Brad's Brain: An Open Letter or The Mirror has Two Faces (thanks Babs)

Brad's Brain: An Open Letter

I enjoyed reading this very much and thought with a very few minor tweaks or effort. I left the links intact, since they do speak to the surreal ness of the “alternate universe,” better than I ever could.

To 49% of the American Voting Public:

"Way back in November of 2004, you all went to your local polls and cast your ballot for John F. Kerry for president. You may have done so for many reasons. Perhaps you don't pay attention to the news or history. Perhaps you've been blinded by Democratic spin and voted against your self-interests. Or perhaps you're in the lowest .05 percent of wage-earners in the nation, and you're the only people that Kerry's programs would have helped. You may well have done it because you can't stand being honest about the fact that it is all just rhetoric about these damn fags and black people running around, hiding behind abortion as a woman’s right and what-not.

But I think I know you. I think the real reason you pulled that proverbial lever for Kerry is because you're afraid. You're afraid that September 11 was a neo-con conspiracy! You were afraid to stop and think for a moment that the world isn’t just hunky dorry and that the 90’s as well as Vietnam could be returned to. Understandable… It could happen in dreams. The "smoking gun" COULD be hidden within Farenheit 911. Probably not, but fear generated by your own rhetoric is rarely rational, is it?

You heard all the talk about how Republicans, George Bush in particular, are trigger happy and wouldn’t give 15 more years of inspections. After all, Bush was the one who only had 9 months to put the intel together and still stopped September 11 before -- wait, sorry; that wasn’t terribly realistic of me to think, after all the previous administration didn’t leave anything detailed behind; and why not “rush to war,” after playing the same game for a decade and a half, especially after 9/11. Anyway, you felt safer with Kerry, ‘cause he would have done things better. For some reason, because he was personally hearing from world leaders that they sure wish he was in charge and would stand up to those terrorists and their nuance with his and the nuance of other cheese eating surrender monkeys! I don’t blame you for believing he would have done it better; he does parlez-vous francais, non? When he promised you he would get Osama bin Laden, he didn’t need to put any reality into finding a needle in a haystack. Or that it could take time as the war on terror (stupid name), would take.

Okay, bad example. Band of Brothers, that's right. He showed you a commercial with him wondering around the jungle in an after the fact and re-enacted escapade like he was some Macarthur and that it could come in handy later. He also supported his “Band of Brothers,” (not the ones in his boat), by pushing to get them home sooner by saying they were war criminals; the logic of which, was “well they’ll bring them home.” That's what it was.

Kerry showed you his strength by weak-wristedly saluting at his convention, you know, the one about Vietnam. Were Kerry president now, this week he would be stating, in no uncertain terms, how foolish it would be to not trust our security to our "allies" or even do it ourselves (as if!), as Jacques just said to him a couple weeks ago in Davos, “oui, oui, non? He spit in the face of all his fellow "East Coast Liberals" who occasionally get things right (the odds thing again) and said it didn't make sense to farm out our border security to the United Arab Emirates. The liberals would have you believe that they were the only ones that realize the UAE was a financial and operational supporter of the very same terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Or that they were one of only three nations who recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan.

You're smarter than that, though. You know the old adage: "who better to keep us safe than those that live by the poll?" After all, why would they use their unfettered access to our ports for anything nefarious? They're not IRAQIS or anything!

And you know that regardless of whether said corporation is run by a terrorist-sponsoring government, it is still ALWAYS in our best interest to not farm as much out to corporate interests as we can, since we need to punish those that succeed. Especially control of our most important ports.

And what about all those nay-saying, pre-September 11 mind-set, flip-flopping Democrats (and traitorous Republicans!) who have proposed legislation to bar the government from granting control of the ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami to a country that is a hot-bed for anti-American sentiment? I mean golly, it is a matter of odds that they’ll get something right Fuck you, that's what! President Bush has made it crystal clear that he will veto any such nonsense, though it is probably only a threat as he hasn’t had the nerve to veto anything that slows the Democratic Socialist dream, no matter how unrealistic . And he doesn't whip out that card for any old law. Literally.

Suck on that, Intelligentsia! (That means "intellectual elite". Or "smart people".)

Way to go, guys! God only knows what would happen if those liberal losers had their way on absolutely everything else and let an unmistakable transaction Dubai Ports World taking over our port management! Now we can worry about more pressing issues, like making sure those damn illegal Mexicans, sorry, Illegal aliens, no wait…undocumented aliens,….no, uh undocumented workers,….er migrant workers get in here whenever they want and take over our country, by economically wiping it out, when so many others have had to earn their way to citizenship."