September 11th Revisited...
Four years ago an event that transformed my life took place. I'm not alone in having my life shattered, my expectations from life altered, my outlook on the world forever radically changed.
On this day, 19 middle eastern men hijacked four airliners and rammed them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and due to the bravery of ordinary Americans who re-commandeered their plane, a field in Pennsylvania.
We still live with the pain of 3,000 dead Americans. Americans from all walks of life from food service personnel and janitors to airline pilots, stockbrokers, policemen and firemen. Four years is far too short a time for the shock of such an event to wear off. I still think about it all the time, although it does not consume my waking thoughts as it once did. You cannot help BUT think about such things. The horrors that were witnessed on that day are things that no rational, thinking, feeling human being can merely shrug off as "one of those things".
But there are people who do feel this way. They were not present during the event. They do not recall the impassioned pleas of frantic relatives crowding outside hospitals seeking word of missing loved ones. They do not track the newspaper articles reporting the identification and burial of victims who only now have a name to match a body part, four years after the fact.
People like this need to be reminded on a daily basis, with a sledgehammer, if necessary.
I certainly will never forget!
Requiesat in Pacem!
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Katrina, Part IV...The Disaster Visits the Disaster...
Word has reached me that John Kerry (Asshole-Mass.) is on his way to Louisiana to distribute food aid to the starving masses of deluded democratic voters there. Make no mistake about the blatant political opportunism.
The last thing anyone needs is politicians running around the disaster area setting up photo ops and attempting to score political points by handing out a few band aids and a box of saltines. John Kerry should stay away from Louisiana unless he has something useful to offer --- like letting some of those displaced by the storm and flood to take refuge in one of his five or so mansions.
But that would actually be expecting Kerry to have one or more of the following things:
a. Compassion
b. Common Sense
c. Taste
d. Intelligence
e. All of the Above
John Kerry, in case you didn't notice after his three day hissy fit after the election, his grandstanding in front of Congress in the anti-Vietnam war days, the doublespeak of voting for things before you vote against them, cares only for John Kerry. He neither belongs nor has anything to add by making a "listening tour" of the disaster area. In fact, if Kerry stayed home it would be addition by subtraction. The whole purpose of the exercise is to be able to say in the next round of democratic primaries "When I was in New Orleans after the flood..."
I wonder, though, if Kerry did manage to get his pasty ass into New Orleans, would he put in for another Purple Heart?
Word has reached me that John Kerry (Asshole-Mass.) is on his way to Louisiana to distribute food aid to the starving masses of deluded democratic voters there. Make no mistake about the blatant political opportunism.
The last thing anyone needs is politicians running around the disaster area setting up photo ops and attempting to score political points by handing out a few band aids and a box of saltines. John Kerry should stay away from Louisiana unless he has something useful to offer --- like letting some of those displaced by the storm and flood to take refuge in one of his five or so mansions.
But that would actually be expecting Kerry to have one or more of the following things:
a. Compassion
b. Common Sense
c. Taste
d. Intelligence
e. All of the Above
John Kerry, in case you didn't notice after his three day hissy fit after the election, his grandstanding in front of Congress in the anti-Vietnam war days, the doublespeak of voting for things before you vote against them, cares only for John Kerry. He neither belongs nor has anything to add by making a "listening tour" of the disaster area. In fact, if Kerry stayed home it would be addition by subtraction. The whole purpose of the exercise is to be able to say in the next round of democratic primaries "When I was in New Orleans after the flood..."
I wonder, though, if Kerry did manage to get his pasty ass into New Orleans, would he put in for another Purple Heart?
Katrina, Part III...Bush Hates Blacks...
This has been a recurring theme throughout the unfolding drama and quite a bit of news coverage as of late. The simple fact of the matter is that the faces we all saw fleeing New Orleans way too late happened to be dark. Then again, many of the same faces were caught on tape looting the local businesses of guns, drugs, jewelry and items that had nothing to do with simple survival, but of course, this is overlooked by the media and the racial megaphones (Jesse, Al, et. al.) because to admit it would be inconvenient.
One gets the impression from watching the news coverage that only blacks live in New Orleans. While there is a case to be made that N'awlins is a black town (the population is 70% black), this is patently untrue. Many of the survivors are white and hispanic and there was a sizeable asian population in the city. However, whites and asians do not have the ready-built grievance machine to pump out propaganda 24/7, and many of the hispanics in the city can be safely assumed to be of the illegal variety, and thus, will remain mostly silent.
Because aid did not reach the city within a reasonable amount of time, the racial grievance crowd automatically assumes it must be because the government, and G.W. Bush is the (white) face of the government, just could care less about drowing, starving blacks in their hour of need. The possibility (reality) of incompetence on the part of city and state officials is overlooked and forgotten in an attempt to guilt the rest of the country (and especially Bush) into giving and doing until we literally bleed from our wallets. This has been the standard tactic of the racial grievance industry since the 1960's, and we shouldn't expect anything to change now. Especially not now, when there are people who certainly need help and when the spectre of billions of federal dollars looms right over the horizon. Bush would have been tarred with the racist epithet in any case, but now that the reconstruction money is about to be shelled out, the brush is broader.
We can argue all day about who did or didn't do what when it needed to be done. The fact remains that those who have a vested interest in flinging mud at George Bush specifically and republicans in general, really do not want to have an honest argument in this regard. What they want is money. Lots of it. And it was convenient that tens of thousands of the expected recipients just happened to be of a certain race and economic class. Had Boise, Idaho been similarly devestated none of this stuff would be said. At last count, I believe 11 black folks live in Boise (sarcasm, but you get the point).
Throw enough guilt around, make enough embarrassing and outrageous statements, and watch how fast the republican party opens the cash spigots. Once those funds reach Louisiana and what constitutes rebuilding is begun, the volume will be turned up. We'll hear than "not enough" of the money and contracts are being steered to "minority" companies without the accompanying explanation that had there actually been "minority" companies capable of doing something about rebuilding the city, they would have gotten a piece of the pie. Instead, money that would have gone to reconstruction will now go to "community groups" and "community activists" who claim to "speak for minorities" but who do nothing but line thier own pockets.
The next argument will be that N'awlins will be gentrified. Public housing will not be rebuilt or rebuilt very slowly. The reason, of course, is economics. There's not a whole lot of money in slums, and to build a new slum in place of the old is ridiculous. However, the hue and cry will go out for "affordable housing", and money that could have been used constructively will go to rebuilding the very cesspools that produced looters and alleged armed rape gangs. If such construction does not go forward, we'll hear all about how Bush wants to ethnically cleanse New Orleans.
