... but I just heard the speech Obama gave today (addressing the growing furor over the remarks made by his former pastor), and, well, maybe I should just accept that I am what I am.
- selling you a line of B.S., or
- misinformed, and therefore talking out of you-know-where.
"If you ______, the terrorists win!"
"If you don't support the war in Iraq, the terrorists win!"
or
"If you question the president's leadership in a time of war, the terrorists win!"
"If you allow a small group of maladjusted individuals to scare the Greatest Nation in the History of the World into depriving its citizens of the very rights that make it great, ... the terrorists win."
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
"Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
(Ben Franklin)
Some commenter going by the name of Raymond at Crooks and Liars drew an excellent metaphor for the Iraq war and what those of us who oppose it mean when we say "support the troops, oppose the war" (as if that needs any explaining).
But first I'd like to vent about how utterly sick I am of hearing the obnoxious Republican talking point that says that "Democrats are cheering for our troops to fail." Grown men in suits on television continue to proclaim that same destructive, childish nonsense day in and day out, when anyone who is honest with themselves has to admit that it is empirically a deceptive, hateful thing to say.
It was a bad, bad idea to go into that country and unilaterally destroy its government, no matter how dysfunctional. It was an impossible mission to complete, honorably or otherwise. And regardless of how many "surges" we carry out and however successful we are at bringing violence down in this region or that, it's all just a useless escalation of an impotent war strategy if the political situation doesn't improve, and improve dramatically. And after almost five years and hundreds of billions of dollars and an unknown cost in human lives -- the political situation doesn't appear to have improved at all.
And that has been the problem with this war since before it even started: Our dishonest leadership is constantly playing with our heads, trying to conflate scattered military victories with actual, sustained progress in this "war".
They're not the same.
Maybe they were in World War Two, but nothing has ever been that simple since. Everyone knows by now that there isn't a purely military solution to the mess we've made in Iraq -- even Bush has said so himself. And yet every time we talk about leaving, citing the utter failure of the Administration to make any lasting political gains in 4-1/2 years, someone on the Republican side will point out all the successes our military has had, then attack the messenger, equating their criticism of the civilian leadership with an attack on the work of our servicemen.
Is there anyone out there who doesn't immediately grasp how tangibly, palpably asinine that is? I've thought about this a lot, and I've decided that anyone who makes the "against the war, against the troops" argument at this point in history is either
- seriously not paying attention, which at this point is inexcusable;
- just plain dishonest, which is, well, just evil; or
- insane, which, of course, calls for professional help and is beyond the scope of this blog.
For example, taking it all the way back to the beginning: Did anyone ever doubt that the United States could topple the Iraq army? Of course not. And yet the right wingers and the media cheered and oohhed and aaahhed when the US military, a larger military force than any History had ever seen, rained fire and brimstone down on one of the Middle-East's most mediocre, languished defense forces, casually decimating it in less than two weeks. We've witnessed more suspenseful "showdowns" on American Idol.
And then, idiotically, Bush pretended to land that fighter-jet on that aircraft carrier, strutted out in his flight-suit and codpiece and declared, ta-DAA! that we had won, when anyone who knows anything about history, politics, or anything knew that that was the EASY part!
Any leader capable of finding his proverbial backside with both hands in his proverbial back pocket would know to tell his countrymen to buckle down because here comes the hard part. But he didn't. Because he either didn't know --- or he didn't care. I used to suspect the former. But now I fully believe the latter.
And the insanity continues to this day, with this inane nonsense about whether the "Surge" is "working". It could not be clearer: the "Surge", which most of us opposed because it amounted to a further escalation of a hopeless war, was clearly and publicly stated by the Bush administration itself to be for the sole purpose of giving the political leaders in Iraq the time and space to make political progress. Anyone who argues that the surge strategy as a whole was successful (???) is spinning -- by ignoring what it was attempted for in the first place:
- We escalated.
- Security temporarily improved (of course...)
- Iraq's leaders (yet again) made no discernible progress.
