Tired of holding your nose?

On the subject of impending Republican defeat, Glenn Reynolds has a good Pre-Mortem roundup, which became quite lengthy, was linked by Pajamas Media, and has been followed by another (post-pre-mortem?) roundup in which Glenn asks whether he's a shill for Democrats (or something even worse, an "InstaLaphamite").

There are a lot of opinions, but nearly everyone is talking about the Republicans' impending defeat. And almost everyone (including me) is disgusted with the Republicans.

The truth is, I can't remember a time when I wasn't disgusted with the Republicans. My first vote was for McGovern in 1972, and since then, my disgust has ebbed and flowed. It wasn't until Bill Clinton (whom I voted for) was president that my disgust over the Republicans was exceeded by my disgust over the Democrats. Since then, I've become convinced that the Democrats are irreversibly, permanently in favor of socialism -- much more than the Republicans will ever be. The 9/11 attacks and the post-9/11 fallout also convinced me that the Republicans are better on defense issues. (I suspect there's still a war, too.)

While it is true that in general the Democrats are better on many sexual and social issues, there's also that sexual identity politics thing, which I don't like too much. And I just don't see sex as the leading issue in American politics. At least, I don't think it should be. In this regard, the Foley scandal has caused me to be more disgusted with the Democrats than the Republicans, for I think their exploitation of the scandal is cheap demagoguery at its absolute worst. It might be revenge for Monica Lewinsky, but at least that involved actual sex (as opposed to cyber raunch), and it also involved perjury. Ordinary voters, though, seem to think Foley/Masturgate is actually an important reason to vote the Republicans out.

That people can be so stupid astounds me. I mean, it's not as if there aren't plenty of reasons to vote the Republicans out, but a single congressman talking dirty to street-wise pages? For which he's already out on his ass?

Please.

Anyway, back to my point. I have long been disgusted with the Republicans -- so much so that I'm almost tired of holding my nose when I go to the polls. Yet I plan to vote for them again, despite my disgust.

What is it that makes my ability to hold my nose in spite of my longstanding, seasoned disgust so apparently special? The way people are acting, you'd almost think there's something new to be disgusted about. To me, it's the same old disgust. I don't like the war on drugs, the culture war, the endless politicization of genitalia, the pork, the refusal to stop the hemorrhage at the borders, but I don't see anything new other than the Foley scandal (which, contrarian as it sounds, only heightens my disgust at the Democrats).

Maybe the problem is too much disgust, for too long. Is that an argument for voting Democrat? Why? I don't think any Republican voter is dumb enough to believe Democrats will be less disgusting, so the idea must be that it's time to change the disgust channel to a different kind of disgust program.

I don't think it's a good solution or a good program. Let's assume the nation is now steeped in Bush Disgust. The man has been president for nearly two terms, many mistakes were made, and many problems remain unsolved. Disgust with Bush and the Republicans is so tired that it's already an old issue. Republican candidates have been outdoing themselves trying to distance themselves from Bush. It's almost as if, knowing how disgusted the voters are, they unconsciously buy into the change-the-channel argument.

But what's the new channel? From what I can see, it's promising to be a Clinton rerun. Clinton II -- he's back with his wife, who has spent years assiduously repackaging herself as a moderate!

(Fool me twice, or will that be three times?)

Sorry, but that's old disgust. Bush will be out in two years, and I'm tired of being disgusted with Republicans, but I'll hold my nose forever before I return to the Clinton Disgust Channel.

At a recent fund-raiser, the elder Bush put it quite well:

At the fund-raiser, [George H.W.] Bush said he would "hate to think what life would be like" if Republicans lost control of Congress.

"It is more than party vs. party," Bush said. "It is the idea that if we have some of these wild Democrats in charge of these committees, it will be a ghastly thing for our country. They just have a very different view of looking at the United States of America. They will be pushing for all kinds of crazy legislation; they will be issuing subpoenas."

I remember all too well the phenomenon of what he calls "these committees" and "crazy legislation."

There's disgust, and then there's disgust.

