My imaginary friends say we are torn between the need for a pithy slogan the average moron can understand, and the urge to keep explaining shit to them.
You want eight words? Here's eight words: Quit taking shit from a universally despised administration.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Break On Through To The Otter Side
Add this to the Chewbacca Defense, and the other absurdist ploys these goofballs pull from the nether regions:
Right up there with the oft-used Bluto Defense ("Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!" "Germans?" "Forget it, he's rolling.") or the Otter Dodge ("You fucked up! You trusted us.").
I mean, Animal House is a true American classic, I just didn't realize that some people also view it as a template for ostensibly serious governance.
Here's Press Secretary Tony Snow, today, in the gaggle:
"The president has said directly to members of Congress on a number of occasions: 'Take whatever shots you want at me,' he says, 'in terms of politics. You can criticize me all you want, but make sure that you do not do things that are going to weaken the troops.' And he is very passionate and very adamant about that point. Members always say, 'yes, sir, we support the troops.' Therefore, it is going to be incumbent upon members of Congress who feel that that is a priority to figure out how best to express their support for troops."
Huh. That sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard something like that before? Oh, yeah:
"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
It's the "Otter Defense." You are powerless to resist it.
Right up there with the oft-used Bluto Defense ("Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!" "Germans?" "Forget it, he's rolling.") or the Otter Dodge ("You fucked up! You trusted us.").
I mean, Animal House is a true American classic, I just didn't realize that some people also view it as a template for ostensibly serious governance.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Little Feat
I have no idea what Rich Little's politics are, nor do I particularly care. I'm not even sure that his apparent lack of current hipness is even relevant, given the gig. Stephen Colbert's truth-to-power moment proved to be so much bigger than even he probably anticipated. Not only did he ably vocalize the frustration so many people feel at this administration's profound contempt for the clear majority of this country and the world, he exposed the soft underbelly of the cocktail-weenie journamalism schmoozefest. Their defensiveness about what is nothing more than a useless pro forma circle-jerk event told the tale. They do not afflict the comfortable, they go to black-tie affairs with them, and swap trophy wives. Colbert told them exactly how useless they really are, and more importantly, how that very uselessness has translated into tangible harm for, say, the 290 million Americans living outside the Beltway.
Rich Little will not do any of those things, which makes him perfect for the gig. That's not a slam on Little; he does what he does, and this is the ideal event for it. The attendees like to tell themselves and each other what a wonderful sense of humor each of them possesses (see Cohen, Richard Dice for further edification), but in fact they cannot stand being told the truth about themselves, and their cheaply-auctioned souls. There are exceptions, but in the aggregate the "professionals" have failed miserably, and are being shown up with great regularity by the pajamahadeen. It's gotta be downright embarrassing after several years of consistently being behind the analytical curve, and failing to realize that it's because their vaunted objectivity has been irretrievably co-opted.
And I think there's yet another reason they went with Little:
No one else wanted to touch the gig. Can you blame them? Who would want to emcee two groups of crybabies as they pretend to stroke each other?
Rich Little is funny, and he's a gifted mimic. He'll do fine. I look forward to hearing his Paul Lynde impersonation. It will be finely crafted Pepto-Bismol for all the upset tummies in the audience. I never turned to the stupid WHCD for anything edgy anyway; it's an event which, like its participants, keeps lurching toward the reliquary.
Rich Little will not do any of those things, which makes him perfect for the gig. That's not a slam on Little; he does what he does, and this is the ideal event for it. The attendees like to tell themselves and each other what a wonderful sense of humor each of them possesses (see Cohen, Richard Dice for further edification), but in fact they cannot stand being told the truth about themselves, and their cheaply-auctioned souls. There are exceptions, but in the aggregate the "professionals" have failed miserably, and are being shown up with great regularity by the pajamahadeen. It's gotta be downright embarrassing after several years of consistently being behind the analytical curve, and failing to realize that it's because their vaunted objectivity has been irretrievably co-opted.
And I think there's yet another reason they went with Little:
Scully acknowledged that Little is "not hip. But the other thing you have to keep in mind is that we don't have a half-million dollars to get Will Ferrell."
Scully said even President Bush asked a few years ago, but Ferrell declined. And what Billy Crystal wanted was "exorbitant." The organization has only in the low five figures to spend.
David Letterman? "We asked. He will not do it," Scully said. He even sent a Top Ten list of why David Letterman should perform.
Chris Rock? "We asked him the last three years, and he said he's doing movies."
Jon Stewart? Didn't want two Comedy Central guys in a row. Jay Leno has worked this room before a lot, too. "Jerry Seinfeld would have been a great guy to do it," Scully said, "but he doesn't do political humor and doesn't like doing political events."
No one else wanted to touch the gig. Can you blame them? Who would want to emcee two groups of crybabies as they pretend to stroke each other?
Rich Little is funny, and he's a gifted mimic. He'll do fine. I look forward to hearing his Paul Lynde impersonation. It will be finely crafted Pepto-Bismol for all the upset tummies in the audience. I never turned to the stupid WHCD for anything edgy anyway; it's an event which, like its participants, keeps lurching toward the reliquary.
Doomsday Scenario
As the reasons for the carnage cut their meat and lick the gravy,
We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
The killer's breed or the demon's seed, the glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain, don't you pray for my soul anymore.
2 minutes to midnight, the hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight, to kill the unborn in the womb. -- Iron Maiden, 1984.
I suppose only so much can be made of the symbolism of the doomsday clock, seeing as how it is done by mere scientists, and thus no one important.
It is inescapable that the powers that be have, through their manifest policies and steadfast ignorance, made this world a more dangerous place. They will leave office in a couple of years, knowing full well that the planet and its inhabitants are positioned much more precariously in many areas than when they came into power. Thus they have to spend the rest of their careers and lives relying on terminally craven apologists to squint hard and find legacies to burnish.
Failing that, the usual dollops of belligerent nonsense and print fellatio will suffice.
Oh, Stephen Hawking. How would he know? He's not a rugged outdoorsman, like duh preznit. Can he clear brush? Can he tell his Secret Service detail to let him win his next mountain-bike run? Didn't think so. QED, muthafuckas!
And as far as matters of war, remember that each of these things -- North Korea, Iran, and Iraq -- are by-products of a de facto policy of (to put it as charitably as possible) malign neglect. More to come.
We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
The killer's breed or the demon's seed, the glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain, don't you pray for my soul anymore.
2 minutes to midnight, the hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight, to kill the unborn in the womb. -- Iron Maiden, 1984.
I suppose only so much can be made of the symbolism of the doomsday clock, seeing as how it is done by mere scientists, and thus no one important.
LONDON - The world has nudged closer to a nuclear apocalypse and environmental disaster, a trans-Atlantic group of prominent scientists warned Wednesday, pushing the hand of its symbolic Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight.
It was the fourth time since the end of the Cold War that the clock has ticked forward, this time from 11:53 to 11:55, amid fears over what the scientists are describing as "a second nuclear age" prompted largely by atomic standoffs with Iran and North Korea.
But the organization added that the "dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons."
It is inescapable that the powers that be have, through their manifest policies and steadfast ignorance, made this world a more dangerous place. They will leave office in a couple of years, knowing full well that the planet and its inhabitants are positioned much more precariously in many areas than when they came into power. Thus they have to spend the rest of their careers and lives relying on terminally craven apologists to squint hard and find legacies to burnish.
Failing that, the usual dollops of belligerent nonsense and print fellatio will suffice.
"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth," said Stephen Hawking, the renowned cosmologist and mathematician.
"As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change."
Oh, Stephen Hawking. How would he know? He's not a rugged outdoorsman, like duh preznit. Can he clear brush? Can he tell his Secret Service detail to let him win his next mountain-bike run? Didn't think so. QED, muthafuckas!
And as far as matters of war, remember that each of these things -- North Korea, Iran, and Iraq -- are by-products of a de facto policy of (to put it as charitably as possible) malign neglect. More to come.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Question Remains
I ask this question on a daily basis it seems, though the specifics vary. This time I am reminded by Tim Goodman, the excellent TV critic for the SF Chronicle, to reiterate the question: What the fuck is wrong with these people?
I guess I can buy that there are some people out there who are too cheap or broke to pay for HBO or Netflix or rent the DVDs from a video store, and don't mind watching a very diluted rendition of one of the more brilliant episodic series ever made, but that many? (Sex and the City on TBS is a different story; that series jumped the Prada shark, oh, roughly around when Carrie walked in on Samantha sucking the FedEx guy's cock in her office. Everyone knows the classier bidnesswimmin prefer to take you out to the parking garage to polish your knob.) That's truly a strange financial situation; most people who can afford a TV in the first place can afford at least one of the above three options; Netflix in particular is very reasonably priced.
But I'm not really convinced, and I don't think Goodman is either; we've all endured enough stupid, hypocritical "culture" wars in this country to understand that the pecksniffs among us don't mind violence anywhere near as much as even the whiff of sex, or heaven forfend, a "dirty" word that they don't think their kids hear every day at school. I find it difficult to believe those people would even bother with The Sopranos or Sex and the City, but they've been known to indulge in stranger shit when they're not fleecing their flocks.
I'm certainly not saying that every first-grader ought to be exposed to The Sopranos or anything, but conversely, the entire culture cannot be brought to a halt to accommodate a six-year-old's comprehension of people, places, and things. Adults do not need to be treated like the teenagers in Footloose; not everything has to be hopelessly watered down for lowest-common-denominator consumption.
Eliminating "fuck" and "cunt" and nipples is not going to change what The Sopranos is about -- a ruthless killer and thief who serially cheats on his wife and terrorizes people who get in his way. What it will change irretrievably is the tone of the dialogue, which is the real art of it. Not only are all the dubbed "freakin'"s going to sound ridiculous pretty quickly, but the bleak humor of the show is part of its charm. This is, after all, the series whose first season culminated with the classic line, "Cunnilingus and psychiatry is what got us into this", and it made sense. And don't get me started on Deadwood, so amazingly, heavily dependent on the dense cadences of dialogue, that censoring Al Swearengen -- without a doubt the most aptly-named character in recent memory -- would be like giving the Mona Lisa a dirty sanchez.
What makes no sense is morons going through life thinking that every goddamned thing has to be bowdlerized to meet their delicate fucking sensibilities, instead of maybe finding a clue and realizing that, on the scale of bad things in this world, titties and four-letter words are pretty low. And what also makes no sense is that HBO, which heretofore has strived to make valuable, creative additions to the world of entertainment, would sign off on this nonsense. It makes sense monetarily I guess, especially since series such as Deadwood and Rome, despite their quality, don't cover their cost of production.