Of course, past history means nothing to the racial grievance crowd. It's always about "what have done for me lately?". So everyone involved will conveniently forget all the federal aid that went to minorities in Florida last year when it was hit by four successive hurricanes. Not a word will be said to remind people about government aid to minorities in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. I can continue this list forever, but we have limited bandwith here.
The Jacksons, Sharptons and Kanye West's of this world are not interested in facts, history or logic, only money. I'm still waiting to hear how all this federal largesse affects the "reparations now" crowd, only I have a good idea of what their reaction would be in any case.
But to make the argument that a President of the United States would sit back and deliberately let an American city be wiped out is patently ridiculous. To insist, as some have, that the same President somehow controls the weather, personally directed the hurricane or had the levees dynamited in order to create an American holocaust is bordering on insanity. Suggesting that the same man deliberately sat on his hands so as to make sure "we lose as many as possible" is sick.
This has been a recurring theme throughout the unfolding drama and quite a bit of news coverage as of late. The simple fact of the matter is that the faces we all saw fleeing New Orleans way too late happened to be dark. Then again, many of the same faces were caught on tape looting the local businesses of guns, drugs, jewelry and items that had nothing to do with simple survival, but of course, this is overlooked by the media and the racial megaphones (Jesse, Al, et. al.) because to admit it would be inconvenient.
One gets the impression from watching the news coverage that only blacks live in New Orleans. While there is a case to be made that N'awlins is a black town (the population is 70% black), this is patently untrue. Many of the survivors are white and hispanic and there was a sizeable asian population in the city. However, whites and asians do not have the ready-built grievance machine to pump out propaganda 24/7, and many of the hispanics in the city can be safely assumed to be of the illegal variety, and thus, will remain mostly silent.
Because aid did not reach the city within a reasonable amount of time, the racial grievance crowd automatically assumes it must be because the government, and G.W. Bush is the (white) face of the government, just could care less about drowing, starving blacks in their hour of need. The possibility (reality) of incompetence on the part of city and state officials is overlooked and forgotten in an attempt to guilt the rest of the country (and especially Bush) into giving and doing until we literally bleed from our wallets. This has been the standard tactic of the racial grievance industry since the 1960's, and we shouldn't expect anything to change now. Especially not now, when there are people who certainly need help and when the spectre of billions of federal dollars looms right over the horizon. Bush would have been tarred with the racist epithet in any case, but now that the reconstruction money is about to be shelled out, the brush is broader.
We can argue all day about who did or didn't do what when it needed to be done. The fact remains that those who have a vested interest in flinging mud at George Bush specifically and republicans in general, really do not want to have an honest argument in this regard. What they want is money. Lots of it. And it was convenient that tens of thousands of the expected recipients just happened to be of a certain race and economic class. Had Boise, Idaho been similarly devestated none of this stuff would be said. At last count, I believe 11 black folks live in Boise (sarcasm, but you get the point).
Throw enough guilt around, make enough embarrassing and outrageous statements, and watch how fast the republican party opens the cash spigots. Once those funds reach Louisiana and what constitutes rebuilding is begun, the volume will be turned up. We'll hear than "not enough" of the money and contracts are being steered to "minority" companies without the accompanying explanation that had there actually been "minority" companies capable of doing something about rebuilding the city, they would have gotten a piece of the pie. Instead, money that would have gone to reconstruction will now go to "community groups" and "community activists" who claim to "speak for minorities" but who do nothing but line thier own pockets.
The next argument will be that N'awlins will be gentrified. Public housing will not be rebuilt or rebuilt very slowly. The reason, of course, is economics. There's not a whole lot of money in slums, and to build a new slum in place of the old is ridiculous. However, the hue and cry will go out for "affordable housing", and money that could have been used constructively will go to rebuilding the very cesspools that produced looters and alleged armed rape gangs. If such construction does not go forward, we'll hear all about how Bush wants to ethnically cleanse New Orleans.
Of course, past history means nothing to the racial grievance crowd. It's always about "what have done for me lately?". So everyone involved will conveniently forget all the federal aid that went to minorities in Florida last year when it was hit by four successive hurricanes. Not a word will be said to remind people about government aid to minorities in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. I can continue this list forever, but we have limited bandwith here.
The Jacksons, Sharptons and Kanye West's of this world are not interested in facts, history or logic, only money. I'm still waiting to hear how all this federal largesse affects the "reparations now" crowd, only I have a good idea of what their reaction would be in any case.
But to make the argument that a President of the United States would sit back and deliberately let an American city be wiped out is patently ridiculous. To insist, as some have, that the same President somehow controls the weather, personally directed the hurricane or had the levees dynamited in order to create an American holocaust is bordering on insanity. Suggesting that the same man deliberately sat on his hands so as to make sure "we lose as many as possible" is sick.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Katrina, Part II...Refugees and Morons...
First, I object to the term "refugee" to describe the survivors and the displaced people of the Gulf Coast not because it's inaccurate, but because the word is full of obvious, political signifigance. It gives the impression that the people displaced and made homeless are escaping from a despotic regime, like Vietnamese boat people or the Cubans in the Mariel Boatlift.
The people who are currently find themselves homeless in the aftermath of Katrina are, of course, blameless. No one can predict what a hurricane can do, where it will go, or how it will affect a city, below sea level and surrounded by water on three sides (although we can make pretty good guesses, can't we?). Those that are homeless due to storm damage, flooding and fire deserve some compassion and assistance.
That having been said, there is one stubborn, persistent point in all of the air being wasted on the plight of New Orleanians (if that's a the right word), and that is that no one who stayed behind to suffer through all of this, has the right to whine and cry and bitch about nothing being done for them.
To begin with, your desire to leave was obvioulsy overwhelmed by your desire to avoid personal responsibility for your own safety. There were two days of repeated warnings to get out of the city, and people managed to ignore them. Those that wanted to leave did so, and many probably by improvised means. Apparently, your personal safety was outweighed by your laziness or anticipation of looting the local Wal-Mart.
When confronted by the possibility of a category 5 hurricane hitting a city no better situated than Atlantis, and you stay of your own free will, then you have nothing ot complain about.
Some will say, but Matt, these people COULDN'T get out. They didn't have cars! The City of New Orleans was supposed to supply buses, and didn't!
Hey, get this, it's a novel idea:
When government fails, then it is up to society to pick up the slack, and failing that, only personal initiative can save the day.
Translation: Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, regardless of what you were promised or what you believe you are entitled to. If the City of NO did not supply transportation, than take some responsibility. Start walking. Organize car pools with neighbors who do have transportation. Build rickshaws. If you're gonna loot Wal-Mart, then how about stealing something useful, like a bicycle, rather a Sony Playstation and assorted games, to get yourself out?
Human beings have this wonderful instinct for self-preservation. It's one of the strongest instincts a human being has, and it's so powerful that it overrides all others sometimes. You wonder what went wrong with so many people to have their instinct for self-preservation crap out all at the same time.
If you ask me, it's the welfare mentality that does it. It's a mentality that causes people to actually believe that not only are they entitled to whatever they want, but that government is responsible for providing it, in sufficient quantities, on demand. That's the FIRST group of morons in this tale. The ones who waited until the last minute and then worried about their safety when staying blew up in their faces.
The second group was voted into office by the first group. You have to wonder which is worse.
We have a mayor who had a disaster plan but decided not to use it, who then loses his nerve and his cool on national television in the midst of a crisis, and blames everyone but himself. We have a governor who seems to be inhabiting Planet Xeon who has not clue one as to what's going on in her state. Conflicting reports fly everywhere: martial law has been declared/no it hasn't. A state of emergency exists in Louisiana/No it doesn't. The National Guard was Federalized/No it wasn't.
You know what Louisiana's, and especially New Orlean's, disaster plan consisted of? Praying really hard that the storm would hit someplace else, vacillating afterwards, losing control completely, and then pointing the finger at the federal government. But they did manage to empty the prisons before they were flooded. Good thinking, Madame Governor!
Right now, 40,000 people are trapped in a toxic swamp of disease-carrying water, with corpses floating around and armed gangs roaming the streets shooting at rescue crews. The most heartbreaking image I've seen so far is the one where a nursing home full of elderly people was left to be covered by flood waters. Eighty senior citizens are believed dead in that one.
Yes, the people of New Orleans have covered themselves in glory. They have looted, rioted, raped, shot themselves into the history books. They have abandoned the helpless and then cry about being abandoned. The scream about the lack of law and order while 300 police officerts bugged out or failed to show for work, and of those that did, many joined in the mayhem of looting.
I hope if and when they ever rebuild this city, they do so 50 miles inland, on a hilltop, and then repopulate it with Irish Setters. Dogs at least have the brains to get out of a flooded house.
First, I object to the term "refugee" to describe the survivors and the displaced people of the Gulf Coast not because it's inaccurate, but because the word is full of obvious, political signifigance. It gives the impression that the people displaced and made homeless are escaping from a despotic regime, like Vietnamese boat people or the Cubans in the Mariel Boatlift.
The people who are currently find themselves homeless in the aftermath of Katrina are, of course, blameless. No one can predict what a hurricane can do, where it will go, or how it will affect a city, below sea level and surrounded by water on three sides (although we can make pretty good guesses, can't we?). Those that are homeless due to storm damage, flooding and fire deserve some compassion and assistance.
That having been said, there is one stubborn, persistent point in all of the air being wasted on the plight of New Orleanians (if that's a the right word), and that is that no one who stayed behind to suffer through all of this, has the right to whine and cry and bitch about nothing being done for them.
To begin with, your desire to leave was obvioulsy overwhelmed by your desire to avoid personal responsibility for your own safety. There were two days of repeated warnings to get out of the city, and people managed to ignore them. Those that wanted to leave did so, and many probably by improvised means. Apparently, your personal safety was outweighed by your laziness or anticipation of looting the local Wal-Mart.
When confronted by the possibility of a category 5 hurricane hitting a city no better situated than Atlantis, and you stay of your own free will, then you have nothing ot complain about.
Some will say, but Matt, these people COULDN'T get out. They didn't have cars! The City of New Orleans was supposed to supply buses, and didn't!
Hey, get this, it's a novel idea:
When government fails, then it is up to society to pick up the slack, and failing that, only personal initiative can save the day.
Translation: Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, regardless of what you were promised or what you believe you are entitled to. If the City of NO did not supply transportation, than take some responsibility. Start walking. Organize car pools with neighbors who do have transportation. Build rickshaws. If you're gonna loot Wal-Mart, then how about stealing something useful, like a bicycle, rather a Sony Playstation and assorted games, to get yourself out?
Human beings have this wonderful instinct for self-preservation. It's one of the strongest instincts a human being has, and it's so powerful that it overrides all others sometimes. You wonder what went wrong with so many people to have their instinct for self-preservation crap out all at the same time.
If you ask me, it's the welfare mentality that does it. It's a mentality that causes people to actually believe that not only are they entitled to whatever they want, but that government is responsible for providing it, in sufficient quantities, on demand. That's the FIRST group of morons in this tale. The ones who waited until the last minute and then worried about their safety when staying blew up in their faces.
The second group was voted into office by the first group. You have to wonder which is worse.
We have a mayor who had a disaster plan but decided not to use it, who then loses his nerve and his cool on national television in the midst of a crisis, and blames everyone but himself. We have a governor who seems to be inhabiting Planet Xeon who has not clue one as to what's going on in her state. Conflicting reports fly everywhere: martial law has been declared/no it hasn't. A state of emergency exists in Louisiana/No it doesn't. The National Guard was Federalized/No it wasn't.
You know what Louisiana's, and especially New Orlean's, disaster plan consisted of? Praying really hard that the storm would hit someplace else, vacillating afterwards, losing control completely, and then pointing the finger at the federal government. But they did manage to empty the prisons before they were flooded. Good thinking, Madame Governor!
Right now, 40,000 people are trapped in a toxic swamp of disease-carrying water, with corpses floating around and armed gangs roaming the streets shooting at rescue crews. The most heartbreaking image I've seen so far is the one where a nursing home full of elderly people was left to be covered by flood waters. Eighty senior citizens are believed dead in that one.
Yes, the people of New Orleans have covered themselves in glory. They have looted, rioted, raped, shot themselves into the history books. They have abandoned the helpless and then cry about being abandoned. The scream about the lack of law and order while 300 police officerts bugged out or failed to show for work, and of those that did, many joined in the mayhem of looting.
I hope if and when they ever rebuild this city, they do so 50 miles inland, on a hilltop, and then repopulate it with Irish Setters. Dogs at least have the brains to get out of a flooded house.
Katrina, Part I...It's Bush's Fault...
This kind of crap circulated the same day the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast. Depending on your angle, George W. Bush:
1. Controls the weather.
2. Somehow mystically willed a hurricane to slam into a minority majority city (New Orleans, 70% black) because he secretly hates black people.
3. Could have avoided all of this if he had simply ratified the Kyoto Treaty.
This is how irrational some on what we continue to call "the Left" continue to think. That people will eagerly echo some or all of these sentiments without thinking about the absurdity behind them is even scarier.
According to the "other side" George W. Bush is the most powerful man in the universe, surpassing in abilities the likes of Superman and Hercules.
GW knew about 9/11 beforehand and could have stopped it. GW knows where Usama bin Hidin' is but just refuses to go after him. GW Bush manipulated two elections. GW is hoarding oil for the benefit of his Oil Company cronies, while simultaneously fighting a war for free oil that we intend to steal from the Iraqis. GW could have prevented a hurricane and single-handedly saved the Gulf Coast.
George W. Bush is a freakin' genius, ain't he?
And these same people are the ones who said he was a fucking moron because he can't pronounce nuclear correctly? Hell, if I could control the weather, I wouldn't give a damn about diction either.
This kind of crap circulated the same day the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast. Depending on your angle, George W. Bush:
1. Controls the weather.
2. Somehow mystically willed a hurricane to slam into a minority majority city (New Orleans, 70% black) because he secretly hates black people.
3. Could have avoided all of this if he had simply ratified the Kyoto Treaty.
This is how irrational some on what we continue to call "the Left" continue to think. That people will eagerly echo some or all of these sentiments without thinking about the absurdity behind them is even scarier.
According to the "other side" George W. Bush is the most powerful man in the universe, surpassing in abilities the likes of Superman and Hercules.
GW knew about 9/11 beforehand and could have stopped it. GW knows where Usama bin Hidin' is but just refuses to go after him. GW Bush manipulated two elections. GW is hoarding oil for the benefit of his Oil Company cronies, while simultaneously fighting a war for free oil that we intend to steal from the Iraqis. GW could have prevented a hurricane and single-handedly saved the Gulf Coast.
George W. Bush is a freakin' genius, ain't he?
And these same people are the ones who said he was a fucking moron because he can't pronounce nuclear correctly? Hell, if I could control the weather, I wouldn't give a damn about diction either.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Halal Kool-Aid...
If you really want to see mass psychosis close up and personal, then read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1474791/posts
There are people running around the Middle East who believe this kind of stuff with the same fervor as they usually reserve for their religion. These people eat this stuff up like it was coated in chocolate.
This is not merely a matter of having "better propaganda" than the other side or merely doing a better job of "getting our message out" or any other euphamism you can think of along those lines. This is simply the result of a culture that has gone completely beserk and which has no means of comparison with the outside world.
There's only two ways to deal with this kindof sick culture: it either requires time, treasure and blood to change people's minds (a very slow process), or you kill them before they kill you.
If you really want to see mass psychosis close up and personal, then read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1474791/posts
There are people running around the Middle East who believe this kind of stuff with the same fervor as they usually reserve for their religion. These people eat this stuff up like it was coated in chocolate.
This is not merely a matter of having "better propaganda" than the other side or merely doing a better job of "getting our message out" or any other euphamism you can think of along those lines. This is simply the result of a culture that has gone completely beserk and which has no means of comparison with the outside world.
There's only two ways to deal with this kindof sick culture: it either requires time, treasure and blood to change people's minds (a very slow process), or you kill them before they kill you.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
A Greater National Tragedy...
Today as we sit in front of the television and heave a sigh and a collective "tsk-tsk" about Hurricane Katrina, an even bigger drama is being played out behind the scenes. While we learn about the "tragedy" of rednecks who were too dumb to get out of the way of a Category 5 storm with five days warning, losing their homes, and sometimes their lives, there is something equally distressing, and certainly more important than a flooded street in New Orleans looming on the horizon, and it hits with just as much force as Katrina.
I'm down in Florida staying with a dear friend who has an annoying habit (more like routine) that revolves around appearing at or calling courthouses three times day, it seems. When she's not engaged with the courts, it's various state agencies and sherrif's departments. She's harried, but determined, and continues to bang her head against the wall of monumental legal and governmental stupidity for a very simple reason:
She has a deadbeat ex-husband. Actually, two of them. And two daughters.
What's worse, is that neither sperm donor (and that's what they are, because they are simply NOT fathers), despite all the pressure brought to bear by the mighty coercive state, despite the arrest warrants issued, the wages garnished, the begging and pleading of their own relatives, has seen fit to perform the job they volunteered for: being a father.
Perhaps it is because I grew up without my own father that I have a romantic (if that's the right term) idea of what a father should be. He should be strong, a good role model, a defender of his family, he should try to do the right thing and look out for his own, even when it hurts him. He should be responsible, interested, a source of guidance and advice when life's little molehills seem to ballon into Everest.
But it seems that this is not the case. A father nowadays is merely the person who left his gametes, a name on a birth certificate, a random personality who having gotten his rocks off, can see fit to ignore the responsibility that attaches to another life he helped create. If he's lucky, all of the annoyances (ex-wife, kid, state agencies hounding him) will just go away and leave him be.
I've been watching this little drama play out for the last few days (and hearing about it for far longer than I care to remember) and it always comes back to the same thing; no matter what means you use, you cannot get through to these guys. No ethical, moral or legal argument available to you can penetrate the dense armor of selishness. No action by the state can coerce compliance with what should be a primal instinct (rearing your own offspring and supporting them).
It's not just about money. How about calling your kid once in a while to see how she is? Is school okay? Are you feeling well? Is there anything you need? Can we just shoot the breeze? Can I see you?
Three million years of human evolution has hard-wired the instinct to see our children survive to propagate the species has gone down the toilet, somehow. Granted divorces are often messy and nasty affairs (my mother's had two of them) and very often parents take an active dislike to each other, but is this an excuse to ignore your own children? What happened to that instinct? How did we reach a point where it no longer functions?
We have, in the name of "protecting the children" turned much of the apparatus of actual child care over to incompetent state agencies who do little more than issue little bits of paper, shuffle them between offices and then sit on their hands. These are merely jobs programs for people who cannot find gainful employment in the private sector --- they don't have to show results or produce anything useful in order to get paid. You can issue warrants for arrest, but police forces have better things to do than enforce the law, like making sure that everyone is wearing a seatbelt or protecting rural town with populations under 300 from terrorist attack (never know when Mohammed might find it necessary to blow up the grain silo in Scratchyerass, Montana).
