They are dead. And George Bush killed them

Harry Browne, the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000 talks about the Iraq war and our psychopathic President in Why I Am Obsessed With War.

George Bush was reinaugurated in Washington last week. Fittingly, the inauguration parade route was lined the entire way with armed guards - so many armed guards that they had to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. As with the rest of America, Washington, D.C. was in a state of siege.

The militant air of the entire affair was very much like a parade in the old Soviet Union or even in Nazi Germany.

And he used the word "freedom" but was really talking about world domination.

And in his speech, George Bush proclaimed his desire for world domination - to have the power and the right to decide who is good and who is bad, who shall live and who shall die, what form of government will exist in each nation.

He made it clear that if he has a use for your government, you will keep it - no matter how oppressive.

But if your government doesn't suit him, if it declares its independence from the United States, we will "liberate" your country and impose what we call "democracy" on it - no matter how advanced your civilization, no matter how much or how little your people may approve of your current form of government.

Like the word "freedom", the word "sacrifice" becomes meaningless when it comes from the mouth of George W. Bush.

A January 21st editorial in The Wall Street Journal summed up George Bush's inauguration speech very neatly:

The entire speech was about Iraq, as a way of explaining to Americans why the sacrifice our troops are making there is justified.

Aye, and there's the rub.

Troops don't sacrifice. Only individuals can sacrifice. For some of them, the sacrifice is a year out of their lives. For others, the sacrifice is in living for a year or more in constant fear and danger.

But for too many, the sacrifice is one's life. The loss of one's whole life.

[.......]

George Bush can speak cavalierly about such sacrifices. He can say "freedom is always worth it." He can speak with gratitude about such sacrifices - because he is making no sacrifice whatsoever.

[.......]

He can’t return to a mother her dead son. He can't return to a wife her dead husband. He can't bring a dead soldier back to raise his children. He can't do anything to restore what he has stolen from people with his glib assurances about WMDs, mobile bioweapons labs, unmanned planes dropping chemical weapons on the East Coast of the United States, about freedom always being worth the price - a price that to him is effectively zero.

The dead are dead, and they can't come back. They won't dance at any inaugural balls - or even attend their alumni reunions. They won’t attend presidential banquets - or even eat at the local coffee shop. Not ever again.

They are dead. And George Bush killed them. He killed them as certainly as though he personally had fired a rocket launcher at their homes.

So who and what is George W. Bush?

If he didn't know that his plan to "liberate" people who hadn't asked to be liberated, to bring democracy to people who hadn't asked for democracy, would lead to the deaths of thousands of people, he is not only incompetent and unfit to hold office, he is surely psychopathic and needs to be incarcerated.

Only a psychopath would stand in the midst of thousands of security guards and speak of "the force of human freedom."

Only a man so insulated from the real world by palace sycophants, by little Napoleons filled with utopian fantasies, and by callous, ambitious schemers to whom the lives of others mean nothing - only a man so insulated could possibly speak of "the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Only a man with no link to reality could start a war that destroys lives and families and then say, "Every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."

Only a snake oil salesman can rain missiles and bombs on other countries and then say that no "human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Only a man divorced from human reason can imprison people - possibly for life - without due process of law and then say that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

Only a liar can proclaim that he will decide which countries must be remade and then say, "No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."

Only a devious schemer can announce a goal of "ending tyranny in our world" while he is imposing a new tyranny in his own country - our country.

So you tell me: what kind of a President do we have?

This is a more eloquent condemnation than I have heard from anyone on the left. We need to listen to these "true conservatives" and learn. We may find that progressives and conservatives share many core values one of which is George W. Bush is evil.

Note
I have a post on a commentary by conservative Lew Rockwell on the Republican pundits who shill for the Bush administration over at Middle Earth Journal, Interesting thoughts from a "true" conservative.

Just when you thought they couldn't sink ANY lower ... they do.

Via Daily Kos and the Washington Post, we learn that today world leaders from all across the globe are meeting in Auschwitz to celebrate the 60th anniversary of its liberation. Solemn figures stood in the death camp for the solemn ceremony, dressed in respectful black.

Er, except for our guy, who showed up in a olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood embroidered with his name; a ski cap with "Staff 2001" on it; and thick, brown, lace-up hiking boots.

And, no, it wasn't the cold weather.

