Archive for the ‘Vision for Victory’ Category

Reverse Projection

Saturday, December 9th, 2006

I was poking around Bill Whittle’s site Eject! Eject! Eject! and I came across this essay from November 6 that so brilliantly eviscerates the big lie about “Chickenhawks.”

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting.
:
If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself?
:
But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument…then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument…

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

As I said, it is brilliant…but not thorough. There is yet more, still. At least, within the representative samples of the Chickenhawk argument that have come to my attention, there is more. I have noticed that for much of the time, it is based on a premise that those of us who admire the dedication of the troops on the front lines, and see purpose in the mission to which they are assigned but do not share the work of engaging the mission ourselves — are engaging in a weird form of psychological projection. Instead of cleansing ourselves of unwanted impulses or desires by projecting those feelings onto others, we are shedding ourselves of the service we respect by saddling someone else with our dirty work. I would guess we are then indulging in a form of reverse psychological projection, absorbing, sponge-like, the noble attributes we recognize in those who serve. We rob them of their bravery, their selflessness, and their dedication, indulging in a game of make-believe that we are the ones who have these strengths when we’re all just a bunch of neo-con cowards.

The theory, so far as I understand it, creates a necessity for us to do this by revealing us to be the opposite of those who serve. We are selfish, weak, uncoordinated, undisciplined, were picked on in High School, and we like to pretend to be tough guys because in real life we are anything but. According to this perverted logic, simply by showing gratitude that the troops are out there, willing to serve, and recognizing the necessity of the work they do, we expose ourselves as missing all the positive traits we admire.

Again, I’m inspired to contemplate Atticus Finch’s most devastating quote: “Do you really think so?”

I was having a thought about this last week.

There are those among us who recognize the plight of poor people, castigating those who don’t help the poor as much as they could, and elevating others who do more than their share to help. Such critics — some of them, anyway — frequently demand legislation to force people to be charitable. Minimum wage laws, progressive income taxes, social programs.

So my question would be: If the Chickenhawk argument can be used to perceive self-loathing, cowardly feelings on the part of those who admire and respect military service; could it not be applied to perceive self-loathing selfishness on the part of those who impose on others, artificial obligations to be charitable?

It’s the same logic. Exactly the same.

Except they aren’t quite the same. There’s an important difference. One of those theories has some evidence to support it and the other one doesn’t. Guess which one enjoys anecdotal support; here’s a clue.

Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don’t give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don’t? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I’ve heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, “20/20” went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy’s in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

I won’t directly comment on how that little experiment turned out. You’ll have to read the article. But you should be prepared for a surprise.

Memo For File XXXV

Friday, December 8th, 2006

I’ve never been a frequent sufferer of what we commonly call “nightmares”; the few that I’ve had over the years, have lately given way to something else. Maybe it’s a sign that I’m becoming an old man. Things that distress me in sleep, are sufficiently based on real problems, that they continue to bother me while I’m lying there waiting to get up and start my day. My subconsciousness might invent a fictitious and frightening scenario, and rather than snapping awake to realize it’s not true…I snap awake to discover it isn’t true yet. And so I lie there and fret about it, until I realize the best I can do is to wait for an opportunity to present itself to mitigate the problem, hoping such an opportunity will arise since it assuredly has not yet. What do we call these. Morning-mares?

Always, the future is involved. Wednesday morning I had a bruiser. Again, I was a sad old man who had stumbled on through the decades, watching his ominous foreboding about the world proven correct again and again and again, while people around him listened to his other dark prophecies less and less and less. I was broken, quiet, and empty shell of the man I am today, resolved to keep my opinion to myself until such time as it was solicited…and of course it never was. I was visiting my son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. The situation was happy, in all the ways that matter to most. We all had our health. My son’s business was doing very well. And I had luxuries most old men crave, but about which most only dream; my son continued the gratitude that he has today, that I taught him the priceless lesson of differentiating between a fact and an opinion, and that this practice is the mother’s milk of any thinking man’s ability to know anything worth knowing. He had used this abstract concept to gain material success in the world, no easy feat, and for this I was exceptionally proud.

But if he was thankful for the ability to do this, the rest of the world was not, and I was frequently bothered by residual questions about whether I’d injured his capacity to conform. The world had changed. The problems we have today, had all metastasized into real conundrums, far worse. The United States had left Iraq. “Civil war” did not endure there, after all; terrorists moved in, and who could blame them? Good heavens, what utterly stupid and ineffectual terrorists it would have taken to allow such opportunity to pass. And so the government of Iraq was left in charge for just a small stretch of time, and crumbled when it failed to meet the challenge. The world took no notice of that, it simply blamed George Bush and moved on. Who expected anything different?

It wasn’t any kind of country at all, it was just one huge terrorist “building.” Of course, nobody gave a thought to doing anything with it, as far as military operations, weapons inspections, or anything of the like. It was just a place terrorists went, and we left them alone, resigned to wait for the next attack and tough it out. And so, with training camps and weapons labs on every yard of earth from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, Syria to Iran, September 11 attacks became routine. We stopped coming up with names for them after Number Twenty or so. They were only numbers. We were watching the news about Number Thirty-Eight…once again, everybody we knew, was spared. Again, we were lucky.

Ah…the news. Fact, and opinion. Did I mention the patriarchal concerns I had about how my son failed to fit into the world, as he differentiated between fact and opinion? I should elaborate. News was a different thing in my vision. Today, news does not differentiate even though it seems to understand it ought to. It editorializes under labels like “Analysis” so the editorials can be tossed in where everyone knows they don’t belong. Nouns are joined by verbs in such a way that the observation sounds factual, but only cosmetically so. Challenges loom. Dangers await. That’s now. In my vision, the blending problem is gone…because the facts are gone. News is pure opinion. Nobody takes the time to notice this; if they pay attention to the “news” at all, they show how “informed” they are by repeating things that sound exactly like it. As a broken old man, fortunate enough to have the gratitude of my progeny for all my tedious lectures about fact and opinion, I resolved to dispense only what people wanted. My opinions were secret until someone specifically requested they not be. I was thankful. I had the gratitude of my heirs, for having taught them things. Occasionally, they would ask me about history…asking for facts. That makes two precious gifts to an old man. Opinions I would keep to myself. Opinions they would get from the news.

And so the news droned on about Number Thirty-Eight. Nothing about death tolls or what kind of weapon was used or how the attack was carried out. In fact, the news was nothing but a warning about things we might learn somewhere else. The news didn’t even tell us there was a Number Thirty-Eight; it simply portended that we were going to be told about it, perhaps, and we should disregard anything we hear about this, that, or some other thing. As far as what happened, very little information was forthcoming. We were learning nothing. This was typical.

Number Thirty-Eight, from what I could gather, seemed to have something to do with what is called “Chicago.”

My grandson was watching the “news,” and paying close attention to the instructions about what he should ignore. Not because he wanted to, but because it was a homework assignment. He was “debating” in school. He was very skilled at this, and we were all very proud of him, but I made a point of not following the action too closely. Nobody analyzed anything in high school debates, or any other debates for that matter; nobody proved or provided evidence for anything, nobody refuted anything, and nobody represented themselves as trying to. Of course, simply noticing that would be expressing an opinion, and so I kept my silence on this. But it was so bad, that participants in high school debates were “scored” on a percentage of how closely their comments resembled the “news.” My grandson was sure to take first place in the last debate, but he took second. The other kid’s comments were found to resemble the news 93% of the time, and my family’s champion was scored at 88% or 90% or something. Clearly, he needed to study up and make sure his opinions were brought in line. That’s right, excellence was defined as…resembling other things. I’ve always had an opinion about that too (Thing I Know #145) — but I kept quiet about it. How could I not? My grandson was winning trophies and was bursting at the seams with pride. No grandfather would put a damper on that.

But this week he had been topped. And so, three generations of us sat around. Watching “news.” About an attack that wasn’t an attack, so far as we knew. You had to kind of read between the lines, but that is the way it was with everything.

And my grandson turned to me and asked me a horrible question. I don’t remember what it was, but somehow in answering it I had let it slip that the Dark Place that had no name, from which terrorists repeatedly prepared their next attack, the place to which nobody went, which nobody understood, the Lord Valdemort of geographic locations — was Iraq. A hush fell over the living room. Nobody was angry with grandpa, but I would almost have been happier if they were. No, they were eager to learn more. I had let the cat out of the bag; I had forgotten that young people didn’t understand this. Oh, they were encouraged to believe President Bush “messed up Iraq” some thirty years before. They were encouraged to believe that the reason we couldn’t do anything about terrorist attacks, was because it was absolutely forbidden and unthinkable to go to the Dark Place. But they didn’t understand that the Dark Place was what Iraq became.

And it opened a huge can of worms. It revealed that the United States once had a military presence there, a little morsel of information that was carefully concealed from young people and more-distracted young adults. Older people like me, had made a practice of speaking as if these were two different regions. It worked, most of the time, because geography was something you just didn’t learn in school and you didn’t expect to learn it. So Iraq went away…from out of somewhere, came the Dark Place. Connecting the two as one mass of land, although this was factually correct, was simply not done because it might lead to more questions. Questions upon which, now two full generations were left without the tools to explore. So what was the point?

The questions flew toward me. What was it like when we were there? Well, of course it was messy, I said. And so we talked about “insurgents” and I.E.D.’s. I told them some 3700 American soldiers lost their lives as Iraq became the Dark Place. And every answer I gave…led to more confusion. As I cleared up the confusion as best I could, I started to find reasons why the confusion took place. For example, that we were pushed out of Iraq in a single afternoon. That was not correct. It took years. Where did we get the idea it took just a few hours? Oh that’s right…the 3700. The place is filled with terrorists and we are forced to leave, if such a thing goes on for any length of time it seems the toll should be higher. Much higher.

You think about it, it makes sense. Thirty-Four, six months previous, hit Atlanta with a loss of some two million; Twenty-Nine struck in Los Angeles a year before that, with a toll more than double. Death expressed in aggregate, no longer packed a wallop for this new generation. How could it? And so they hear about 3700 soldiers dying over an undefined amount of time — the last thing they’d think is that this took five years. Sounds more like five hours.

Well, I had to re-think and re-think again on the words as they came out of my mouth, because I was trying to repress any opinion. I wished I was boring everybody; I’d be just one more tedious old man, shutting up when nobody listens to him anymore. That would be easy. But my granddaughter and daughter-in-law had gathered around, and I was surrounded in this horseshoe arrangement as I recounted this history nobody heard before. To answer my grandchildrens’ questions, it was difficult to stay neutral, because now I had to explain how wars are lost not tactically, but through lack of political will. And that this lack of political will, while everyone wishes it comes from independent thinking…well, the facts don’t support this. It comes from “news.” But “news” that isn’t really news. And so there I was explaining how Iraq, we had been told decades before on the “news,” was degenerating into a “civil war.” This struck everyone as rather odd. A civil war is all about who’s going to be in charge; if Iraq is the same spot as the Dark Place, then it was a place where, as I was speaking, nobody was “in charge” except terrorists. Civil war? Here we were finding out something dreadful had happened in Chicago. Nobody we knew had been injured…nobody we knew of, quite yet. And this was the thirty-eighth attack. For this generation to learn that we once had control of the Dark Place, and gave it up willingly — well, they were having a lot of trouble grasping this.

And again, who could blame them? And so I had to explain the news…not so much as a bunch of opinion masquerading as fact…but as an interest. They’d already picked up on the leitmotif that when America does something militarily, the effort put in by the “news” is to try to get America to stop doing it. This was puzzling to them. We could have stopped terrorists; terrorists want us to live under Sharia law; the prognosis for a free press under Sharia law, is not terribly good; what’s the interest of the news people, to stop America from stopping the terrorists? Here, my opinion was being directly solicited. The trouble was, I had none to give.

And then, my granddaughter wanted to know when they all began. The thirty-eight. How long has this been going on? What about Number One?

The conversation was going to a place I didn’t want it to go, but I had never held secrets from my grandchildren and wasn’t about to start. The question was direct and she was owed an answer. The moment of the dream that shattered my slumber, and left me lying there thinking through what I had just been dreaming, was an explosive epiphany blossoming from my own remark. As if it came from another person, I heard my own raspy voice grind out, “We would not call it ‘Number One’ for a very long time…” Someone gasped. “We called it the September Eleven attacks, Nine Eleven for short.” Something jumped through my brain, and in a heartbeat it became impossible to go on. I was struck by the ramifications of what I had just said. Thirty-Nine was coming and Forty was coming and Forty-One…what would they be like? Another Fourteen, detonating in the midwest where the population was most spread-out, snuffing out just a few hundred of us? Or, that awful, unforgettable Twenty-Two, still unmentioned in polite company? Something in between? And nobody could do anything about any of it. No one had any vision for it; nobody, anywhere. Control over destiny was thought to be an evil thing, and we were told on a daily basis that it was far more noble to simply await the inevitable, lest “world opinion” be agitated against us again. In the final analysis, the human race became just like a bunch of ants, or something even lower still, waiting to be squished.

My mind churned as I tried to put together the words to explain what Nine One One was all about. From where did the three numbers come. About telephones, about how this was an emergency number and how that all worked…how “9-1-1” stood for a fundamental meaning, now lost forever, something nobody understood. “Something terrible has happened and we gotta do something.” I was trying to figure out how to explain this to a girl who was a stranger to such a thought from infancy, and had ever met anyone who had entertained such a thought. In her time, life, for however long it lasted, was a simple affair. Be happy. Don’t make mistakes. Think the right thoughts. Don’t disagree with people. You may be dead tomorrow, so the point isn’t to try to avoid it, the point is to make sure you’re remembered in a positive way. She was happy, and her friends were all happy; they’d be ostracized if they were caught being something else, since any dreaded challenge to the status quo must arise from evil, wretched dissatisfaction. Happiness and contentment, all around. Ignore what the “news” tells you to ignore. To someone living in a whole world like that, how do you explain what 911 means?

I made a few false starts, interrupted myself, my voice broke. My tired old eyes became thick and wet — and then I woke up.

Rangel Makes Sure We Don’t Forget

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006

At the beginning of this month, I said

It’s one of the few things that remain consistent about our liberals. You can receive their help, or their respect. Never, ever, both at the same time.

It was a wrap-up to my comments about “the Kerry thing.” You know, about how our troops in Iraq are out there because they didn’t make themselves smarter. This blog, which nobody actually reads anyway, makes an effort to form opinions based on facts…which means we try to find out why we’re supposed to think the things we’re supposed to be thinking. We don’t take the words of others for it. Not unless we have to. We try to find source documents. Download clips and see what’s in ’em. Which is awfully inconvenient to some…and John Kerry’s “botched joke” was a perfect example of this.

One of the favorite phrases we use here at The Blog That Nobody Reads, is “instructed to believe.” It is our position that our society, here in North America in 2006, is in big trouble — because that is what people do nowadays when they discuss politics. They instruct each other to believe things. Republicans are corrupt, Saddam Hussein was not a threat, Kerry botched his joke, Clinton did not have sex with that woman, military service is a barrier to being a decent public servant, military service is a prerequisite to being a decent public servant, marital infideility is irrelevant to being a decent public servant, the Founding Fathers were not Christians, etc. etc. etc.

Well, Kerry-botched-joke-gate shows, if nothing else, how incredibly important it is sometimes to “instruct others to believe” things as opposed to laying out a solid argument based on evidence. Because when you watch the film clip from beginning to end, or even from beginning to just a few minutes in, you find something that poses problems for the “Kerry meant something else” crowd. Namely, that the asshole didn’t mean anything else. He meant to make fun of the troops. He really did want to deliver the punchline, exactly the way he delivered it, word for word. And the crowd thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Now, if you’re loyal to the Democrat cause and yet you’ve committed the sin of viewing the video clip, you can still reprogram yourself to be a good Democrat by rationalizing things away. It’s easy if you try. Kerry…alright, he didn’t botch his joke after all. But he meant to botch it, and forgot to. Or maybe he does have this disenchantment with the military, and he does think the troops actively serving are a bunch of stupid dolts. And maybe the crowd in Pasadena just ate this shit up. But if he was pandering to a bunch of liberals who loathe the military, he was doing it by mistake…and if he was doing it on purpose, so what? It was an isolated incident. The Democrat party doesn’t harbor any such misgivings against our military. It reflects on nobody save the guy who was supposed to represent the Democrats the last time they tried to take the White House.

Well…Charlie Rangel created a problem or two for that kind of rationalization when he said…pretty much the same thing Senator Kerry said three weeks earlier. Rangel instructed us to believe that Iraq was a place for people who don’t have options in their career prospects. “If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.” Once again, liberals come out circling the wagons…just the move-on-dot-org types, the Fahrenheit 9/11 watchers, not the elected representatives. Once again…what he said was true, so so what? You can’t prove what he meant by it anyway. And it’s true. Everybody knows it. And he doesn’t. Again, we’re buried under an avalanche of righteous indignation, flinging spittle, and cognitive dissonance. Liberals insult troops — and in retaliation, our liberals get all uppity and angsty, while the troops quietly go back to getting their jobs done.

Well, the American Legion is actually doing something about this. Token stuff, to be sure, but at least they’re doing something.

American Legion: Rangel Apologize Now

The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options.

“Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all-volunteer force on the planet,” said National Commander Paul A. Morin. “Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel’s view of our troops couldn’t be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq.”
:
Rangel was responding to a question during an interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday about a recent study by the Heritage Foundation which found that those enlisting in the military tend to be better educated than the general public and that military recruiting seems to be more successful in middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods than in poor ones.

You see how the liberals get into trouble here. It isn’t that they hate the military…although that does figure into it. But the problem is broader than that. It’s this craving for complete dependence on them, from their beneficiaries. People who depend on the liberal movement, must absolutely, utterly, depend on that liberal movement. Said dependants must entertain hope from nowhere else…or if any of them do, it must be kept a deep, dark secret.

I’d feel so much better about the donks if any one among them said something like, “such-and-such class of person might have a shot at success without us, but we’re going to make sure they have a better shot at it with us.” What a positive message that would be. How little effort it would take, so far as I know, to revamp their whole schtick to be compatible, on the plane of reality, with that simple slogan. What a difference it would have made in the last three elections. And yet, they chose not to do that.

There’s something over in that party that is absolutely incompatible with this. They want pure dependency — 99% is simply not good enough. This makes me uneasy. They’re supposed to be riding in on a white horse right about now, to save us from that Republican culture of corruption. Why do they need the austere, consummate, perfect state of dependence from those whose votes they want? Why is this so important to them?

Theory: A mother may have an affair on her husband, nearly burn her house down, forget to pay the power bill, or commit any one of a number of possible infractions or instances of negligence. Her teenager, engaged in a process of becoming independent, and depending on others, will view such things in a wholly different light compared to her infant or toddler, who depends on her completely. Democrats are planning things…things which will place them in a bad light viewed by their constituents, unless said constituents depend on said Democrats without exception, completely, utterly, absolutely, without compromise. Democrats know this and are thinking ahead. They know they will look bad, later on, to anyone except those who view life through the eyes of a child. This is what makes the unmitigated dependency so important to them.

This is a far-fetched theory. There is no reason to entertain it. Unless — you are taking note of the Kerry/Rangel episodes, and insisting on an explanation. Once you do that, the theory makes more sense. At least…nothing else does. Nothing else, that’s come to my attention, adequately explains this bizarre behavior, where they prize so highly this objective of making people, or showing people to be, completely dependent on them. Where they are willing to sacrifice so much for it. No other theory comes close to plausibly explaining this.

Class

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006

Maybe showing class is an obsolete concept. Or maybe we can still show some class, but we forget how to do it once we’re discussing matters of life and death. I wish everybody could have it all the time, but if we have to be uncouth when we discuss grave matters involving people getting killed I can kind of see it. There’d be a certain nobility to that although it would still be a regrettable weakness.

But President Bush’s dad has more class in his toenail clippings, than Jimmy Carter has in his whole wrinkly terrorist-loving body.

One audience member asked the former president what advice he gives his son on Iraq.

Bush said the presence of reporters in the audience prevented him from revealing his advice. He also declined to comment on his expectations for the findings of the Iraq Study Group, an advisory commission led by Bush family friend and his former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group is expected to issue its report soon.

