Senate revels in madness

Conditions: Warm


The Democratic led Senate has been spending the last few weeks desperately trying to lose the war in Iraq. Of course, they call it 'ending' the war in Iraq, but I am not fooled. By putting forward a bill that will gradually choke off funding, forcing the American troops to withdraw from Iraq at some date in 2008 will almost ensure Iraq becomes another Afghanistan. From the Washington post:

Democratic aides expressed growing confidence of success when the vote is called, and four of the bill's most consistent critics said they had told Speaker Nancy Pelosi they would help pass it, even though they intend to personally vote against it.

"While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war," said one of the four, Rep. Barbara Lee of California.

Putting a concrete end to the unnecessary war is as oxy-moronish as going to war over non-existent weapons of mass destruction in the first place. The war in 2003 was unnecessary. The war today is not. Al Queda, and various sub-sets, are poised to take over the country, and all they're waiting for is the Americans to announce when they're leaving.

"I want this war ended today. If I thought it would help this war ending sooner by voting against the bill, I would vote against it in a heartbeat," said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who sponsored legislation for a troop withdrawal in 2005.

"But I don't believe that to be the case," he added of the measure, which combines funding for the war, the troop withdrawal deadline and billions of dollars in funding for politically popular programs at home ranging from farm aid to relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The legislation marks Congress' most direct challenge to date of Bush's policy in a war that has claimed the lives of nearly 3,200 U.S. troops.

As I've said before, the stakes are bigger than 3,000 troops and New Orleans. If America has to sacrifice more to fix what it has broken, then that's just what needs to happen. I hate to side with Republicans, because I don't trust them one bit, but their rhetoric seems to make more sense on this issue than the Democratic rhetoric.



We stubborn few.

I hate cellphones. Hate their plasticky, fiddly, hipster annoyingness. And the simple fact is that if you have a cellphone, you've effectively sacrificed your freedom (and your money) in order to carry around a cancer-causing irritant. Sadly we who shun the cellphone fad have become thin in numbers, but we remain defiant in the face of ridicule. From the Guardian:

"Not owning a mobile is part of my quest for personal freedom," says 42-year-old sales manager Mark Quigley. "They sell it to you as freedom, but it means you're contactable at all times of day."

"I don't know anyone else who hasn't got one," says Charlie Thurrock, a 28-year-old production coordinator. "I do get some hassle from friends who want to contact me, but I think people have the right to ignore everyone if they want to."

Whatever their reasons for opting out, people who say no to mobiles are badly out of step with a social etiquette that has been transformed by the new technology. "People get uncomfortable when you're arranging somewhere to meet and they realise you don't have a phone," says 37-year-old magazine journalist Cam Winstanley. "They like to say, 'See you in Leicester Square around seven,' and then spend 10 minutes wandering around clutching their mobile when they arrive."

Remember the majority are not always right. I give you the last two American elections as proof.

Don't believe me about the freedom thing? Check this out. Ha ha-ha-ha!


End transmission.