On the other hand, apparently there will always be a market for people who are willing to spend their God-given time watching Jack Osbourne and Erik Estrada taser some dipshits in Buttfuck, Indiana. Now that's entertainment!
But what to make of this third leg: sanitized pay cable television series such as "The Sopranos" being shown on advertising-supported cable channels with edits and, apparently, being consumed voraciously by some people? Not just some -- 4.3 million viewers for the first two episodes on A&E. Are these the same people who bought all that Utah software? Is there a group of people who really want to watch Tony Soprano not use the f-word? Much has already been written about whether taking out the ultraviolence, profane linguistic tendencies and maybe eight or nine rounds from his mobster's gun makes him, uh, too likable?
(When creator David Chase thought HBO viewers were being too sympathetic to Tony, he made the mobster even more evil, more hateful. Let's see how A&E edits the later seasons when the blood really starts to flow and the misanthropy becomes wince inducing.)
....
These are the scenarios that make sense: 1. Viewers who can't afford cable, the DVD box set or the rental charge from Netflix or some other outfit. This is totally understandable. Life is hard and pay cable is a luxury. 2. Viewers who don't care about the artistic "pretensions" of the writers involved or any sort of adherence to a realistic milieu (hey, strippers in the Bada-Bing are always covered up and mob bosses with anger management issues never use the dreaded f-word). Sad and only defensible in that "never underestimate the American public" way. 3. There is no No. 3.
This notion doesn't make sense: You want to watch Tony Soprano be a woman-hating, thuggish and murderous (albeit emotionally conflicted) mob boss, but you don't want to hear him swear so much? Is it OK to saw someone's head off but not OK to say the f-word? In "Sex and the City," there's a premise in the series that women are getting theirs. They are having careers and orgasms, too. And sometimes they are discarding the men that help in the latter department. How is the realism of the series served by having Carrie & Co. talk about sex but not actually be seen having it?
I guess I can buy that there are some people out there who are too cheap or broke to pay for HBO or Netflix or rent the DVDs from a video store, and don't mind watching a very diluted rendition of one of the more brilliant episodic series ever made, but that many? (Sex and the City on TBS is a different story; that series jumped the Prada shark, oh, roughly around when Carrie walked in on Samantha sucking the FedEx guy's cock in her office. Everyone knows the classier bidnesswimmin prefer to take you out to the parking garage to polish your knob.) That's truly a strange financial situation; most people who can afford a TV in the first place can afford at least one of the above three options; Netflix in particular is very reasonably priced.
But I'm not really convinced, and I don't think Goodman is either; we've all endured enough stupid, hypocritical "culture" wars in this country to understand that the pecksniffs among us don't mind violence anywhere near as much as even the whiff of sex, or heaven forfend, a "dirty" word that they don't think their kids hear every day at school. I find it difficult to believe those people would even bother with The Sopranos or Sex and the City, but they've been known to indulge in stranger shit when they're not fleecing their flocks.
I'm certainly not saying that every first-grader ought to be exposed to The Sopranos or anything, but conversely, the entire culture cannot be brought to a halt to accommodate a six-year-old's comprehension of people, places, and things. Adults do not need to be treated like the teenagers in Footloose; not everything has to be hopelessly watered down for lowest-common-denominator consumption.
Eliminating "fuck" and "cunt" and nipples is not going to change what The Sopranos is about -- a ruthless killer and thief who serially cheats on his wife and terrorizes people who get in his way. What it will change irretrievably is the tone of the dialogue, which is the real art of it. Not only are all the dubbed "freakin'"s going to sound ridiculous pretty quickly, but the bleak humor of the show is part of its charm. This is, after all, the series whose first season culminated with the classic line, "Cunnilingus and psychiatry is what got us into this", and it made sense. And don't get me started on Deadwood, so amazingly, heavily dependent on the dense cadences of dialogue, that censoring Al Swearengen -- without a doubt the most aptly-named character in recent memory -- would be like giving the Mona Lisa a dirty sanchez.
What makes no sense is morons going through life thinking that every goddamned thing has to be bowdlerized to meet their delicate fucking sensibilities, instead of maybe finding a clue and realizing that, on the scale of bad things in this world, titties and four-letter words are pretty low. And what also makes no sense is that HBO, which heretofore has strived to make valuable, creative additions to the world of entertainment, would sign off on this nonsense. It makes sense monetarily I guess, especially since series such as Deadwood and Rome, despite their quality, don't cover their cost of production.
On the other hand, apparently there will always be a market for people who are willing to spend their God-given time watching Jack Osbourne and Erik Estrada taser some dipshits in Buttfuck, Indiana. Now that's entertainment!
The Botcher Of Baghdad
These people could find a way to fuck up a shit sandwich, I swear:
On the one hand, if this douche-nozzle really did put people into a meat grinder, then fuck him. (And the article then states that is was actually the other guy whose head got ripped off. Hell, maybe both did.) But for one, we've been Curveball-ed so much on so many little details, these more lurid exploits really need some corroboration. I've also read that Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum, a US strategic asset in Afghanistan, deals with dissent in his ranks by skinning people alive, or strapping them to tank treads and driving forward a foot at a time.
More importantly, either this Iraqi "government" wants to get things right and start getting their country back together, or they want to keep making "mistakes" and inflaming tensions.
The answer to that seems pretty clear. This is what we're supposedly going to rectify with Fredo's Big Surge.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq hanged two aides to Saddam Hussein before dawn on Monday but government efforts to avoid a repeat of uproar over the ousted leader's rowdy execution were thwarted when his half-brother's head was severed by the noose.
Many of the government's Shi'ite Muslim supporters rejoiced at the death of Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam's once feared intelligence chief who was accused of sending people to death in a meat grinder. But voices in Iraq's Sunni Arab minority saw the decapitation as a deliberate sectarian act of revenge.
On the one hand, if this douche-nozzle really did put people into a meat grinder, then fuck him. (And the article then states that is was actually the other guy whose head got ripped off. Hell, maybe both did.) But for one, we've been Curveball-ed so much on so many little details, these more lurid exploits really need some corroboration. I've also read that Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum, a US strategic asset in Afghanistan, deals with dissent in his ranks by skinning people alive, or strapping them to tank treads and driving forward a foot at a time.
More importantly, either this Iraqi "government" wants to get things right and start getting their country back together, or they want to keep making "mistakes" and inflaming tensions.
The answer to that seems pretty clear. This is what we're supposedly going to rectify with Fredo's Big Surge.
NFL Playoff Update
It wasn't terribly surprising to see the Colts upset the Ravens, though it was at least unexpected. Steve McNair uncharacteristically blew two scoring opportunities with lousy throws that were picked off, leaving at least ten points on the field, enough to squeak past an error-prone Peyton Manning.
It was the other AFC divisional game that was really the upset of the year, so much so that Schottenheimer may become the only coach to get his ass fired after a 14-2 season.
Apparently Schottenheimer supposedly overcompensated for his notorious conservative play-calling in the playoffs by being overly aggressive. But that's not even half of it. The Chargers lost because they were undisciplined, blowing plenty of opportunities to score and to put the Patriots away. Only Tom Brady, who must have been born with a lucky horseshoe in his ass, could get intercepted on a do-or-die 4th-and-10 play, and have it turn into a first down for his own team. Chargers DB Marlon McCree, who caught and then fumbled that errant pass with just a few minutes left in the game, will have a room next to Tony Romo in the NFL off-season nightmare infirmary. All McCree had to do was smack the ball into the ground; instead he gift-wrapped it and handed it back.
As they say, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and New England has the tremendous fortune to be both. So it's another Brady-Manning playoff showdown, but this time in Indianapolis. And these two teams are the only ones so far in the playoffs to each have a game decided by more than three points. This is probably Manning's best chance to get that Brady monkey off his back, once and for all, but the Pats have a slight edge on defense and in their running game, and things just seem to roll their way at the right time. This should be one of the more entertaining conference championship games in recent memory.
Patriots 31, Colts 27
As for the NFC, the underachieving Bears were lucky to squeak past the overachieving Seahawks in overtime. They will not get such help from the Saints, who let the opportunistic Eagles stay in the game a bit too long, but will be ready for Da Bears, and will drive Rex Grossman crazy all day with line pressure and linebacker stunts and blitzes. If there's a good old-fashioned -40º wind chill blizzard, all bets are off, but assuming roughly today's weather:
Saints 27, Bears 17.
It was the other AFC divisional game that was really the upset of the year, so much so that Schottenheimer may become the only coach to get his ass fired after a 14-2 season.
Sunday afternoon, inside Qualcomm Stadium, Marty Schottenheimer cemented his reputation as a terrible postseason coach, blowing an 11-point second-quarter lead and an eight-point fourth-quarter lead and falling 24-21 to the New England Patriots.
Given his contentious relationship with Chargers general manager A.J. Smith, his 5-13 playoff record and contract situation (Marty has one year left on his deal), Schottenheimer, in all likelihood, lost his fourth head-coaching assignment on Sunday.
He lost it in grand style.
Rather than allow his Pro Bowl kicker to attempt a 48-yard field goal early in the first quarter, Schottenheimer instructed his offense to go for it on fourth and 11 at the New England 30. The Patriots sacked Philip Rivers for a loss of 5 yards and he fumbled.
"I thought we had a play we could use to make it," Schottenheimer explained. "Our intention today was to be very aggressive."
Marty might be the first coach in the history of football who knows a good play for fourth and 11 in the first quarter of a scoreless game. Marty's intention was to prove that he's not too conservative to win in the playoffs. His attempt to dispel that reputation made him look stupid. It's inexcusable to turn down an opportunity to score first in a playoff game.
Apparently Schottenheimer supposedly overcompensated for his notorious conservative play-calling in the playoffs by being overly aggressive. But that's not even half of it. The Chargers lost because they were undisciplined, blowing plenty of opportunities to score and to put the Patriots away. Only Tom Brady, who must have been born with a lucky horseshoe in his ass, could get intercepted on a do-or-die 4th-and-10 play, and have it turn into a first down for his own team. Chargers DB Marlon McCree, who caught and then fumbled that errant pass with just a few minutes left in the game, will have a room next to Tony Romo in the NFL off-season nightmare infirmary. All McCree had to do was smack the ball into the ground; instead he gift-wrapped it and handed it back.