“I have strong opinions on a lot of these things. But the reason I can’t voice them is, if I did what you ask me to do – tell you what advice I give my son – that would then be flashed all over the world,” Bush said.

“If it happened to deviate one iota, one little inch, from what the president’s doing or thinks he ought to be doing, it would be terrible. It’d bring great anxiety not only to him but to his supporters,” he added.

Excellent as it is, the elder Bush’s explanation leaves out important things because he explains his reticence only from the viewpoint of someone who supports his son’s policies. A lot of participants are concerned about the interests of America, but are bitterly opposed to the Bush doctrine and have their reasons for being so opposed. They, too, are opposed to former presidents criticizing said policies in public — or should be.

Iraq is the frontal stage in a propaganda war. A propaganda war is all about confidence; getting more for your side, undermining the enemy’s. Iraq, in general, isn’t doing so hot. A lot of that has to do with confidence. A lot of our most publicly-visible and vocal Americans, for the last four years, have been rather apathetic about this concern. They’ve been too giddy and drunk on the elixir of “speaking truth to power,” in a nation where there is absolutely no civil or criminal penalty looming for doing so.

The preceding paragraph has just six sentences. They’re solid, all six of them — either factual, indisputable, or both. You’d have to be just-plain-nuts to disagree with any one of the six, and they lead unavoidably to one conclusion. That conclusion is this: If we’re looking for a good post-mortem process on Iraq, searching for ways to do it a little better next time, we need to take a look at keeping our stinky, halitosistic cakeholes shut. Share your criticism of our current President with other Americans, and concentrate on the things he does, not on who he is. He got elected. He invaded Iraq. Get over it.

One of the most persuasive arguments against going into Iraq in the first place, is that there were other menacing hoodlums all over the world who are supposed to be more threatening than Saddam Hussein ever was. Personally, I question that comparison, but the hoodlums are definitely out there. We’re going to have to do the Iraq thing a few more times. You disagree? Fine. Lay down some arguments — to Americans — about how the whole venture was doomed from the start in spite of all the things President Bush did right.

To say President Bush has messed up Iraq, and oh by the way he spends a lot of money and is letting in illegal aliens and ruining the planet’s climate and causing hurricanes and letting people whither and die in New Orleans and he’s too stupid to eat a pretzel and he’s a draft-dodger, and, and, and…why, that’s tantamount to arguing that Iraq didn’t succeed simply because the wrong folks were in charge. And if I’m some foreign guy and I’m hearing you go on about how Americans are ignorant and arrogant and your President is a dumb klutz, and I get in a discussion about some other foreigner about it…well…here’s a question. How are we supposed to see Americans in a good light, if they don’t see themselves that way? And what’s the most positive thought possible we can have about your President? Defending America’s reputation, begins with Americans.

Maybe…just maybe…the hot, pimply-faced, spittle-flinging anger at President Bush has found a little bit more of a voice than we should have allowed it to find. Isn’t that possible? No, I’m not talking about restricting speech. I’m just talking about visiting or revisiting the possibility: Maybe it’s had a bad effect. Maybe. It’s possible, right? You know, in forty years on the planet, I’ve noticed that people get only-so-angry about things when they know their position is the right one. Above a certain level of anger, you get into levels reserved only for people who know they’re wrong, and/or that it’s the other fellow who is right. It seems to me the anger at President Bush has long ago rocketed into that ionosphere, and is still gaining speed.

As for America’s situation, she’s in quite a pickle here. Our weapons won’t save us, and neither will our freedom-of-speech, our democratic republic, our money or even the dedicated individuals who volunteer to serve in our military. None of those things will see us through this crisis. I’m thinking class just might do the trick.

It’d be rather difficult to assert we’ve already tried it, right? Hello, former President Jimmy “mouth of the south” Carter! You’ve been something of a stranger lately to the whole leaving-things-unsaid dealy-bob. What say you?

Get Over It?

