...more recent posts
Sunday, Nov 30, 2003
High-siding is no longer just for motorcycles
SUVs and trucks are frequently filling the role once filled by station wagons and sedans. Besides issues with gas mileage, green house gasses, headlights in my rear view mirror, can't see around them, and driving too god damned slow on Bear Creek Road, the safety issue has always bothered me. I believe they are less safe, and have seen data that backs that up, yet they are marketed as and commonly perceived to be more safe.
Recently the SJ Merc ran a front page article about an SUV rollover. What made this notable is that two popular highschool kids died. One was flung from the vehicle (no seatbelt) and the other was crushed inside the vehicle. The three backseat occupants survived. It all started when the driver swerved to avoid someone making a lane change, and got sideways. The vehicle flipped over, and executed a series of barrel rolls.
The section of highway 280 where this accident happened is about as close to a flawless freeway as one can find on the planet. There is no fucking reason that a modern passenger car should flip while going sideways on smooth pavement. But that's what can happen when off-road suspension styling is used on a road going vehicle. And it's likely that my sedan has seen more miles on gravel roads, and has carried more crap from Home Depot than most of these so-called sports-utility vehicles.
What called this accident to mind was a roll-over that I saw today. On Hwy 17, on another flawless stretch of asphalt, I saw a formerly-shiny 4WD pickup truck on its roof. At least a dozen civilians were standing around, not sure what to do, wishing there was something they could do, but able only to stand in shock and wait for the professionals.
One bystander was on hands and knees underneath the upended bed of the truck, looking into the back window, and perhaps trying to communicate with the occupant(s). The roof was severely crushed, Both A-pillars had collapsed. And the driver's side B-pillar was crushed to less than half its original height. One can only hope that the occupants ducked.
Damning with Faint Praise
Clark used one of my favorite rhetorical devices, faint praise, in his interview on Face the Nation. Take it away Wesley ...
But I'm not running to bash George Bush. A lot of Americans really love him. They love what he represents -- a man who's overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism, and pulled his marriage back together, and moved forward.
Simplified History
Matalin and Carville went at it this weekend in Tim Russert's Playhouse. Matatlin's summary of the Terror Wars was this: "There are two ways to fight global terror. You can go after the terrorists as the president has done since 9/11. Or you can do what we did before 9/11, which is treat it as a law enforcement issue."
By my reckoning, Matalin left out a few details. Clinton treated it as a law enforcement issue, and was working up a more aggressive plan to fight al Queda. But in the hand-off to the Bush administration, the focus on al Queda was lost. The Bushies did this because a) they thought Clinton had a bizarre obsession with terror, and b) they automatically took the contrary position to any Clinton policy. After fucking ignoring al Queda, the Bush administration presided over the worst attack on American soil since 1941. After a half-hearted attempt to re-invent Afghanistan as a free and democratic nation, the Bushistas went on a tangential expedition into Iraq ('cause Saddam tried to kill Junior's Daddy), and bogged down the better part of the US military in a bloody attempt to establish a new "free and democratic" colony.
Okay, so that's not as concise as Matalin's synopsis, but the truth isn't always a tidy, little fairy tale. She came closest to the truth when she said "[Terrorism] hadn't been addressed before 9/11, and the result was 9/11." Let's all remember exactly which dumbfuck was briefed about possible al Queda hijackings on August 6, 2001, and still spent that month on vacation.
I'm with Carville on this one. His take on the Bushista Terror Wars is this: "As a result of it, we've created more terrorists. We are in the terrorist creating business."
Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003
Resolve won't be shaken: Bush -- Vows to avenge soldiers' slayings
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Doofus in Chief edited for RNC commercial
Doofus in Chief edited for White House transcript
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Friday, Nov 21, 2003
Wolfenheimer's Disease
Dr. Paul seems to be experiencing some cognitive decline. You've seen the signs. He's had delusions that Iraq was similar to France ... delusions about WMDs ... delusions about occupation troop strength required in "post-liberation" Iraq.
But now his memory is in decline. Dr. Paul doesn't remember how much he's always hated Saddam. Well, how much he's hated Saddam from the time that Saddam switched from attacking Iran to attacking Kuwait.
|
|
|
Paul Wolfowitz
Conference on Iraqi Reconstruction
Dr. Paul makes it clear, as always, that September 11th changed everything. He explains that, before 9/11, he was in favor of a protracted guerilla war, but after 9/11 he was in favor of a full scale invasion. I suppose that in Wolfowitz's calculus guerilla warfare doesn't count as "military intervention".