As they say, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and New England has the tremendous fortune to be both. So it's another Brady-Manning playoff showdown, but this time in Indianapolis. And these two teams are the only ones so far in the playoffs to each have a game decided by more than three points. This is probably Manning's best chance to get that Brady monkey off his back, once and for all, but the Pats have a slight edge on defense and in their running game, and things just seem to roll their way at the right time. This should be one of the more entertaining conference championship games in recent memory.
Patriots 31, Colts 27
As for the NFC, the underachieving Bears were lucky to squeak past the overachieving Seahawks in overtime. They will not get such help from the Saints, who let the opportunistic Eagles stay in the game a bit too long, but will be ready for Da Bears, and will drive Rex Grossman crazy all day with line pressure and linebacker stunts and blitzes. If there's a good old-fashioned -40º wind chill blizzard, all bets are off, but assuming roughly today's weather:
Saints 27, Bears 17.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Putz-In-Chief
Here's an excerpt from the, uh, highly anticipated (cough, hack) interview with Mister Man tonight on 60 Minutes:
There have been several plans, both bipartisan (anyone hear of a little thing called the Iraq Study Group?) and originating strictly from centrist and conservative Democrats such as Joe Biden and John Murtha. Whether or not they are good plans is something that should be debated on their merits, not dismissed out of hand or dropped down the memory hole.
Then again, since I'm sure Faux News never bothered to even mention these plans, and Bush doesn't read anything that isn't a George Washington biography he can spend six months coloring, he may not even know about these other plans. Either he's unforgivably lazy, or lying through every orifice in his empty skull (and elsewhere). Probably both.
But, you know, Pelley can go straight to hell for not even bothering to contest him on the simple factuality of this. Message to Democrats: if you plan on making a stand, you better stand tall and stand now. If that means defunding this clusterfuck, then do it and hang with the consequences. Otherwise you have a replay next year of what went on in '04, a bunch of cynical nonsense about being for something before you were against something. If nothing else, ferchrissake, at least be clear as to who is actually in a political corner here.
And clearly media tools such as Scott Pelley are always going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. They're cowed by the office, they have no backbone, they are merely court stenographers. If you were unclear on that before, recognize it now.
Translation: I'm the decider, and you people are simply too stupid to understand that you're supposed to agree with me.
Well, bring it, pal. Take this dog-and-pony show out on the road, with your cherry-picked crowds of mouth-breathers, your rehearsed interchanges with pre-selected rubes, and your pre-screened questions, or grotesque statements of unquestioning fealty from gutless humps who abdicate their citizenship just to openly fellate you. Take that around the country again, and see what happens, enabling media or no. It didn't work with the Social Security scam, and he's fifteen points lower than he was then.
I hope Biden was serious the other day about instigating a Constitutional crisis if necessary, because it looks like it's going to be necessary. Republicans were thrown out in a landslide just two months ago, Bush has been well below 45% for 1½ years (most of that below 35%), Iraq has polled unfavorably -- increasingly so -- for well over a year, and he's still doing exactly what he wants to do, and openly daring people to confront him on it.
Maybe impeachment should be considered as a serious option. It had been previously discarded because of the obvious result of a success. But elevating the grand vizier to the dauphin's throne (I refuse to ever use the P or VP words to describe either of these two) might put Big Time in a cage of sorts. He would not be Cheney unbound, contra conventional wisdom. All eyes would finally be on him, he would not be able to operate under his undisclosed rock, he would have seen the principle of accountability in action, and he would be forced to toe the line or face removal himself.
Bush has made his contempt for the will of the people, and their elected representatives, abundantly clear. It's down to Congress -- and ultimately to us -- to re-assert constitutional principles, that he is not a king or an emperor, and that he works for us, not the other way around. Enough of this "commander-in-chief/educator-in-chief" bullshit. The citizens of this country made their decision, they expect him to abide by it, and that is that.
And if puling little media shits refuse to get with the program, they may end up marginalizing themselves in the process. I'll check out the entire transcript as soon as it's available, but if it's more of this nonsense, 60 Minutes just handed over what remaining credibility it possessed.
Mr. Pelley: The Democrat leadership says, “We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000.”
Mr. Bush: Yeah. I know. I will resist that. Listen, we’ve got people criticizing this plan before it’s had a chance to work. they’re saying, “We’re not even gonna fund this thing.” And they’re not gonna give it a chance.
Mr. Pelley: There’s no Democrat plan.
Mr. Bush: It doesn’t look like it to me. And, the interesting thing is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, “Well, we can’t afford to fail.” In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. And — but what’s deafening is those who say “we can’t afford to fail and — and here’s the plan that will cause us not to fail.” Frankly, that’s not their responsibility. It’s my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.
There have been several plans, both bipartisan (anyone hear of a little thing called the Iraq Study Group?) and originating strictly from centrist and conservative Democrats such as Joe Biden and John Murtha. Whether or not they are good plans is something that should be debated on their merits, not dismissed out of hand or dropped down the memory hole.
Then again, since I'm sure Faux News never bothered to even mention these plans, and Bush doesn't read anything that isn't a George Washington biography he can spend six months coloring, he may not even know about these other plans. Either he's unforgivably lazy, or lying through every orifice in his empty skull (and elsewhere). Probably both.
But, you know, Pelley can go straight to hell for not even bothering to contest him on the simple factuality of this. Message to Democrats: if you plan on making a stand, you better stand tall and stand now. If that means defunding this clusterfuck, then do it and hang with the consequences. Otherwise you have a replay next year of what went on in '04, a bunch of cynical nonsense about being for something before you were against something. If nothing else, ferchrissake, at least be clear as to who is actually in a political corner here.
And clearly media tools such as Scott Pelley are always going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. They're cowed by the office, they have no backbone, they are merely court stenographers. If you were unclear on that before, recognize it now.
Mr. Pelley: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?
Mr. Bush: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we’re going forward.
Mr. Pelley: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?
Mr. Bush: I’m gonna have to keep explaining. That’s why I’m doing this interview with you. Scott; sometimes you’re the commander-in-chief, sometimes you’re the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you’re both when it comes to war. And, we are in an ideological struggle. And it’s a really classic ideological struggle. And — Iraq is part of it. And it’s very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.
Translation: I'm the decider, and you people are simply too stupid to understand that you're supposed to agree with me.
Well, bring it, pal. Take this dog-and-pony show out on the road, with your cherry-picked crowds of mouth-breathers, your rehearsed interchanges with pre-selected rubes, and your pre-screened questions, or grotesque statements of unquestioning fealty from gutless humps who abdicate their citizenship just to openly fellate you. Take that around the country again, and see what happens, enabling media or no. It didn't work with the Social Security scam, and he's fifteen points lower than he was then.
I hope Biden was serious the other day about instigating a Constitutional crisis if necessary, because it looks like it's going to be necessary. Republicans were thrown out in a landslide just two months ago, Bush has been well below 45% for 1½ years (most of that below 35%), Iraq has polled unfavorably -- increasingly so -- for well over a year, and he's still doing exactly what he wants to do, and openly daring people to confront him on it.
Maybe impeachment should be considered as a serious option. It had been previously discarded because of the obvious result of a success. But elevating the grand vizier to the dauphin's throne (I refuse to ever use the P or VP words to describe either of these two) might put Big Time in a cage of sorts. He would not be Cheney unbound, contra conventional wisdom. All eyes would finally be on him, he would not be able to operate under his undisclosed rock, he would have seen the principle of accountability in action, and he would be forced to toe the line or face removal himself.
Bush has made his contempt for the will of the people, and their elected representatives, abundantly clear. It's down to Congress -- and ultimately to us -- to re-assert constitutional principles, that he is not a king or an emperor, and that he works for us, not the other way around. Enough of this "commander-in-chief/educator-in-chief" bullshit. The citizens of this country made their decision, they expect him to abide by it, and that is that.
And if puling little media shits refuse to get with the program, they may end up marginalizing themselves in the process. I'll check out the entire transcript as soon as it's available, but if it's more of this nonsense, 60 Minutes just handed over what remaining credibility it possessed.
Identity Politricks
I've always loathed the pernicious trap of identity politics.
This is a problem not only of the Democratic Party perhaps taking minority votes for granted at times, but also of a lazy media spoon-feeding the usual "vote for one of your own" tropes at minorities. This could also be applied to Christians who will only vote for straight white Christians, or men who vote only for men, and so forth. You don't hear much about the Jews or Muslims who voted for Christians, the men who voted for women, the straight people who voted for a gay candidate.
Perhaps we could just start being adults who vote for other adults, based on issues and perceptions of ability and integrity. That alone would change a hell of a lot in the political dynamic of this country, which seems to consist mostly of idiots telling screaming children what they want to hear.
Ever since Sen. Barack Obama has been weighing a 2008 presidential run, I have become intensely aware of the possibility that the front-runners to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee could be a white woman and a black man.
When this topic comes up in conversation, I am often met with well-meaning assurances about how well liked Obama is and how divisive Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is -- unspoken acknowledgments that I shouldn't worry because my guy is more popular, and each time I can't help wanting to shout: "But wait! I'm a woman, too!"
....
There is a sense, often reflected in the media, that black women are black first and women second and that our loyalties fall the same way. And while that is a gross simplification that makes the Berkeley feminist in me want to scream at the top of her lungs, the equally loud, equally Berkeley, race activist in me fights to keep her at bay because the reverse assumption is no better.
The alternative is to call myself a woman first and downplay my identity as a black American. Naturally, this is not the first time my dual identities have had to compete, but it is the first time they're duking it out on the political stage instead of in my own psyche. And the irony that something that should be causing me so much pride is responsible for this psychic conflict is not lost on me.
....
The answer is as simple as the question is stupid. Of course identity doesn't work like that. Women of color are not "women who happen to be racial minorities" and we're not "racial minorities who also happen to be female." We're women of color. And both of those identities inform our decisions, along with the many other identities we happen to embrace.
There are votes to be won by recognizing the simple truth that there is a community of women who are also concerned about race, and there is a community of blacks who are also concerned about gender. Dividing the issue so starkly will cost both of these candidates by forcing an artificial ranking of identities in which no one wants to engage.
This is a problem not only of the Democratic Party perhaps taking minority votes for granted at times, but also of a lazy media spoon-feeding the usual "vote for one of your own" tropes at minorities. This could also be applied to Christians who will only vote for straight white Christians, or men who vote only for men, and so forth. You don't hear much about the Jews or Muslims who voted for Christians, the men who voted for women, the straight people who voted for a gay candidate.