This is more than we ever bargained for, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that the picture of success Bush insists upon involves more than even we are capable of forcing the Iraqis to do. We need to turn up the stakes for them and talk about getting the hell out.
Otherwise, how many more "surges" will there be with no results? How many have there been already? Do YOU know? (In case you're wondering, this wasn't the first one.) The moral of the story is you can't institute democracy at the point of a gun.
Of course, that's just the public excuse for why we started this war (it was excuse #3, if I remember correctly). No -- the real mission our leaders had in mind is going swimmingly: we're privatizing our military force and Cheney and friends are making gazillions of dollars off of the deaths of these innocent people...
Sigh... But I digress. As for the childish "Uhhuhuh, you guys want the troops to fail!" argument, Raymond at Crooks and Liars said it best:
Let’s say I am standing on the edge of a bayou with a buddy of mine, trying to get across to the other side, but we see an alligator swim by. He decides to jump in and wrestle the fucker. I think he’s an idiot, as I watch him battle and get chewed up pretty good.
Then he yells out 'I’m gonna step it up (*gulp*) gonna really get on him now, just watch!'
By the way all this time, I’ve been throwing rocks at the gator helping out and encouraging my buddy to get the fuck out of there, to no avail. Both he and the gator are taking big hits. Now I notice he seems to be getting the upper hand on the beast. Great. Here’s my observation so far as I watch:
I have always wanted my buddy to win.
I have always thought he was an idiot for choosing that approach to get across the bayou.
I have always helped him.
We STILL ain’t to the other side yet, and there was probably an easier way.
If I recognize that he is doing better in the fight, but I still hope he gets the heck out of there, that does not make me a hypocrite.
I still hope it's over soon."
Happy Thanksgiving!
I thought I'd pass this along to everyone out there who I know is trying to cut back on holiday spending:
About a year ago, I came across a documentary called "Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping" about a performance artist who went around Times Square in New York trying to get people to curb their materialism and maybe not shop so much, especially at stores that commit (or are implicit in) atrocities in countries where they make their products. It was a decidedly low-budget production, and obviously a labor of love for the filmmaker, but it was moving in a "look at what we've become -- and now let's do something about it" kind of way.
Well I was surfing the net just now, and I ran across Reverend Billy's second movie, which is coming out this Christmas. It looks like Rev. Billy is gaining momentum this time, because he has locked arms with Morgan Spurlock, the guy who made "Super Size Me" - in which the fillmaker/director/star eats only at McDonald's for 30 days straight - and the TV-show "30 Days", in which he attempts many other ill-advisable feats for the same span of time, such as living on minimum wage.
It's on a limited run, so we haven't gone to see it yet, but if their previous work is any indication, it looks like it should be a refreshing documentary that attempts to break the spell of the now-traditional holiday frenzy by (satirically) invoking the spirit of the man who the holiday is ostensibly all about.
It's called "What Would Jesus Buy?", and it sounds like the perfect antidote to an age when the leader of the free world is a man who told us all that the most important sacrifice we could make in the months following 9-11 was to "Go shopping." Seriously. Does everyone remember that? Of course he's moved on to sacrificing our moral high ground and our civil liberties since then, but that's a subject for another post.
Yikes.
I have been out of the political blog-writing habit for almost a year now.
Long-winded explanations, as we all know, are often long, whiney excuses in disguise, so I won't attempt to rationalize away what has essentially been
a) a wee lapse of willpower, combined with
b) a few maladjusted priorities, which were kept in check by
c) one much-longer-than-usual bout of workaholism
the latter really being the manifestation of my own private collection of insecurities and hang-ups too numerous (and, ultimately, uninteresting) to dredge up in this forum.
Sigh...
Yeah. Whatever. So that's probably enough of a mea culpa.
The important thing to acknowledge is this: I know a whole lot of people who are frustrated to the point of paralysis right now. It's just so emotionally draining to to follow the news as closely as you have to nowadays to discern the truth of what's going on in this country -- and after that to actually continue caring. And then lately, to helplessly watch this presidential race unfold in the same candor™-deficient, excessively-postured, relentlessly-focus-grouped manner we've all come to loathe -- and expect ...
... and things often look so bleak that sometimes we just decline to engage.
Fortunately, we can decide to get over it. My ray-of-sunshine moment arrived today in the form of a rousing, barn-burner speech I'd like to share: I was partaking of my morning infusion of political comedy medicine in the form of the always charming, always-irreverent Stephanie Miller Show, and they played a bit of Barack Obama speaking at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa. I googled to find the whole thing, and - hallelujah! - the seemingly impenetrable cloud of gloom lifted --- if only for a brief ten minutes' time. It was enough respite from the disillusionment that I was able to decide, for myself at least, that things can and do change for the better.
If you want to hear it yourself, it's broken up into three videos on YouTube:
You may want to skip past the first few minutes of part 1, as it takes a while for him to get on stage.
Ah! Thank you Barack. Yours may be the long-shot chances, but I'm rootin' for ya'.
...and John Edwards.
Conversation with Stephen Colbert at Harvard's "John F. Kennedy Forum"
Unfortunately, you need to install the Real Player to watch it, something I normally wouldn't recommend anyone do, but you can always uninstall it when you're done. This interview is worth the trouble, since it's a fairly candid and, at least in my experience, rare out-of-character interview (done town-hall-style) with one of the finest political satirist-performers working today. It's also very interesting to see him in a Q&A with students -- some of the questions are obnoxious, but the reality and honesty (i.e. candor) found in this interview makes it way more entertaining and meaningful than it would have been in a more controlled environment.
Also, if you haven't seen the video of Stephen's already-legendary remarks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, go here:
(these are YouTube links, so you don't need Real Player for them)
Stephen at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Part 1.
Stephen at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Part 2.
Stephen at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Part 3.
You do? Ohmigosh! Me, too!
Well, just in case you thought it was over, Fox News's John Gibson and his friends in government and media are, in their own screeching, whining, artificially insinuating way, now celebrating the first anniversary of the disingenuous invention of the "War on Christmas."
I, for one, find it hilariously (or maddeningly, depending on my somewhat bipolar moods) appropriate that the very team that, in government, was so successful at fabricating a real war on fake pretenses four years ago -- is now, in the media, one-upping themselves by fabricating a fake one on fake pretenses.
Oooh, but they just love their war, don't they?
They must've already gotten bored with the last one. Or, one might imagine, the execs at Fox News just weren't happy with the reviews it was getting.
I discovered a blog today that has a very timely rant against all the hijacking and artificial grandstanding that this once-innocent holiday is now being forced to endure. It's at The Smirking Chimp -- feel free to go and read it there -- or just read my excerpt here, which I have added emphasis to (in my way) for your enjoyment (or mine, I lose track sometimes):
... of course they invented this so-called war. Corporations aren't attacking Christmas when they ask employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." They're just saying that all Americans, including those who don't celebrate Christmas in their beliefs, are welcome to patronize their store. The fanatical media mavens, always looking for a new phony cause, invented the "War on Christmas."
... There's never been a war on Christmas.
Until now.
I'm declaring one. This is the opening salvo of my official war on Christmas. Oh, not the real Christmas, mind you. Depending on what you believe, Christmas can be either a) the time to remember when God came to Earth in human form and sacrificed himself for us, or b) a holiday that combined a number of ancient solstice festivals and resurrection stories that each reflected elemental aspects of the human spirit.
I have no problem with Christmas in either form. Either way, it's a beautiful synthesis of what it means to be alive, of the way that human beings can learn to love both the creation and the Creator. ... Christmas was designed to remind us of the One who refused to hate minorities, the One who found a lesson in the behavior of the Samaritan ( [who was] from a despised sect of outsiders), who saved the prostitute's life, who said that the country's religious leaders didn't have a monopoly on the truth.
His Christmas, that Christmas, is a time to love those who are different, to accept them and learn from them - not a time to fan the flames of hatred to increase ratings or get more support for the Republican agenda. In the real spirit of Christmas, atheists and Muslims would be as welcome at the table - and on television - as the most devout Christian. That was His example.