I'll vote Republican despite my disgust. Despite the fact that I've held my nose for so long that I can't stand it. Despite the fact that I'm tired of holding up my arm in order to hold my nose.

Hell, I'll vote Republican even if I have to wear one of these.

noseclip3.jpg

Sigh.

I'm afraid that's the best I can offer.

And I'm afraid it does little to address the concerns Glenn Reynolds raised earlier:

It's true, the Democrats are worse, but lots of people are starting to feel taken advantage of by that approach, as the GOP shows no signs of trying to get, you know, better.

[...]


I'm not asking for perfection here. Just a little effort.

I realize that wearing a noseclip to the polls is not the perfect solution, but if the GOP isn't making an effort, I think Republican voters should. It's a visible and (at only $3.95) an inexpensive way to register a vote of disgust.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and welcome all!

I wrote this post because not only do I complain a lot, but because nearly everyone is complaining, and I wanted to offer an election aid. (While I think libertarians are more accustomed to holding their noses than most people, these days there's so much stench at the polls that everyone needs assistance.)

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Be sure to read Mrs. du Toit's comment below. She's "highly skeptical about the defeat warnings," and may be onto something.

posted by Eric on 10.16.06 at 09:23 AM










Comments

It's unfortunate, but if everyone voted with their hearts and not their mind (the libertarian party will never win, better vote for the crippled republicans or I'll get the democrat cripplers) we might have a chance. But alas, the lesser of two evils rules the day.

mdmhvonpa   ·  October 16, 2006 11:50 AM

If I put ideology first, I would be unable to ever vote.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 16, 2006 12:47 PM

Damn, you sound like one of those adults I keep hearing about.

I don't think there's anything wrong with voting for imperfect candidates. Politics is about choosing lesser evils, not greater goods. Sometimes the available choices are all lousy. The most important thing is that we get to choose.

Jonathan   ·  October 16, 2006 12:47 PM

Maybe I'm being a Polyanna (wouldn't be the first time), but I'm highly skeptical about the defeat warnings. There are just too many of them, too well timed and placed not to smell fishy to me.

It feels like a "let's try to make a run on the bank" media blitz to get the herd to move in a uniform way.

I'm not suggesting that it won't work, but I think the general idea is to spread the idea that "All Republicans are discouraged and demoralized" so it puts into question the wisdom (or bother) of going to the polls.

Since Republicans do go to the polls, it COULD backfire--giving Dems the idea that they don't need to turn out because they can't lose.

"All politics are local" and since this is a local race, I doubt the predictions are as dire as people think, or more importantly, what others WANT us to think.

Mrs. du Toit   ·  October 16, 2006 3:21 PM

Just looking at the picture in your blog entry there ... definitely seems like the preferable method for most of us to wear a Speedo to the polls.

Rhodium Heart   ·  October 16, 2006 3:37 PM

I don't like the war on drugs, the culture war, the endless politicization of genitalia, the pork, the refusal to stop the hemorrhage at the borders, but I don't see anything new other than the Foley scandal

Great post! Consider me your newest fan.

Gordon   ·  October 17, 2006 9:43 AM

It's a great idea, and it shouldn't cost $3.95. Amazon sells "Safe-T-Gard" nose-clips for $2.29; shipping extra, of course, but they're likely available for that in stores.

Tom Myers   ·  October 17, 2006 10:14 AM

I think part of the disgust comes from a fealing of powerlessness. I plan to vote against the Democrat in the house in my district (Charlie Gonzales) and for whoever the Republican nominee is. I am not sure if I will vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson for Senate or leave it blank. And my votes do not matter because Hutchinson will win and so will Gonzales. And they will both win by a lot. While some people get competetive Senate races to vote in almost no one gets competetive House races. I have lived in four different house districts in two different states as a voter and not once have any of the seats been competetive. And the vast majority of incumbents running in secure districts know there is no incentive for them to change from their pork loving, big spending, irresponsible ways because they pretty much have secure seats for life if they want them.

Get used to holding your nose for a while.