In the meantime, we have millions of children who are going unsupported (in more than financial terms) by their actual parents, and it's hurting them in ways that want to make you scream at the tops of your lungs. It's a crime. I feel like solving the problem myself with my trusty crowbar.
I know that solves nothing, but this is a situation that calls for drastic action. Where that action comes from or how it's mobilized, however, is beyond me. I do know one thing for certain, we do need to redefine fatherhood as quickly as possible, and preferably, we should fall back on the older, understood concept of provider and nuturer instead of this new-fangled ATM-machine-under-guidance-of-the-state concept. It doesn't work. All it produces is more angst for the parents and a kid who has to beg for the slightest acknowledgement from her father.
And this is being repeated all over the country. So while we look at he same pictures of flooded streets in the French Quarter, and the politicians continue to do their job of filling empty suits, and the flapping rectums on the news present yet another fluff piece on on "What's Hot This Fall!", another kid is wondering what he or she did to deserve a father who is heartless and irresponsible. We won't even get into the damage (emotional and mental) that this sort of behavior causes in your children, it should be self-evident.
This is the greatest tragedy of all.
Today as we sit in front of the television and heave a sigh and a collective "tsk-tsk" about Hurricane Katrina, an even bigger drama is being played out behind the scenes. While we learn about the "tragedy" of rednecks who were too dumb to get out of the way of a Category 5 storm with five days warning, losing their homes, and sometimes their lives, there is something equally distressing, and certainly more important than a flooded street in New Orleans looming on the horizon, and it hits with just as much force as Katrina.
I'm down in Florida staying with a dear friend who has an annoying habit (more like routine) that revolves around appearing at or calling courthouses three times day, it seems. When she's not engaged with the courts, it's various state agencies and sherrif's departments. She's harried, but determined, and continues to bang her head against the wall of monumental legal and governmental stupidity for a very simple reason:
She has a deadbeat ex-husband. Actually, two of them. And two daughters.
What's worse, is that neither sperm donor (and that's what they are, because they are simply NOT fathers), despite all the pressure brought to bear by the mighty coercive state, despite the arrest warrants issued, the wages garnished, the begging and pleading of their own relatives, has seen fit to perform the job they volunteered for: being a father.
Perhaps it is because I grew up without my own father that I have a romantic (if that's the right term) idea of what a father should be. He should be strong, a good role model, a defender of his family, he should try to do the right thing and look out for his own, even when it hurts him. He should be responsible, interested, a source of guidance and advice when life's little molehills seem to ballon into Everest.
But it seems that this is not the case. A father nowadays is merely the person who left his gametes, a name on a birth certificate, a random personality who having gotten his rocks off, can see fit to ignore the responsibility that attaches to another life he helped create. If he's lucky, all of the annoyances (ex-wife, kid, state agencies hounding him) will just go away and leave him be.
I've been watching this little drama play out for the last few days (and hearing about it for far longer than I care to remember) and it always comes back to the same thing; no matter what means you use, you cannot get through to these guys. No ethical, moral or legal argument available to you can penetrate the dense armor of selishness. No action by the state can coerce compliance with what should be a primal instinct (rearing your own offspring and supporting them).
It's not just about money. How about calling your kid once in a while to see how she is? Is school okay? Are you feeling well? Is there anything you need? Can we just shoot the breeze? Can I see you?
Three million years of human evolution has hard-wired the instinct to see our children survive to propagate the species has gone down the toilet, somehow. Granted divorces are often messy and nasty affairs (my mother's had two of them) and very often parents take an active dislike to each other, but is this an excuse to ignore your own children? What happened to that instinct? How did we reach a point where it no longer functions?
We have, in the name of "protecting the children" turned much of the apparatus of actual child care over to incompetent state agencies who do little more than issue little bits of paper, shuffle them between offices and then sit on their hands. These are merely jobs programs for people who cannot find gainful employment in the private sector --- they don't have to show results or produce anything useful in order to get paid. You can issue warrants for arrest, but police forces have better things to do than enforce the law, like making sure that everyone is wearing a seatbelt or protecting rural town with populations under 300 from terrorist attack (never know when Mohammed might find it necessary to blow up the grain silo in Scratchyerass, Montana).
In the meantime, we have millions of children who are going unsupported (in more than financial terms) by their actual parents, and it's hurting them in ways that want to make you scream at the tops of your lungs. It's a crime. I feel like solving the problem myself with my trusty crowbar.
I know that solves nothing, but this is a situation that calls for drastic action. Where that action comes from or how it's mobilized, however, is beyond me. I do know one thing for certain, we do need to redefine fatherhood as quickly as possible, and preferably, we should fall back on the older, understood concept of provider and nuturer instead of this new-fangled ATM-machine-under-guidance-of-the-state concept. It doesn't work. All it produces is more angst for the parents and a kid who has to beg for the slightest acknowledgement from her father.
And this is being repeated all over the country. So while we look at he same pictures of flooded streets in the French Quarter, and the politicians continue to do their job of filling empty suits, and the flapping rectums on the news present yet another fluff piece on on "What's Hot This Fall!", another kid is wondering what he or she did to deserve a father who is heartless and irresponsible. We won't even get into the damage (emotional and mental) that this sort of behavior causes in your children, it should be self-evident.
This is the greatest tragedy of all.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
I Knew That Would Happen...
A few days ago I wrote in this space that I had the feeling that I was about to have some trouble when it came to traveling. And I was right.
It all began innocently enough --- buy a ticket for Orlando, show up at the airport and get on a plane, That was the plan at least. Until I ran headlong into federal regulations regarding air travel.
When I reached the Delta Airlines counter at Newark airport, all ready to check in, I was unaware of the potential disaster in the making. Like a lamb to the slaughter, I suspected not thing one about what my day was to bring. It was 5 a.m. (you have to show up at 5 for a 7:30 flight, one of them thar new regs. It gives the TSA time to have the dogs sniff your luggage, apparently), and I cheerfuly walked up to the ticket agent in anticipation of getting my boarding pass and then spending the next two and half hours eating rotten danish and abyssmal airport coffee.
The ticket agent asked me for identification and I obliged, turning over my passport, a trusty document that has not failed me for any reason, from buying liquor to cashing a check, for the last 10 years. Little did I know that I was about to cross paths with the Fed'ral Leviathan.
Apparently my passport had expired three days previously. I had no idea (because I never looked at the expiration date). This is a problem since the Fed'ral regulation requires current identificaton, proven by a document issued by said Fed'ral entity or a similar document issued by a state agency.
I don't drive, therefore I do not have a drivers license, but I do carry an old identification card from my days at Smith-Nazi, and it has my picture on it. Not acceptible, or at least it would have been had I not shown an expired passport first. That expired passport is the the root of all the evils that followed.
I was then asked to present any of the following: Social security card, state identification card, student ID from a state university, Medicare card, and the one that struck me as totally eggregious, a library card.
What did you say? Yes, I thought it strange too. I couldn't get on plane because I presented a passport issued by the Fed'ral Gubmint, but at that very moment, in an airport somewhere in this country, the minions of Osama were merrily getting on flights with a library card. Alas, having none of the above, I was told that I should go home, get new identification and then return for a later flight.
And so I hopped a taxi back home. It cost me $50 to get to newark, and now another $50 to go back. Once home, I furiously tore through my belongings seeking aything that had an official seal with no expiraton date that could be used as identification. I found my borth certificate, which is acceptible, but which seemed thin to me. So, I called Delta's reservation number to see if one of the friendly customer service reps could help me out with regards as to what constituted proper idenitifcation.
Which was my second mistake of the day. If you thought I was aggravated by missing my flight, the prospects of three $50 cab rides and the fact that I'm now functioning with little sleep, you ain't heard nothing yet.
I explained the situation to Disinterested Foreigner #1, or tried to, since he wouldn't shut up. I'm sitting here with an expired passport, a work photo id, a borth certificate and a wallet fullof insurance and credit cards, but apparently none of it is useful. You require two forms of photo id or two forms of non-photo id, all issued by some government body, noneof it expired, or a combination of both. I was getting nowhere in terms of help, and so I hung up on the man.
I called back and got Disinterested Foreigner #2, who spoke better English but who was only of slightly better utility. So, in frustration, I began to think that perhaps I would not be getting on this flight after all. I asked for a refund. No can-do. Then reschedule my flight so that I have an opportunity to get the required ID. Again, no dice, unless I wanted to pay twice what I already had. I lost my temper and went into the whole "I'm an American citizen and have the right to travel in my own damn country, you foreign piece of shit" tirade. At this point, the man figured he'd better let his supervisor handle this.
Except that hs supervisor couldn't be bothered. I ranted some more and cajoled, pleaded and intoned, and eventually a supervisor did come on the line.
Shockingly, this man spoke perfect American English.
I explained the situation to him and the solution was shockingly simple: use the work ID and the birth certificate, deep-six the passport. So, taking a chance, I asked about the use of a library card and he told me, quite frankly, that whoever had told me that such a document was valid ID for getting on a flight was dead wrong. He was surprised that someone would have even suggested it.
So now, I'm back in business. Back to Newark at 10 am to catch a 1:30 flight, another $50 cab ride. Walk up to the Delta ticket counter and present a work ID (for a job I no longer have) and my birth certificate. No problem, here's your ticket, sir. Begin to walk away from the counter and the woman who had me banished earlier that morning is still on duty. She recognizes me and asks if everything is straightened out now. Yes it is, no thanks to you, and did you know that a library card is not considerd valid identification? She does now. I'll bet she's worried sick that she probably let some ill-intentioned Middle Easterners on flights in the past because she was under the impression that a library card carried weight. Let her lose sleep, the idiot.
Anyways, a few things that I noticed hanging around the airport. To begin with, there were an absolutely huge number of people getting on or off flights that required wheelchairs. Not one flight that was announced at the gate area had fewer than four people in wheelchairs on it. The announcement of "Delta airlines flight number so-and-so requires a customer service representative with a wheelchair" merely became part of the background noise. I wonder, what happens in an emergency when a sizable number of passengers cannot get out of their seats or save themselves because they require wheelchairs and why are so many put on the same flight?
I should add that my flight was actually quite good. The plane was operated by a Delta affiliate called Song Airways. I'd never heard of them before, but I can tell you that I would gladly fly them again. The plane was quite clean, the seat the most comfortable I've been on in quite some time. The plane was decorated in a sort of 1970's motif: bright colors reminiscent of the patio furniture in the Brady Bucnh -- tiel, soft pinks, lime green, it was quite unusual. The inflight entertainment was tops --- 24 channels of satellite TV (caught the Cubs-Marlins game on ESPN). The food was quite good, and served in a most unusual way --- the stews came by with a cart and you purchased what you wanted from a rather large selection. I enjoyed the cheese, fruit and cracker selection, with a Diet Coke, for $5. Not bad.
The plane's safety announcement was not the tired, dull pantomime usually performed by stewardesses. Instead, the stews went through the motions to the sounds of an instructional tape (with salsa music), narrated by a man with an outrageous and slightly comic Spanish accent. It was actually something fun. Everything on the airplane was designed or intended to be fun. If this is an indication of the future of air travel, then I'm buying stock in Song Airways. It was a hit with all the passengers.
Let's see how much fun I have on the way back home in 10 days.
A few days ago I wrote in this space that I had the feeling that I was about to have some trouble when it came to traveling. And I was right.
It all began innocently enough --- buy a ticket for Orlando, show up at the airport and get on a plane, That was the plan at least. Until I ran headlong into federal regulations regarding air travel.
When I reached the Delta Airlines counter at Newark airport, all ready to check in, I was unaware of the potential disaster in the making. Like a lamb to the slaughter, I suspected not thing one about what my day was to bring. It was 5 a.m. (you have to show up at 5 for a 7:30 flight, one of them thar new regs. It gives the TSA time to have the dogs sniff your luggage, apparently), and I cheerfuly walked up to the ticket agent in anticipation of getting my boarding pass and then spending the next two and half hours eating rotten danish and abyssmal airport coffee.
The ticket agent asked me for identification and I obliged, turning over my passport, a trusty document that has not failed me for any reason, from buying liquor to cashing a check, for the last 10 years. Little did I know that I was about to cross paths with the Fed'ral Leviathan.
Apparently my passport had expired three days previously. I had no idea (because I never looked at the expiration date). This is a problem since the Fed'ral regulation requires current identificaton, proven by a document issued by said Fed'ral entity or a similar document issued by a state agency.
I don't drive, therefore I do not have a drivers license, but I do carry an old identification card from my days at Smith-Nazi, and it has my picture on it. Not acceptible, or at least it would have been had I not shown an expired passport first. That expired passport is the the root of all the evils that followed.
I was then asked to present any of the following: Social security card, state identification card, student ID from a state university, Medicare card, and the one that struck me as totally eggregious, a library card.