To dispel an uncertainty about his advocacy of military intervention "long before becoming Deputy Secretary", let's consider an additional excerpt from the letter to Clinton.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.Dr. Paul, are you a liar or are you mentally defective?
previous coverage of Wolfenheimer's Disease
previous in series of Dr. Paul's Words of Wisdom
Thursday, Nov 20, 2003
A Connecticut Yankee in Queen Elizabeth's Court
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Big Bremer Announces Baghdad Spring of '84
Big Bremer speaks
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Wednesday, Nov 19, 2003
The Post-literate Presidency
The Shrubster don't read.
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Tuesday, Nov 18, 2003
Gee Dubya's New and Improved Afghanistan
Kristof
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Sunday, Nov 16, 2003
Safire the Satirist
Things run at a different pace here in Santa Cruz County, where I spend many a weekend. So Safire's column of November 10th was published just today. I knew I was in for a treat with the opening sentence.
With a strong sense of history, George Bush last week made the case for "a forward strategy" of idealism in American foreign policy."Strong sense of history"? Are you a raving idiot Mr. Safire, or have you crossed over into the smartass camp? You're talking about a drunken frat boy who squeaked through his bachelors' in history with a C average, and who somehow thought the word "crusade" was an appropriate description of our response to 9/11.
Safire's unintended irony was an appropriate introduction to the unintended irony of Bush's speech, which the Santa Cruz Sentinel ran in full. The Sentinel's position, stripped of it's careful editorial page language is "we're printing this speech because we need to pay close attention to these bastards."
To those not paying close attention to history, Bush's recitation of the track record of US support for democracy across the globe is something of which to be proud. If only this imaginary history were true. While the US did good things for democracy in Europe and Japan, to cite Latin America democracy in the win column for the US is inane. Just how deep was Junior's drunken stupor at Yale? Bush did make vague remarks about the mistakes of "western" powers in the Middle East, but carefully sidestepped the details of US skullduggery.
How could the Shrub criticize the government of Iran, which, by the way, has more elements of democracy than many so-called allies, without a penitent admission of the CIA's installation of a dictator in 1953? Does he think the American public are completely out of touch with their own history? Well, if he did, he wouldn't be half wrong.
Saturday, Nov 15, 2003
The Immutable Resolve of Dubya
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003
The Shrubster as quoted by Wolf Blitzer via August J. Pollak.
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Bumpersticker #50
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
Thursday, Nov 06, 2003
Republic of Hate
Sometimes I wonder about the tone of my blog. Policy agreements are one thing. Calling the President a fucktard (several times, so far) is quite another.
On today's (it's still barely Wednesday) WSJ editorial page, there's a hatchet job on Charles Schumer. Vilification of Schumer is part of a much larger campaign (explicated recently by Safire) to vilify the Senate democrats over their "obstructionism" in the judicial nomination process.
In the illustration accompanying the op-ed, Schumer was depicted as a vampire ready to suck the blood of lady "Justice".
I no longer feel guilty. I'm not setting the tone. I'm going with the flow, man. Hey Wolfowitz, fuck off! Hey Bush, you're a fucktard! Hey WSJ editorial writers, you're fucking troglodytes!
Monday, Nov 03, 2003
Fuck You Too, Paul Wolfowitz
Usually Dr. Paul's Words of Wisdom tries to take the high road, using satire to unmask the true meaning of Wolfowitz's words. This edition, however, is not about subtlety. Paul Wolfowitz's remarks at Georgetown University are a direct attack on the patriotism of dissenters. We are not amused.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz remarks at Georgetown University -- Thursday October 30, 2003
Q: I'd just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the '80s. And -- [Applause] And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. And I have a question.So, Wolfowitz, opposing bloodthirsty bastards like Reagan, Rumsfeld and yourself is unpatriotic? Go fuck yourself.
What do you plan to do when Bush is defeated in 2004 and you will no longer have the power to push forward the project for New American Century's policy of American military and economic dominance over the people of the world? [Applause]
Wolfowitz: I don't know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.
It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies.
DailyKOS thread
Wolfowitz Defends War
The Hoya -- October 31, 2003
previous in series of Dr. Paul's Words of Wisdom
previous in series of fucktard images
cribbed from Digby's Hullabaloo -- Oh, Fer Christ's Sake
The whining, the crying, the wringing of the hands about "political hate speech," the law suits over hurt feelings, running away from interviews with a 5'2" woman because she was "aggressive," snivelling about "leftist homophobia" for making fun of the simpering drooling over Bush's "masculinity" --- it's all so pathetic.
previous in series of Republican bumper stickers
older posts...