Pete THe Elder   ·  October 17, 2006 10:19 AM

There's an old adage that says if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. There probably doesn't exist a better example of this then the US political system.

As the differences between Repub's & Demo's continues to shrink, the dialogue between them gets more shrill and our options for honest improvement lessens. Why? Because we have taught them that the repercussion for ineptitude and graft can be overcome by party rhetoric. Our bickering amongst ourselves is their subterfuge - and it works.

The solution is quite simple. Vote Incumbents Out. It really is that simple. Just consider the political landscape after a few elections of doing that.

I'll close with another adage that's appropriate here. Those that accept anything other then the very best very often get it.

Rob   ·  October 17, 2006 10:24 AM

Why not just vote Libertarian?

Julian Morrison   ·  October 17, 2006 10:28 AM

I'm with you, holding my nose. I mean, we gave these guys BOTH houses of Congress AND the White House.
My first vote was not for McGovern, it was for Jimmy Carter. I don't imagine I'll ever vote for Dems again.

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA   ·  October 17, 2006 10:46 AM

Both parties are socialist pinkos. More
here

Jon Kay   ·  October 17, 2006 11:05 AM

Instapundit, pajamas media, and all the rest of the heroes of reason spend years pointing out the illogicality, fanataticism, and follies of the far left and their supported ones, the Democrats. Now, a few weeks before the election, Instapundit and others of the bloggers of the right feature blogs and commentors willing to hide all of that behind the sofa to say: let's show the Repulicans where to get off and let the libs win Congress. That way Republican saints will run and win in 2008 because the libs will have screwed things up so badly during 2007 and most of 2008. Well, what clarity of mind! What penetrating insight! Oh yes, and the President will save us from this leftwing Congress somehow. How? Bully pulpet? Vito? Common guys, get real. Reject and repent of this goofyness before it is too late.

Fred Beloit   ·  October 17, 2006 11:08 AM

I think many of the pundits predicting a 1994 in reverse are in for a big surprise. Here are some reasons:

1. I don't like it, but incumbents have a huge advantage.

2. I think the so-called scandals will have less effect than anticipated, because most non-partisan voters (i.e. the majority) don't really think either party is any more or less prone to corruption than the other.

3. I think it is still true that more people think the Republicans are better at national security, and this is still a big issue.

4. The Republican base may have concerns and loudly complain about some current policies, but most agree that "...the Democrats are irreversibly, permanently in favor of socialism -- much more than the Republicans will ever be.." so in the end they will most likely stay with the party candidates.

5. And perhaps most importantly - the pundit's track record for predictions is not very good. I remember watching the results in 1994, and how many of the MSM pundits and commentators who had made fun of the Contract with America were shocked at the results. Anyone remember Peter Jenning's "..the voters had a tantrum.." commentary?

I hope the Republicans keep control of the House and Senate because of points 3 and 4. And I will add to that, even though it may seem mean spirited, that I'm anticipating much amusement in watching the pundits being shocked that their predicted (desired?) results did not come about.

Anonymous   ·  October 17, 2006 11:20 AM

The previous post was not meant to be anonymous - it was really me.

ray_g   ·  October 17, 2006 11:22 AM

You're right about the 1994 election. I vividly recall Dan Rather had great trouble holding back tears as he announced results. I'm serious. Wish someone had a video of that. Hope you're right about this one too.

Fred Beloit   ·  October 17, 2006 11:27 AM

OK, ray. My post should have said veto, not vito.

Fred Beloit   ·  October 17, 2006 11:30 AM

If you are as disgusted as I am with the gay-bashing, sexual-predator-enabling, terrorist-appeasing, history-revising, tax-raising-and-spending, entitlement-protecting, no-plan-for-success Democrats, I urge you to boycott all Democrats by casting no vote for any Democrat in the upcoming November election. Even if you have a few Democrats that you like, donít vote for them. What America needs is a stronger Democratic party that will work with Republicans to further strengthen our security and our economy. We will not get that anytime soon, unless the Democrats are defeated in November. The only way that more moderate Democrats can regain control of the Democratic Party is if they are handed a major defeat while in the jaws of a self-evident victory.

