davidd (davidd) wrote,

How Convenient -- Voting -- Britney!!!

Interesting coincidence, isn't it, that Saddam Hussein's sentencing was announced just two days before the elections in the U.S., and in time to make big headlines in the high-circulation Sunday newspapers.

I also found it interesting that, unlike after the initial "fall of Baghdad" when there was celebrating in the streets (as documented in carefully composed photographs and television footage), following the news of the Hussein verdict there was a forced curfew with a "shoot on sight" order in place for anyone... anyone... seen leaving their homes.

Please help me to understand: Hussein was found guilty of "war crimes" and sentenced to death for having been involved in killing one-hundred forty-some people twenty-odd years ago. Okay. I would think there'd be a statute of limitations on something like that, maybe, or perhaps some kind of penalty against the foreign government that was supporting his dictatorial regime at that time. Apparently not. The part I really don't understand, though, is, how do the deaths of those 140 people twenty years ago warrant the deaths of 600,000 people over the past two years, and a continuing death toll of 3,000 civilians a month? I mean, not to dismiss the pointless murder of 140 people, but, compared to the situation in Iraq now, wasn't life in Iraq virtually idyllic under Hussein?

I couldn't help but notice, too, that a former U.S. Attorney General was thrown out of the Baghdad courtroom for calling Hussein's trial a "travesty." Of course, U.S. Attorneys General tend not to fare very well after their terms in office, as Bobby Kennedy found out.

Oh, and, what ever happened to those "weapons of mass destruction?"

For that matter, what ever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't he the one who was supposedly directly involved in the killing of American citizens on their home soil? Wasn't he the reason the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, overthrew their government, and turned the entire country into a battlefield for feuding warlords? Oh, no, wait, that was a CIA-directed plot to protect and enhance drug trafficking. I keep forgetting that, sorry. Bin Laden is merely a wayward son of a Saudi oil family -- eccentric and outspoken tho' he may be, he's still family, so ya gotta love him and cut him some slack now and again.


Not that it matters, but my voting strategy this election was pretty straightforward: vote out all incumbents, and support minor party candidacies. My more-or-less arbitrarily selected hierarchy of casting ballots was something like the following:
First choice: minor party -- Green.
Second choice: minor party -- Libertarian.
Third choice: independent candidate.
Fourth choice: major party candidate opposing the incumbent.

"But what if the incumbent is doing a good job?" -- If that question even crosses your mind, then the blood of every dead Iraqi, Afghan, and Lebanese child is on your hands.

"Your candidates don't have a chance of winning. You're throwing your vote away." -- So you're telling me that "every vote counts" except for mine?

Okay, enough political stuff. You know, I rarely tune in Letterman or Leno anymore, but I just happened to be channel-surfing last night when Britney Spears walked onto the Letterman set. I am so glad I saw this 30-second appearance! I mean, her appearance made the news on CNN! That is, her appearance on the Late Show. I've seen no mention of her appearance, which rather resembles that of a used-to-be-cute-in-a-trailer-trash-kinda-way- before-she-had-kids-and-her-thighs-got-lumpy- and-her-bosom-sagged army wife. Oops! This part wasn't supposed to be political, but now I supposed I'll be in trouble along with John Kerry: the soldiers are dumb and their wives are dumpy. Oh boy. There goes my political credibility. And obviously I'm a shallow sexist pig, too.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment