Sunday, September 28, 2003
Saddamistaken?
"Why, if Saddam had nothing to hide, did he endure billions of dollars in sanctions and ultimately prompt his own destruction?" This question is asked by reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware in this week's Time magazine cover story, Chasing a Mirage. Indeed, Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors was one of the most persuasive arguments that he must have had something to hide. It's what convinced Clinton in the mid-90s, and Hans Blix later on, that WMD programs were still going strong, despite public denials from Baghdad. The inspectors also had evidence of massive amounts of VX gas and anthrax that Iraq admitted it had produced, but insisted it had destroyed, though inexplicably had kept no records of the destruction. To say this seemed unlikely was an understatement -- it would be equivalent to an accused murderer insisting he had proof of an alibi, but had unwisely destroyed all records of it before being questioned by police. Combined with increasingly persuasive CIA and British intelligence, it was hard to find anyone, from any political party, who doubted the existence of illegal Iraqi weapons programs before the war began.
Now, the pieces are coming into place. In part, Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors into the nation (thereby averting sanctions and most likely the recent war) had a lot to do with hiding conventional weapons programs. He was paranoid that the U.N. visits were an excuse for the U.S. to spy on classified military intelligence and their sophisticated new radar equipment. But the more ironic and intriguing reason for Saddam's obstinacy was that his advisors and captains routinely lied to him about creating extensive illegal WMD programs. We now know that many of these programs were scams, that the money was routed to other areas in government (or simply to increase the personal wealth of the corrupt commanders), and that Saddam was given fake updates on the development of illegal weapons that were never, in fact, developed. Some of these documents were unintentionally leaked to U.S. and British intelligence sources, further convincing both governments of the existence of these programs. Since Saddam himself was fooled by these con artists, it's difficult to fault our intelligence sources for falling for the same bogus data. It's a con game plot twist worthy of Matchstick Men, and is historically reminiscent of how our government once intentionally leaked faulty intelligence to the Russians that the "Star Wars" strategic defensive system was far, far more sophisticated than it actually was. Of course, at least Reagan knew the SDI documents were exaggerated; in this case, Saddam was the one who was fooled.
Yes, we'll likely find a few banned weapons eventually, but even if we don't, does it mean, as so many have been led to believe, that the war was a "mistake"? The idea that Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction seems at the very best, a stretch, and at the worst, an irresponsible misrepresentation. His evidence was the same as Clinton's and Blair's and Blix's. Democrats and Republicans alike who saw the data agreed that it was a near certainty that these illegal weapons existed (as well as, ironically, Saddam himself.) The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed. Resolutions were passed requiring certain things of Iraq, Iraq refused to comply, and the actions for non-compliance were carried out on schedule. It was exactly what should have happened.
Imagine if police pull over a man suspected of having drugs in his car. The police ask the gentleman to step out of the vehicle so the car can be searched. The man, believing he does have drugs in his car, freaks out and speeds away. The police now have every reason to be convinced that their suspicions are correct, and chase him down. When they eventually catch him, arrest him, and search the car, they find some drug paraphernalia (an empty pipe, etc.) but no actual narcotics. Does this mean they were wrong to give chase? They asked to inspect for illegal drugs, the man refused to comply, presumably because he thought he did have them, and the police carried out the procedure required of them under such circumstances. It's a pretty big stretch in this case to accuse the police of acting inappropriately, just because it turned out that there weren't any drugs after all.
Ah, but the idea that Bush "lied" is such a great rallying point for the president's opponents, particularly the Democratic presidential contenders. Sure, it defies all logic and reason, since no one has offered any plausible theory as to why on earth Bush would "lie" to have an expensive war which would prove him wrong and get him removed from office, but it just sounds so good in a sound bite, doesn't it? What's worse is that most of the Democratic presidential contenders were strong supporters of the war in Iraq, for the same reason Bush was, until the wind changed and they realized that could get higher polling results if they switched sides. Not exactly a quality that screams "leadership," is it? (Yes, Dean and Braun are exceptions, but they've flip flopped on so many other issues I'll have to tackle them in a different post.)
What no one seems to be paying attention to, especially with the relentlessly negative coverage of Ba'athist remnant resistance groups occasionally picking off a couple of U.S. soldiers, is that Iraq is overwhelmingly better off now than it was under Saddam. Even in Baghdad, the most war-torn and damaged city in the nation, Iraqi citizens say removing Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured by an eight to one margin (67% to 8%). This was the most extensive Gallup polling ever done in the nation and is a fascinating underscore to what recent visitors have said upon visiting the city, that the only people claiming the war wasn't "worth it" are opponents of Bush in this county, not Iraqi citizens most affected by the outcome. (An editorial in the New York Post correctly opines that if the survey had shown Iraqi citizens believing the war wasn't worth it, it would have been on the front page for weeks; since the survey results overwhelmingly supported the U.S. action, however, it naturally got "in other news" status.) The fact that the general sentiment in Iraq is one of gratitude, not hostility, is a big deal. Yes, they're still skeptical that we have their best interests at heart, especially after breaking our promises to those who opposed Saddam after the first Gulf War, abandoning them to torture and death for their disobedience which we encouraged. It's difficult to blame them for being distrustful -- we just need to do a better job convincing the people that our best wishes for them to be able to self-govern is precisely why we haven't left yet, when the situation is still unstable. We made mistakes in 1991 that we can't afford to repeat, and in the long run I believe Iraq will understand the benefits, in hindsight, of our extended stay. The Iraqi citizens are overwhelmingly optimistic about their new Democracy, and once the training wheels are off, they have the ability of becoming the best example of self-government in the region. There is a real chance for Iraq's liberation to be a turning point for that part of the world. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this.
Therefore, the President's opponents, through their sound bites and criticisms, have a very good chance of ending up on the wrong side of history. In ten years, if the democracy in Iraq remains intact and the nation is strong, no one is going to care that we only found a handful of banned weapons instead of the hundreds we were anticipating. No one is going to care about yellowcake uranium or a cowboyish "bring it on" comment or a couple of moderate-sized war protests which got out of hand. This is an historic opportunity for the world to come together and recognize a significant change in an enormous region, and although Bush deserves some of the blame for not convincing the world that he was right, history's judgment will likely be a lot kinder than, say, France's. It is by no means a small deal that the best intelligence in the world was duped by Saddam's sketchy henchmen, and there were some real failures on our end that need to be investigated. But even if one of our main reasons for going to war turned out to be in error, the United Nations would have been negligent in not acting as they did, with the information they had before them. More importantly, if the people most affected by the engagement so overwhelmingly believe the outcome was worth the costs, who are we to deny them their future by lambasting their liberation? Indeed, it's tellingly significant that no one, not even the President's staunchest opponents who want nothing more than to remove Bush from office, have suggested that the world would be better off had we not removed Saddam from his.
"Why, if Saddam had nothing to hide, did he endure billions of dollars in sanctions and ultimately prompt his own destruction?" This question is asked by reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware in this week's Time magazine cover story, Chasing a Mirage. Indeed, Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors was one of the most persuasive arguments that he must have had something to hide. It's what convinced Clinton in the mid-90s, and Hans Blix later on, that WMD programs were still going strong, despite public denials from Baghdad. The inspectors also had evidence of massive amounts of VX gas and anthrax that Iraq admitted it had produced, but insisted it had destroyed, though inexplicably had kept no records of the destruction. To say this seemed unlikely was an understatement -- it would be equivalent to an accused murderer insisting he had proof of an alibi, but had unwisely destroyed all records of it before being questioned by police. Combined with increasingly persuasive CIA and British intelligence, it was hard to find anyone, from any political party, who doubted the existence of illegal Iraqi weapons programs before the war began.
Now, the pieces are coming into place. In part, Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors into the nation (thereby averting sanctions and most likely the recent war) had a lot to do with hiding conventional weapons programs. He was paranoid that the U.N. visits were an excuse for the U.S. to spy on classified military intelligence and their sophisticated new radar equipment. But the more ironic and intriguing reason for Saddam's obstinacy was that his advisors and captains routinely lied to him about creating extensive illegal WMD programs. We now know that many of these programs were scams, that the money was routed to other areas in government (or simply to increase the personal wealth of the corrupt commanders), and that Saddam was given fake updates on the development of illegal weapons that were never, in fact, developed. Some of these documents were unintentionally leaked to U.S. and British intelligence sources, further convincing both governments of the existence of these programs. Since Saddam himself was fooled by these con artists, it's difficult to fault our intelligence sources for falling for the same bogus data. It's a con game plot twist worthy of Matchstick Men, and is historically reminiscent of how our government once intentionally leaked faulty intelligence to the Russians that the "Star Wars" strategic defensive system was far, far more sophisticated than it actually was. Of course, at least Reagan knew the SDI documents were exaggerated; in this case, Saddam was the one who was fooled.