... I'm also declaring war against the corporate-sponsored Christmas, the Credit Card Christmas, the debt-amplifying and soul-killing Christmas. It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, we are told. So why are we being lectured on Christmas by rich men? And why are Christians still following wealthy and politically-connected preachers, two thousand years after Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple?
I just got a look at today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, and one of the actual, above-the-fold headlines is this:
Best Not to Take Bush Too Literally
I was struck by the casual tenor of those words, floating nonchalantly near the other big stories, kicking back, staring blankly at me, the dismayed, disoriented reader, as if to say, "Yeah, so I said it. So what?". If the headline hadn't been followed by an actual story, I would have thought it was just a polite little public service announcement to anyone out there who might not have clued in yet to what's been going on for the past six years.
It just seemed so out-of-place in a major news publication, that kind of frankness. We've put up with the media skirting around our proud country's dirty little secret for so long (a secret that's not a secret any more except to around 30% of the people in America -- and probably only 1% of the rest of the world) -- the fact that our president JUST MAKES 5H!T UP -- that to see it finally acknowledged so casually in large print is vaguely akin to seeing Martha Stewart show up on-camera with a nice, long, dark dribble of chewing tobacco spilling out the side of her pretty, powdered little mouth.
And aside from the shock that someone finally printed it -- let's not forget to acknowledge this: it is such a profound understatement! Seriously. I remember a moment four years ago when I realized that every single thing I had ever heard come out of George W. Bush's mouth had turned out to be quite literally the opposite of the truth. I mean -- talk about too little too late, Mr. Newspaper-Man -- my impression of this guy's dishonesty already goes so deep, if he showed up at my doorstep and told me today that my mother and father were my real parents (they are), I might suddenly have serious doubts.
But baby steps, mainstream media, baby steps.
... or not -- leaps and bounds would also be nice.
Recent Comments
-
Jesse said:
[this is good]Hi Reagan:Good post!This was an excellent line:"If you allow a small group of maladjusted individuals to scare the Greatest Nation... read more
on Candor Candy FYI (#1) -
Prairie Robin said:
[this is good]I attended the Jefferson Jackson Dinner and I can tell you that the speech was even more awesome in person.... read more
on Ba(ra)ck in the Game -
-
paul said:
js is the man told those tools how their hurting america,bravo ,courage , truth read more
on Crossfire with Jon Stewart -
Fattypants said:
Heh. Too bad that headline wasn't printed six years ago. Or even two. read more
on Understatement of the century?
... and there seems to be a lot of chatter going around about whether we should be offended that Barack Obama's ex-pastor and close family friend once said some things that are pretty critical of the U.S. of A.
Now, completely setting aside the fact that it's perfectly OK in my book, even patriotic, to criticize one's own country - -a lot of us, in fact, were taught that its our duty -- lets look at what they're really shocked by: that Obama's ex-pastor's comments sounded kind of anti-white.
There's a whole discussion we could have about whether it's OK to say the things the Reverend said, but what's really at issue is this idea that Senator Obama should or shouldn't have gone to that reverend's church if he held such controversial ideas.Is there anyone else out there who finds this whole discussion kind of petty?
I, for one, make an effort to keep those friends who I disagree with. I grew up in Texas and a lot of my friends are hard-core right-wingers who believe a lot of things I find absolutely deplorable — but what am I supposed to do? Judge them? Cut them off?
If I did that, not only would I lose perfectly good friends, but that would end any discussion I had with them about politics, and both they and I would retreat into our separate divisions of the political discussion. (Which, tangentially, is exactly the problem with America right now, if you ask me — nobody’s talking to people they disagree with.)
And while we’re talking about religion, wasn’t it Jesus himself who championed the cause of “mixing it up” by advocating hanging out with sinners and tax collectors and loving your enemies?
Maybe I’m biased because at this point I believe he’s the best candidate, but Obama strikes me as the kind of guy who would do the same.