Perhaps we could just start being adults who vote for other adults, based on issues and perceptions of ability and integrity. That alone would change a hell of a lot in the political dynamic of this country, which seems to consist mostly of idiots telling screaming children what they want to hear.
Surge Protector
Declare this an emergency
Come on and spread a sense of urgency
And pull us through
And it's time we saw a miracle
Come on it's time for something biblical
To pull us through
Proclaim eternal victory
Come on and change the course of history
And pull us through
And this is the end of the world -- Apocalypse Please, Muse
Let's meet three of the surviving victims of George W. Bush's judgment. I have very little commentary; their stories speak for themselves.
Faoa Apineru:
Angel Gomez:
Tim Jeffers:
I have no sympathy for Bush's crocodile tears, especially since he keeps insisting on upping the ante, keeps itching to double down, somewhere, anywhere. I hope he cries every day with the knowledge of what he's done, and what he still wants to do. I hope he prays in desperation to whatever spiteful, retributive deity he thinks he believes in for some mask of solace. I hope it gives him nightmares, night after grueling night. The entire world has literally made every effort to try to talk him out of his tree, to steer him away from the path of futility, stupidity, insanity. He has had his chance -- many chances -- to make things right.
He has no right to cry, to grieve. He got exactly what he wanted.
These people, and hundreds of thousands more like them, have to live with the consequences of Bush's decisions every day for the rest of their lives. Why shouldn't he?
Come on and spread a sense of urgency
And pull us through
And it's time we saw a miracle
Come on it's time for something biblical
To pull us through
Proclaim eternal victory
Come on and change the course of history
And pull us through
And this is the end of the world -- Apocalypse Please, Muse
Let's meet three of the surviving victims of George W. Bush's judgment. I have very little commentary; their stories speak for themselves.
Faoa Apineru:
Faoa Apineru should be dead.
In May 2005, he was in a humvee driving down a road in Iraq near the Syrian border when a roadside bomb went off right next to him. The blast was enormous. A shard of metal pierced his face and rattled around his brainpan. He was flown to a hospital in Fallujah, then to another one in Germany and to Bethesda, Md. After many surgeries to fix his brain and face, Apineru made his way to the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System hospital for treatment and rehabilitation.
He couldn't move. He couldn't speak. He was barely alive.
....
He's not fully recovered from his wounds. He suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, which is compounded by his brain injury. He still goes to therapy and he talks with counselors at the PTSD center regularly. Not long ago, he had an episode; he saw someone on the side of the road. Looked like an insurgent, like the one who tried to kill him with a horrible bomb, and he had bad thoughts. Thoughts that required another trip to the PTSD center.
"They're the only ones who really know what's going on with me," he said.
....
AP grew up in Samoa. That's about all he remembers from his childhood. The explosion took away most of his memories.
Picture it: You are an adult in your 20s and you have no recollection of where you grew up, who were your best friends, or your first kiss.
AP's mother told him he had gotten into a lot of trouble when he was growing up. His father thought the Marines would be a good place for him to learn discipline and stay out of trouble. He found out later that his grandfather had served in the Marines in World War II.
AP joined the corps in 1996 and worked his way up to communications chief for his unit.
He was in Iraq only once. At least, he thinks so. He doesn't remember any other tours. He has trouble remembering how to spell his name.
Everyone has his or her demons in rehab. For AP, it's the nightmares.
"After the injury, I always think there's people against me," he said. "I know it's not true; I know I'm in the U.S. But that feeling will get me off guard whenever I have pain, or especially when I go to sleep because I have nightmares. My nightmares are so real, I can feel it, I can smell it."
He dreams about getting hit. The dream is always the same. The only variation is when it starts and when it ends.
....
AP went in and out of consciousness. He remembers someone trying to cut off his bloody uniform, and saying that he didn't appear to be hurt.
He thought he was shaken but physically fine. He took off his protective glasses and looked in what was left of the humvee's side mirror. Blood sprayed from his nose and a big gash close to his ear.
"I just thought, 'Oh my God. I'm f -- ed,' " he said.
He thought maybe the gash was just a deep scratch. He tried to stem the flow of blood with his finger. His finger sunk in deep.
....
When he finally came to, he had no idea where he was. He was alone in a room. His hands were tied down.
A nurse came in and saw he was conscious. She called others into his room and when someone talked to him, he recognized an American accent. He spotted a man wearing the chevrons of a Marine gunnery sergeant. Finally, something he recognized. He relaxed. He didn't know it at the time, but he was at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md.
His mother and sister were there, too.
"Who the hell are those people?" he asked a medic.
"Dude, that's your mom," the man replied.
"What's a mom?" AP asked.
He was sent to Palo Alto for rehabilitation in June 2005. He had to learn how to walk and talk and remember again.
It was a long and difficult road. AP hated the hospital. He hated the smell. He sprayed cologne everywhere to get the stink of antiseptic out of his nostrils. He took test after test, and was frustrated that he could no longer think the way he used to think and remember the simplest things.
He stayed up late at night, going over and over the tests until the nurses forced him to stop, to try to sleep. He was moved to a different hospital, but he kept running away. There's a reason for that, one he's reluctant to share because people think he's nuts.
"I'm seeing people, you know, who are dead already," he said. Not guys he knew. People he never met before.
Angel Gomez:
Angel Gomez just wants to drive.
That's what he was doing when he got hit in March 2005: driving a 7-ton truck in the city of Ramadi. A piece of shrapnel hit his head just behind the ear. It took off a big chunk of skull.
When he got to Palo Alto, he was barely alive. Couldn't walk. Could barely talk. His family wondered if he would ever recover.
Gomez has had surgery to replace a portion of his skull. For a long time, he wore a bicycle helmet to protect his unprotected brain. Now, his head is intact and the only sign of his injury is a long, ragged scar that goes up over his crown and back down toward his neck, a little like a ram's horn. His hair is growing longer and covers most of the scar. He wears a cap most of the time.
But the brain injury has caused physical problems. He can move his right shoulder, but his hand doesn't work. He can walk now, but he needs a brace on his right leg. He's not sure if he'll ever regain full movement on his right side.
Gomez has a sweet smile and bright eyes. He speaks haltingly, and peppers his sentences with "you know," "like" and "whatever." He will be in the middle of a sentence and stop because the right word, an easy word, simply vanishes from his vocabulary without warning.
....
Does he remember it?
"Oh yeah, I remember it," he said.
Gomez was behind the wheel when the blast hit. The explosion rocked the truck, but didn't knock it over. A jagged shard of metal flew through the air and hit him in the head. He was otherwise unhurt.
"I was really dazed, you know," he said. "I was like, 'Whoa, what happened?' "
His good friend, Jesse Aguilar, ran to the vehicle to check him out.
"I saw his face," Gomez said. "He was shocked or whatever. I guess he thought I was gonna die.
"My brain was like showing and stuff. I didn't know."
Gomez said his skull looked like an egg does when it's dropped on the floor. He had pieces of skull in his brain.
Gomez stayed awake as the corpsmen and Marines put him in a humvee and drove to an aid station. He said a medic had to prevent him from touching his head, so he wouldn't hurt himself any further.
....
A couple of weeks ago, Gomez was discharged from the hospital. He moved into an apartment nearby so he could take a bus to the hospital for therapy. But he was itching to drive. He just wanted to get into his truck and hold the wheel in his hands. And move.
Shortly after he moved into his new apartment, he was on the bus, talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone, and he had a seizure. He lay on the floor of the bus, jerking uncontrollably, as his brain fought with itself.
His dreams of driving again went out the window that day. The doctors say he'll need another six months before he can even think about getting behind the wheel of a vehicle again.
Tim Jeffers:
At 22, Tim Jeffers is learning to walk.
He's missing both legs just above the knee. He has high-tech prosthetic legs with feet encased in new black-suede tennis shoes.
Rehabilitation for him -- getting out of the hospital and on his own -- will take some time.
He lost both his legs just above the knee. He lost a finger, his right eye and a chunk of skull just above his right temple. The wound healed but swelling remains, causing his head to be misshapen. He often wears a bicycle helmet to protect his brain.
....
Jeffers recently had surgery to implant a synthetic piece of bone into his skull. A couple of days later, he developed an infection and the piece had to be removed.
It will be another six months before the doctors try that procedure again.
....
Jeffers was a convoy commander in Iraq, and had been in-country about four months when he got hit. It was May 18.
"We were in a convoy, running along," he said. "Over the radio, someone said an IED went off between a military vehicle and civilian contractor vehicle with us. We were at a security halt, to make sure nothing else happened.
"I was at a T-intersection at the halt, so I was looking around. There was some trash in the area, so I was looking to see if there were any loose wires sticking out. I turned around and there were two mufflers in the middle of the road. And then, "Bang." One of them blew up."
Jeffers was about 3 feet from the bomb when it exploded. His legs were mangled and the bomb blew out his eye. It took out a small piece of his skull.
"I was awake the whole time waiting for the helo," he said. "I was yelling and screaming and swearing. That's all I remember. Three or three and half weeks later, I woke up."
He doesn't remember going to a surgical hospital at the American base at Al Asad.
The blast didn't take off his legs, but they were mangled. "As far as I know, I got my first amputation in Al Asad," he said. "I don't know how many amputations total I had. I think there were about four, going higher and higher on the legs.
"The next thing I remember is waking up in the hospital with my dad's face over me. He was telling me to blink once for no and twice for yes, and asking if I could hear him. So I blinked twice. I kinda knew why I was in there, even though it took me a couple of minutes to figure it out."
I have no sympathy for Bush's crocodile tears, especially since he keeps insisting on upping the ante, keeps itching to double down, somewhere, anywhere. I hope he cries every day with the knowledge of what he's done, and what he still wants to do. I hope he prays in desperation to whatever spiteful, retributive deity he thinks he believes in for some mask of solace. I hope it gives him nightmares, night after grueling night. The entire world has literally made every effort to try to talk him out of his tree, to steer him away from the path of futility, stupidity, insanity. He has had his chance -- many chances -- to make things right.
He has no right to cry, to grieve. He got exactly what he wanted.
These people, and hundreds of thousands more like them, have to live with the consequences of Bush's decisions every day for the rest of their lives. Why shouldn't he?
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Fried Rice
It's pretty much par for the course that the usual goons are attempting to disingenuously assert that Barbara Boxer -- who is, after all, from the heart of Jeebus-hatin', homo-lovin', fags a-gittin' hitched! San Francisco -- tried to "smear" Condoleeezzza Rice by implying something untoward regarding her sexuality.