Yes, we'll likely find a few banned weapons eventually, but even if we don't, does it mean, as so many have been led to believe, that the war was a "mistake"? The idea that Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction seems at the very best, a stretch, and at the worst, an irresponsible misrepresentation. His evidence was the same as Clinton's and Blair's and Blix's. Democrats and Republicans alike who saw the data agreed that it was a near certainty that these illegal weapons existed (as well as, ironically, Saddam himself.) The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed. Resolutions were passed requiring certain things of Iraq, Iraq refused to comply, and the actions for non-compliance were carried out on schedule. It was exactly what should have happened.
Imagine if police pull over a man suspected of having drugs in his car. The police ask the gentleman to step out of the vehicle so the car can be searched. The man, believing he does have drugs in his car, freaks out and speeds away. The police now have every reason to be convinced that their suspicions are correct, and chase him down. When they eventually catch him, arrest him, and search the car, they find some drug paraphernalia (an empty pipe, etc.) but no actual narcotics. Does this mean they were wrong to give chase? They asked to inspect for illegal drugs, the man refused to comply, presumably because he thought he did have them, and the police carried out the procedure required of them under such circumstances. It's a pretty big stretch in this case to accuse the police of acting inappropriately, just because it turned out that there weren't any drugs after all.
Ah, but the idea that Bush "lied" is such a great rallying point for the president's opponents, particularly the Democratic presidential contenders. Sure, it defies all logic and reason, since no one has offered any plausible theory as to why on earth Bush would "lie" to have an expensive war which would prove him wrong and get him removed from office, but it just sounds so good in a sound bite, doesn't it? What's worse is that most of the Democratic presidential contenders were strong supporters of the war in Iraq, for the same reason Bush was, until the wind changed and they realized that could get higher polling results if they switched sides. Not exactly a quality that screams "leadership," is it? (Yes, Dean and Braun are exceptions, but they've flip flopped on so many other issues I'll have to tackle them in a different post.)
What no one seems to be paying attention to, especially with the relentlessly negative coverage of Ba'athist remnant resistance groups occasionally picking off a couple of U.S. soldiers, is that Iraq is overwhelmingly better off now than it was under Saddam. Even in Baghdad, the most war-torn and damaged city in the nation, Iraqi citizens say removing Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured by an eight to one margin (67% to 8%). This was the most extensive Gallup polling ever done in the nation and is a fascinating underscore to what recent visitors have said upon visiting the city, that the only people claiming the war wasn't "worth it" are opponents of Bush in this county, not Iraqi citizens most affected by the outcome. (An editorial in the New York Post correctly opines that if the survey had shown Iraqi citizens believing the war wasn't worth it, it would have been on the front page for weeks; since the survey results overwhelmingly supported the U.S. action, however, it naturally got "in other news" status.) The fact that the general sentiment in Iraq is one of gratitude, not hostility, is a big deal. Yes, they're still skeptical that we have their best interests at heart, especially after breaking our promises to those who opposed Saddam after the first Gulf War, abandoning them to torture and death for their disobedience which we encouraged. It's difficult to blame them for being distrustful -- we just need to do a better job convincing the people that our best wishes for them to be able to self-govern is precisely why we haven't left yet, when the situation is still unstable. We made mistakes in 1991 that we can't afford to repeat, and in the long run I believe Iraq will understand the benefits, in hindsight, of our extended stay. The Iraqi citizens are overwhelmingly optimistic about their new Democracy, and once the training wheels are off, they have the ability of becoming the best example of self-government in the region. There is a real chance for Iraq's liberation to be a turning point for that part of the world. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this.