I ... just don't know what to say. Even after all they've done so far, I still honestly didn't think anyone in the Bush Administration could do something as scuzzy as disrespecting the deaths of six million Jews in this fashion.

Thankfully, the mainstream media's appears to have caught on to this story for a few news cycles — hopefully it'll make at least a minor impact.

Best Joke I've Heard This Year ...

With much thanks to my friend Michael Hanscom:

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. There is no shortage of filament. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

Followed up by:

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Seven:

• One to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced,
  
• One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about the light bulb,
  
• One to blame the previous administration for the need for a new lightbulb,
  
• One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs,
  
• One to get together with Dick Cheney and figure out how to pay Halliburton one million dollars for a light bulb,
  
• One to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the light bulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag, and, finally ...
  
• One to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
  

Social Security Plan

Yuval Rubinstein over at the Left Coaster has a great partial Social Security privitization plan.

Under my plan, registered Republicans would be covered by the Bush administration's private accounts scheme, while those of us who are registered Democrats will remain under the current system. Independents and voters belonging to third parties will be able to choose which system to belong. Therefore, us Democrats will serve as the control group, while the average folk in the Republican party will serve as the test subjects for the president's plan. This side-by-side comparison will tell us a great deal about which pension scheme is more beneficial, as in the Chilean example.

Put your money where your mouth is. We would see how many Republicans are really part of the Cult of Bushco.

Gonzales' Counsel Was Unethical -- And That Does Matter

I respectfully disagree with Mu's statement regarding ignoring lawyers' morality and Gonzales' fitness for Attorney General. I'm a legal assistant and have worked for over seven years now amidst lawyers. While I don't know as much about the legal field as lawyers, I do understand more about the industry than an average individual, just by the nature of working in and among them for seven years.

To state, as Mu does, that every lawyer has behaved immorally at some point in their career is really an insult to all lawyers in America, a lot of which have made a point of striving for honesty and morality. Yes, it's an easy insult to make, since many lawyers have done many crooked things for many years, and as a result they are not exactly beloved by our country or its populace. I'm not defending all of them, believe you me. Even most lawyers wouldn't try to defend all of their brethren — like any profession that affords significant power to its practitioners, it's a profession that has fairly significant problems with abuse of said power.

But many lawyers have done may wonderful things for many years, as well. The ACLU often brings suits I feel are nonsense, but they've also stomped into court fighting tooth and nail to curb the worst of the PATRIOT Act's and Ashcroft'ss excesses, and that's why I annually pry a little bit out of my budget to donate to them. Trial lawyers (or, as Lakoff might put it, "public protection lawyers") may often bring nuisance lawsuits, but how often are others fighting to curb corporate excesses and protect people's health and safety?

And, on a personal note, I worked for an attorney for five and a half years, and when she told me she was going to try to become a judge, I worked my tail off trying to get her elected (including standing outside of a polling place for 13 hours on a miserable Chicago winter day), because she had demonstrated such overwhelming honesty and intelligence during my time working for her that I knew she'd do a lot of good on the bench. And she won. A moment where the system actually worked.

With all due respect to Mu (whose writings here I often enjoy), like many generalizations, his generalization about the actions of lawyers falls significantly short of truth, and as such, can't effectively be used to defend Gonzales' prior history of unethical counsel to Dubya. There are ethical codes governing lawyers' conducts. There is a sense of morality governing lawyers' conduct. They are not exempt from ethics and morality; they are not bound to only serve their client's wishes without considering the morality and ethics (not to mention legality) of said wishes. In some states, legal ethics are even bound into law, and even when not, ethics violations always carry severe consequences for attorneys. Browse a bit through the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission's website sometime.

Mu reminds us that Gonzales is not nominated for the Supreme Court, but will be a Cabinet secretary. I think he fails to understand the significance of the Attorney General being the top law enforcement officer in the country. A Cabinet secretary post is not a insignificant advisory role — each secretary heads up a department of the government, and Gonzales will head up the Department of Justice. Take a look at what agencies are under the Department of Justice. The scope is immense, and we will be consolidating all of that power under the thumb of a man who has demonstrated a willingness to disregard what is right to do anything for his client. I do not trust that man to suddenly become objective and put his country in front of the man who elevated him to such a position of power.

Do we really want a man who could ethically justify torture, and whose opinion of the Geneva Conventions is that they are "quaint," in charge of our country's prison system?