What did you say? Yes, I thought it strange too. I couldn't get on plane because I presented a passport issued by the Fed'ral Gubmint, but at that very moment, in an airport somewhere in this country, the minions of Osama were merrily getting on flights with a library card. Alas, having none of the above, I was told that I should go home, get new identification and then return for a later flight.
And so I hopped a taxi back home. It cost me $50 to get to newark, and now another $50 to go back. Once home, I furiously tore through my belongings seeking aything that had an official seal with no expiraton date that could be used as identification. I found my borth certificate, which is acceptible, but which seemed thin to me. So, I called Delta's reservation number to see if one of the friendly customer service reps could help me out with regards as to what constituted proper idenitifcation.
Which was my second mistake of the day. If you thought I was aggravated by missing my flight, the prospects of three $50 cab rides and the fact that I'm now functioning with little sleep, you ain't heard nothing yet.
I explained the situation to Disinterested Foreigner #1, or tried to, since he wouldn't shut up. I'm sitting here with an expired passport, a work photo id, a borth certificate and a wallet fullof insurance and credit cards, but apparently none of it is useful. You require two forms of photo id or two forms of non-photo id, all issued by some government body, noneof it expired, or a combination of both. I was getting nowhere in terms of help, and so I hung up on the man.
I called back and got Disinterested Foreigner #2, who spoke better English but who was only of slightly better utility. So, in frustration, I began to think that perhaps I would not be getting on this flight after all. I asked for a refund. No can-do. Then reschedule my flight so that I have an opportunity to get the required ID. Again, no dice, unless I wanted to pay twice what I already had. I lost my temper and went into the whole "I'm an American citizen and have the right to travel in my own damn country, you foreign piece of shit" tirade. At this point, the man figured he'd better let his supervisor handle this.
Except that hs supervisor couldn't be bothered. I ranted some more and cajoled, pleaded and intoned, and eventually a supervisor did come on the line.
Shockingly, this man spoke perfect American English.
I explained the situation to him and the solution was shockingly simple: use the work ID and the birth certificate, deep-six the passport. So, taking a chance, I asked about the use of a library card and he told me, quite frankly, that whoever had told me that such a document was valid ID for getting on a flight was dead wrong. He was surprised that someone would have even suggested it.
So now, I'm back in business. Back to Newark at 10 am to catch a 1:30 flight, another $50 cab ride. Walk up to the Delta ticket counter and present a work ID (for a job I no longer have) and my birth certificate. No problem, here's your ticket, sir. Begin to walk away from the counter and the woman who had me banished earlier that morning is still on duty. She recognizes me and asks if everything is straightened out now. Yes it is, no thanks to you, and did you know that a library card is not considerd valid identification? She does now. I'll bet she's worried sick that she probably let some ill-intentioned Middle Easterners on flights in the past because she was under the impression that a library card carried weight. Let her lose sleep, the idiot.
Anyways, a few things that I noticed hanging around the airport. To begin with, there were an absolutely huge number of people getting on or off flights that required wheelchairs. Not one flight that was announced at the gate area had fewer than four people in wheelchairs on it. The announcement of "Delta airlines flight number so-and-so requires a customer service representative with a wheelchair" merely became part of the background noise. I wonder, what happens in an emergency when a sizable number of passengers cannot get out of their seats or save themselves because they require wheelchairs and why are so many put on the same flight?
I should add that my flight was actually quite good. The plane was operated by a Delta affiliate called Song Airways. I'd never heard of them before, but I can tell you that I would gladly fly them again. The plane was quite clean, the seat the most comfortable I've been on in quite some time. The plane was decorated in a sort of 1970's motif: bright colors reminiscent of the patio furniture in the Brady Bucnh -- tiel, soft pinks, lime green, it was quite unusual. The inflight entertainment was tops --- 24 channels of satellite TV (caught the Cubs-Marlins game on ESPN). The food was quite good, and served in a most unusual way --- the stews came by with a cart and you purchased what you wanted from a rather large selection. I enjoyed the cheese, fruit and cracker selection, with a Diet Coke, for $5. Not bad.
The plane's safety announcement was not the tired, dull pantomime usually performed by stewardesses. Instead, the stews went through the motions to the sounds of an instructional tape (with salsa music), narrated by a man with an outrageous and slightly comic Spanish accent. It was actually something fun. Everything on the airplane was designed or intended to be fun. If this is an indication of the future of air travel, then I'm buying stock in Song Airways. It was a hit with all the passengers.
Let's see how much fun I have on the way back home in 10 days.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
What Part of "Military" Did you Not Understand?
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the liberal penchant these days of portraying American servicemen and women who have given their lives in Iraq as innocent lambs sent to the abbatoir by a conniving, lying, ignorant President.
In the first place, the people who join the military do so voluntarily. There are not press gangs roaming American streets looking for people to shanghai. The military makes it perfectly clear to anyone willing to sign on the dotted line that military service very often means "being shot at and potentially maimed or killed". It's fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain that an organization that teaches people to use firearms, bayonettes, hand grenades and thermonuclear weapons is not an etiquette school. The military has several, minimum qualifications for those seeking employment in it's ranks: you have to be above a certain age, you have to pass a test, you have to have a high-school diploma. It's assumed you can breathe without assistance, tie your own shoes without a government program and can reasonably be expected to know enough not to stick your tonuge into live electrical outlets. After all that, you still have to be able to spell your name.
People who meet these minimum requirements can reasonably be expected to realize that when they put on a uniform that the day might come when they are sent, in the quaint expression, into harm's way. So, as far as I know, no one is being duped, deceived, tricked, flim-flammed, bamboozled or lied to when it comes to the risks inherant in voluntary military service. The argument that people are ignorant of the potential danger is patently false, and is really more of an argument along the lines of "Sheesh, my kid joined for the college money, not to shoot anyone or be shot at."
Too bad. That's the chance you take when you sign up. I'm sure that the same people who grumble about losing their loved ones in defense of the country would have had no problem if the same wind of fortune presented their beloved with a winning lottery ticket.
I do not mean to be unreasonably harsh in criticizing the Cindy Sheehan's of this world. Mrs. Sheehan lost her son, and while she knows damn well why and how it happened, she's still not happy about it (naturally), and she intends that the rest of us should have to share her pain. It's the Oprah moment gone berserk. The media and the criminal elements of the left (can'tMoveOn.org, Michael Moore, etc) merely see Mrs. Sheehan as a useful tool in getting their anti-war message out. Chances are that sans these organizations and the media vultures, no one would have ever heard of Cindy Sheehan. And naturally, without Mrs. Sheehan, chances are we would never, ever have heard of this absurd train of thought that a) full-grown adults are children when their mothers portray them that way and b) people who make voluntary descisions should not be held responsible, and protected from, the consequences.