Therefore, the President's opponents, through their sound bites and criticisms, have a very good chance of ending up on the wrong side of history. In ten years, if the democracy in Iraq remains intact and the nation is strong, no one is going to care that we only found a handful of banned weapons instead of the hundreds we were anticipating. No one is going to care about yellowcake uranium or a cowboyish "bring it on" comment or a couple of moderate-sized war protests which got out of hand. This is an historic opportunity for the world to come together and recognize a significant change in an enormous region, and although Bush deserves some of the blame for not convincing the world that he was right, history's judgment will likely be a lot kinder than, say, France's. It is by no means a small deal that the best intelligence in the world was duped by Saddam's sketchy henchmen, and there were some real failures on our end that need to be investigated. But even if one of our main reasons for going to war turned out to be in error, the United Nations would have been negligent in not acting as they did, with the information they had before them. More importantly, if the people most affected by the engagement so overwhelmingly believe the outcome was worth the costs, who are we to deny them their future by lambasting their liberation? Indeed, it's tellingly significant that no one, not even the President's staunchest opponents who want nothing more than to remove Bush from office, have suggested that the world would be better off had we not removed Saddam from his.
Friday, September 19, 2003
Daviscerations
"My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth," said potentially outgoing California governor Gray Davis this Thursday, "and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, and of every country on earth." Wow. It's controversial enough that he wants to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, but apparently he even thinks they're real aliens! I at least hope they're bipeds who can reach the pedals.
All teasing aside, I don't think the recent curiously comical Davis statement is particularly troubling, any more than I'm worried about Bush's occasional polysyllabic slip-ups -- Quayle graduated with high honors from a prestigious law school, after all, and look how amusingly tongue-tied he got on, well, nearly every filmed occasion. Doesn't mean he was an idiot. Just, well, not a good public speaker. Which, I suppose isn't exactly reassuring when we're talking about leaders of the free world, but I'd still rather have an intelligent bad speaker than one who blends eloquence with idiocy.
No, I'm much more concerned with the bizarre public statements of prominent Democrats rallying to Davis' defense, especially those of former President Bill Clinton: "It's California I worry about. I don't want you to become a laughingstock or the beginning of a circus in America where we throw people out for making tough decisions."
What an odd concept. I mean, I'm not saying that Davis didn't, in fact, make tough decisions. But hardly anyone is arguing that Davis made the right tough decisions. The state's economy is in shambles, the 70s-style tax increases have scared most business and enterprise away, and by refusing to build any new power plants in decades for environmental reasons, the state has to deal with rolling power grid blackouts (despite having the most expensive and highest taxed electricity in the nation). Not to mention the extremely well documented cases of corruption and fraud with regards to Davis' fundraising activities. (Hell, even the aformentioned Clinton speech was likely illegal.) Davis' ratings in public opinion polls are also the lowest on record. So, who cares if Davis' decisions were "tough"? They were the wrong decisions, over and over and over again. He got away with it by taking the largely Democratic state voters for granted, and now he's being called on it. As well he should. (As an aside, I also find it very interesting that the official Democratic line is that, of course, Davis had nothing to do with California's economic difficulties, that it's all circumstantial, that it's a global recession, etc. Oh wait, but Bush? Oh, Bush is responsible for all the federal deficit problems. They were all within his control, and he personally, gleefully laid off as many people as possible. Right. No inconsistency there.)
Keeping with the script, Davis himself naturally claims that this is all a "conspiracy" attempt by Republicans to redo elections they can't fairly win. Fox News' Alan Colmes has even gone so far as to accuse Republicans of just not really liking the democratic process, using this recall and the 2000 Florida debacle as "evidence." But there's a reason recalls are so rare. A huge, huge number of people have to get very, very upset about things, as has happened here. Over a million voters signed the petitions required to oust him, and polls consistently show more than half the state supporting his ouster, including significant percentages of Democrats and independents. To say this recall effort is the result of some calculated right wing coup is pretty insulting to half of the state's electorate, isn't it? How on earth does Davis expect to stay in office with that attitude?
Oh, I mean, how on earth, or any of the other surrounding California populace-suppying planets, of course.
