Discount Freedom

[digitaldiscipline]

Keith Olbermann: Bush Owes Us An Apology

Of course, we won't get it. He probably doesn't even apologize do Laura for being a three-hump chump in the sack.

An excerpt, from the crux of the piece:

In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.

“It's unacceptable to think," he said.

It is never unacceptable to think.

And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.

That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.

Seriously, can we impeach this asshat yet? Unfortunately, a citizen cannot initiate impeachment proceedings, unless it's by crafting such a compelling letter to one's Representative (and, later, their Senator) that they will do so on behalf of their constituency. [A good precis on impeachment.]

In a slightly different vein, but repeating the same refrain as has been previously bandied about, Razerwolfe's summation of the current Islamo/Catholic pissing match.

Pope "Eggs" Benedict: This guy, six hundred years ago, said some critical things about religion & violence and happened to mention Mohammed. I'm not saying that Islamists are violent asshats, I'm saying "violence isn't a good way to spread religion."
Islamist Nutjobs: *react like violent asshats and go 'splody*
Media: *inexplicably side with nutjobs*
The Vatican: *facepalm*

Audio courtesy of music to be disgusted to.

Comments

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

...
I don't really know. I could see it going that way...under certain circumstances. Those circumstances don't really exist at this time.

I think the Church, which I was raised and still consider myself a member of, has become a bunch of wusses, really. If you want to see an example of how I think a Pope should really act, view a copy of the movie "The Shoes Of The Fisherman" sometime. The current administration is still very conservative and very prone to inaction.

I can say that Pope Benedict is a time-server, a stopgap for the next Pope. The cardinals are still transitioning from older men to younger men, more suited for a new century. The process was not completed when John Paul II died; thus the election of Benedict to 'hold the throne' until such time as a younger man will be elected.

Our next Pope will be young [by comparison] and he will be a firebrand. This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Andre_Rodriguez_Maradiaga) has a large chance of being the next one.

I think on the election of that next one, the Catholic church will enter a period of reorganization and -very- strong, uh, celebration of certain causes. One possible thing might be telling Islam to shut the fuck up, in a very religious fashion. In any case, the Pope is bound to be outspoken about this being right, this being wrong, and this needing to be reformed. Right now.

I don't disapprove, though I disagree with much of the doctrine, simply because I still see the Church as a primary force for good in the world. I don't think anyone who is supposed to be 'good', including our own government, has a lot of cojones at the moment for standing up, saying "This is wrong.", and standing firm.

*shrugs*

Personal opinion. YMMV.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I can see that, and heard a lot of similar discussion when Ratzinger was elected vis a vis his being a "placeholder."