Rice herself demurs simply that she had thought that, as a single woman, she had come a long way, baby.
Come on. That is utter nonsense, and Rice knows it perfectly well. Boxer would not and did not imply any such thing about the decision-making capacities of single people, nor did she, as the other goofballs cynically insist, make any judgments about Rice's personal life, whatever it may entail. (Personally, I think maybe she's just asexual. Some people are; perhaps they just developed different priorities in life. Nothing wrong with that.)
But the thing is that Boxer is absolutely correct about this. Because we have a professional military, and because the citizenry have been dissociated both from the decision-making process and its consequences, there is a cognitive gap between those who actually have skin in this game, those who determine their fates but have no such physical stake, and everyone else, who are neither affecting the terms of the process nor physically participating in the actual war or imminent escalation. I know the Grabthar's Hammer crowd (aka The Knights of Prosperity) like to pretend that they're "contributing" by rubbing the world's nose in their profound fever dreams of vicarious bloodlust, or what they like to think are "ideas" and "principles". But unless we are serving, or have a close friend or relative serving, we are not in the shit, we are merely discussing the smell.
And Rice is indeed fair game for criticism because she has always been -- and continues to be -- one of Fredo's more reliable manure-spreaders any time he decides to drop a deuce.
Al Simpson is not exactly a pinko commie islamojihadi rent-boy. But he should be a bit more honest about the situation. It is not accidental that they repudiate dialogue with Iran. They don't want dialogue; they don't want peace. They want an excuse to expand the escalation, and take on the mullahs. They didn't laterally move an admiral from PACOM to take over for Abizaid at CENTCOM -- where the only significant body of water is the Strait of Hormuz -- for nothing. They haven't moved a carrier group and a Patriot missile battery to the Persian Gulf for shits and giggles.
And that is why Boxer is right, much righter than Rice's hypocritical defenders and Rice herself will let themselves admit. Someone else deals with the consequences of their grandiose schemes. Someone else foots the bill, pays the weapons contractors and the reconstruction grifters. Someone else takes the bullet, or the sword, or the power drill, or the cluster bomb.
When Pierce Bush has to serve in Iraq or Iran, then Unca George will find a way to jaw-jaw instead of reflexively going for war-war. Till then, it's more cheap sloganeering and cynical posturing, like always. Making this about some imagined insult regarding Rice's personal life (or lack of one) is a ridiculously transparent dodge.
Rice herself demurs simply that she had thought that, as a single woman, she had come a long way, baby.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday criticized Sen. Barbara Boxer's suggestion that, because she does not have family in harm's way, she will pay no "personal price" in the Iraq war.
"In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is, 'Are you making good decisions because you have kids?' " Rice said on Fox News.
Come on. That is utter nonsense, and Rice knows it perfectly well. Boxer would not and did not imply any such thing about the decision-making capacities of single people, nor did she, as the other goofballs cynically insist, make any judgments about Rice's personal life, whatever it may entail. (Personally, I think maybe she's just asexual. Some people are; perhaps they just developed different priorities in life. Nothing wrong with that.)
But the thing is that Boxer is absolutely correct about this. Because we have a professional military, and because the citizenry have been dissociated both from the decision-making process and its consequences, there is a cognitive gap between those who actually have skin in this game, those who determine their fates but have no such physical stake, and everyone else, who are neither affecting the terms of the process nor physically participating in the actual war or imminent escalation. I know the Grabthar's Hammer crowd (aka The Knights of Prosperity) like to pretend that they're "contributing" by rubbing the world's nose in their profound fever dreams of vicarious bloodlust, or what they like to think are "ideas" and "principles". But unless we are serving, or have a close friend or relative serving, we are not in the shit, we are merely discussing the smell.
And Rice is indeed fair game for criticism because she has always been -- and continues to be -- one of Fredo's more reliable manure-spreaders any time he decides to drop a deuce.
Former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), another [Iraq Study Group] panel member, said that Bush's plan is "better than the status quo" but voiced disappointment that he did not agree to talk with Syria and Iran. "Nothing is ever solved by not talking to somebody," he said. Simpson said he was stunned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statement that Iran could use talks with the United States to extort concessions. "Where did that come from?" he asked. " What the hell is gained by not thinking of some kind of system to talk? It makes no sense."
Al Simpson is not exactly a pinko commie islamojihadi rent-boy. But he should be a bit more honest about the situation. It is not accidental that they repudiate dialogue with Iran. They don't want dialogue; they don't want peace. They want an excuse to expand the escalation, and take on the mullahs. They didn't laterally move an admiral from PACOM to take over for Abizaid at CENTCOM -- where the only significant body of water is the Strait of Hormuz -- for nothing. They haven't moved a carrier group and a Patriot missile battery to the Persian Gulf for shits and giggles.
And that is why Boxer is right, much righter than Rice's hypocritical defenders and Rice herself will let themselves admit. Someone else deals with the consequences of their grandiose schemes. Someone else foots the bill, pays the weapons contractors and the reconstruction grifters. Someone else takes the bullet, or the sword, or the power drill, or the cluster bomb.
When Pierce Bush has to serve in Iraq or Iran, then Unca George will find a way to jaw-jaw instead of reflexively going for war-war. Till then, it's more cheap sloganeering and cynical posturing, like always. Making this about some imagined insult regarding Rice's personal life (or lack of one) is a ridiculously transparent dodge.
Gas Giant
I think this is one of the more interesting and under-reported stories (understandably so; it's not like there's nothing else going on right now), in that it could set the tone of power politics in Europe for the foreseeable future.
See, Pooty-Poot, he of the transparently benevolent soul and dreamy blue eyes, is consolidating power both internally (squashing dissent; brazenly assassinating journalists and defectors; nuclear terrorism) and externally (restoring an entente relatioship with the ascendant Chinese; shaking down neighbors with exorbitant and sudden price increases on energy resources).
So far Putin's tactics have worked, whether on independence-minded former soviet states such as Ukraine, or de facto satellite dictatorships such as Belarus.
Stay tuned on this one. Whether it's murdering and imprisoning political enemies, continuing a dirty war in Chechnya, false-flag terrorism in his own country, or shaking down his neighbors just to remind them who holds all their energy cards, Putin's got major hand right now, and he's clearly not shy about using it. Right now he's just waiting to see what our next move on Iran is going to be, given Russia's business interests in that country. This is Big Picture Strategery stuff, and no doubt Putin is twenty moves ahead of The Decider. If he can use this to start wedging the U.S. and Europe, he will.
Europe is fretting over its energy supplies following Russia's decision on Monday to halt oil exports to western Europe because of a pipeline dispute with Belarus.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has indicated that Germany may rethink its plan to phase out nuclear power generation. Media commentators in Germany are furious with Russia.
See, Pooty-Poot, he of the transparently benevolent soul and dreamy blue eyes, is consolidating power both internally (squashing dissent; brazenly assassinating journalists and defectors; nuclear terrorism) and externally (restoring an entente relatioship with the ascendant Chinese; shaking down neighbors with exorbitant and sudden price increases on energy resources).
So far Putin's tactics have worked, whether on independence-minded former soviet states such as Ukraine, or de facto satellite dictatorships such as Belarus.
Business daily Handelsblatt writes:
"The case of Belarus harbors a lesson for western Europe: Russia is once again showing how irresponsibly it is handling its increased global role. The world's second largest oil exporter and most important gas producer should be aware that trust and reliable supplies are the most important assets in the energy industry."
"It's precisely this asset that Moscow is putting at stake in its row with Belarus. And in the wake of the conflict with Ukraine, the Kremlin is again proving that it's prepared to use energy supplies as a political weapon. That is why Europe must lessen its dependence on Russian oil and gas despite all Moscow's assurances of friendship."
"And Russia must accept the rules on dispute settlement enshrined in the European Energy Charter. The Russian mechanism of simply turning off oil and gas supplies or doubling prices whenever there's a row is more than impertinent."
Stay tuned on this one. Whether it's murdering and imprisoning political enemies, continuing a dirty war in Chechnya, false-flag terrorism in his own country, or shaking down his neighbors just to remind them who holds all their energy cards, Putin's got major hand right now, and he's clearly not shy about using it. Right now he's just waiting to see what our next move on Iran is going to be, given Russia's business interests in that country. This is Big Picture Strategery stuff, and no doubt Putin is twenty moves ahead of The Decider. If he can use this to start wedging the U.S. and Europe, he will.
Pantloadonomicon
So Crunchy Con Man Rod Dreher has had his come-to-Jeebus moment on NPR, much to the doughy chagrin of Monsieur Pantload:
He actually has some correct points here -- Carter and Bush, while both being tragically ineffective foreign policy presidents, arrived at their destinations by much different paths, obviously. And Dreher's hippie-based epiphany does not, in and of itself, assert some amazing prescience to hippies per se. If anything, Dreher's being passive-aggressive in his hippie props here, implying that the people who took a principled anti-war stance and stuck to it were dropping acid and forming daisy chains at The Presidio. It's a nonsensical assertion at best, as even the initial wave of anti-war sentiment had plenty of middle-class suburbia voicing its displeasure, when they had the time to get off the hamster wheel and say something. And at this point, even lifelong Republicans, even meat-and-potatoes veterans from the sanctified heartland, have had enough. Is Chuck Hagel a pussy or a hippie, if Pantload or Dreher say so?
This is less interesting in a pure political sense, because neither Dreher nor Goldberg has ever had anything truly insightful to say. Dreher is essentially a milquetoast cultural conservative, a Bobo Lite who fancies himself something of a Hank Hill character, moving out to the heartland because he thinks it's all Jesus and flag factories, and finding out the hard way that a lot of it is crank labs and high unemployment, people squatting in dirt plots with nothing but fear and desperation motivating them. So he's tried to cultivate some sort of spiritual trend among people who drive Hummers to megachurches, because they rilly rilly believe in cultivating a personal relationship with God, especially when He provides a Starbucks and a Dunkin Donuts in His house, as well as preacher with a headset mike and a 5000-watt PA system. Raise da roof in His name, yo!
Goldberg is....well, Goldberg -- intellectually sloth-like, to the point where he literally finishes the cover to his next book over a year before he starts writing the fucking thing. He is able to lob epithets at Carter's "feckless" foreign policy without batting an eyelash, apparently forgetting that the word not only means "feeble", but also "careless and irresponsible", like a certain brain surgeon we all know and loathe. So perhaps comparisons of Bush to Carter are not entirely inapt, considering that the end results meet much more than they diverge. Carter cost us prestige on the world stage, but for a lot less blood and treasure, if you want to be practically minded about it.
Which is where this little dance is particularly interesting, at least to me. Again, the political aspect of it is dry and predictable -- someone goes off the reservation; the remaining tribe members instantly find ways to either discredit him or downplay his apostasy. Nothing new to see there. But in the taxonomic, cultural anthropology sense, it is interesting. Actual conservatism used to be at least somewhat practically minded, even at the expense of idealism, not so long ago. Conventional wisdom presumes that 9/11 presented an existential necessity in which conservatism was forced to morph into interventionism, if not actual idealism.
This is flat-out untrue; the pieces were in play long before 9/11. Conservatism did not morph so much as get marginalized by the Gingrich revolutionaries, who subverted and commandeered cultural tropes and semiotic benchmarks to grab power and assert dominance. These people are not conservatives, they are authoritarians. They are pushing power in the guise of idealism, which would be anathema to an old-school conservative. Instead it is interventionism, endless adventurism, wrapped in heuristic affirmations of the people on whose backs their own jihad is waged.
Dreher's instincts, however he arrived at them, are correct. It's not about whether "hippies" were right or wrong, nor "liberals", nor "conservatives", nor the useless pod-people who pretend to be conservatives. Dreher has finally come to the fundamental realization that Bush can not be trusted. That he took six years to figure that out is no feather in his intemellectual cap, but better late than never. Goldbleg's continued employment, on the other hand, apparently depends on his never understanding such an obvious fact. When Bush doubles down in another few months and decides to expand the war to Damascus and Tehran, indiscriminately ending thousands of lives with air strikes and "tactical" nukes, he will find an excuse. That's what he does; that's all he does. But if he thinks that merely being wrong for all the "right" reasons somehow absolves him from taking responsibility for what he tacitly and explicitly endorses -- always at the price of someone else's skin, never his own -- then he's simply compounded his own moral dilemma.
Politicians, and the puling scriveners who follow them around and lionize them uncritically, are an odd lot in terms of accountability. In what other jobs can you be so consistently, tragically wrong, and still be handsomely rewarded?
You'll actually have to go there to hear him 'cause I'm not going to type up his comments. I can't fault Rod for his frustration with the war, though I think he comes across as pretty anti-intellectual and unfair in his tirade — as if there was no good faith or no good arguments for the positions he once held and which lots of folks he respects still hold. I should also say that the comparison to Jimmy Carter is really quite weak. Simply because Carter's feckless foreign policy and Bush's over confident foreign policy elicited similar feelings in Rod doesn't mean that they can be glibly equated. Indeed, even if the result of Bush's foreign policy has had the consequence of projecting an image of weakness around the globe as Rod asserts, that doesn't mean they are similar foreign policies. They do come from very different impulses, I think everyone can agree.
Likewise, simply because Rod has the same feelings as hippies that doesn't mean the hippies were right then (or that Rod is right now). In short, there's a lot of talk about feelings.
He actually has some correct points here -- Carter and Bush, while both being tragically ineffective foreign policy presidents, arrived at their destinations by much different paths, obviously. And Dreher's hippie-based epiphany does not, in and of itself, assert some amazing prescience to hippies per se. If anything, Dreher's being passive-aggressive in his hippie props here, implying that the people who took a principled anti-war stance and stuck to it were dropping acid and forming daisy chains at The Presidio. It's a nonsensical assertion at best, as even the initial wave of anti-war sentiment had plenty of middle-class suburbia voicing its displeasure, when they had the time to get off the hamster wheel and say something. And at this point, even lifelong Republicans, even meat-and-potatoes veterans from the sanctified heartland, have had enough. Is Chuck Hagel a pussy or a hippie, if Pantload or Dreher say so?
This is less interesting in a pure political sense, because neither Dreher nor Goldberg has ever had anything truly insightful to say. Dreher is essentially a milquetoast cultural conservative, a Bobo Lite who fancies himself something of a Hank Hill character, moving out to the heartland because he thinks it's all Jesus and flag factories, and finding out the hard way that a lot of it is crank labs and high unemployment, people squatting in dirt plots with nothing but fear and desperation motivating them. So he's tried to cultivate some sort of spiritual trend among people who drive Hummers to megachurches, because they rilly rilly believe in cultivating a personal relationship with God, especially when He provides a Starbucks and a Dunkin Donuts in His house, as well as preacher with a headset mike and a 5000-watt PA system. Raise da roof in His name, yo!
Goldberg is....well, Goldberg -- intellectually sloth-like, to the point where he literally finishes the cover to his next book over a year before he starts writing the fucking thing. He is able to lob epithets at Carter's "feckless" foreign policy without batting an eyelash, apparently forgetting that the word not only means "feeble", but also "careless and irresponsible", like a certain brain surgeon we all know and loathe. So perhaps comparisons of Bush to Carter are not entirely inapt, considering that the end results meet much more than they diverge. Carter cost us prestige on the world stage, but for a lot less blood and treasure, if you want to be practically minded about it.
Which is where this little dance is particularly interesting, at least to me. Again, the political aspect of it is dry and predictable -- someone goes off the reservation; the remaining tribe members instantly find ways to either discredit him or downplay his apostasy. Nothing new to see there. But in the taxonomic, cultural anthropology sense, it is interesting. Actual conservatism used to be at least somewhat practically minded, even at the expense of idealism, not so long ago. Conventional wisdom presumes that 9/11 presented an existential necessity in which conservatism was forced to morph into interventionism, if not actual idealism.
This is flat-out untrue; the pieces were in play long before 9/11. Conservatism did not morph so much as get marginalized by the Gingrich revolutionaries, who subverted and commandeered cultural tropes and semiotic benchmarks to grab power and assert dominance. These people are not conservatives, they are authoritarians. They are pushing power in the guise of idealism, which would be anathema to an old-school conservative. Instead it is interventionism, endless adventurism, wrapped in heuristic affirmations of the people on whose backs their own jihad is waged.
Dreher's instincts, however he arrived at them, are correct. It's not about whether "hippies" were right or wrong, nor "liberals", nor "conservatives", nor the useless pod-people who pretend to be conservatives. Dreher has finally come to the fundamental realization that Bush can not be trusted. That he took six years to figure that out is no feather in his intemellectual cap, but better late than never. Goldbleg's continued employment, on the other hand, apparently depends on his never understanding such an obvious fact. When Bush doubles down in another few months and decides to expand the war to Damascus and Tehran, indiscriminately ending thousands of lives with air strikes and "tactical" nukes, he will find an excuse. That's what he does; that's all he does. But if he thinks that merely being wrong for all the "right" reasons somehow absolves him from taking responsibility for what he tacitly and explicitly endorses -- always at the price of someone else's skin, never his own -- then he's simply compounded his own moral dilemma.
Politicians, and the puling scriveners who follow them around and lionize them uncritically, are an odd lot in terms of accountability. In what other jobs can you be so consistently, tragically wrong, and still be handsomely rewarded?
Friday, January 12, 2007
Afflicting The Comfortable
Seems that the Serious Media have finally found a reason to get upset.
I think we all just vomited a little in our mouths. They've let these guys treat them like something they scraped off the bottom of their shoes for six years and now they're outraged? Seriously? Well, never let it be said that these hard-jerkin'workin' folks don't stand for anything.
This is the long-suffering battered wife, finally standing up to her asshole husband, not because he beats the shit out her once a week, not because he's a useless alcoholic sack of shit, not because he molests the kids, but because he grabbed the remote and turned the channel while she was watching her favorite rerun of Nanny 911.
Consider the events of just the past week, not to mention the context of the past six years (or even the past six months). After the hype campaign for Bush's bright "surge" idea, it was instantly apparent that they were more concerned about appearance than substance, even as Bush demonstrated his utter contempt for the clear message voters and polls have consistently sent by initiating a potentially catastrophic strategic plan, which apparently involves covert aggression on Syria and Iran, to goad one or both into a pretext for full-scale attack. And he even had the gall to go and lie to the troops about his rationales, and the experts' opinions on the viability of this week's master strategery.
But goddammit, the Serious Media will not put up with pool feed press photos. Make no mistake, they are On The Case. Great job, folks. Enjoy the cocktail weenies.
January 12, 2007
Mr. Dan Bartlett
Counselor to the President,
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dan,
On behalf of the White House Correspondents’ Association, and in conjunction with the White House News Photographers Association, we are writing to express our outrage that still pool photographers were denied access to the White House library on Wednesday evening. As you know, following weeks of preparation and the White House build-up leading up to the presidential address, this was a significant foreign policy speech. Forcing newspapers and magazines to rely on a “screen grab” photo from the Fox News network pool feed is simply unacceptable.
In recent months, there has been a growing pattern of restricting pool photographers to White House events, but the situation Wednesday night for this important speech to the nation is the most glaring.
We expressed our concern to Tony Snow and Dana Perino earlier today, and join the WHNPA in asking that this practice end. These photographers provide a vital service to wires, magazines and newspapers around the world, while also serving as a lasting historical record to the events of our times. In addition, a White House photo release is never an acceptable substitute for independent news coverage. Therefore, in our strongest terms possible, we want to express our disappointment that a decision was made to keep even a single pool photographer from the room, and ask that it never happen again.
Regards,
Board of Directors - WHCA
Steven Scully, C-SPAN
Ann Compton, ABC News
Jennifer Loven, Associated Press
Peter Maer, CBS News
Steve Holland, Reuters
Doug Mills, New York Times
Ken Walsh, US News & World Report
Ken Herman, Cox Newspapers
Mike Allen, TIME
I think we all just vomited a little in our mouths. They've let these guys treat them like something they scraped off the bottom of their shoes for six years and now they're outraged? Seriously? Well, never let it be said that these hard-
This is the long-suffering battered wife, finally standing up to her asshole husband, not because he beats the shit out her once a week, not because he's a useless alcoholic sack of shit, not because he molests the kids, but because he grabbed the remote and turned the channel while she was watching her favorite rerun of Nanny 911.
Consider the events of just the past week, not to mention the context of the past six years (or even the past six months). After the hype campaign for Bush's bright "surge" idea, it was instantly apparent that they were more concerned about appearance than substance, even as Bush demonstrated his utter contempt for the clear message voters and polls have consistently sent by initiating a potentially catastrophic strategic plan, which apparently involves covert aggression on Syria and Iran, to goad one or both into a pretext for full-scale attack. And he even had the gall to go and lie to the troops about his rationales, and the experts' opinions on the viability of this week's master strategery.
But goddammit, the Serious Media will not put up with pool feed press photos. Make no mistake, they are On The Case. Great job, folks. Enjoy the cocktail weenies.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Hall Of Lame
I promised myself that I wasn't going to bother this time around with bitching about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's predictably lame selections this year. But, you know, resolutions are made to be broken and all, so we'll compromise and keep it short(er).
Van Halen is a predictably solid choice, I suppose, but it seems like they should have been a first-ballot selection, which would have been a couple years ago by my reckoning. I mean, Eddie only influenced at least as many aspiring rock guitar players as Clapton or Hendrix, if not more. (So, for that matter, did Randy Rhoads. And pound for pound, a surprising number of modern rock guitar players claim relative unknowns such as Michael Schenker or Ulrich Roth as influences.) Why the wait for Van Halen? And is it a particular lineup, or is the one-album Gary Cherone configuration in as an equal to the classic Roth group or the later Van Hagar?
When Roth left and Hagar joined the band, I got a kick out of the ridiculous "Sam vs. Dave" arguments. Each lineup had its own focus, and as such, really became something of its own entity. The early years had some serious flaws (short albums with second-half filler; waaaay too many covers, most of them not worth bothering with), but made up for a lot of that with innovative playing and energetic riffing. The Hagar lineup featured more solid songwriting overall (for that milieu; bear with me, I don't want to get into any weird pissing contests with lonely Bob Dylan/Nick Drake fans over whose desultory poetry was most evocative of T.S. Eliot while Hagar and Roth were cribbing their "hot dog and a shake" verbiage from a restroom stall), with more attentive arranging and structuring from Eddie, but the solos no longer set your hair on end.
Still, like 'em or not, Van Halen at their prime were the apotheosis of what a great American rock band could and should be. What Aerosmith did with that magical Get Your Wings/Toys In The Attic/Rocks trifecta, Van Halen managed to reasonably replicate with their first three albums. Especially given the particular time period, when legitimate punk bands like the Ramones and MC5 were getting overshadowed by poseurs and post-disco hacks, who in turn paved the way for douchey new-wave androgynes, all of whom deserved to get their sorry asses kicked.
Which brings me to REM. I remember hearing Radio Free Europe on my cheesy little clock-radio when I was maybe fifteen. I had no idea what the words were, but I loved the energy and the melody. It was a great introduction to the garagey sound of what derisively became known as college rock.
But the more popular they got, the more I hated them -- twee, precious, tiresomely simplistic, almost to the point of fucking pomo nursery rhymes. Losing My Religion was particularly disappointing, because I actually liked the song, and then I saw the video, Stipe spasming around in his corner with a bunch of creepy, self-indulgent imagery. Feh. In the end, REM had their moments, but were never truly great. They innovated a few interesting things early on, and stuck around for a while, but that's about it. For me, they became a parody of themselves with Stand and The One I Love, the last in particular because its hooky riff was ruined by the disninterested monotony of the lyrics and vocals. Then the infamous SNL skit with Norm Macdonald's Bob Dole joining The Real World, and leaving to the weepy strains of Everybody Hurts after he overhears his roommates talking shit about him. Great stuff.
I dunno, it just seems like, say, The Cars or Todd Rundgren are long overdue, and I'm sure we can all come up with our own pet selections who've been overlooked. And not to slam the other three inductees too gratuitously, but I honestly can't name more than a song or two from any of them. I know Patti Smith has always been a critics' darling, but professional rock critics are mostly useless. The only thing good about the canonized Lester Bangs is that he died with The Human League's Dare on his stereo, which, you know -- look, as an intellectual exercise, ask yourself what music of the spheres you would wish to hear as you drew your last breath. Maybe you'd go for Bach or Beethoven, maybe you'd say Hendrix. There's no goddamned way you're going to say Human League. That's like killing yourself while listening to Men Without Hats -- which in itself is a rather slow and painful form of suicide.
So anyway, I guess I can't dump on the other three too much, because I'm simply not familiar enough with their respective catalogs. But that in itself would tend to mitigate their influence and effect on mainstream pop/rock music, which I would think counts for a significant portion of the selection criteria.
But I suppose the real issue I have, as I've said before, is that it's a bit enervating to consider this strange notion of trying to turn something which is overtly based on sex and energy and vitality into a fetishized museum piece. It's hard to knock truly great and innovative bands finally getting their due, but it's also difficult not to reflexively consider all the great ones still out there, eligible yet hung up on subjective criteria.
Van Halen is a predictably solid choice, I suppose, but it seems like they should have been a first-ballot selection, which would have been a couple years ago by my reckoning. I mean, Eddie only influenced at least as many aspiring rock guitar players as Clapton or Hendrix, if not more. (So, for that matter, did Randy Rhoads. And pound for pound, a surprising number of modern rock guitar players claim relative unknowns such as Michael Schenker or Ulrich Roth as influences.) Why the wait for Van Halen? And is it a particular lineup, or is the one-album Gary Cherone configuration in as an equal to the classic Roth group or the later Van Hagar?
When Roth left and Hagar joined the band, I got a kick out of the ridiculous "Sam vs. Dave" arguments. Each lineup had its own focus, and as such, really became something of its own entity. The early years had some serious flaws (short albums with second-half filler; waaaay too many covers, most of them not worth bothering with), but made up for a lot of that with innovative playing and energetic riffing. The Hagar lineup featured more solid songwriting overall (for that milieu; bear with me, I don't want to get into any weird pissing contests with lonely Bob Dylan/Nick Drake fans over whose desultory poetry was most evocative of T.S. Eliot while Hagar and Roth were cribbing their "hot dog and a shake" verbiage from a restroom stall), with more attentive arranging and structuring from Eddie, but the solos no longer set your hair on end.
Still, like 'em or not, Van Halen at their prime were the apotheosis of what a great American rock band could and should be. What Aerosmith did with that magical Get Your Wings/Toys In The Attic/Rocks trifecta, Van Halen managed to reasonably replicate with their first three albums. Especially given the particular time period, when legitimate punk bands like the Ramones and MC5 were getting overshadowed by poseurs and post-disco hacks, who in turn paved the way for douchey new-wave androgynes, all of whom deserved to get their sorry asses kicked.
Which brings me to REM. I remember hearing Radio Free Europe on my cheesy little clock-radio when I was maybe fifteen. I had no idea what the words were, but I loved the energy and the melody. It was a great introduction to the garagey sound of what derisively became known as college rock.
But the more popular they got, the more I hated them -- twee, precious, tiresomely simplistic, almost to the point of fucking pomo nursery rhymes. Losing My Religion was particularly disappointing, because I actually liked the song, and then I saw the video, Stipe spasming around in his corner with a bunch of creepy, self-indulgent imagery. Feh. In the end, REM had their moments, but were never truly great. They innovated a few interesting things early on, and stuck around for a while, but that's about it. For me, they became a parody of themselves with Stand and The One I Love, the last in particular because its hooky riff was ruined by the disninterested monotony of the lyrics and vocals. Then the infamous SNL skit with Norm Macdonald's Bob Dole joining The Real World, and leaving to the weepy strains of Everybody Hurts after he overhears his roommates talking shit about him. Great stuff.
I dunno, it just seems like, say, The Cars or Todd Rundgren are long overdue, and I'm sure we can all come up with our own pet selections who've been overlooked. And not to slam the other three inductees too gratuitously, but I honestly can't name more than a song or two from any of them. I know Patti Smith has always been a critics' darling, but professional rock critics are mostly useless. The only thing good about the canonized Lester Bangs is that he died with The Human League's Dare on his stereo, which, you know -- look, as an intellectual exercise, ask yourself what music of the spheres you would wish to hear as you drew your last breath. Maybe you'd go for Bach or Beethoven, maybe you'd say Hendrix. There's no goddamned way you're going to say Human League. That's like killing yourself while listening to Men Without Hats -- which in itself is a rather slow and painful form of suicide.
So anyway, I guess I can't dump on the other three too much, because I'm simply not familiar enough with their respective catalogs. But that in itself would tend to mitigate their influence and effect on mainstream pop/rock music, which I would think counts for a significant portion of the selection criteria.
But I suppose the real issue I have, as I've said before, is that it's a bit enervating to consider this strange notion of trying to turn something which is overtly based on sex and energy and vitality into a fetishized museum piece. It's hard to knock truly great and innovative bands finally getting their due, but it's also difficult not to reflexively consider all the great ones still out there, eligible yet hung up on subjective criteria.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Sacrifice
So the revised master plan calls for more sacrifice -- from everyone but the people who got us into this mess, and the people profiting the most from it.
The "sacrifice" that's being "asked" for is merely a restatement of the same contemptuous declarations. Americans are being told to put up with more of the same nonsense, lies, and incompetence, despite making their opinions on the subject quite clear at the ballot box, as well as the consistent trend of polls. (Really, "incompetence" doesn't quite cover it. Criminal negligence or depraved indifference would be more accurate.)
We have already sacrificed our common sense and trust in these venal people. They are so utterly corrupt and mendacious that it not only beggars the imagination, but paradoxically becomes almost mundane upon close scrutiny, because it is readily apparent that it is practically an involuntary reflex with them, like the beat of a heart or the drawing of breath. This has been consistently demonstrated by their actions -- Bush repeatedly used his ground commanders as cover for his failures, until they started openly disagreeing with him. So now they have been replaced, and the new generals are already voicing tacit doubts about the realism of a "surge", a "bump", or an "escalation".
It is too late for any of that, and the numbers don't reflect the requirements on the ground anyway. So these professional military careerists have sacrificed their life's work for Junior's folly, and his inability to admit error. Iraqis have sacrificed their lives, their livelihoods, their society for years to come, because the smart guys in their undisclosed locations prayed real hard and decided they knew better than anyone else. The result? Not only did they actually manage to make Saddam look like a martyr, not only have they now empowered the very same thugs who have killed scores of American troops, but they managed to test the notional insanity that some things could actually be worse than Saddam Hussein's blood-soaked mafia running the country. Now it is hell on earth, on the verge of becoming a failed state, perhaps to be pulled back from the precipice by whatever gang of theocratic murderers manages to claw their way to the top of the heap of mutilated bodies.
Is that enough "sacrifice" for the armchair chin-strokers as they postulate their next big Stratego move?