As to the continuing chorus of "Bush Lied" and the littany of everything that goes wrong daily in Iraq (what goes right is not "sexy", as they say in the news business), I have this to say: when you present only one side of a story, or maybe even only half a side, you are being intellectually and factually dishonest. To pretend you are not is to be absolutely evil. Did the President lie? I don't know, and I don't have any evidence. But then again, neither do the people who accuse him of having done so. The campaign against the war is being fought with the oldest tactics in the book: "throw enough shit against the barn wall, eventually some of it has to stick" and "repeat something often enough and people actually start to believe it."
Neither of course is affected one way or another by factual evidence. To be contrary, even deliberately and ignorantly contrary, is akin to a religion for some people, I guess. A vast sum of federal money should be spent just to find out how these sorts tick so that they will be more easily identifiable to local mental health authorities.
The fact of the matter is that while things are certainly not a bed of roses in Iraq and massive mistakes have been (and continue to be) made, it's by no means certain that the war is a lost cause. I believe it can be turned around, that Iraqis will eventually be able to take responsibility for their own country, that a functioning semi-democratic (best we can hope for, I'm afraid) republic can function in Iraq, and that Iraq will eventually become a becon for hope, justice and social equality in a place that has no concept of any of those things. It will, however, require the present administration to admit mistakes and to be aggressive in correcting them. I see too much PR and not enough action right now. The detractors of the White House have put the president and his folks on the defensive somewhat and it's time he came out of the corner swinging.
The other side of the political spectrum has a vested interest in portraying the war as a lost cause --- they want power in the next round of elections. Of course, they're not so intellectually dishonest as to actually do what they say they will: end the war before America's task is completed. Democrats know just as well as Republicans that cutting and running is inherantly dangerous for the citizens of the United States. Anti-war sentiment, however it's engineered, is merely a political tool for them, not a principled stand.
Iraq can only be "fixed" when certain people, on both sides of the issue, stop engaging in petty politics and media spin and start getting serious about getting the job done.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the liberal penchant these days of portraying American servicemen and women who have given their lives in Iraq as innocent lambs sent to the abbatoir by a conniving, lying, ignorant President.
In the first place, the people who join the military do so voluntarily. There are not press gangs roaming American streets looking for people to shanghai. The military makes it perfectly clear to anyone willing to sign on the dotted line that military service very often means "being shot at and potentially maimed or killed". It's fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain that an organization that teaches people to use firearms, bayonettes, hand grenades and thermonuclear weapons is not an etiquette school. The military has several, minimum qualifications for those seeking employment in it's ranks: you have to be above a certain age, you have to pass a test, you have to have a high-school diploma. It's assumed you can breathe without assistance, tie your own shoes without a government program and can reasonably be expected to know enough not to stick your tonuge into live electrical outlets. After all that, you still have to be able to spell your name.
People who meet these minimum requirements can reasonably be expected to realize that when they put on a uniform that the day might come when they are sent, in the quaint expression, into harm's way. So, as far as I know, no one is being duped, deceived, tricked, flim-flammed, bamboozled or lied to when it comes to the risks inherant in voluntary military service. The argument that people are ignorant of the potential danger is patently false, and is really more of an argument along the lines of "Sheesh, my kid joined for the college money, not to shoot anyone or be shot at."
Too bad. That's the chance you take when you sign up. I'm sure that the same people who grumble about losing their loved ones in defense of the country would have had no problem if the same wind of fortune presented their beloved with a winning lottery ticket.
I do not mean to be unreasonably harsh in criticizing the Cindy Sheehan's of this world. Mrs. Sheehan lost her son, and while she knows damn well why and how it happened, she's still not happy about it (naturally), and she intends that the rest of us should have to share her pain. It's the Oprah moment gone berserk. The media and the criminal elements of the left (can'tMoveOn.org, Michael Moore, etc) merely see Mrs. Sheehan as a useful tool in getting their anti-war message out. Chances are that sans these organizations and the media vultures, no one would have ever heard of Cindy Sheehan. And naturally, without Mrs. Sheehan, chances are we would never, ever have heard of this absurd train of thought that a) full-grown adults are children when their mothers portray them that way and b) people who make voluntary descisions should not be held responsible, and protected from, the consequences.
As to the continuing chorus of "Bush Lied" and the littany of everything that goes wrong daily in Iraq (what goes right is not "sexy", as they say in the news business), I have this to say: when you present only one side of a story, or maybe even only half a side, you are being intellectually and factually dishonest. To pretend you are not is to be absolutely evil. Did the President lie? I don't know, and I don't have any evidence. But then again, neither do the people who accuse him of having done so. The campaign against the war is being fought with the oldest tactics in the book: "throw enough shit against the barn wall, eventually some of it has to stick" and "repeat something often enough and people actually start to believe it."
Neither of course is affected one way or another by factual evidence. To be contrary, even deliberately and ignorantly contrary, is akin to a religion for some people, I guess. A vast sum of federal money should be spent just to find out how these sorts tick so that they will be more easily identifiable to local mental health authorities.
The fact of the matter is that while things are certainly not a bed of roses in Iraq and massive mistakes have been (and continue to be) made, it's by no means certain that the war is a lost cause. I believe it can be turned around, that Iraqis will eventually be able to take responsibility for their own country, that a functioning semi-democratic (best we can hope for, I'm afraid) republic can function in Iraq, and that Iraq will eventually become a becon for hope, justice and social equality in a place that has no concept of any of those things. It will, however, require the present administration to admit mistakes and to be aggressive in correcting them. I see too much PR and not enough action right now. The detractors of the White House have put the president and his folks on the defensive somewhat and it's time he came out of the corner swinging.
The other side of the political spectrum has a vested interest in portraying the war as a lost cause --- they want power in the next round of elections. Of course, they're not so intellectually dishonest as to actually do what they say they will: end the war before America's task is completed. Democrats know just as well as Republicans that cutting and running is inherantly dangerous for the citizens of the United States. Anti-war sentiment, however it's engineered, is merely a political tool for them, not a principled stand.
Iraq can only be "fixed" when certain people, on both sides of the issue, stop engaging in petty politics and media spin and start getting serious about getting the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)