Although Republican candidates have many flaws, they continue to vote for policies that protect us and sustain economic growth. So, even if you are unhappy with the Republicans, hold your nose and vote for them. Even though they donít always stand for those things that they should, at least they stand for keeping America a safe and a more prosperous place to live. When I compare the two major political parties, it is obvious to me which one needs to be recalibrated the most in the upcoming election. It is the Democratic Party that has turned its back on the values that have made this nation the greatest and most democratic nation on earth. It is the Democratic Party that continues to pursue policies that will eventually turn America into the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Empire.

We stand at an important crossroads. What we do in November will likely set the course for our country and our world for the remainder of the 21st century and beyond. Allowing a victory for the current incarnation of Democratic Party is not an option, if we truly value liberty for ourselves and for all those in the world who desire what we have. I believe that all people have an inherent desire for freedom, democracy, and peace. Over two hundred years ago, our forefathers fought and died to set up a free and democratic nation for us. Unfortunately, too many Americans now take this for granted and see no value in extending this right to others. If we choose wisely in November, the 21st century can be one where the oppressed people of this world can share in the vision that makes America the envy of the entire world. This may not be an easy or convenient thing to do, but it is certainly the right thing to do. We cannot turn a blind eye to the injustice that surrounds us and hope to isolate/spare our own freedoms from harm.

Darrell   ·  October 17, 2006 11:45 AM

Cthulhu for President -
Why settle for the LESSER evil?

Dr. Ellen   ·  October 17, 2006 12:54 PM

The lesser of two evils voting strategy is exactly why Libertarians support instant runoff voting so vociferously. That way, everyone can vote for who they like, and not have to worry about the Democrats winning because of it.

Jon Thompson   ·  October 17, 2006 12:57 PM

Not merely is the post above correct, but none other than Carville has said that if they don't do well in November, the Democratic Party should "rethink it's premises".

I think the Republicans should be re-elected in November because of the two parties, the Democrats are ready to crack up.

I think only creative and improving conditions can come from that.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Tom Perkins   ·  October 17, 2006 1:53 PM

I used to think of voting as choosing the lesser of two evils, but now I think it is choosing the greater of two lessers.

ray_g   ·  October 17, 2006 2:15 PM

The lesser of two evils voting strategy is exactly why Libertarians support instant runoff voting so vociferously.

Here's the million dollar question: how can we get the voting system changed? The people who get the final say in the matter (Congress, state legislatures) have the most to lose since a change in voting system would change the dynamics of elections. I'd love to see it happen but the chances of it happenning are effectively zero.

Tom   ·  October 17, 2006 2:37 PM

Jon Thompson: That's a good theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work. Australia has had the Single Tranferable Vote (what you call "instant runoff") for so long that there is probably not a single person left who remembers voting any other way, at any level of government, and yet the "wasted vote" syndrome continues strong. People know how to fill in the ballot (a 1 next to your favourite candidate, 2 for your next favourite, etc.), but they don't really understand how it works, and they still think that giving their #1 vote to a minor candidate will somehow cause their vote to be wasted. Trying to persuade them otherwise is an exercise in futility.

Milhouse   ·  October 17, 2006 2:57 PM

Leftists want to impose European Socialism and do away with free market meritocracy.

They want to turn their collective backs on Israel, (because loyalty and honor are so passe' don't you know), curry favor with our "enemy du jour", snuggle up to brutal dictators and rewrite history where America is the bad guy. They hate inwardly, with such force and gusto and volume.

The Republicans have been playing (and losing) the propaganda game by the leftists "rules" for 40 years. So much so, they don't realize that a paradigm shift is the only way to escape. Leftists induce Republicans into a rigged tug of war...and Republicans are too conditioned ....to simply drop the rope. Then they eventually and quite blissfully hang themselves with it.

No wonder voting booths resemble Port-a-Potties.

