exploitation of that terrible tragedy for political and, perhaps even worse, personal gain," Bill Robinson, the Orange County, Florida, Democratic Party chairman told CNN affiliate WFTV-TV in Orlando.

It's also a blantant misrepresentaiton of the facts.

But hey, that's how the lunatic-fringe-conservatives ( both within the media and those that they target ) often operate.

Let's take a look at a few facts, shall we.

There's a CNN report about targeting Al-Queada training sites, some info regarding the Clinton administration's tracking down of terrorists, as well as more facts here and here.

This guy even latches onto Sean Hannity's favorite talking-point about having Bin Laden "offered up on a silver platter" - which is also wrong:

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

Mr, Meehan doesn't seem to realize that the George W. Bush and his own adminstration didn't see terrorism as an "urgent issue":

President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.

"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Movies That Make You Think : v1.2 Loose Change

I'm not really into the whole "the government was behind 9/11" conspiracy theory.

But, let me preface this blog with this - there are several events of that day which ( hindsight being the perpetually clear-eyed bastard that it is ) tells me that something still isn't right. Something is still missing. I often feel like I have been lied to.

There are several moments in the film that suggest a sinister plot within the Bush administration. I find that highly unlikely, as they are ill-equiped to handle something on such a scale as the events of Sept. 11 2001.

However, there are several topics within the film that require further investigation.

But, who knows if Americans will ever know why so many people died, why so much covered-up from the start, why two planes were literally vaporized, why the Bush administration denied requested for an independant investigation. And more questions than most American may care to ask.

It's not wrong to question these things. The true sin would be to ignore them.

Films That Make You Think : V 1.0

Zeitgeist, The Movie

Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit expression to
inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that
very often things are not what the population at large think they are.

Click to start film.