An attorney just doesn't give his client the advice they want to hear, he (or she) is supposed to give them good counsel of the law. A lawyer is not exempt from morality and ethics. I've seen attorneys base their decisions not only on what is best for their client but on what is morally and legally right.

Gonzales didn't factor that into any of his decisions. As such, I think he's horrifically unfit to be the one to lead our country's law enforcement and efforts towards justice.

Mu and I do agree on one thing, though. If it was a choice between putting in Gonzales or keeping this numbnutz around, I'd have picked Gonzales in a heartbeat. But I think Ashcroft was gonna go either way — and Bush could have picked a far less offensive candidate than the man who's always been his favorite legal toady.

State of the Union

I note with some passing interest that despite the State of the Union traditionally being given the last Tuesday of every January, this time, it's going to be delivered on Wednesday, February 2.

I briefly was puzzled. Why the delay? After all, State of the Union addresses have almost never been delivered that late in the year, at least according to the above cited Wikipedia article.

Then I thought for a moment, and went "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh." Duh.

Have I got a deal for you

The Chilean private accounts plan is given as an example of success by proponents of a similar plan in the US. The truth is after 25 years Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan.

[S]ANTIAGO, Chile - Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.
[.......]
For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month.
[....]
Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system
Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month.

"Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."

Hidden fees that took one third of their investment. You can see why Wall Street is so excited about the Bush plan, another way for them to get their hands in your pocket. They are not satisfied to get a chunk of the cash in your IRA's and 401K's they now want a piece of the "Secure" part of your retirement savings.
Make no doubt, the folks on Wall Street who pushed Enron and Worldcom are going to be throwing lots of money to Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican. Let your Lawmakers know that your not fooled.

For a list of related posts see the Index of posts on Social Security.

Hope for the Progressives?

Each evening, I go home and among other things fire up my newsreader, NetNewsWire, which scans the RSS feeds of at this point about 110 websites. (That sounds like a large number of websites, but reading newsfeeds is actually a very different experience than hitting each individual website. You spend a lot less time yet are able to keep up on your favorite websites' contents, including ours. (See the "RSS feed" button at the top of the page.) If you've not begun using RSS, you're missing out on quite a lot — one colleague said it pretty much revolutionized his use of the Web, and he is most definitely not prone to hyperbole. Try NetNewsWire if you're on a Mac or FeedDemon if you're on a Windows machine.)

Anyway, I've gone a bit off-topic. One of the above-mentioned feeds is a feed generated by a website I've mentioned before, GovTrack.Us, which culls statements by Durbin, Obama, and Schakowsky from the Congressional Record. And so I found myself reading Sen. Durbin's speech in Congress about the legislative priorities of the Democratic side of Congress. (Why is this significant to all, and not just Illinois residents? Since Durbin is the Senate minority whip, he's essentially second-in-command of the Senate Democrats, with Tennessee's Sen. Reid being the minority leader.)

As I began to read Durbin's remarks, I grew very disappointed. The bulwark of his comments centered around the same old problem lately of the Democrats not sending a clear message of what progressive principles they stand for, and instead spending most of their time attacking (and thus reinforcing) the message the other side is giving. (As Lakoff once put it, it was fatal for Nixon to say, "I am not a crook," because it meant that Nixon was introducing the concept of "crook" into that situation, even in negation.)

Durbin can't seem to articulate what Democrats' first priority is, first saying:

On the Democratic side, we have a different approach. Our first priority is the title of "putting America's security first, standing with our troops."

but later saying:

We believe on the Democratic side that funding education across America is our highest priority.

Which is it? And, of course, there was this disgustingly tasteless choice of analogies:

I said at a press conference today, and I believe it, the political tsunami that is about to hit us in the United States relates to pensions and health care for retirees.

Yet as I read the conclusion of Durbin's remarks, I perked up a lot, because he seemed to almost quote directly out of Lakoff's concepts and speak about progressive principles in general:

[W]e also understand that in many instances the strength of our Nation is when we stand together — for fairness when it comes to health care, for opportunity when it comes to education, to have protection when it comes to your pension and your future.

We need a balance. Walking away from Government, as an evil entity, is ignoring the fact that Government, in many instances, is just the American family at large. As my wife and I care for our children, we care for others in this country and those who are shortchanged by this system and who are not protected. Even if it does not affect me directly and personally, it affects this country, and it affects my future.

So I hope we can find some balance. I hope, when it is all said and done, we do not get so caught up in this alluring notion of the ownership society that we forget, as we are learning with our military, we have learned in our history, there are times when we need to stand together as a nation for fairness and for justice. We say here is security, opportunity, and making certain people have responsibility in their actions.

Now that was fucking inspiring to see from a Democrat's mouth, pardon ma français. I hope we hear a lot more of that kind of talk in the 109th Congress from all the Democrats. It's time that Democrats actually grow a pair and start advocating progressive principles, instead of just decrying neoconservative ones.

Third-hand Commentary

I comment on Joe Gandleman's comments about current Russian Anti-Semitism over on my personal blog. I'm pretty much in a tizzy over this.

Hate First

Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel

Proving to all that they are totaling nuts, the Radical Christian Right has given Bush an ultimatum that they will not support his Social Security Privatization without an anti gay marriage constitutional amendment. They even admit that such reform is not in their best interest but they will support it if they get their 16th century agenda on the front burner.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

The Bush administration and the Republicans courting the hateful fundamentalist Christians may come with a big price tag. These people are dangerous because they are literally insane. Supporting programs that you know are not in your best interests qualifies as insanity. It will be interesting to see how the Rovians respond to this. I think this may be the beginning of the end of Radical Christian support for the Republicans. I fully expect them to have their own presidential candidate in 2008 and local tickets before then.

Pretty face....Empty Head

If there was ever any doubt that Brian Williams got the anchor job entirely because of his looks there isn't any now.
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams thinks Limbaugh should get more credit

Brian Williams, who replaced Tom Brokaw as anchor and managing editor of NBC's Nightly News on December 2, 2004, said in an interview with C-SPAN founder, president, and CEO Brian Lamb: "it's my duty to listen to [nationally syndicated radio host] Rush" Limbaugh and that "Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due."

From the December 26, 2004, interview:

WILLIAMS: I do listen to Rush. I listen to it from a radio in my office, or depending on my day, if I'm in the car, I will listen to Rush. And he will tell you I've been listening for years. I think it's my duty to listen to Rush. I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due, because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country. No one was talking to them.

[...]

Rush said to millions of Americans, you have a home. Come with me. For three hours a day you can listen and hear the like-minded calling in from across the country, and I'll read to you things perhaps you didn't see that are out there. I think Rush gave birth to the FOX News Channel. I think Rush helped to give birth to a movement. I think he played his part in the Contract with America. So I hope he gets his due as a broadcaster.

Media matters has examples of the kind of trash Limbaugh should get credit for. Of course I will give Limbaugh credit for something; encouraging the hateful ignorance that has made the United States feared and hated all over the world.

It's Time I Made a Full Disclosure

With regards to Jazz's post below entitled "We Get Letters":

There are generally a bunch of things linked from the right hand column of Running Scared. They change often. NONE of them... and I mean absolutely zero, are paying customers. They are things that I feel are worth linking. Even the rest of the bloggers here don't put any links to any organizations (except possibly other bloggers they like) on this page without talking to me first. It's just things that I (or we) feel supportive of. Not paid.

If this ever changes in the future, I will loudly proclaim it first, but nothing you see there is a paid ad.

Now that this has all come to light, I should disclose my weekly salary from Jazz Enterprises, Ltd. of $100,000, and that $25,000 stipend I demand of each link I manage to sneak into the sidebar under Jazz's nose. And Jazz, you just thought I was doing that CSS work out of the goodness of my heart, didn't you!

Furthermore, my endorsement of George Lakoff in an earlier blog entry came at a price of $15,000 (in rolls of nickels) and 100 free copies of his book, and I'm getting a paid stipend of 10 Pizza Hut gift certificates per week from the Dean for DNC Chair campaign to occasionally plug him here.

I'm seeing if I can swing something with the Bush administration for a combo package of two "Get Out of Draft FREE" cards and $100,000. Hey, it's not Armstrong Williams' kind of money, but I don't have his stature. So if you see me suddenly defending that son of a b—

*phone rings* Be right back.

Where was I? Oh, yes. So if you see me suddenly coming to my senses and realizing that Bush and Cheney have our best interests at heart and are merely exercising calm and responsible leadership in a time of w— pardon me for a second.