My point here is that Davis, and his defenders in his party, just don't get it. If a politician does a horrible job, and it's within the state's constitution to remove him under those circumstances, then the people have both a right and a duty to act. Fighting the recall effort, trying every possible legal tactic to delay the effort, and insulting over half of the electorate who support the effort, is not only a bad political move, but is a pretty damning example of Davis' contempt for the average Californian, which, of course, is the whole reason the recall is happening! It is only because Davis' last real opponent (Simon) was the most incompetent gubenatorial candidate in thirty years that Davis got to squeak by into another term, anyway, and to make that sound like a voter mandate which is now in danger of being "overturned" is an exercise in wishful thinking. Does Davis really surround himself with people that insist the state loves and supports him, despite no evidence of any kind to support this? Hey, Bush might have won on the slightest of technicalities but at least he wasn't out there claiming he had some overwhelming mandate to govern -- hell, he even added Democrats to his cabinet as way of gap-bridging. Davis needs to realize that, outside of his inner circle, his support among the people he's supposedly representing truly is thin, that it's not some wacky Republican conspiracy, and that if he wants to regain the trust of the average Californian, he needs to admit that some of his more egregious "tough decisions" may very well have been bad ones.
Yes, it's easier to blame others for your problems. But that doesn't mean it's wrong for those paying attention to blame you.
"My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth," said potentially outgoing California governor Gray Davis this Thursday, "and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, and of every country on earth." Wow. It's controversial enough that he wants to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, but apparently he even thinks they're real aliens! I at least hope they're bipeds who can reach the pedals.
All teasing aside, I don't think the recent curiously comical Davis statement is particularly troubling, any more than I'm worried about Bush's occasional polysyllabic slip-ups -- Quayle graduated with high honors from a prestigious law school, after all, and look how amusingly tongue-tied he got on, well, nearly every filmed occasion. Doesn't mean he was an idiot. Just, well, not a good public speaker. Which, I suppose isn't exactly reassuring when we're talking about leaders of the free world, but I'd still rather have an intelligent bad speaker than one who blends eloquence with idiocy.
No, I'm much more concerned with the bizarre public statements of prominent Democrats rallying to Davis' defense, especially those of former President Bill Clinton: "It's California I worry about. I don't want you to become a laughingstock or the beginning of a circus in America where we throw people out for making tough decisions."
What an odd concept. I mean, I'm not saying that Davis didn't, in fact, make tough decisions. But hardly anyone is arguing that Davis made the right tough decisions. The state's economy is in shambles, the 70s-style tax increases have scared most business and enterprise away, and by refusing to build any new power plants in decades for environmental reasons, the state has to deal with rolling power grid blackouts (despite having the most expensive and highest taxed electricity in the nation). Not to mention the extremely well documented cases of corruption and fraud with regards to Davis' fundraising activities. (Hell, even the aformentioned Clinton speech was likely illegal.) Davis' ratings in public opinion polls are also the lowest on record. So, who cares if Davis' decisions were "tough"? They were the wrong decisions, over and over and over again. He got away with it by taking the largely Democratic state voters for granted, and now he's being called on it. As well he should. (As an aside, I also find it very interesting that the official Democratic line is that, of course, Davis had nothing to do with California's economic difficulties, that it's all circumstantial, that it's a global recession, etc. Oh wait, but Bush? Oh, Bush is responsible for all the federal deficit problems. They were all within his control, and he personally, gleefully laid off as many people as possible. Right. No inconsistency there.)
Keeping with the script, Davis himself naturally claims that this is all a "conspiracy" attempt by Republicans to redo elections they can't fairly win. Fox News' Alan Colmes has even gone so far as to accuse Republicans of just not really liking the democratic process, using this recall and the 2000 Florida debacle as "evidence." But there's a reason recalls are so rare. A huge, huge number of people have to get very, very upset about things, as has happened here. Over a million voters signed the petitions required to oust him, and polls consistently show more than half the state supporting his ouster, including significant percentages of Democrats and independents. To say this recall effort is the result of some calculated right wing coup is pretty insulting to half of the state's electorate, isn't it? How on earth does Davis expect to stay in office with that attitude?
Oh, I mean, how on earth, or any of the other surrounding California populace-suppying planets, of course.
My point here is that Davis, and his defenders in his party, just don't get it. If a politician does a horrible job, and it's within the state's constitution to remove him under those circumstances, then the people have both a right and a duty to act. Fighting the recall effort, trying every possible legal tactic to delay the effort, and insulting over half of the electorate who support the effort, is not only a bad political move, but is a pretty damning example of Davis' contempt for the average Californian, which, of course, is the whole reason the recall is happening! It is only because Davis' last real opponent (Simon) was the most incompetent gubenatorial candidate in thirty years that Davis got to squeak by into another term, anyway, and to make that sound like a voter mandate which is now in danger of being "overturned" is an exercise in wishful thinking. Does Davis really surround himself with people that insist the state loves and supports him, despite no evidence of any kind to support this? Hey, Bush might have won on the slightest of technicalities but at least he wasn't out there claiming he had some overwhelming mandate to govern -- hell, he even added Democrats to his cabinet as way of gap-bridging. Davis needs to realize that, outside of his inner circle, his support among the people he's supposedly representing truly is thin, that it's not some wacky Republican conspiracy, and that if he wants to regain the trust of the average Californian, he needs to admit that some of his more egregious "tough decisions" may very well have been bad ones.
Yes, it's easier to blame others for your problems. But that doesn't mean it's wrong for those paying attention to blame you.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
The News will have to Wait
Sometimes, a person can plan to listen to the news on NPR on the way to work. It would certainly be the adult and intelligent thing to do. After all, there is an astonishing political war in California, a gruesome war in the Mideast, and a horrific war against the elements on the east coast.
But my radio was tuned to the Canadian station that plays such treats as a Gregorian Chant featuring Alanis Morissette or a Chinese Children’s choir or an African Symphony.
This morning started with the serene pastoral sounds of a flute, maybe a piccolo, and an occasional ring of the triangle. I was lulled into envisioning little cartoon characters romping in meadows, leaping over tufts of grass, smelling wild daisies and summer greens. Miles meandered by. Hills and dells, gentle blue sky.
Then, abruptly, the shout of trumpets calling all heros. Yes, the William Tell Overture, what else? Suddenly, I was no longer a bobble head nodding to the stories of war, murder and child abuse. I was transformed. I rode my trusty steed, Fury/Flicka/Buttercup/Silver/Trigger. Hoofs pounding over the beaten path to some glorious adventure. For a few brief minutes, I was important. I mattered. I had risen above what I see and hear and feel. I was something else that words could never put meaning to. I was ethereal.
I am sure the political combatants were still fighting over chad-worthy punch cards. I am sure American Soldiers were suffering unimaginable conditions in the most hostile of environments. I am sure roads were being flooded and homes ruined. And little children were desperate for protection. And poor people everywhere were suffering.
But just this once, I got past what is today’s reality and peeked into what should be reality.
Ahhhhh. I needed that. :)
Sometimes, a person can plan to listen to the news on NPR on the way to work. It would certainly be the adult and intelligent thing to do. After all, there is an astonishing political war in California, a gruesome war in the Mideast, and a horrific war against the elements on the east coast.
But my radio was tuned to the Canadian station that plays such treats as a Gregorian Chant featuring Alanis Morissette or a Chinese Children’s choir or an African Symphony.
This morning started with the serene pastoral sounds of a flute, maybe a piccolo, and an occasional ring of the triangle. I was lulled into envisioning little cartoon characters romping in meadows, leaping over tufts of grass, smelling wild daisies and summer greens. Miles meandered by. Hills and dells, gentle blue sky.
Then, abruptly, the shout of trumpets calling all heros. Yes, the William Tell Overture, what else? Suddenly, I was no longer a bobble head nodding to the stories of war, murder and child abuse. I was transformed. I rode my trusty steed, Fury/Flicka/Buttercup/Silver/Trigger. Hoofs pounding over the beaten path to some glorious adventure. For a few brief minutes, I was important. I mattered. I had risen above what I see and hear and feel. I was something else that words could never put meaning to. I was ethereal.
I am sure the political combatants were still fighting over chad-worthy punch cards. I am sure American Soldiers were suffering unimaginable conditions in the most hostile of environments. I am sure roads were being flooded and homes ruined. And little children were desperate for protection. And poor people everywhere were suffering.
But just this once, I got past what is today’s reality and peeked into what should be reality.
Ahhhhh. I needed that. :)
Thursday, September 11, 2003
What Really Shocks on Nip/Tuck?
Enough Shocks already. Don't you think it is shocking enough to watch Nip/Tuck? The graphic gore of surgery is outrageous. The graphic sex is more outrageous. Now an adorable 17 year old teen who is having a three-way just as his Mom walks into his room, that is even more outrageous. We’re not talking about a movie or a show on HBO. This is regular TV. Well, regular Cable TV, anyway. But I have to admit what has shocked me the most in all the Nip/Tuck experience was the commercials. I didn’t even know they were allowed to advertise liquor on TV.
