Courtesy of Pastordan.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Saturday Rock Show
In 1988, Jon Anderson, Bill Bruford, Rick Wakeman, and Steve Howe got together and put out a beautiful record. Touring under the name ABWH for legal reasons, their shows were called "An Evening of Yes Music Plus". The shows began with solo performances by Anderson, Howe, and Wakeman, with Bruford doing a short electronic drum solo before breaking into "Long Distance Runaround". Rick Wakeman's solo consisted of him playing a medley from his early- and mid-70's solo albums. I want to emphasize that the middle synthesizer solo is not sped up in any way. As a sometime musician myself, this is the kind of thing that makes me just gape.
Friday, February 20, 2009
More Prayers
Just received word. Little Kaitlyn Weber, who I wrote about here, is at peace.
Please remember Chris and Kristina in you prayers and thoughts. The world is a little poorer now, but it is still a better place because she lived.
Please remember Chris and Kristina in you prayers and thoughts. The world is a little poorer now, but it is still a better place because she lived.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Oh My Freaking God
If I lived in Washington, I would despair of getting any non-stupid news. On the one side, you have Fred Hiatt's Post, which refuses to apologize for George Will's erroneous column on global warming (h/t Matt Yglesias).
On the other side you have the Times complaining that a President of the United States is appearing for photo-ops surrounded by . . . American flags (h/t, Oliver Willis).
Is it any wonder the folks who are running things, and reporting on those who run them, are so out of touch (h/t, Daily Kos and TPM)?
On the other side you have the Times complaining that a President of the United States is appearing for photo-ops surrounded by . . . American flags (h/t, Oliver Willis).
Oh, say - can you see? Look. It’s President Obama, and he’s surrounded by American flags.
They’re on the dais in star-spangled glory. They’re at the town-hall meeting and the news conference, in bold folds of red, white and blue. The White House has rediscovered - or possibly reinvented - the patriotic cachet of Old Glory as a perfect frame for the new president.
That’s the same president who once would not wear an American flag pin. Things have changed.
Is it any wonder the folks who are running things, and reporting on those who run them, are so out of touch (h/t, Daily Kos and TPM)?
Portraits of Broken Politics
In California, the entire system is so messed up one or two state Senators can hold the entire state budget process hostage. The fact that all the state Senate Republicans have signed pledges refusing to raise taxes - it's not just ludicrous. This is insanity. While there are many principles one can consider upholding in politics, every legislator needs to keep some perspective. With the 2/3 requirement for state budgets to pass, we have a situation where everything will grind to a halt because some people believe that principles are more important than people.
Now, in Illinois, it seems that our new Senator, Roland Burris, may not have been as candid as he could have been when he appeared before a state House impeachment panel last month. Of course, it all comes down to semantics, considering the way the question was worded. Also, one needs to remember that there probably isn't a prominent Democrat in the state untouched by the Blagojevich machine, with the possible exceptions of Sen. Richard Durbin, Pres. Obama, state Senate President Emil Jones, House Speaker Michael Madigan, and Attorney General Lisa Madigan (the Speaker's daughter). Blagojevich was nothing if not thorough (For the record, I did not vote for Blagojevich either time he ran; after doing some reading up on him before the Democratic primary, I avoided him like the plague). All that means is that we are left in the uncomfortable position of having a Senator tainted by Blago's dirt, and a huge airing of the way politics in the age of Blagojevich was done during the past six years in Illinois. The sad thing, of course, is that our dirty politics were a Democratic thing, which may just make the party toxic in most of the state. At a time when the Republicans were on the outs statewide, this is not a good thing; our alternatives are pretty thin on the ground.
These two object lessons in the brokenness of state politics should be reminders that we still have a long way to go to get this whole democracy thing right.
Now, in Illinois, it seems that our new Senator, Roland Burris, may not have been as candid as he could have been when he appeared before a state House impeachment panel last month. Of course, it all comes down to semantics, considering the way the question was worded. Also, one needs to remember that there probably isn't a prominent Democrat in the state untouched by the Blagojevich machine, with the possible exceptions of Sen. Richard Durbin, Pres. Obama, state Senate President Emil Jones, House Speaker Michael Madigan, and Attorney General Lisa Madigan (the Speaker's daughter). Blagojevich was nothing if not thorough (For the record, I did not vote for Blagojevich either time he ran; after doing some reading up on him before the Democratic primary, I avoided him like the plague). All that means is that we are left in the uncomfortable position of having a Senator tainted by Blago's dirt, and a huge airing of the way politics in the age of Blagojevich was done during the past six years in Illinois. The sad thing, of course, is that our dirty politics were a Democratic thing, which may just make the party toxic in most of the state. At a time when the Republicans were on the outs statewide, this is not a good thing; our alternatives are pretty thin on the ground.
These two object lessons in the brokenness of state politics should be reminders that we still have a long way to go to get this whole democracy thing right.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Prayers, Please
If this doesn't break your heart and make you rage at a Universe so unfeeling, then you aren't alive.
The doctors agreed that despite their best (and often WAY outside the box) efforts, Kaitlyn's overall condition hadn't gotten any better over the past few months. If anything, it had gotten worse. Several of the treatements that the doctors had used in the past to get her through tough times simply didn't work for Kaitlyn anymore. It seems that Kaitlyn is telling us that she is tired and needs rest. Although it was difficult to do, we decided that the best thing for Kaitlyn was to keep her comfortable and let God's will be done.
Kaitlyn has been a fighter since the day she was born. She has her parents, who have sacrificed so much. The doctors, too, have gone well above and beyond for her. Her church family has done all it could. Her pastor, well, I guess you know what I'll say about that . . .
I don't know what else to say. Pray for Kaitlyn, for her parents Chris and Kristina, her extended family. And you know what? Be thankful for her life. I don't know if I could have continued fighting as long and as hard as she has. Whatever the outcome, the world is a better place, a little brighter, because Kaitlyn Weber is in it.
J. D. Hayworth Is Nuts
Just watch this video of former Arizona Congressman J. D. Hayworth go all Protocols of the Elders of Soros on Chris Matthews.
And people wonder why I say Republicans don't deserve to govern . . .
And people wonder why I say Republicans don't deserve to govern . . .
Monday, February 16, 2009
One For The Answer Man
Marshall seems to just have it all down. So, I'll toss him something and see what he does with it.
You are a pastor. You have been asked by a young couple to join them, their family, and their doctors, to explore options for a child the young couple had, prematurely, a few months back. The child has had many problems, some surgeries, and has been diagnosed with a chronic, debilitating physical condition the relief of which is necessary but normal relief will result in catastrophic physical collapse. In other words, the options are - do something, and your child dies in pain; do nothing, except ameliorative care, and your child dies comfortably. In either case, the result is the same. In the first case, the death may be postponed, perhaps by weeks or months, as different options are attempted. In the second case, it may be a few days to a few weeks.
Please, Marshall, I would like to know your feelings. Not what you would tell these people to do (although I am quite sure you would). I just want to know what you might do given this situation.
You are a pastor. You have been asked by a young couple to join them, their family, and their doctors, to explore options for a child the young couple had, prematurely, a few months back. The child has had many problems, some surgeries, and has been diagnosed with a chronic, debilitating physical condition the relief of which is necessary but normal relief will result in catastrophic physical collapse. In other words, the options are - do something, and your child dies in pain; do nothing, except ameliorative care, and your child dies comfortably. In either case, the result is the same. In the first case, the death may be postponed, perhaps by weeks or months, as different options are attempted. In the second case, it may be a few days to a few weeks.
Please, Marshall, I would like to know your feelings. Not what you would tell these people to do (although I am quite sure you would). I just want to know what you might do given this situation.
Music For Your Monday
I dearly love musicians whose talent is so extreme, they defy any categorization. I love it even more when they create music so beautiful it seems transcendent. I love it the most when it is done on instruments that seems to defy easy playing. We are moving from the vaguely understood to the bizarre today, starting with a Steve Howe 12-string guitar solo, which he ended up recording for GTR's only record in the mid-1980's. "Sketches in the Sun":
I first saw Andy McKee on C&L's Late Nite Music Club, and this song made me tear up the first, oh, ten times I heard it. It is so beautiful. McKee is playing a harp guitar here. This is "Into the Ocean".
Finally, we have Pat Metheny playing something called a Pikasso guitar. My only guess as to the name is that it seems to defy perspective just as Picasso's paintings did. While I think it safe to say that many a critic would call such playing self-indulgent, I think they're just refusing to admit they couldn't do this if they studied for years. An improvisation, no less.
Next week, Sarah Vaughan. . .
I first saw Andy McKee on C&L's Late Nite Music Club, and this song made me tear up the first, oh, ten times I heard it. It is so beautiful. McKee is playing a harp guitar here. This is "Into the Ocean".
Finally, we have Pat Metheny playing something called a Pikasso guitar. My only guess as to the name is that it seems to defy perspective just as Picasso's paintings did. While I think it safe to say that many a critic would call such playing self-indulgent, I think they're just refusing to admit they couldn't do this if they studied for years. An improvisation, no less.
Next week, Sarah Vaughan. . .
George Will Needs To Stick To Baseball
I don't read him, usually, out of a sense of self-preservation. Apparently, in his column over the weekend, Will attempted to use scientific data to show that global warming isn't real.
The sources for his data, however, made it clear pretty quickly that he was so full of crap his eyes were brown.
The sources for his data, however, made it clear pretty quickly that he was so full of crap his eyes were brown.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Aftermath (UPDATE)
Politico.com has a nice article by Ben Smith that counters so much Beltway chatter and its weird view that Barack Obama is somehow a much weakened figure in the wake of the three-week long struggle with obstructionist Republicans over the stimulus package.
While the Republicans have been positioning themselves as "the opposition", playing to their fiscally conservative base, Barack Obama has managed to keep his base, the majority of the American people, behind him.
In other words, the tactic of shaping the terms of discussion that has served the Republicans so well, especially since the Reagan years, no longer works. The reality, despite the best efforts of Republicans, is sifting through the spin and endless gab.
With the signing of the bill set for Tuesday, it seems the Republicans may have to rethink their strategy of disowning the stimulus package, handing responsibility for it over to the Democrats. If they want to remain a viable major party, that is.
UPDATE: I'm not the only one whose noticed this article. Jane Hamsher has:
So has Jonathan Singer at MyDD:
And, of course, Duncan sums it up, both pithily and profanely:
With Barack Obama’s victory in passing a massive stimulus package marred by days of bad press — as not a single House Republican backed the bill, his health czar went down in flames and his second pick for commerce secretary walked away — the administration has been cut down to size, and lost some of its bipartisan sheen.
Such, at least, has been the beltway chatter, but so far the numbers don’t back it up.
Obama’s approval rating remains well above 60 percent in tracking polls. A range of state pollsters said they’d seen no diminution in the president’s sky-high approval ratings, and no improvement in congressional Republicans’ dismal numbers.
While the Republicans have been positioning themselves as "the opposition", playing to their fiscally conservative base, Barack Obama has managed to keep his base, the majority of the American people, behind him.
With the stimulus safely passed, they say they’re relying on the steady support of a populace that, after a closely watched election, is tuning out the Washington cut and thrust, and views Obama as a high-minded reformer and his Republican rivals as bitter partisans.
“You shouldn’t judge his success in reaching out by the vote count in either chamber of Congress — you’ve really got to judge it based more on what people in the country are thinking and saying,” said John Del Cecato, a media adviser to Obama’s campaign and former partner of Obama aide David Axelrod.
In other words, the tactic of shaping the terms of discussion that has served the Republicans so well, especially since the Reagan years, no longer works. The reality, despite the best efforts of Republicans, is sifting through the spin and endless gab.
With the signing of the bill set for Tuesday, it seems the Republicans may have to rethink their strategy of disowning the stimulus package, handing responsibility for it over to the Democrats. If they want to remain a viable major party, that is.
UPDATE: I'm not the only one whose noticed this article. Jane Hamsher has:
[C}ontrary to beltway opinion, the Republicans are getting hammered. While the Republican Party has only had a net change of -2, those directly involved in the stimulus battle are taking huge hits: McConnell and Boehner at -11, and the Congressional Republicans who are getting such applause from the beltway denizens score a -10.
So has Jonathan Singer at MyDD:
Perhaps more than ever, there is a real divide between what the chattering class inside the Beltway is saying and what the people of this country are saying. We saw the beginnings of this during the campaign, when despite the fact that John McCain was deemed to be winning the news cycles -- indeed, his campaign seemed to care more about winning "Hardball" than it did about reaching 270 electoral votes -- Barack Obama nevertheless continued to lead in the polls, both nationwide and in the key states. Now we're seeing it again, as the establishment media focuses on the less meaningful back and forth while at the same time overlooking the larger picture being grasped by the public -- that is that President Obama is succeeding, in terms of both moving forward his policy agenda and bringing two-thirds of the country along with him in his effort.
And, of course, Duncan sums it up, both pithily and profanely:
I really do wonder what it would take for the Villagers to realize people don't like Republicans and their stupid shit anymore.
"No one is sure about anything in Afghanistan these days."
In contrast to Friday's piece by Max Boot, it was refreshing to read the above sentence in this article in the Post's "Outlook" section. While Boot's article was almost a caricature of swaggering ignorance, Edward Joseph, from Johns Hopkins University, seemed not just tentative, but hardly able to grapple with the complexities on the ground in Afghanistan.
The last sentence is a nice counter to Boot's insistence that, regardless of the feelings of the people, we make sure we leave Hamid Karzai in power in Afghanistan.
Joseph describes discussions with Afghans, as he pointed out the infrastructure the Americans are building (in contrast to the Republican insistence that we shouldn't do anything of the sort here, by the way . . .), and one pointed out to him that the Russians did the same thing, and the Afghans still chased them out.
Joseph's article ends as it began - in a mixture of confusion and ignorance, which has been the way most have felt after dealing with the Afghan people, since Alexander the Great was stopped by them before he could cross the Hindu Kush in to the Indus River Valley.
I suppose that fact is usually forgotten. The Afghans don't like foreigners. Period. Even if they are ruled badly, or even malignantly, they much prefer the malignancy of their own people to the benevolence of outsiders.
It is nice to read an American admit ignorance. Maybe we should act out of ignorance, as well.
The breadth of disagreement is startling: Some say that nation-building is a mistake; others believe that it is the only way to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency. One U.S. official told me that we should stop trying to push democratic institutions on a country with such a strong tribal culture, while an equally savvy Afghan American insisted just the opposite. Women's rights activists begged for our support, saying that they feared for their lives, but tribal leaders demanded that they be left alone to deal with their women as they see fit. "We are tribal people, and we don't need your women's programs," one declared. Unlike Iraqis and Bosnians, Afghans can't even agree on whether ethnic divisions still exist in their country or whether they are the invention of ferangi -- meddlesome foreigners.
All this confusion over such fundamental questions vastly complicates Washington's efforts at developing an effective policy toward Afghanistan.
Wherever we went, from chilly government offices to mud-walled village homes, I would bluntly ask Afghans what we foreigners are doing wrong. Some said that we were killing too many civilians. Others said that we were destroying too many villages and should really be guarding the border with Pakistan. Still others insisted that we'd "picked" the wrong people to run the country.
The last sentence is a nice counter to Boot's insistence that, regardless of the feelings of the people, we make sure we leave Hamid Karzai in power in Afghanistan.
Joseph describes discussions with Afghans, as he pointed out the infrastructure the Americans are building (in contrast to the Republican insistence that we shouldn't do anything of the sort here, by the way . . .), and one pointed out to him that the Russians did the same thing, and the Afghans still chased them out.
Joseph's article ends as it began - in a mixture of confusion and ignorance, which has been the way most have felt after dealing with the Afghan people, since Alexander the Great was stopped by them before he could cross the Hindu Kush in to the Indus River Valley.
I suppose that fact is usually forgotten. The Afghans don't like foreigners. Period. Even if they are ruled badly, or even malignantly, they much prefer the malignancy of their own people to the benevolence of outsiders.
It is nice to read an American admit ignorance. Maybe we should act out of ignorance, as well.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
"The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" - A Meme To Relieve Boredom
I got tagged with this over at Facebook, and I wasn't very happy with the results, so I'm going to change it up a bit. Not owning an iPod or MP3 player, but a 300-disc CD player, I have it broken up into several different categories. The first five questions will be linked to The Grateful Dead. The second five to jazz. The third five will be directed at contemporary progressive rock. The last five to some serious classic rock and roll. Now, I'm not saying the results will be better, just more organized (?). I'm tagging Alan, only because he's the only one I'm sure has an iPod.
Try it and tag me so I can read it. An easy way to get good music titles from your friends unless they own mondo ipods and put all kinds of crazy crap on them.
Directions:
1. Put your iPod, iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc. on shuffle.
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. YOU MUST WRITE THAT SONG NAME DOWN NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT SOUNDS.
4. No editorial comments, no matter how tempted you are to make them!
5. Pick ten or more Random friends who like music as much as you do and tag them.
1) IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
"Black Peter" by The Grateful Dead
2) HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?
"The Other One" by The Grateful Dead
3) WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR IN A MAN/WOMAN?
"Mississippi Halfstep Uptown Toodeloo" by The Grateful Dead
4) HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
"Dupree's Diamond Blues" by The Grateful Dead
5) WHAT IS YOUR LIFE PURPOSE?
"Just a Little Light" by The Grateful Dead
6) WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
"Sunlight" by Pat Metheny
7) WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
"Body and Soul" by Benny Goodman from the Carnegie Hall Concert
8) WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
"Boogie Stop Shuffle" by Charles Mingus
9) WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
"Bitches Brew" by Miles Davis
10) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
"So May It Secretly Begin" by the Pat Metheny Trio Live
11) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
"The Mirror" by Dream Theater
12) WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
"Disclosure" by Ayreon
13) WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WHEN YOU GROW UP?
"Freedom of Speech" by Liquid Tension Experiment
14) WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
"Hard as Love" by Marillion
15) WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTERESTS?
"All of the Above" by Transatlantic Live in Europe
16) WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FEAR?
"Walking In The Wind" by Traffic
17) WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?
"It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" by Steve Howe, Annie Haslam, vocals
18) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
"Bell Boy" by The Who
19) SONG THEY WILL PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
"Trouble No More" by The Allman Brothers Band
20) WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
"The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" by The Band and Bob Dylan from After the Flood
Didn't work much better, I think.
Try it and tag me so I can read it. An easy way to get good music titles from your friends unless they own mondo ipods and put all kinds of crazy crap on them.
Directions:
1. Put your iPod, iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc. on shuffle.
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. YOU MUST WRITE THAT SONG NAME DOWN NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT SOUNDS.
4. No editorial comments, no matter how tempted you are to make them!
5. Pick ten or more Random friends who like music as much as you do and tag them.
1) IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
"Black Peter" by The Grateful Dead
2) HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?
"The Other One" by The Grateful Dead
3) WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR IN A MAN/WOMAN?
"Mississippi Halfstep Uptown Toodeloo" by The Grateful Dead
4) HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
"Dupree's Diamond Blues" by The Grateful Dead
5) WHAT IS YOUR LIFE PURPOSE?
"Just a Little Light" by The Grateful Dead
6) WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
"Sunlight" by Pat Metheny
7) WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
"Body and Soul" by Benny Goodman from the Carnegie Hall Concert
8) WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
"Boogie Stop Shuffle" by Charles Mingus
9) WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
"Bitches Brew" by Miles Davis
10) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
"So May It Secretly Begin" by the Pat Metheny Trio Live
11) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
"The Mirror" by Dream Theater
12) WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
"Disclosure" by Ayreon
13) WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WHEN YOU GROW UP?
"Freedom of Speech" by Liquid Tension Experiment
14) WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
"Hard as Love" by Marillion
15) WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTERESTS?
"All of the Above" by Transatlantic Live in Europe
16) WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FEAR?
"Walking In The Wind" by Traffic
17) WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?
"It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" by Steve Howe, Annie Haslam, vocals
18) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
"Bell Boy" by The Who
19) SONG THEY WILL PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
"Trouble No More" by The Allman Brothers Band
20) WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
"The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" by The Band and Bob Dylan from After the Flood
Didn't work much better, I think.
What A Shock!
This headline made me yawn:
Read the linked article, if you would, then lend your thoughts. Consider this a discussion post.
US clergy not trained on sexual issues, report says
Read the linked article, if you would, then lend your thoughts. Consider this a discussion post.
Saturday Rock Show
In honor of the Day, only because I couldn't find Vanden Plas' "I Don't Miss You". This is Porcupine Tree's "Hatesong".
On Valentine's Day - What I Said
I wrote this last year, and after reading it, I have to say I kind of like it. So, yeah, it's a repeat, but it's also a nice summary of the way I feel about this whole fake "Love Holiday" thingy.
Like my Halloween post, I want to say up front that I find Valentine's Day to be a false, commercial holiday. I also find others' behavior during the run up to the day amusing, as desperate men search for "just the right gift" to show the special someone in their lives how special they are, just like everyone else. I told Lisa years ago that it was the hundred things we did for one another all throughout the year that meant far more than a card and something silly on February 14th. She agreed, and we haven't exchanged more than a kiss on the day for years.
We live in a society that is confused about "love". A nation of romantics, we believe the purple prose of the "power of love", we listen to songs that encourage us to surrender ourselves to others, often with little knowledge of who that other person is. We equate love and sex. We equate love and marriage ("it goes together like a horse and carriage", a couplet that, if thought through, might give one pause). We snicker at the moony teenage couple, yet celebrate its perpetuation in to adulthood in our popular arts - who are Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca, but superannuated adolescents, reacting to a physical chemistry in the midst of the tides of war, and calling it love, jeopardizing their own lives and the lives of others because they enjoy one another's company?
I want to admit up front that I am not immune to this way of thinking. I am the original moony teenager, to be honest. I bought so much of the hype, I sometimes think I am still in debt. I remember earnest conversations with a young woman when I was in high school on the difference between "loving someone" and "being in love" - and remembered that it had been gleaned from, I think, either Ann Landers or Dear Abby. Yet, I nodded my head in complete agreement with this nonsense. I have written poetry for women, dedicated songs, sat around in a state of confusion and wonder as relationships made their natural course and my emotions seemed a jumble it was almost impossible to sort through. I pledged undying fealty to one woman after only a few weeks together, and was not only sincere, it was so brutally honest it scared me. I don't think I have to tell you that she and I parted.
Having said all that, and sounding like a big jerk, I suppose, I want to say that I think there is nothing more wonderful, mysterious, or powerful than the bond that forms, through some mysterious combination of emotion, physical desire, and the rational desire to keep alive and perpetuate the good feelings one has when one is with another. I will go even further and say that there is nothing more radical, more revolutionary, than the fact of romantic love. It can alter lives, even human history (The Iliad is one long paean to the power of human desire to move entire nations and even the gods). It can overwhelm our ability to act in our own interest. It certainly, for a time, overwhelms our ability to consider our lives rationally.
Our capacity for love makes us better creatures than most. Some other animals - some species of birds, for example, and by evidence elephants, whales, and the bonobo - seem to display behaviors we associate with romantic attachments. Yet, this odd emotion, either a by-product of evolution or a gift from God or some strange combination of both, gives to us both a grandeur and a meanness that is fascinating. Quite contrary to our own best interests, we open ourselves to another, invite them in to the hidden places in our lives, let them know our most desperate fears, give them the keys to our emotional core, trusting they will not abuse the privilege. And others do the same for us. I think we do love a disservice by reducing it to treacly verse composed by greeting card company employees and bad chocolate, flowers that wilt and balloons.
Rather than buy a bunch of unnecessary junk one day a year, consider telling the special other in your life what he or she means to you on August 8th, or May 23rd, or September 9th. Consider just how much you have invested in the other person who shares your house, your bathroom, your washing machine, and the wonderful duty of emptying the cat litter box. Love isn't always about gazing in to each others' eyes; sometimes it's about making the bed together, folding laundry, sitting down and paying the bills together. It should become clear that love is something far more mundane, yet profound - we open ourselves to another, and become more, and better, because we share our lives, the great and powerful, the mundane and base, with this person.
