I Don't Get a Scholarship, but You Get My Bitter Commentary!

Hello everyone!

What a crappy week.

I found out that I didn't get the Ford Scholarship that I interviewed for last week. For those who don't know, the Ford Scholarship has nothing to do with the car, but a local timber baron named Ford who built up this big logging company and then died and left behind a foundation that awards scholarships. But this isn't just any scholarship, this is one that would have paid 90% of my schooling all the way through until I got my Bachelor's. There were over 2800 people who applied, and only 186 interviewed for 100 scholarships. So I thought I had a pretty good chance, and let myself get my hopes up high.

It really sucked when I checked the mail and saw the envelope clearly had one piece of paper inside instead of a big packet of forms and crap that the winners surely got. I've spent the last couple days wondering what I did wrong, and I'm having trouble, to be quite honest. I mean, I didn't leave the interview thinking I said something stupid. I didn't stumble over my responses, nor contradict myself. I felt relaxed, confident, and knowledgeable. The only thing I can think of is they didn't agree with my politics. Since I am a Political Science major, most of the questions had to do with my political views, and while I was honest, I chose my words carefully to say what I really felt. And all the questions they asked were things that I had previously thought about, so I was prepared, and my responses were thought-out instead of regurgitating what pundits say. I guess that's not what they wanted to hear.

So now I'll go to the big University and have to borrow $20,000 or so to get through school. Oh well, I'd rather be in debt and be who I am than try to be someone else for money. I already did that, but hated it and decided to go to school.

Besides, who am I kidding--it really wouldn't make any sense for a timber company to sponsor a tree hugger like me!

So, I went through the rest of my week already moping a little, and then I came across this:

Divided Congress approves Iraq war funds

By Richard Cowan and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Congress on Thursday approved $100 billion to keep fighting the war in Iraq, as Democrats pledged to resurrect failed attempts to force President George W. Bush to withdraw troops.

Passage of the legislation capped a four-month struggle between Bush and the new Democratic-led Congress over the increasingly unpopular Iraq war, now in its fifth year.

Underscoring Democratic division, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California voted against it and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted for it.

Three Democratic senators running for president -- Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- opposed providing money with no withdrawal deadlines. Joseph Biden of Delaware, also a presidential hopeful, voted yes.

Great leadership there, Biden. Hey, now we know where you stand.

With this latest installment, the United States will have allocated more than $565 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the money has gone to fight in Iraq.

Gee, and my community college is underfunded by over $8 million this year, so they're going to have to make cuts AGAIN. LCC could use just .00141% of what we've spent on the wars to stay solvent, but it ain't happening. Hell, just .008% of what they just allocated this time would do. It's nice to see where our priorities lie.

Bush pleaded for patience but warned of more tough times ahead. "It could be a bloody -- it could be a very difficult August," he told reporters at the White House.

Scare tactics--that's his M.O.

He also made clear September would be an important period, when the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, will report on the impact of the troop buildup and make a recommendation on how to proceed.

The House voted 280-142 for the emergency funding bill, while the Senate passed it 80-14.

What a bunch of spineless cowards. What part of 72% do you people not understand?

White House spokesman Alex Conant said Congress should be congratulated for providing U.S. troops with the funding and flexibility they need.

"Rather than mandate arbitrary timetables for military operations, the legislation enables our servicemen and women to follow the advice of commanders on the ground," Conant said.

Those commanders are there because the ones who questioned the Bush administration's policies were forced to resign and were replaced by a bunch of "yes-men".

On May 1, Bush vetoed a Democratic bill that would have begun withdrawing U.S. soldiers from Iraq by October 1 and Democrats did not have the votes to reverse him.

Lawmakers approved the revamped bill just before leaving for a long Memorial Day recess as war funds were running out.

The Republican president is expected to promptly sign into law the bill, which for the first time would set a series of "benchmarks" to measure progress in Iraq and ties a small amount of non-military U.S. aid to that progress.

Yeah, but if the benchmarks aren't met, Iraq loses non-military aid--meaning reconstruction and humanitarian aid. So basically, if the puppet Iraq government doesn't get its act together and start being more puppity, the Iraqi people are going to have to pay. How is this supposed to end the fighting, again? Oh yeah, it's not.

"This is a token. This is a small step forward. Instead we should have a giant step forward into a new direction," Pelosi said.