Nobody named Bush or Cheney will be "sacrificing", not with their lives, their wallets, their job prospects. Oh, we may not see another Bush darkening the door of the West Wing for some time, but you can be sure that wherever there's a grift to be had, a palm to be greased, a well-heeled back to be slapped, a Moonie ass to be kissed, a madrassa-supporting sheik to be coddled, there'll be a Bush, with Cheney's rictus behind him and his hand up his ass. There's no shortage of Bushes to be trained for the next generation of partying, running other people's businesses into the ground, and finding a spot at some government trough. It's the surest bet this side of Bill Bennett's video-poker machine.
And speaking of not sacrificing, the oil companies will fare quite nicely out of this, as if such an outcome were ever in doubt:
Well, that's certainly a relief. As long as Halliburton and Shell and the rest of them get their fair share of the big prize, I guess that's what really counts, right? That it gets couched in the rhetoric of futility, of trying once more to square the circle, is apparently incidental. And if perchance we happen to get duped by our new Shi'a buddies into helping them settle old scores with their enemies and their enemies' clans, well, there's your ever-expanding omelet. Eggs everywhere.
What's most galling is the steadfast refusal of the base to acknowledge reality, gleefully at that. One might expect them to be at least regretful about their vicarious sadism, their retributive fantasies of blood and fire spewing forth from Grabthar's hammer or whatever the fuck it is they wank to. This will be yet another last chance, until the can is sufficiently kicked to the next suit, nothing more than scooting the deck chairs around still again, while people who know absolutely nothing about the people we invaded continue to make dumb decisions based on compromised information and bad faith.
Bush will get his way on this, because he has the poker face of the true believer. Either he gets some miniscule benefit of half-hearted doubt, and figure he genuinely believes he has four aces, or he knows better and he's just a ruthlessly cynical bastard. If he really is just bluffing the Democrats just long enough to pass the buck, I don't even know what to say; it's obviously beneath contempt.
The best we can hope for here is for the responsible opposition -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to at least insert some sort of accountability lingo into this mess. There are no more Friedmans with which to keep dicking around and fumbling for light. Some sort of contingency plan should be appended to this desperation measure, and then hung about the neck of the fools who got us into this, once and for all.
But new public opinion polls found the US public believes the March 2003 US-led invasion was a mistake and broadly opposes sending more soldiers to a battlefield where more than 3,000 of them have already died.
A USA Today/Gallup survey taken Friday through Sunday showed 61 percent opposed a troop increase, compared to 36 percent who supported it. Forty-two percent said they strongly opposed a temporary troop surge, and 19 percent moderately opposed the idea, it found.
Approval of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation stood at 26 percent, a record low, according to the survey, which had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.
And almost half said they believed that no matter how many troops might be sent, the United States cannot achieve its goals, the survey showed.
Another poll by CBS television found that just 18 percent wanted to see more US troops in Iraq, 17 percent favor current levels, 30 percent sought a decrease, and 29 percent called for a complete withdrawal.
The "sacrifice" that's being "asked" for is merely a restatement of the same contemptuous declarations. Americans are being told to put up with more of the same nonsense, lies, and incompetence, despite making their opinions on the subject quite clear at the ballot box, as well as the consistent trend of polls. (Really, "incompetence" doesn't quite cover it. Criminal negligence or depraved indifference would be more accurate.)
We have already sacrificed our common sense and trust in these venal people. They are so utterly corrupt and mendacious that it not only beggars the imagination, but paradoxically becomes almost mundane upon close scrutiny, because it is readily apparent that it is practically an involuntary reflex with them, like the beat of a heart or the drawing of breath. This has been consistently demonstrated by their actions -- Bush repeatedly used his ground commanders as cover for his failures, until they started openly disagreeing with him. So now they have been replaced, and the new generals are already voicing tacit doubts about the realism of a "surge", a "bump", or an "escalation".
It is too late for any of that, and the numbers don't reflect the requirements on the ground anyway. So these professional military careerists have sacrificed their life's work for Junior's folly, and his inability to admit error. Iraqis have sacrificed their lives, their livelihoods, their society for years to come, because the smart guys in their undisclosed locations prayed real hard and decided they knew better than anyone else. The result? Not only did they actually manage to make Saddam look like a martyr, not only have they now empowered the very same thugs who have killed scores of American troops, but they managed to test the notional insanity that some things could actually be worse than Saddam Hussein's blood-soaked mafia running the country. Now it is hell on earth, on the verge of becoming a failed state, perhaps to be pulled back from the precipice by whatever gang of theocratic murderers manages to claw their way to the top of the heap of mutilated bodies.
Is that enough "sacrifice" for the armchair chin-strokers as they postulate their next big Stratego move?
Nobody named Bush or Cheney will be "sacrificing", not with their lives, their wallets, their job prospects. Oh, we may not see another Bush darkening the door of the West Wing for some time, but you can be sure that wherever there's a grift to be had, a palm to be greased, a well-heeled back to be slapped, a Moonie ass to be kissed, a madrassa-supporting sheik to be coddled, there'll be a Bush, with Cheney's rictus behind him and his hand up his ass. There's no shortage of Bushes to be trained for the next generation of partying, running other people's businesses into the ground, and finding a spot at some government trough. It's the surest bet this side of Bill Bennett's video-poker machine.
And speaking of not sacrificing, the oil companies will fare quite nicely out of this, as if such an outcome were ever in doubt:
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.
Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."
Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.
Well, that's certainly a relief. As long as Halliburton and Shell and the rest of them get their fair share of the big prize, I guess that's what really counts, right? That it gets couched in the rhetoric of futility, of trying once more to square the circle, is apparently incidental. And if perchance we happen to get duped by our new Shi'a buddies into helping them settle old scores with their enemies and their enemies' clans, well, there's your ever-expanding omelet. Eggs everywhere.
What's most galling is the steadfast refusal of the base to acknowledge reality, gleefully at that. One might expect them to be at least regretful about their vicarious sadism, their retributive fantasies of blood and fire spewing forth from Grabthar's hammer or whatever the fuck it is they wank to. This will be yet another last chance, until the can is sufficiently kicked to the next suit, nothing more than scooting the deck chairs around still again, while people who know absolutely nothing about the people we invaded continue to make dumb decisions based on compromised information and bad faith.
Bush will get his way on this, because he has the poker face of the true believer. Either he gets some miniscule benefit of half-hearted doubt, and figure he genuinely believes he has four aces, or he knows better and he's just a ruthlessly cynical bastard. If he really is just bluffing the Democrats just long enough to pass the buck, I don't even know what to say; it's obviously beneath contempt.
The best we can hope for here is for the responsible opposition -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to at least insert some sort of accountability lingo into this mess. There are no more Friedmans with which to keep dicking around and fumbling for light. Some sort of contingency plan should be appended to this desperation measure, and then hung about the neck of the fools who got us into this, once and for all.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Cheney's Got A Gun (Again)
Consider yourselves warned. The fearless hunter is off to another petting zoo to blow away fattened, flightless, semi-domesticated game birds. I'm sure we're all very impressed. It's quite a hobby he's got.
(As always, I should probably reiterate that I have no problem with hunting for food. But what people like Cheney do isn't "hunting", it's killing. I don't know what to make of people like that.)
(As always, I should probably reiterate that I have no problem with hunting for food. But what people like Cheney do isn't "hunting", it's killing. I don't know what to make of people like that.)
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Here's Another Clue For You All
The Knights of Prosperity step on their thumb-dicks again:
And of course it was an inside job, shucked away with scarcely a nod of embarrassment at the notion that anyone needs to commit an act of electronic terrorism by hacking the fuckin' PowerTools blog. It's far more useful being operable than out of commission -- you know where all the morons are congregated, and the nonsense pretty much speaks for itself. Why hack it?
But hey, bonus points to Captain Corndog for going all Joan Crawford on us.
These clowns are writing most of our material for us at this point.
Last night, Johnny Assrocket was screeching hysterically about how Time Magazine's Blog-of-the-Year had been hacked, resulting in the destruction of a day's worth of his pearls of wisdom. The righteous ass vowed to "criminally prosecute[]" the evildoers responsible. He also simperingly gave "[t]hanks to the many readers who have expressed their concern," and urged his readers to congregate at the Powertools News bulletin board so they could "heap abuse on the moron who hacked us."
At the bulletin board, various toolsuckers postulated that "some moonbat from Democratic Underground is responsible," that "someone who could do something like this could do a huge amount of damage to infrastructure, if they were given guidance on what to hit," and that "it takes some degree of intellect to hack a site like Power Line." It was also suggested that the hack was a testament to the popularity and influence of the Tools.
And of course it was an inside job, shucked away with scarcely a nod of embarrassment at the notion that anyone needs to commit an act of electronic terrorism by hacking the fuckin' PowerTools blog. It's far more useful being operable than out of commission -- you know where all the morons are congregated, and the nonsense pretty much speaks for itself. Why hack it?
But hey, bonus points to Captain Corndog for going all Joan Crawford on us.
These clowns are writing most of our material for us at this point.
Boehner Pills
Buried in the Faux News coverage of the momentous handing of the House Speaker gavel to Nancy (She's female! And her Frisco cohorts are going to turn us all queer!) Pelosi, Republican brain surgeon John Boner Boehner floated this bizarre nugget o' hypocrisy.
Right. Because when Kotex Sensenbrenner took his wittle gavel home when he didn't get his way, it was because the Republicans wanted to "work with Democrats". They did everything humanly possible to reform a corrupt, pork-laden system, which is why so many of them are now behind bars, and the country is running record deficits.Boner Boehner's party has wanted to "work with Democrats" so badly, and for so long, that they had to have private meetings in the Capitol basement, locking their newfound friends out, telling them to eat shit and bark at the moon.
But now, now they want play nice for the American people. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
On the House side, members did their part to pledge cooperation, but those claims were clouded by Republican charges that Democrats already aren't living up to their campaign promises.
"I think they're getting off to a bit of a rough start," said incoming House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio
"In 1994 when we took control of the House, 12 years ago, it wasn't that — we wanted to treat Democrats the way we had asked to be treated. And, frankly, that's what we did. What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would like to have been treated," Boehner said.
But he added, "Republicans on Capitol Hill want to work with Democrats to deal with the issues that the American people sent us here to deal with."
Right. Because when Kotex Sensenbrenner took his wittle gavel home when he didn't get his way, it was because the Republicans wanted to "work with Democrats". They did everything humanly possible to reform a corrupt, pork-laden system, which is why so many of them are now behind bars, and the country is running record deficits.
But now, now they want play nice for the American people. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)