One more thing. There is no rational explanation that could possibly convince others as to why we choose to spend our lives with just one other person (actually, many if not most people do not so choose these days; we are serially monogamous creatures for the most part). To say that we are marrying "for love" is no more an explanation than to say we are marrying "for good cooking". Prizing our rationality above all other traits, we nonetheless betray what we claim is our most prized possession in the most important, most deeply personal parts of our lives, making ourselves emotionally open and vulnerable to the deepest pains and pleasures for no good reason. I will submit that I believe we surrender our rational capacity for one reason and reason alone - love is its own best reason. We are better individuals when we surrender ourselves to another, with all the risk - emotional and otherwise - that entails. It may not be rational, but it is the most deeply human thing we can do, far more than figuring out E=mc squared or the theory of evolution. Nothing can change the world like the real, honest love two people share.
Like my Halloween post, I want to say up front that I find Valentine's Day to be a false, commercial holiday. I also find others' behavior during the run up to the day amusing, as desperate men search for "just the right gift" to show the special someone in their lives how special they are, just like everyone else. I told Lisa years ago that it was the hundred things we did for one another all throughout the year that meant far more than a card and something silly on February 14th. She agreed, and we haven't exchanged more than a kiss on the day for years.
We live in a society that is confused about "love". A nation of romantics, we believe the purple prose of the "power of love", we listen to songs that encourage us to surrender ourselves to others, often with little knowledge of who that other person is. We equate love and sex. We equate love and marriage ("it goes together like a horse and carriage", a couplet that, if thought through, might give one pause). We snicker at the moony teenage couple, yet celebrate its perpetuation in to adulthood in our popular arts - who are Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca, but superannuated adolescents, reacting to a physical chemistry in the midst of the tides of war, and calling it love, jeopardizing their own lives and the lives of others because they enjoy one another's company?
I want to admit up front that I am not immune to this way of thinking. I am the original moony teenager, to be honest. I bought so much of the hype, I sometimes think I am still in debt. I remember earnest conversations with a young woman when I was in high school on the difference between "loving someone" and "being in love" - and remembered that it had been gleaned from, I think, either Ann Landers or Dear Abby. Yet, I nodded my head in complete agreement with this nonsense. I have written poetry for women, dedicated songs, sat around in a state of confusion and wonder as relationships made their natural course and my emotions seemed a jumble it was almost impossible to sort through. I pledged undying fealty to one woman after only a few weeks together, and was not only sincere, it was so brutally honest it scared me. I don't think I have to tell you that she and I parted.
Having said all that, and sounding like a big jerk, I suppose, I want to say that I think there is nothing more wonderful, mysterious, or powerful than the bond that forms, through some mysterious combination of emotion, physical desire, and the rational desire to keep alive and perpetuate the good feelings one has when one is with another. I will go even further and say that there is nothing more radical, more revolutionary, than the fact of romantic love. It can alter lives, even human history (The Iliad is one long paean to the power of human desire to move entire nations and even the gods). It can overwhelm our ability to act in our own interest. It certainly, for a time, overwhelms our ability to consider our lives rationally.
Our capacity for love makes us better creatures than most. Some other animals - some species of birds, for example, and by evidence elephants, whales, and the bonobo - seem to display behaviors we associate with romantic attachments. Yet, this odd emotion, either a by-product of evolution or a gift from God or some strange combination of both, gives to us both a grandeur and a meanness that is fascinating. Quite contrary to our own best interests, we open ourselves to another, invite them in to the hidden places in our lives, let them know our most desperate fears, give them the keys to our emotional core, trusting they will not abuse the privilege. And others do the same for us. I think we do love a disservice by reducing it to treacly verse composed by greeting card company employees and bad chocolate, flowers that wilt and balloons.
Rather than buy a bunch of unnecessary junk one day a year, consider telling the special other in your life what he or she means to you on August 8th, or May 23rd, or September 9th. Consider just how much you have invested in the other person who shares your house, your bathroom, your washing machine, and the wonderful duty of emptying the cat litter box. Love isn't always about gazing in to each others' eyes; sometimes it's about making the bed together, folding laundry, sitting down and paying the bills together. It should become clear that love is something far more mundane, yet profound - we open ourselves to another, and become more, and better, because we share our lives, the great and powerful, the mundane and base, with this person.
One more thing. There is no rational explanation that could possibly convince others as to why we choose to spend our lives with just one other person (actually, many if not most people do not so choose these days; we are serially monogamous creatures for the most part). To say that we are marrying "for love" is no more an explanation than to say we are marrying "for good cooking". Prizing our rationality above all other traits, we nonetheless betray what we claim is our most prized possession in the most important, most deeply personal parts of our lives, making ourselves emotionally open and vulnerable to the deepest pains and pleasures for no good reason. I will submit that I believe we surrender our rational capacity for one reason and reason alone - love is its own best reason. We are better individuals when we surrender ourselves to another, with all the risk - emotional and otherwise - that entails. It may not be rational, but it is the most deeply human thing we can do, far more than figuring out E=mc squared or the theory of evolution. Nothing can change the world like the real, honest love two people share.
Hilarious
The stimulus package has passed, and will be signed no later than Monday. Among the provisions is one that goes even further than the Obama Administration had asked in limiting bonuses for bank executives receiving TARP funds. The best line yet comes in a comment from a bank lobbyist.
What bank, foreign or domestic, would hire someone whose "investment strategy" helped induce the destruction of investment banking as an industry in the US?
These people are dorks. But, funny dorks.
"This is a big deal. This is a problem," said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for the nation's largest financial services firms. "It undermines the current incentive structure."
Talbott said banking executives expected certain restrictions would be applied to them but are concerned that some of the most highly paid employees, such as top traders, who bring in hefty sums for the company, would flee to hedge funds or foreign banks that have not accepted U.S. government funds.
What bank, foreign or domestic, would hire someone whose "investment strategy" helped induce the destruction of investment banking as an industry in the US?
These people are dorks. But, funny dorks.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Evil? Yes. Stupid? Definitely. David Vitter Gives The GOP Strategy Away
I ran into this piece from Mother Jones courtesy of Hullabaloo, and all I can say is, "Sure, Dave, we'll take full responsibility for the stimulus package. You disown it all you want."