I guess holding one's nose is an answer. But I keep holding out hope for indoor plumbing and an industrial strength flush.

The greater danger is from the left, they still own the game. And it's still rigged.

cf bleachers   ·  October 17, 2006 3:18 PM

As a long term registered Democrat, I can truthfully say that I am not voting FOR the Republicans but rather AGAINST the national leadership of the Democratic Party. Over a quarter of the House Democrats are members of the Progressive Caucus, probably including every potential new committee chairmen: Rangle, Waxman, Conyers, et al. It is so bad that Nancy Pelosi can be considered a moderate when compared to the rest of the Democratic members of the House. I could stomach a socialist at home if they but had the backbone of a Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens or George Orwell when it came to international issues. No, these are blame American Firsters. I do not care that the Republicans deserve to lose. I just do not think that I deserve living under a Democratic House or Senate. Well, maybe I do deserve it but I will take mercy over justice everytime.

Laurence   ·  October 17, 2006 4:19 PM

The "make things worse so people will smarten up" theory is crap. By that argument, Jews should have voted for Hitler.

The scat-flinging Neolibs won't get any better if they lose. They'll fling more scat. I'm honestly hoping to see the total destruction of the Dummycrapic Party within a few more elections. They'll be replaced by...somebody. Anybody. It's going to suck in the meantime, but we'll then have a chance to beat on the right.

I agree that the only difference is rhetoric. It gets louder as the difference gets smaller. See: Shia and Sunni.

Oh, that's a frightening comparison.

At least my side has all the guns.

Mike Williamson   ·  October 17, 2006 4:44 PM

Tom,

I've been saying that about IRV for awhile but no one wants to believe it. Glad there is some statistical data to back it up. There just seems to be a psychological block about this. The only two systems that seem to work are the double ballot (voting in one election for your top choice then for the optimum choice in the general) or proportional representation (where you get what you asked for but the legislature has no cohesion)

I hate to say that Libertarians are extremists because I share their general philosophy, however, there never seems any room for compromise with them. I've heard that the LP moved to start with it's platform, but that there are still those who prefer the old one. I'll be interested to see what the reformers come up with, but if they don't embrace some form of moderation they simply amount to a 35-year footnote in American history. More likely if they could persuade some big name to run a race for governor or Senator, let alone President they could attract new votes.

But until Libertrians accept that government must be limited in increments there just won't be anything much new about them and they'll just end up fighting for 3/4 of one percent of the country.

Cavalier829   ·  October 17, 2006 4:50 PM

Julian,

because a vote for a Libertarian is a vote, typically, for a Democrat, as a side effect. If Perot hadn't gotten such a large share of the vote, George HW Bush would've been re-elected.

Rick C   ·  October 19, 2006 11:52 AM

What a great post! Came over from Gates of Vienna. I'll be voting for the Republicans in my state - Congress and Senate. Why? Because I know them and because it is easier to get their attention if you are "on their side". Believe me they know who we are. They make their living remembering us, where they met us, if we volunteered and helped with their campaigns. Do I like the government aided and abetted invasion in violation of the oath of office of every elected offical in DC? No. Will that eventually be brought under control? Yep, only 75 million more illegals to go from Mexico and it'll be no problem. On that - to digress - I think about 5 million of us should take our campers, RVs and such and invade Mexico.

We must vote. It is a powerful and grand thing. If you can volunteer to help the Republican candidates in your state, do it. It's not too late. One difference between Dem voters and Republican voters - the latter don't expect to be paid for making the effort. Be of good cheer.

I remember the night Judy Woodruff's mascara ran down her cheeks when she was reporting Republican wins. Ah, how sweet it was. I'll be up all night with the rest of you channel surfing and watching the results.

One final thought - the Dems are now covering their tracks saying it might not be a good thing for them to win in November. Just think, "pretty in pink" and crawl to vote if you have to. Or call your local Republican Party, someone will give you a ride.

Beach Girl   ·  October 19, 2006 1:22 PM

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Enlightenment   ·  October 23, 2006 12:08 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits