you know, at this point, what can even be said about the state of u.s. government? when this site was started a story or two would surface every week which warranted comment. as it stands today, there are too many awful things happening on a daily basis for an essentially non-political, or at very least, non-expert site like the nonist to keep up with. how did we manage to get to this point? and more importantly why, in the face of an exponentially growing body of damning evidence, is the populous of this country not clamoring for, if not blood, at very least impeachment? there are angry people, that much is obvious. but these understandably pissed off and worried people seem to be a minority. begging the question, what the fuck?!

as stated, we are no experts. we get our information from the same places you do, and in truth we can not offer any special insight into the bizarro world which we find ourselves in. but at the same time how can we not acknowledge our awareness? the barrage of news lately has gone mostly uncommented on here, mainly out of exhaustion. really, we find ourselves dumbfounded. how many exposed lies can people really stomach? how much smoke fits up a human ass? how nefarious and full of shit does a government have to be before something is done about it? in any case it seemed to us that to make no comment at all might imply either a general apathy on our parts, or worse a silent consent. though we feel, as i’m certain many folks do, that we’ve been severely beaten about the neck and head into a quiet stupor, we’ll try to serve up a few more stomach turning items for your consumption.

in the past weeks the administration’s already suspect reasons for waging war have been shown for the trumped up, 3 card monty that they were. as everyone is well aware at this point david kay came forward after resigning from his position as chief weapons hunter and plopped his findings down in america’s livingrooms. there are no stockpiles of WMD’s. now this, in itself, comes as no surprise really. the claims were dubious from day one and elicited many scrunched up “i small dog shit” faces, but in the fog of fear and anger that hung over us all no one spoke up (you might remember that 10 million people world wide seemed to speak up by taking to the streets, but here at home no one spoke loudly enough evidently). since then a “he who smelt it dealt it” mentality has prevailed. the person who speaks out, gets the “treatment”. much as o’neil did, after he spoke out.

for david kay this will play out a bit differently. even though he flatly stated what the administration has been dancing around for months (which you might assume would get him strung up and publicly tongue lashed) there is enough grey area in his report that he will likely survive. there were in fact small weapons found, which helps reduce the WMD argument to semantics (bush quote “i said in the run-up that saddam was a grave and gathering danger - that’s what I said. and I believed it then, and I know it was true now. and as mr. kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place.”) in that if these are the weapons we invade a country over, we would be invading every country on earth. the term weapon of mass destruction, though initially employed to evoke the obvious nuclear / pox visions in the minds of an already jumpy populous, can now be massaged to encompass much smaller threats. also, and importantly, kay specifically raised a red flag over the intelligence that the administration drew upon to bolster it’s war plans. this gives bush the backdoor he needs, and, as if on cue, the buck is being passed. bush is now calling for investigations of the investigators, saying “i want to know the facts”. which poor sucker will end up the oliver north in this little witch-hunt? aside from the public, of course, who will fund it. the reasons will be searched for, deadpan as ever, as if the true reasons, the ideological ones, were not plainly evident all along. 

official reaction to the gathering dismay over the lack of weapons have ranged widely within the administration. powell admits to the “possibility” (wink wink) that the weapons never existed, cheney resolutely sticks to his guns saying no-matter what is said, seen, or found, they do exist. and bush, the talking head, reads speeches with adjusted wording, changing what was an itemized list of deadly weapons in last years state of the union (which, let’s not forget, included this none too subtle doosey “the united states must not ignore the threat gathering against us. facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. . . . we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring”), to this year’s laughable “weapons related program activities”. bush has since said that weapon hunters must be allowed to finish their jobs regardless of what kay does. if these were not issues of such importance, it would almost be funny. the assertion that people appointed to the highest positions in government (o’niel or kay for example) are somehow not reliable, that their opinions are not the most informed opinions... implies what? also, shouldn’t we be allowed to assume that a decent leader would “know the facts” before he led his country into a preemptive war? before he helped sink us in trillions of dollars of debt? we can expect the other supposed reasons for war to be emphasized as the WMD’s fall flat, but those will come apart at the seams in turn, as the humanitarian reasons are right now. the merry-go-round of rhetoric goes round and round, nothing substantial being said, no one in positions of true authority ever being held over the coals. ho-hum. will we ever get to bask in the flash bulb warmth of a deserved impeachment 

you might wonder why the press has not done it’s fucking job and pummeled these guys with the difficult questions, or simply gone ahead and leveled accusations at the administration in words every “nascar dad” can’t help but understand. (why not? they have no problem shading celebrities and other members of the wretched huddled masses accused of crimes as guilty without ever looking deeper. sure, martha stewart might be guilty of insider trading, but in the scope of things don’t you think their are MUCH bigger fish to fry in corporate america? like who? we don’t know because they only get blurbs while stewart and kobe and other goats clutter up the front page). aside from questions of media ownership look to our allies in brittian for answers. the bbc’s recent accusations about blair’s government “exaggerating claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to bolster support for war” and their involvement in the suicide of weapons expert david kelly, resulted in resignations at the bbc’s highest levels, and a public bitch slap by the judge (appointed by blair, of course) presiding over the inquiry. now whether the allegations were founded or not, it seems a bit insane for heads of a free press to be basically railroaded out of their jobs for simply raising the question, while the questions themselves get lost in the hoopla. is this the same kind of thing that might happen here? sure, it would be, except i don’t think from what we’ve seen in the past three years that any major news outlet would even get as far as printing or broadcasting the story. cbs couldn’t even manage to air a crappy melodramatic mini-series, that cost them millions to produce, about an EX-president. so because of the conglomerate nature of modern news outlets, intimidation, or just simple secrecy, forget any incisive, thorough, investigative news stories about the bums sitting in the white house right now. after all have you heard much about the republican theft and leak of democratic party computer files? probably not. wasn’t there once a president who stepped down because he recorded stuff on tapes in some hotel somewhere? geez.

questions about the press lead directly to questions about the public. namely, is it the lack of in-your-face, “when administrations attack” type news that allows for apathy to lay like a wet wool blanket over the land? is it a “as long as my cable still works” mentality? or is it rather that people actually do approve? that’s what boggles the mind, really. the notion that yes, people are aware, yes, people understand the implications of what’s going on, yes, they read between the lines and simply… are o.k. with it? is it possible? in our annoyance and anger their is an assumption of majority. we feel somehow that what is evident to us must be evident to all. is this just totally wrong? how do the majority of americans feel about imperialism or an american empire? what about totalitarianism? do people just think of it as a cliche plot device for action movies? or how about the environment? do people think it’s no big deal? seriously. don’t people worry that the pentagon is running simulations to help get prepared for a catastrophic climate shift? these are not rhetorical questions. we truly wonder. are we, the pissed off people, simply among a minority, and have to deal with it? love it or leave it? the coming elections will most likely answer that question pretty definitively. but even in that respect, there are serious questions. you hear all the “we’re tired of politicos, insiders, blah blah, we want honesty” sentiments that are supposedly out there, but here we are with kerry storming toward the democratic nomination and no independent candidate to date ever managing anything other than spoiler status. it’s said that the true shape of american political apathy is not so much an “i don’t care” as a “what can i even do about any of this spiraling, festering, complex, crazy shit?!” or the simpler exhausted, “i just don’t know.” that is exactly how we find ourselves feeling. all this endless terrible shit flowing down from on high with so little sanity present to counter it, so little real reaction. though we offered some links here, and some words, the tiring truth is, we just don’t know either. how the hell did we get here?