« Why we have the 4th Amendment: a profoundly disturbing report from Iraq. | Main | The Raid - In Case You Missed It »


February 22, 2006

Who Is The Crazy Person In The Room?

-- by Dave Johnson

I've said before that when I try to talk about the stuff that the Republicans are up to, to people who don't really follow the news, they think I'M the crazy person!

My wife and I share a house with a roommate who doesn't really follow the news. Today I told him that last week the Vice President of the United States shot a man in the face with a shotgun, and blamed the guy he shot, and then when he got out of the hospital the guy apologized for the pain he had caused the VP -- and then this week the President of the United States allowed our ports to be sold to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

You should have seen how he looked at me.

Posted by Dave Johnson at February 22, 2006 9:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1632

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Is The Crazy Person In The Room?:

» The Bogs' Message: The Nature Of American Government Has Changed from Seeing the Forest
In Administration tells Congress (again) - We won't abide by your "laws" Glenn Greenwald lays it out:The reality is that the Administration has been making clear for quite some time that they have unlimited power and that nothing -- not... [Read More]

Tracked on March 25, 2006 12:44 PM

» How To Break Through from Seeing the Forest
A while back I wrote a post, Who Is The Crazy Person In The Room? talking about how regular people think YOU are demented or something if you try to describe what's going on with the Republicans in Washington. I'm... [Read More]

Tracked on May 9, 2006 10:48 AM


Comments

I think that's how they get away with it. Really.

Explain Diebold and the PNAC dreams of endless war, expl;ain the new Pearl Harbor.

Their behavior is so over the top it is completely unbelievable to anybody not willing to look at it.

While you are at it, could you explain how Richard Pearle got in the middle of the UAE deal?

Posted by: grannyinsanity at February 23, 2006 12:54 AM

Yeah, I get those strange looks myself sometimes. But you can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: fdtate at February 23, 2006 2:55 AM

If you live under an area that has been extensively chemtrailed, you get used to people from other areas, even informed people, looking at you like you're a sasquatch spotter when you tell them about what is happening to your town.
I live in Pagosa Springs, CO. Do a google search for "pagosa springs chemtrails" and see what comes up.

Posted by: The_Cosmic_Fluke at February 23, 2006 5:14 AM

While reporting on the UAE deal and how it will impact NYC, the reporter was standing in front of my place so they could photograph the pier across the street! Anybody who wants to argue that this is a great deal and not a security threat -- I say OK, please trade apartments with me. I'll bet I wouldn't get many takers on this one.

Posted by: MJ at February 23, 2006 5:52 AM

I find it amazing how people don't even respond to facts when they argue a Republican posision.

I was listening to a radio call-in show today discussing the UAE Port sale. A guy called up and said "you have to realize that a private company is buying these ports".

The host interrupted him and said "actually, it's not a private company, it's a state-owned company owned by UAE".

The guy retorted back -- "no, it's a business deal, it's strictly business, a company is buying them".

The host said "I'm just correcting what you said -- they are being bought by a state-owned company, not a private company".

The guy tried a different tack: "Oh, and I suppose you're going to tell me that George Bush makes up the menu for the White House"?

The host said "Huh? I'm only correcting what you said, the company is owned by the UAE".

The guy kept on -- "Well, what about the ports owned by the Chinese? The ChiComs? Anyways, it's just business, that's all".

At that point he was cut off because they had to go to the news.

This is all really scary -- this guy was clearly attempting to regurgitate something that had been fed to him by a slanted source and would not respond to simple facts. He was like a zombie.

I guess that's what you get when you cut funding to the schools -- pliant idiots.

"Wait a minute, you can't fool me. Rush said that you'd try to say that you're right because you think you're smarter than me..."

Posted by: NoPolitician at February 23, 2006 7:58 AM

I believe Krugman made this point at the beginning of his recent book. That if the leadership's actions and words are outrageous enough, people simply won't believe that the leadership is really doing those things.

Ironically, Krugman came to this realization while reading the doctoral dissertation of none other than Henry Kissinger, who was looking at how radical movements took over countries -- and yes, one of his examples was Hitler. What Hitler was doing, and was intending to do, was plain for all to see, but the moderate leaders pooh-poohed it saying "they don't really mean all that stuff -- no one would really do all that -- they are just exaggerating."

Unfortunately, this situation is way too common on a smaller level. Suppose you have a manager or administrator who is doing all kinds of nasty things on the side -- but that person holds a respected position and has a great reputation. Anything you say against him will be automatically disbelieved.

Posted by: Blue in a red state at February 23, 2006 9:29 AM

More irresponsible posting by Dave.....

Dave lied by writing: "...the Vice President of the United States shot a man in the face with a shotgun, and blamed the guy he shot..."

The VP took full responsibility for the shooting accident. He did NOT blame his hunting buddy.

Dave is misinformed by writing: "this week the President of the United States allowed our ports to be sold to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates."

