daily preciousness

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

election blues



I'm exhausted and depressed. I told everybody at work that I was emotionally hungover from watching the election results. This is going to be a difficult four years for me. Maybe I should join the Log Cabin Republicans and see what happens. Maybe I can jumpstart a movement to focus on the real evils in this country: mainly ignorance and prejudice. Those are the most important moral issues worth confronting, if you ask me.

It makes me very sad to think that half the people of this country simply can't understand that things are going terribly, horribly wrong with a country.

They don't realize that "Yee-haa!" is not a viable foreign policy.

They don't know that tens of thousands of lives have been lost on a whim. (And a changing whim at that. Who knows what reasons he'll concoct next week about why we went into Iraq. I've heard more answers for this than I can count.)

They can't wrap their minds around the concept of that church and state should simply not overlap. (Amen!)

They can't comprehend the terrible wrongs committed in the name of "freedom." They cannot see what the rest of the planet sees: a leader who constantly makes the wrong choices.

And if they can't understand these issues, then they certainly cannot understand why I'm so passionate about them. I've got a big job to do over the next four years while the president continues to bungle his!

posted by jblend at Wednesday, November 03, 2004

5 Comments:

  • I would not cite that Lancet study. The methodology is faulty.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 04, 2004 12:11 AM  

  • "Yee Hah" The best summary of the Bush foreign policy so far. Thanks.

    By Blogger Steve, at November 05, 2004 12:11 PM  

  • Dariush,

    I assure you that your friends are not representative. In fact, most polls of other countries were very anti-Bush. In England, for example, Bush was picked as "best villain" in a movie last year. When you're up against Predator and Alien, I'd say that (p)Resident Evil is pretty darned scary!

    Thanks for your comment,
    J

    By Blogger jblend, at November 05, 2004 12:52 PM  

  • Regarding the Lancet Study,

    Which is a better count of civilian casualties, the U.S. count, which does not exist because it leads to culpability, or the Lancet study, published in a British journal similar to the Journal of the American Medical Association?

    I would say that a study in a peer-reviewed medical journal is better than no study at all. Yes, it may be flawed, but at least somebody has bothered to estimate the carnage inflicted because of (A) Yellow Cake (B) Bad, bad man or (C) whatever the raison du jour they throw out at us.

    Thanks for your comment.

    By Blogger jblend, at November 05, 2004 1:00 PM  

  • My comment on the Lancet study is that the confidence interval on the figures that they used was not good. Their statistics came out with a number of casualties that range from a low of around 9,000 to a high of around 198,000. When you are getting that big a range you might as well pull a number out of the air. Admittedly the 100,000 figure was the median point so it could be right but it is just as likely to be wrong. Most of the estimates from even anti-Bush sites are in the 10 to 20 thousand range.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 05, 2004 1:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home