[slightly distant retching noise]

I'm sorry, I'll have to come back to that thought in a later blog entry.

Anyway, any telephone inquiries about these arrangements should be directed to my business manager, whose telephone number is (800) 282-2882.

Back to the 16th Century

The Washington Post has an editorial today that reinforces our depression about the future of this United States, God and Darwin.

WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory" that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.

And it's working. We discussed the numbers here in November and were frightened then. The WaPo column confirms the depressing numbers:

Perhaps partly as a result, a startling 55 percent of Americans -- and 67 percent of those who voted for President Bush -- do not, according to a recent CBS poll, believe in evolution at all. According to a recent Gallup poll, about a third of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true. Some of these believers have persuaded politicians, school boards and parents across the country to question their children's textbooks. In states as diverse as Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kansas, Montana, Arkansas and Mississippi, school boards are arguing over whether to include "intelligent design" in their curriculums. Last week, in Pennsylvania's Dover School District, an administrator read a statement to ninth-grade biology students saying that evolution is not fact. Over the objections of ninth-grade science teachers and of parents who have filed suit, he offered "intelligent design" as an alternative. Also last week, a Georgia county school board voted to appeal a judge's decision to remove stickers describing evolution as a "theory, not a fact" from school textbooks.

The fact remains "intelligent design" is religion, it is not science and teaching it as science violates the separation of church and state and threatens science in the United States.

In both cases, the anti-evolutionists have been very careful in their choice of language, eschewing mentions of God or the Bible. Nevertheless, their intent was clear. As the lawsuit filed by Dover parents states, "intelligent design is neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument or assertion that falls outside the realm of science." Discussion of religion in a history or philosophy class is legitimate and appropriate. To teach intelligent design as science in public schools is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

It also violates principles of common sense. In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science. The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won't be long before the American scientific community -- which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools -- ceases to lead the world.

I wonder if those who desire to return to the 16th century really realize what it was like for the vast majority of the population. I doubt it. It is not Islamic fundementalists that are a threat to this country it is the Radical Christian fundementalists and looking at the numbers it looks like they are winning.

Going Out of Style

Is the dollar's attractiveness really just a trend? MSNBC reports Central banks shift reserves away from U.S.

It's true that the dollar has been strong for a long time, but now, according to this article,

...70 percent of central bank reserve managers said they had increased their exposure to the euro over the past two years. The majority thought eurozone money and debt markets were as attractive a destination for investment as the U.S.

Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned in November that there was a limit to the willingness of foreign governments to finance the U.S. current account deficit.

So, these banks are finding that investing in places other than the U.S. is just as attractive to them now? Is the idea that we're a superpower fading out of fashion like so many straight-legged jeans? Does the Euro make you hips look smaller the way that pants with a slight flare do? OK, that's probably going a bit too far.

Still, this does not bode well. Conservative estimates state that we're (the U.S.) going to need to borrow another $500 billion dollars over the next 4 years. If foreign banks are less eager for the business from our government, that money could cost us more than we were "banking" on, or even worse, just not be made available to us. Now, I know that the government borrows from itself, as it were, using some sort of arcane system that I won't pretend to understand. How long can we keep doing this before our economy actually gets bad enough to collapse? How long before a fistfull of dollars is about as attractive as a fistfull of neon sweatshirts with the collars cut off? I don't think it's soon, but this is one trend that I'd prefer to see reversed.

Quick Technical Note

In order to accommodate some slight typographical problems we were experiencing, the site's "encoding" has been changed in Blogger from Western to Unicode. I don't believe it should actually make an iota of difference to anyone's browsing experience, but if you're experiencing a change as a result, please drop me a line by clicking the "mail" link next to Mike on the righthand side. Thanks.

1984 in 2005

Bilmon does another nice job of placing news clips from the present next to quotes from litterature from the past.

The inaugural theme of tyranny and terrorism juxtaposed with freedom and security was music to the ears of the largely Republican crowd. The proudly partisan audience was unanimous in its choice of heroes and villains. They jeered when defeated Democrat presidential contender John Kerry appeared on a giant screen.
Melbourne Herald Sun
Faithful Turn Up in Force
January 22, 2005
-------------------------------------------
As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust ... the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.
George Orwell
1984
1948

Yes my friends Big Brother is here and his name is Bush/Cheney.