This isn't a 'token', it's a 'joken'. (Did you see what I just did there? It's punny!)

PELOSI PLEDGES NEW DRIVE FOR DEADLINES

U.S. anti-war groups slammed Democrats for allowing the bill to pass.

Rightfully so.

Pelosi said Democrats would quickly resume their drive to impose deadlines for pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq.

Can I have a word with you, Nan and the other Democrats? Why stop your drive and then resume it? Why not just grow a set and keep fighting non-stop? It's what the public wants you to do, and it's why you got elected in the first place, morons! Tell all the Democrats that nobody is going to fault them for trying and losing. We're already on your side. What we can't stand is a bunch of quitters. That's what the righties keep calling you. Don't prove them right. They're already saying you want to surrender in Iraq, despite the fact that you've got a huge majority on your side. Now it's going to be about how you guys backed down, and that's just going to add to the Democrat=surrenderer mentality. You've quit trying to quit. That makes you a "double-quitter" in right-wing world.

The Republicans don't have to prove themselves anymore. All they have to do is sit back and let you trip over yourselves, just like you're doing now, and then say, "See, I told you so." I'm sure they're ecstatic about you guys now.

She said she would put on the House agenda a bill to repeal Congress' 2002 authorization of the Iraq war and said Democrats would use next year's military spending bills to try to end the war that has killed at least 3,420 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 34,000. Iraqis have suffered far worse casualties.

Yeah, so many casualties they can't count them all.

According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, 76 percent of Americans believe the war is going somewhat or very badly for the United States and only 20 percent said Bush's recent troop increase is making a positive difference.

So it's up to 76% now. Still, those 24% knuckle-dragging, window-licking, droolers never quit, do they?

Congressional Republicans are beginning to talk about the possible need for a change in direction within a few months.

Wow, they're "beginning to talk" about something obvious to everyone else. They must be getting ready for the 2008 elections. I can see it now: "Vote Republican and get us out of Iraq!"

Incidentally, I spent 15 minutes trying to come up with with some sort of "elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about"/Republican "elephant" pun here, but I couldn't. Hey, I'm not getting paid for this.

One influential Republican senator, John Warner of Virginia, said a new U.S. strategy might be needed by July if problems in Iraq did not improve.

Let me get this straight: if things don't get better, we may have to try something else. He just now figured that out! What is he, in third grade?

Incidentally, I have no problem with third graders. I just think they need a bit more education before becoming Senators. Seventh grade, at least.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, his voice cracking with emotion, denounced the insurgents in Iraq and said the United States must prevail.

Heh-heh. I got a "Boehner".

Besides buying more ammunition, armored vehicles and aircraft for the wars, the spending bill provides more aid for countries ranging from Lebanon to Liberia and gives $185.5 million to help refugees and others displaced in Iraq, Afghanistan and African countries.

Aw, we're helping the refugees. That's nice of us. What are they fleeing? A brutal, genocidal regime in Africa and... oh, us.

But wait, there's more news:

Report Says Iraq Problems Were Expected

By KATHERINE SHRADER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.

The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."

Well, duh. It's not that much of a surprise anymore. The surprising part is that no matter how "official" reports get released, even ones from Bush's own military advisers, that say that they knew it was going to be bad, they went ahead with it anyway. This means that either things are working out exactly the way the Bush administration planned, and they really want us to be there permanently, or they're just a bunch of bumbling idiots who are incapable of doing anything right. I'll let you decide.

Meanwhile, how are the Republicans (and many Democrats) that just voted for more of the same-old going to spin this? Good question:

Some Republicans rejected the committee's work as flawed. The panel's top Republican, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, said the report's conclusions selectively highlight the intelligence agencies' findings that seem to be important now, distorting the picture of what was presented to policy-makers.

There you go. When Bush cites bogus info in his State of the Union speech as justification to invade a country that a group made up of many people in his administration have wanted to invade years before he became president and years before anyone had heard of said bogus info, it's OK. But when anyone points out the truth about the war, no matter how obvious it is, they're "distorting the picture". Right.

I wish my logic was that selective. Maybe when I take my next Spanish test, I'll tell the instructor (en español, claro) to only count the answers I get right. Then when he points out the ones I get wrong, I can say he's "distorting the picture"!

Then I'll tell the FAFSA people that they're "selectively highlighting" my student debt, and that if they just focused on how much money I've already spent, they'd actually owe me money!

Rob