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was rigorously reviewed by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

The Coast Guard, Customs agents, and port authority still handle all security - all U.S. control. The labor will still be unionized, U.S. longshoremen. The only things that change are the sign at the gate and who reaps the profits. The switch from the British leasing terminals to a UAE company leasing them is not nearly so dramatic as you pretend it to be.


Posted by: Sickofspin at February 23, 2006 9:41 AM

Hey, Sickofspin, where do you live? You want a nice apartment in Manhattan, cheap? Wherever you are, I'll gladly trade with you.

I hate to break the news to you, but the Coast Guard does NOT handle security. It sets regulations. It's up to the port management to handle security. Look it up. And the Port Authority of NY and NJ is suing in court to stop the deal. Now, why would they do that? Huh?

Posted by: MJ at February 23, 2006 9:50 AM

"The VP took full responsibility for the shooting accident. He did NOT blame his hunting buddy."

he sent people out to say that it was Whittigton's fault.

"The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said."

Rumsfeld is one of those on the committee, and he says he didn't hear about it until he read about it in the press.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 23, 2006 9:59 AM

All you libs sudden concern about our national security is touching. It's also transparent. It's unbelievable that you guys continue to play your Bush bashing games, while being totally oblivious to how you look to the average American. This issue is no different than WMD, National Guard, Abu Grahib, Cheny hunting accident, Florida vote count, Katrina, etc, etc, etc. You contrive to make every real and imagined issue the end of the world as we know it. Haven't you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? No one is paying attention to your cries. This issue will go away, just like all the others, and once again George Bush will have the last laugh. You lose elections, you lose every debate on the issues, and yet you continue to run the same play over and over again. C'mon guys, give us a game!

Posted by: HappyOD at February 23, 2006 11:05 AM

My mother lives a few blocks from the WTC,, so you can take your "libs sudden concern about our national security is touching" and shove it up your ass, Mr. Junior Propagandist.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 23, 2006 12:08 PM

Dave,

I think you're a little confused. The title on this weblog says "investigating" how the Right is beating the dems, not "providing examples" of how the Right is beating the dems. Alway glad to be of service. Happy.

Posted by: HappyOD at February 23, 2006 12:14 PM

So Dave, are you a habitual liar?

Cheney 'didn't send anyone out' to claim the accident was Whittington's fault. All you have conveyed is warped speculation and that's a totally irresponsible thing to do. Your attempt to twist what someone said in summing up what happened that day, into a placement of blame on Whittington is a flagrant disregard for the reality of the situation, misinforming, and pathetic.

Regarding Rumsfeld, please show that he is indeed a member of that committee.

Posted by: Sickofspin at February 23, 2006 12:23 PM

"Cheney 'didn't send anyone out' to claim the accident was Whittington's fault."

Mary Matilin and Scott McClellan both report to Cheney, and both repeated that line after the shooting.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 23, 2006 12:52 PM

'I think that's how they get away with it.'
I think so, too, grannyinsanity!

Posted by: Helga Fremlin at February 23, 2006 2:30 PM

Dave,

Mary Matalin no longer serves in the capacity of political counselor to the Vice President and Scott McClellan does not report to Cheney. So your comment is just flat wrong. Besides, you weren't even brave enough to provide any quotes to substantiate your claim. And again, shame on your for trying to parlay someone issuing a simple recap of events to mean a placement of blame. That's simply irresponsible.

RE: Rumsfeld/Committee....
I challenged you to show proof to your claim, you have failed to do so.

Posted by: Sickofspin at February 23, 2006 2:37 PM

Hmm, you seem troll infested.

But in answer to your post: they get away with it because the lunacy just keeps on coming -- one, two, three or more outrages to common sense, law, and decency daily. People get numb. You are crazy because you are still trying to pay attention. Me too.

Posted by: janinsanfran at February 23, 2006 9:59 PM

Sickofspin, you are a true piece of work. Do you read what you write? And what flavor is the kool-aid?

Have fun in the Utopia that your administration is building. And stay away from the red pills.

Posted by: Molly Douthett at February 24, 2006 6:08 AM

Dave,

You still can't seem to find it in you to answer my direct challenges to you. As for you other liberals, you seem content to ignore the challenges as well in 'responding', as if your responses really have any merit..... Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Posted by: Sickofspin at February 24, 2006 7:42 AM

Sick, you don't seem to stay on topic or travel well with the crowd.

Dave is not making things up and most any of us would be more than happy to look up references to your asinine requests if we thought you were the slightest bit sincere but we don't.

I think you are acting like an overgrown toddler whoi needs a nap but chooses to see how much time and attention he can waste not because he needs it, but because he is cranky and self centered enough to punish everyone else when he feels bad.

Answer :

Do you love the Constitution of the United States of America or not?

Posted by: grannyinsanity [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 24, 2006 7:38 PM

I don't follow the new. I am in panic.

Posted by: Ray at March 25, 2006 4:26 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page