...more recent posts
Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006
Timing
Don't you hate it when you find the perfect Xmas gift on December 26?
Presenting El Caganer, El Presidente, El Seņor ... Booooosh. For the low, low price of 12 Euros.
From here.
By the way, can I get El Caganer Mr. Hanky, or is that too recursive?
Cruel to be kind
Pinochet, victim of circumstances.
Reality-Based Commentary
I'm seeing brusque, pointed commentary against Bush's vanity war more frequently in the local paper. I noted today a letter which echoed a thought I had also had, and expressed it better than I could have:
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is no grammarian. In his statement: ``Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for generations to come,'' (Page 1A, Dec. 20) he got both the mood and tense of the verbs wrong. He should have said: ``Failure in Iraq at this juncture is a calamity that haunts our nation, impairs our credibility and endangers Americans for generations to come.'' It is neither subjunctive nor future, it is fact and it is now.
Bryce Johnson
Saratoga
Appearing just above this was a letter which questioned the value of Bush's war, and war in general, as an answer to terror. Thanks, Merc!
Also noted, on Fox News, Morton Kondracke refused to play along with Brit Hume's puerile shenanigans involving a fake news reel parody of Pelosi.
BARNES: Mort, I appreciate the distinction you made between Iraq and World War II, but that wasn't the question and that wasn't the point.
KONDRACKE: I answered the question.
BARNES: No, you didn't, really.
KONDRACKE: Yeah, I did
Who say's they ain't no protest music anymore?
Get Out of Iraq
another letter to the Merc
Step 9
While many liberals feel that the US has some responsibility to reconstruct Iraq, that sentiment must be tempered by this wisdom:
| Make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. |
More here.
Friday, Dec 15, 2006
You know, sometimes I feel the same way about the holidays ...
Here, seen here.
Henry Rollins
Net Mother Fucking Neutrality
I would have used the word "delusional"
During a press availability with George Bush and Tony Blair, a British reporter asked Bush a question that Rush, on his show this morning, described as "insolent". For the reporter to describe members of the public as thinking that Bush is "in denial" is direct, not insolent. However, Bush does deserve a big dose of insolence right in the kisser.
Bush usually speaks about "victory", "winning in Iraq", "finishing the job", etc. without defining the goal of this armed conflict. He gets away with this, because the press is subservient rather than insolent. On the rare occasions when he does describe the goal, it's clear that he is delusional. In his prepared remarks, Bush said.
The goal of self-defense is not achievable in the near future. The Arab regions of Iraq are in a civil war. The so-called government of Iraq is unable to maintain order in Baghdad. Envisioning them defending the borders is ridiculous.
Having an ally in the war on terror? Well, the Kurds like us well enough. They've been screwed over by Western powers going back to the end of WWI, but they are grateful to the US for more recently helping them secede from Iraq. But the Arabs? I wouldn't count on it.
Below is the "insolent" question and delusional response.
PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (Laughter.)
Q Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge for the world --
PRESIDENT BUSH: In all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, do we have a plan to achieve our objective. Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward, all aiming to achieve our objective.
Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore, they'll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.
I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.
And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.
And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.
So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed. Thank you.
Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006
Different Kinds of Overwhelmed
D and I spent the day in Gentilly working on some Habitat for Humanity houses. They have a half dozen or more houses going up on a couple of blocks. It's smaller than the Musician's Village project in the Upper Ninth, but was impressive none-the-less.
One the site I worked, we put up all the roof trusses on a house today, including a hip on one end. It was nice to see a big chunk of work get done. By the end of the day tomorrow we should be able to get the roof decked.
This evening we saw a film, Left Behind, about the New Orleans Public schools as seen through the eyes of some of the kids on Dumaine. I don't believe M appear on film, but the house did.
The point of the film, hammered in over and over again is that the school system is a multilayered clusterfuck. The root causes are numerous and intractable.
The housing and reconstruction issue is vast and overwhelming, but I can visualize the solution -- with enough lumber and cinder block and nails, etc., something can be done. Fixing the school system? I just don't know. But M has been plugging away for years, not with the vast problems, but with individual kids and their daily struggles.
While the magnitude of the problems in the film is depressing, the survival and success of the three boys at the heart of the film is a hopeful story.
Scalia is an idiot
That may not be "new" news, but here are some specifics. Scalia thinks "the air" and the "stratosphere" are different things. Now, I would expect him to know, off hand, the difference between the troposphere and stratosphere. Although it would be nice for him to spend five minutes googling it before oral arguments. But for him to think certain layers of the atmosphere are "the air" and certain parts aren't "the air"? That's either abject ignorance or willful ignorance.