This is why they do not deserve to govern.
I hope this really is the Republican plan. Because, in a few years, they will cease to exist.
According to Vitter, the GOP is basically betting the farm that the stimulus package is going to fail, and the party wants Democrats to go down with it. "Our next goal is to make President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress own it completely," he said. Instead of coming up with serious measures to save the economy, the party intends to devote its time to an "we told you so" agenda that will include GOP-only hearings on the bill's impact in the coming months to highlight the bill's purportedly wasteful elements and shortcomings.
This is why they do not deserve to govern.
I hope this really is the Republican plan. Because, in a few years, they will cease to exist.
No Difference
Not long after Matthew Shepard's murder, playwright Tony Kushner published an article in The Nation magazine. Part of it reads as follows:
Crooks and Liars reports that James Adkisson, the man who murdered two worshipers at a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN this past July was sentenced to life in prison without a possibility of parole. Adkisson was allowed to release "a manifesto" (the linked C&L post has a link to the .pdf document), which reads in part:
Like Tony Kushner, I have long refused to see little moral difference between a psychopath like Adkisson, who sees himself a besieged true American whose entire way of life is threatened by Democrats, and those who enable such behavior (isn't it interesting that Adkisson notes "mainstream" media critic Bernard Goldberg, whose book on the one hundred most dangerous people apparently created a wish-list for his murderous fantasies? Will be still be asked to give his opinion on FOXNews?) I go further, however, and see little difference, morally, between Adkisson, who at least had the balls to act on his beliefs, and the fellow who wrote this:
While I usually say that I keep reading and posting there to laugh at their absurd pose of some kind of combination of political realism, erudition, and staunch refusal in the age of "Yes we can!", in fact I keep up with them because, to me, the only difference between Mark, Marshall, al Ozarka, and Eric on the one hand and James Adkisson on the other is Adkisson was intelligent enough - from his little manifesto, he is clearly far more articulate than the entire American Descent crew combined - to figure out how to load a gun, point it at a human being, and pull the trigger. Also, he wasn't a rank coward, hiding behind a screen name, tossing out meaningless insults and fact-free punditry on the death of America at the hands of the commie-Muslim-fascist Barack Hussein Obama. They are no different. Their minds operate on the same level.
While we can rest a little easier because James Adkisson will discover how much folks in prison love a guy like him, I do fear that there are many, many others out there who preach the same hate-filled dreck. One or two of them might just develop the testicular fortitude to act on it. That should keep us all up nights.
A lot of people worry these days about the death of civil discourse. The Pope, in his new encyclical, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), laments the death of civil discourse and cites "ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical inquiry." It's more than faintly ludicrous, this plea for friendship coming from the selfsame Pope who has tried so relentlessly to stamp out dissent in churches and Catholic universities, but let's follow the lead of the crazies who killed Matthew Shepard and take the Pope at his word.
Friendship is the proper context for discussion. Fine and good. Take the gun away from the head, Your Holiness, and we can discuss the merits of homosexual sex, of homosexual marriage, of homosexual love, of monogamy versus promiscuity, of lesbian or gay couples raising kids, of condom distribution in the schools, of confidential counseling for teenagers, of sex education that addresses more than abstinence. We can discuss abortion, we can discuss anything you like. Just promise me two things, friend: First, you won't beat my brains out with a pistol butt and leave me to die by the side of the road. Second, if someone else, someone a little less sane than you, feeling entitled to commit these terrible things against me because they understood you a little too literally, or were more willing than you to take your distaste for me and what I do to its most full-blooded conclusion, if someone else does violence against me, friend, won't you please make it your business to make a big public fuss about how badly I was treated? Won't you please make a point, friend, you who call yourself, and who are called, by millions of people, the Vicar on Earth of the very gentle Jesus, won't you please in the name of friendship announce that no one who deliberately inflicts suffering, whether by violence or by prejudice, on another human being, can be said to be acting in God's name? And announce it so that it is very clear that you include homosexuals when you refer to "human beings," and announce it so that the world hears you, really hears you, so that your announcement makes the news, as you are capable of doing when it suits your purposes? Won't you make this your purpose too? And if you won't, if you won't take responsibility for the consequences of your militant promotion of discrimination, won't you excuse me if I think you are not a friend at all but rather a homicidal liar whose claim to spiritual and moral leadership is fatally compromised, is worth nothing more than...well, worth nothing more than the disgusting, opportunistic leadership of Trent Lott.
A lot of people worry these days about the death of civil discourse, and would say that I ought not call the Pope a homicidal liar, nor (to be ecumenical about it) the orthodox rabbinate homicidal liars, nor Trent Lott a disgusting opportunistic hatemonger. But I worry a lot less about the death of civil discourse than I worry about being killed if, visiting the wrong town with my boyfriend, we forget ourselves so much as to betray, at the wrong moment in front of the wrong people, that we love one another. I worry much more about the recent death of the Maine antidiscrimination bill, and about the death of the New York hate crimes bill, which will not pass because it includes sexual orientation. I worry more about the death of civil rights than civil discourse. I worry much more about the irreversible soul-deaths of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered children growing up deliberately, malevolently isolated by the likes of Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich than I worry about the death of civil discourse. I mourn Matthew Shepard's actual death, caused by the unimpeachably civil "we hate the sin, not the sinner" hypocrisy of the religious right, endorsed by the political right, much more than I mourn the lost chance to be civil with someone who does not consider me fully a citizen, nor fully human. I mourn that cruel death more than the chance to be civil with those who sit idly by while theocrats, bullies, panderers and hatemongers, and their crazed murderous children, destroy democracy and our civic life. Civic, not civil, discourse is what matters, and civic discourse mandates the assigning of blame.
Crooks and Liars reports that James Adkisson, the man who murdered two worshipers at a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN this past July was sentenced to life in prison without a possibility of parole. Adkisson was allowed to release "a manifesto" (the linked C&L post has a link to the .pdf document), which reads in part:
Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....
This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."
I thought I'd do something good for this Country Kill Democrats til the cops kill me....Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals.
Like Tony Kushner, I have long refused to see little moral difference between a psychopath like Adkisson, who sees himself a besieged true American whose entire way of life is threatened by Democrats, and those who enable such behavior (isn't it interesting that Adkisson notes "mainstream" media critic Bernard Goldberg, whose book on the one hundred most dangerous people apparently created a wish-list for his murderous fantasies? Will be still be asked to give his opinion on FOXNews?) I go further, however, and see little difference, morally, between Adkisson, who at least had the balls to act on his beliefs, and the fellow who wrote this:
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
While I usually say that I keep reading and posting there to laugh at their absurd pose of some kind of combination of political realism, erudition, and staunch refusal in the age of "Yes we can!", in fact I keep up with them because, to me, the only difference between Mark, Marshall, al Ozarka, and Eric on the one hand and James Adkisson on the other is Adkisson was intelligent enough - from his little manifesto, he is clearly far more articulate than the entire American Descent crew combined - to figure out how to load a gun, point it at a human being, and pull the trigger. Also, he wasn't a rank coward, hiding behind a screen name, tossing out meaningless insults and fact-free punditry on the death of America at the hands of the commie-Muslim-fascist Barack Hussein Obama. They are no different. Their minds operate on the same level.
While we can rest a little easier because James Adkisson will discover how much folks in prison love a guy like him, I do fear that there are many, many others out there who preach the same hate-filled dreck. One or two of them might just develop the testicular fortitude to act on it. That should keep us all up nights.
Stupid People In High Places
This edition - Max Boot from the Council on Foreign Relations, writing an op-ed in The Washington Post.
Let's start with his bungling of an important piece of history.
Now, why would anyone have thought Diem was ineffective, or divisive?
Now, this is just a sample of Diem's excellent qualifications as a leader. Never mind the US had no business there in the first place; never mind the illegality of the coup, and the US role in the coup. Right now, I am focusing on Boot's notion that it was US policy planners who thought that Diem was a bad guy, hinting that this was either untrue or irrelevant. It was most definitely true, and entirely relevant.
Fast forward to another stupid, illegal war of choice that has left a nation desolated: Iraq. Boot, attempting to show the differences between the American stupidity in Vietnam and our choices in Afghanistan, uses the example of Iraq under Nouri al-Maliki to show that we might have learned a lesson. Except, of course, he gets some stuff wrong.
This may have been what happened, but it was not the strategic plan behind the "surge". The entire premise behind the surge was not to allow Maliki to move militarily against the Mahdi Army, al Qaeda in Iraq, or any other quasi-military force. The introduction of additional American forces was to create breathing room for political reconciliation between the various political factions in Iraq. Constitutional questions were to be settled; agreements on how to disperse Iraq's oil wealth; the status of the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions of the north - this was the strategy behind the tactic known as the surge. Militarily, like Vietnam, it was a success. Politically, it failed miserably. Boot doesn't mention that - nor does anyone else - because to do so would be to make liars out of generals like Petraeus.
Back to the main point for all this sentimentality - what to do about Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan?
There is so much gobbledygook in these two paragraphs, I think the editors probably just threw up their hands and said, "Fine! Whatever!" Why should we obsess over the handpicked leader of a country implicated in massive corruption? Why should we care that Afghanistan's only major export, and largest cash crop, is opium? It seems Boot's one factually correct statement comes at the end of the first paragraph above concerning our "spotty record" on picking those to rule other countries.
While "lack of security" may be a gross understatement (a nascent civil war is much more like it), that is, indeed the major threat to Afghanistan. It has its roots in the Bush Administration's decision to leave a small contingency force in Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. The reason we were in Afghanistan was because the Taliban created a safe haven for terrorists who attacked our country. So, "lack of security" can be directly related to a conscious policy decision, one Boot supported whole-heartedly. Lord knows why he thinks anyone should listen to him now . . .
The money-shot, however, is the following sentence: "Efforts to improve the security situation cannot be held hostage to efforts to improve governance." I don't know if a dumber sentence has been written by someone who is supposed to be an "expert".
(Warning: Expletives to follow)
How else do we improve security unless we help the Afghan government improve their ability to govern? Are you that fucking stupid, Max Boot, that you believe that the internal security of a state is not directly linked to their ability to govern effectively and with a perception of legitimacy?
Sorry. Lost my cool there.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that if we keep listening to the Max Boot's of the world, we will continue to fail as miserably as we have been doing.
Let's start with his bungling of an important piece of history.
Newsweek's editors may have performed a public service by bringing up one of the biggest mistakes the United States made in Vietnam: backing the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, the president of South Vietnam, in 1963. President John F. Kennedy and his aides thought Diem was a divisive, ineffective leader, and they feared that the war could never succeed with him in power.
Now, why would anyone have thought Diem was ineffective, or divisive?
Believing that the central highlands may be of strategic importance to the Vietcong or in a potential invasion by North Vietnam, Diem decided to construct a Maginot Line of settlements. The area, inhabited by Montagnard indigenous people, had been largely allowed local autonomy in previous times, and the locals distrusted ethnic Vietnamese. Diem initiated a program of internal migration where 210,000 Vietnamese, mainly Catholics, were moved to Montagnard land in fortified settlements.[28] When the Montagnards protested, Diem's forces confiscated their spears and bows, which they used to hunt for daily sustenance.[29] Since then, and to the present day, Vietnam has been faced with a Montagnard insurgent separatist movement.