And I swear, these new Captain Morgan commercials are as dangerous to the kids of today as the Joe Cool Camel cigarette commercials that ensnared the last generation. Supposedly, if you can get a kid to become addicted while still a teen, you will have a life-long customer. And just to make sure the kids won’t heed their parents’ warnings, Captain Morgan turns a folk singer’s performance into a Drumming. Not real subtle, turning a Hootenanny into a Drumming.
For a very long time, I convinced myself that a free economy was the foundation of our success as a nation. Anyone motivated enough could be a successful businessperson, etc, etc, etc. But the commerce mongers have used us to stuff their pockets and now they are using our children. In the last twenty years, their greed has overtaken all sense of pride and reason. Instead of trying to survive the hard times of the pendulum swing, they are out searching for “new revenue” even if that source of new revenue is the health of our children. What difference is there between a drug dealer and a Captain Morgan sponsored show like Nip/Tuck? Too bad. It was fun being shocked. Guess I will return to the era of early to bed and early to rise.
Then I can catch the early morning news. Oh yeah, it was Fox 2 News Detroit that reported just this morning how successful the liquor industry is in its self imposed ban on television advertising and its battle to keep kids from drinking. Doesn’t saying it on TV make it so? Especially, an organization that calls itself The News, and receives its financial success from advertising dollars of businesses and is unquestionably accurate in their assessment of the lack of liquor advertising. Guess I was really dreaming when I saw those Captain Morgan commercials. Or maybe basic Cable TV gets to set its own rules, despite it being the primary source of television in 80% of all homes.
By the way -- did you know the War Department changed its name to the Defense Department at the end of World War II and now is trying to change its name to the Peace Department? Now that is Ludicrous! In a nation of headlines, sound bites, and news briefs, is it any wonder we are so easily (mis)led?
Enough Shocks already. Don't you think it is shocking enough to watch Nip/Tuck? The graphic gore of surgery is outrageous. The graphic sex is more outrageous. Now an adorable 17 year old teen who is having a three-way just as his Mom walks into his room, that is even more outrageous. We’re not talking about a movie or a show on HBO. This is regular TV. Well, regular Cable TV, anyway. But I have to admit what has shocked me the most in all the Nip/Tuck experience was the commercials. I didn’t even know they were allowed to advertise liquor on TV.
And I swear, these new Captain Morgan commercials are as dangerous to the kids of today as the Joe Cool Camel cigarette commercials that ensnared the last generation. Supposedly, if you can get a kid to become addicted while still a teen, you will have a life-long customer. And just to make sure the kids won’t heed their parents’ warnings, Captain Morgan turns a folk singer’s performance into a Drumming. Not real subtle, turning a Hootenanny into a Drumming.
For a very long time, I convinced myself that a free economy was the foundation of our success as a nation. Anyone motivated enough could be a successful businessperson, etc, etc, etc. But the commerce mongers have used us to stuff their pockets and now they are using our children. In the last twenty years, their greed has overtaken all sense of pride and reason. Instead of trying to survive the hard times of the pendulum swing, they are out searching for “new revenue” even if that source of new revenue is the health of our children. What difference is there between a drug dealer and a Captain Morgan sponsored show like Nip/Tuck? Too bad. It was fun being shocked. Guess I will return to the era of early to bed and early to rise.
Then I can catch the early morning news. Oh yeah, it was Fox 2 News Detroit that reported just this morning how successful the liquor industry is in its self imposed ban on television advertising and its battle to keep kids from drinking. Doesn’t saying it on TV make it so? Especially, an organization that calls itself The News, and receives its financial success from advertising dollars of businesses and is unquestionably accurate in their assessment of the lack of liquor advertising. Guess I was really dreaming when I saw those Captain Morgan commercials. Or maybe basic Cable TV gets to set its own rules, despite it being the primary source of television in 80% of all homes.
By the way -- did you know the War Department changed its name to the Defense Department at the end of World War II and now is trying to change its name to the Peace Department? Now that is Ludicrous! In a nation of headlines, sound bites, and news briefs, is it any wonder we are so easily (mis)led?
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Shoes of the Monster
Woke up this morning with a vision of President Bush melodically banging his shoe on the table at the United Nations and with every bang, a vision of that other long-ago country unveiled itself. Probably just the remnants of a bad dream. So I pulled out the ol' Book of Dreams (not really, I surfed the Net) to see what it could mean...
There are few political memories from my childhood, but Nikita Khrushchev is definitely in the top ten. He was a real Grandpa-looking teddy bear with a fierce agenda. He wanted everyone to be just like him. I can still see the photos of him wielding his shoe at the table at the United Nations. But I really didn't know why. According to an article from the Word Times, Khrushchev was reacting to a speech that accused the Soviet Union of "swallowing up Eastern Europe, depriving it of political and civil rights". Gee. How scary. How appropriate. How Now.
We thought the Soviets were guilty of imperialism they took over country after country turned them into satellites and spread themselves so thin, militarily and financially, they collapsed.
Now, it seems to me, there is a reason we have history books and history classes. And ignoring the lessons is not it. Not that I have an answer. We invaded another country that never once attacked us. We used our bigotry and racism against similar cultures to nurture our fervor, puffed ourselves up, and went thundering into another people's land.
Even during the worst of our history would I have ever tolerated another country's interference. What if Russia would have invaded us during the horrendous days of the Sixties, when our own National Guard was ordered to shoot college students or when Local Police were ordered to beat African Americans. No matter how good-intentioned the Russians could have meant to be in saving us from our tyrants, it has always been our right and our duty to change and heal ourselves.
But now we are the invaders. It is too late. We have destroyed their infrastructures, their economy, their day-to-day lives, their right to be governed by their own tyrants. Now, we have invoked their hatred and martyrdom. We have created a far-worse enemy then the one we sought to destroy. We created a Holy Underdog with the Right to Defend against the superpower in a world that cheers for underdogs. If we were right to attack we can never prove it we attacked first, albeit with plenty of warning, and found no proof of deviltry.
"Now we are in a war over there no matter the winner we can't pay the costs. There's a monster on the lose, he's stuck our heads into a noose, and we sit there watching...watching..." (Steppenwolf)
Woke up this morning with a vision of President Bush melodically banging his shoe on the table at the United Nations and with every bang, a vision of that other long-ago country unveiled itself. Probably just the remnants of a bad dream. So I pulled out the ol' Book of Dreams (not really, I surfed the Net) to see what it could mean...
There are few political memories from my childhood, but Nikita Khrushchev is definitely in the top ten. He was a real Grandpa-looking teddy bear with a fierce agenda. He wanted everyone to be just like him. I can still see the photos of him wielding his shoe at the table at the United Nations. But I really didn't know why. According to an article from the Word Times, Khrushchev was reacting to a speech that accused the Soviet Union of "swallowing up Eastern Europe, depriving it of political and civil rights". Gee. How scary. How appropriate. How Now.
We thought the Soviets were guilty of imperialism they took over country after country turned them into satellites and spread themselves so thin, militarily and financially, they collapsed.
Now, it seems to me, there is a reason we have history books and history classes. And ignoring the lessons is not it. Not that I have an answer. We invaded another country that never once attacked us. We used our bigotry and racism against similar cultures to nurture our fervor, puffed ourselves up, and went thundering into another people's land.
Even during the worst of our history would I have ever tolerated another country's interference. What if Russia would have invaded us during the horrendous days of the Sixties, when our own National Guard was ordered to shoot college students or when Local Police were ordered to beat African Americans. No matter how good-intentioned the Russians could have meant to be in saving us from our tyrants, it has always been our right and our duty to change and heal ourselves.
But now we are the invaders. It is too late. We have destroyed their infrastructures, their economy, their day-to-day lives, their right to be governed by their own tyrants. Now, we have invoked their hatred and martyrdom. We have created a far-worse enemy then the one we sought to destroy. We created a Holy Underdog with the Right to Defend against the superpower in a world that cheers for underdogs. If we were right to attack we can never prove it we attacked first, albeit with plenty of warning, and found no proof of deviltry.
"Now we are in a war over there no matter the winner we can't pay the costs. There's a monster on the lose, he's stuck our heads into a noose, and we sit there watching...watching..." (Steppenwolf)
