Words are crucial these days. Let's pull out an 80s quote from Missing Persons, shall we? "What are words for? When no one listens anymore...when no one listens, there's no use talking at all."
I have a friend with a very young daughter named Charlotte. When Char is throwing a fit, and you can't figure out what on earth she wants, her mother says "Use your words, Charlotte. Use your words."
We should use our words, too...and we do, on Blogcritics and our own sites. Here are some words for you all to consider.
When someone says "Chappaquiddick", two words: Laura Bush. [arrow to bottom for details about the person she killed while driving]
When "I didn't inhale" is used as a punchline: Noelle Bush.
How about "sweetheart corporate deal"?: Dubya, baby. Dubya.
Let's not forget, in the course of all our patriotic righteousness, that true patriots question those in positions of authority, and call them to account via the ballot box when they are found wanting. I'm tired of the same old fights and name-calling. The above suggestions are meant more to show how easy it is to come up with a rejoinder for any occasion than to poke fun at the First Family.
To be flawed is to be human, and those who pretend to be otherwise should raise your hackles. In a government by the people, for the people, we can't help but have a reflection of the human condition as a whole: warts and all.
I'm for excising the malignant Republican warts, but hey, that's me.
I'm also for ending the income tax here in Massachusetts, as Libertarian candidate Carla Howell is trying to do.
But mostly, I'm for a live and let live social policy. It's no one's business but your own how you live, love, and otherwise conduct yourself. If the current powers that be had their way, we'd all be much less free. John Ashcroft, for example. Come on - how much money did he spend to cover up some statuary boobies that made him uncomfortable?
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Shannon, I would hae to rather strongly assert that we have VERY REAL external enemies, who are a much greater threat to us than any member of the current administration.
2 - Shannon Okey
Eric, this post wasn't meant to negate the possibility that we do indeed have external enemies. Of course we do. But their actions and activities are far less likely to affect us personally than the activities of the current administration, and I believe that we should take note of that fact, not to mention speak out against them when they use tragedies such as 9/11 as a deflector shield to quell open political debate. Remember when one lone member of Congress stood her ground and refused to play along? No one applauded her courage -- they played the name-calling game and questioned her patriotism. That, to me, is truly terrifying, and is part of what I was trying to point out above.
On a personal level, which is what I was concerned about when I wrote the above, you (for example) are much less likely to be the target of a terrorist attack than I am. It's similar to why my car insurance is higher-priced than yours: our locality determines our level of risk. The inner-ring Boston suburb where I live is, statistically, more likely to suffer negative actions such as car theft -- or a terrorist's bomb -- than an outlying city near Cleveland. However, you and I both have an absolutely equal chance of having our civil rights taken away by Ashcroft and his ilk. Just think about the informant program he wanted to put into place, and imagine what they'd have dreamed up next if it hadn't been scrapped. It's all about taking action where you can. You and I can't personally prevent the next Osama bin Laden from doing whatever he or she tries to do, but we can vote out the politicians who protect the status quo that enables them to prosper. (Hmmm. The Bush family and the House of Saud? Refer to Matt Welch's writings on that, but it's only one example)