--snip--
In a country where surveys of the religious composition estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Diem's policies generated claims of religious bias. As a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, he is widely regarded by historians as having pursued pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists. Specifically, the government was regarded as being biased towards Catholics in public service and military promotions, as well as the allocation of land, business favors and tax concessions.[38] Diem also once told a high-ranking officer, forgetting that he was a Buddhist, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted." Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam converted to Catholicism in the belief that their military prospects depended on it.[39] Additionally, the distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias intended to repel Vietcong guerrillas saw weapons only given to Catholics, with Buddhists in the army being denied promotion if they refused to convert to Catholicism.[40] Some Catholic priests ran their own private armies,[41] and in some areas forced conversions, looting, shelling and demolition of pagodas occurred.[42] Some Buddhist villages converted en masse in order to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diem's regime.[43] The Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country, and the "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French, which required official permission to conduct public Buddhist activities, was not repealed by Diem.[44] The land owned by the Catholic Church was exempt from land reform.[45] Catholics were also de facto exempt from the corvée labor that the government obliged all citizens to perform; U.S. aid was disproportionately distributed to Catholic majority villages. Under Diem, the Catholic church enjoyed special exemptions in property acquisition, and in 1959, Diem dedicated his country to the Virgin Mary.[46]
The white and gold Vatican flag was regularly flown at all major public events in South Vietnam.[47] U.S. Aid supplies tended to go to Catholics, and the newly constructed Hue and Dalat universities were placed under Catholic authority to foster a Catholic-skewed academic environment.
--snip--
The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority.
In May, in the central city of Huế, where Diem's elder brother was the archbishop, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations commemorating the birth of Gautama Buddha when the government cited a regulation prohibiting the display of non-government flags.[49]. A few days later, Catholics were allowed to fly religious flags at another celebration where the regulation was not enforced. This led to a protest led by Thich Tri Quang against the government, which was suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Diem and his supporters blamed the Vietcong for the deaths and claimed that the protesters were responsible for the violence.[50][51] Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings and offered to compensate the victims' families, they resolutely denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.[52]
The Buddhists pushed for a five point agreement: freedom to fly religious flags, an end to arbitrary arrests, compensation for the Hue victims, punishment for the officials responsible and religious equality. Diem labeled the Buddhists as "damn fools" for demanding something that, according to him, they already enjoyed.
Diem banned demonstrations, and ordered his forces to arrest those who engaged in civil disobedience. On June 3, 1500 protesters attempted to march towards Tu Dam Pagoda. Six waves of ARVN tear gas and attack dogs failed to disperse the crowds, and finally brownish-red liquid chemicals were doused on praying protesters, resulting in 67 being hospitalised for chemical injuries. A curfew was subsequently enacted.
Now, this is just a sample of Diem's excellent qualifications as a leader. Never mind the US had no business there in the first place; never mind the illegality of the coup, and the US role in the coup. Right now, I am focusing on Boot's notion that it was US policy planners who thought that Diem was a bad guy, hinting that this was either untrue or irrelevant. It was most definitely true, and entirely relevant.
Fast forward to another stupid, illegal war of choice that has left a nation desolated: Iraq. Boot, attempting to show the differences between the American stupidity in Vietnam and our choices in Afghanistan, uses the example of Iraq under Nouri al-Maliki to show that we might have learned a lesson. Except, of course, he gets some stuff wrong.
The [surge] strategy developed by Gen. David Petraeus was to use U.S. reinforcements to target al-Qaeda in Iraq first because he knew that this group of hardened terrorists was the primary "accelerant" of violence. The sense of menace induced by al-Qaeda provided a justification for the thuggish activities of the Mahdi Army, which claimed to be protecting the Shiites. Reduce Sunni terrorism, Petraeus reasoned, and you also reduce Shiite support for the Sadrists. And that's exactly what happened. With al-Qaeda in Iraq all but defeated, Maliki felt free to move against the Mahdi Army.
This may have been what happened, but it was not the strategic plan behind the "surge". The entire premise behind the surge was not to allow Maliki to move militarily against the Mahdi Army, al Qaeda in Iraq, or any other quasi-military force. The introduction of additional American forces was to create breathing room for political reconciliation between the various political factions in Iraq. Constitutional questions were to be settled; agreements on how to disperse Iraq's oil wealth; the status of the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions of the north - this was the strategy behind the tactic known as the surge. Militarily, like Vietnam, it was a success. Politically, it failed miserably. Boot doesn't mention that - nor does anyone else - because to do so would be to make liars out of generals like Petraeus.
Back to the main point for all this sentimentality - what to do about Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan?
Karzai has many shortcomings, particularly his inability or unwillingness to battle corruption and the drug trade in which his brother is implicated. But is there any reason to think someone else would be more effective? U.S. officials eyeing elections scheduled for August are high on possible candidates such as former finance minister Ashraf Ghani and former foreign minister Abdullah. Yes, those men have impressive credentials. But at one time, U.S. officials also saw Ayad Allawi as the savior of Iraq. Next they settled on Ibrahim al-Jafari, only to push him out and wind up with Maliki, whose reputation has yo-yoed. The American record in picking leaders for foreign countries seems spotty at best.
So instead of obsessing about Karzai's faults, perhaps we should focus on the real problem: lack of security. Efforts to improve the security situation cannot be held hostage to efforts to improve governance. As in Iraq, the solution in Afghanistan should come from sending reinforcements to implement a classic counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the people. Only when the security situation improves will Afghanistan's president, whoever that person is, be able to function with any degree of effectiveness.
There is so much gobbledygook in these two paragraphs, I think the editors probably just threw up their hands and said, "Fine! Whatever!" Why should we obsess over the handpicked leader of a country implicated in massive corruption? Why should we care that Afghanistan's only major export, and largest cash crop, is opium? It seems Boot's one factually correct statement comes at the end of the first paragraph above concerning our "spotty record" on picking those to rule other countries.
While "lack of security" may be a gross understatement (a nascent civil war is much more like it), that is, indeed the major threat to Afghanistan. It has its roots in the Bush Administration's decision to leave a small contingency force in Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. The reason we were in Afghanistan was because the Taliban created a safe haven for terrorists who attacked our country. So, "lack of security" can be directly related to a conscious policy decision, one Boot supported whole-heartedly. Lord knows why he thinks anyone should listen to him now . . .
The money-shot, however, is the following sentence: "Efforts to improve the security situation cannot be held hostage to efforts to improve governance." I don't know if a dumber sentence has been written by someone who is supposed to be an "expert".
(Warning: Expletives to follow)
How else do we improve security unless we help the Afghan government improve their ability to govern? Are you that fucking stupid, Max Boot, that you believe that the internal security of a state is not directly linked to their ability to govern effectively and with a perception of legitimacy?
Sorry. Lost my cool there.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that if we keep listening to the Max Boot's of the world, we will continue to fail as miserably as we have been doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