Thursday, November 16th, 2006

Throughout the 2004 and 2006 campaign seasons, I’ve been trying in vain to find out what the Democrats would do about the Islamo-fascist weird-beards around the world who want to kill us. In all that time, the best I’ve been able to achieve, is to come up with the individual hopes of each Democrat I’ve been asking. “George Bush doesn’t have a plan [either]”; “regime change begins at home”; “support the troops by getting them out of there”; “what about ecological terrorism?” Some of them are so famous, I can’t ask them anything, but nevertheless I get to hear what they think. Those with the highest name-recognition, seem to think America is unworthy of winning this thing or anything else. I haven’t been able to find any hard evidence that these, or any others, are official party positions.

This is understandable. Millions of people voted for Democrats, and their feelings on the War on Terror, while mostly negative, nevertheless flail out in all kinds of directions. Democrats can’t afford to alienate any of them. I’ve been figuring, now that they’ve won, maybe it would be a little easier to get an answer to my question.

Well, guest what. Now that they’ve won, their position has become even more cloudy. Oh, it’s a lot less confused, alright, but things are far less clear. Last month, the order of the day was confusion, and this month it seems to be all about secrecy. The plan to deal with murderous goat-molesting crazy-men who want to crash planes into our buildings has been reduced down to five words, as I understand it:

You lost. Get over it.

The YouTube entry for this clip is accompanied by the following description:

After hearing lots of teeth gnashing from right wing voters over the results of the ’06 election I decided they needed a reminder about how democracy works. You lost, GET OVER IT. The republicans in this video found out just how voters felt about them. Sure this video is gloating, but hey to turn Bush’s words back on him, The Dems won political capital, and now they should spend it.

Mmmmkay. Now, I’m not sure what that has to do with bringing me the bodies of more dead terrorists, so my question stands. But almost without exception, I’ve been handed these five words by someone-or-other, who doesn’t seem to appreciate me asking the questions, whenever I want to know what the new plan is for fighting terrorism.

It doesn’t help me to get “over it,” it has an opposite effect. I want to know more. I was told, growing up, that “QUESTION AUTHORITY” was a favorite liberal catch-phrase. Okay…I’m questioning it. Why the terse dismissal? Shouldn’t power be transparent? Don’t the liberals want to stick to their knitting?

Well, I’ve been learning this over and over again about left-wingers through the years. A lefty doesn’t tell you what he thinks; when you hear him tell you something, you’re hearing what he feels. When you hear the same thing from two lefties, you’re hearing what they told each other to feel. When you hear the same thing from three or more, you’re hearing what a powerful lefty told a bunch of other lefties they feel. I’ve heard “get over it” from three or more, so I’m gathering some kind of post-campaign campaign must be underway. Maybe a “Fahrenheit 912” sequel just started showing at the box office, or something of the like.

Perhaps it’s tit-for-tat. I remember back in late 2000 the liberals were told “you lost; get over it” by several tighty-righties. Maybe I was one of the tighty-righties who said that. Maybe the chickens have come home to roost. That ought to show me.

…if only it applied now, though. Democrats were told they lost, and that they should get over it, after the umpth-frazillionth time they wanted a recount. You know what? I’m not going to pretend to be unbiased here…my name isn’t “Dan Rather” after all…but in the scenario from 2000, it just seems to fit. I demand a recount, I demand a recount, I demand a recount, I demand a recount — you lost, get over it.

Gee, here it is 2006, I just want to know where we’re going. I’m sitting in the passenger seat, wondering why we just drove past the most obvious exit, do we know how far we have to go to reach the next one? What’s the plan to get gas and sandwiches, maybe a potty break? And all I get back, is a reminder that I’m not driving. Well no shit, Sherlock. Back to my question: What’s the plan?

Some of the folks within America’s borders, it seems, want her to lose the war. Many others say this is the only way outstanding affairs can be shepherded to a harmonious closure, and we need to just face up to it. Others claim to be dogged by a persistent uncertainty about what they want to have happen. Clearly, we’re about to get a new course for how to deal with this thing, something taking a hairpin-turn from the status quo; to whose preferences will that new charting be best suited? Theirs? I mean, at the very least, it seems like a fair question to ask.

Can’t make a plan, if you don’t define the goal. Nothing Republican or Democrat about that rule; it’s something that is simply true. What’s the goal?

Yeah, I’ve gotten over it. That’s the question that popped in my head as I was getting over it. Does anyone have an answer?