Bob Harris is one funny dude. And his new book, Prisoner of Trebekistan, comes out 9/5. It's a little bit about travel, but mostly about his several appearances on Jeopardy, and I'm looking forward to reading it.
On the travel tip, check out these pictures from Bob's trips.
That's all, just a plug for a friend.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Nashville cats, play clean as country water
Anyone who knows me has heard me say the the average country musician is a better player than the average rock musician. No ifs, ands or buts. There are thousands of guitarists working the country bar circuit that would make nearly all of the rock guitar gods jealous with their technique.
Thing is, the country players don't go through a lot of visual emotional excess. No contortions, grimacing, no hair tossing. Not that they aren't emotional, the are just a little more internalized, and the focus is on the playing for them, not the visual drama.
Clearly technique isn't everything, there has to be soul. And I have known many players in every genre that seem to have great chops, but an absence of soul. And sometimes, well, often, I think that overblown stage posturing has little to do with the soul of the music, and more to do with impressing the crowds, and maybe even distracting them from the fact that either the player or the music isn't very interesting. You know, musical shiny objects.
Here are a few videos of really great country players. I feel soul in everything they do. Will you? I hope so.
Merle Travis invented Travis Picking. Thumb bass and finger melody had been around for quite some time, but Merle took it to a new level. Here's "Cannonball Rag":
Joe Maphis was the original guitar speed freak. So smooth, but so rocking. And the doublenecks he played-he really put that kind of instrument on the map:
Speedy West and Jimmy Bryant were a great team-steel and regular electric guitar:
Thing is, the country players don't go through a lot of visual emotional excess. No contortions, grimacing, no hair tossing. Not that they aren't emotional, the are just a little more internalized, and the focus is on the playing for them, not the visual drama.
Clearly technique isn't everything, there has to be soul. And I have known many players in every genre that seem to have great chops, but an absence of soul. And sometimes, well, often, I think that overblown stage posturing has little to do with the soul of the music, and more to do with impressing the crowds, and maybe even distracting them from the fact that either the player or the music isn't very interesting. You know, musical shiny objects.
Here are a few videos of really great country players. I feel soul in everything they do. Will you? I hope so.
Merle Travis invented Travis Picking. Thumb bass and finger melody had been around for quite some time, but Merle took it to a new level. Here's "Cannonball Rag":
Joe Maphis was the original guitar speed freak. So smooth, but so rocking. And the doublenecks he played-he really put that kind of instrument on the map:
Speedy West and Jimmy Bryant were a great team-steel and regular electric guitar:
If the rain comes they run and hide their heads
As hard as it is to take GWBushCo seriously about anything, except, you know, preemptive war, tax cuts for my millionaire clients but not for me, and freedom is on the march, still, nothing says miserable failure like the Katrina Response.
Rather than do my own research, however, I'll rely on my buddy skippy, who posts a veritable cornucopia of crap, documenting the GWBushCo criminal behavior.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I present, skippy on Katrina!
Rather than do my own research, however, I'll rely on my buddy skippy, who posts a veritable cornucopia of crap, documenting the GWBushCo criminal behavior.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I present, skippy on Katrina!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
You know they've got a hell of a band
Over at FireDogLake my friend TRex put up a post about his wonderful friend Elissa, who lost a fight with that Goddamned disease cancer last night. He also posted a wonderful song she had recorded, making the piece especially poignant. And he was sweet and thoughtful in asking commentors to list their own Angels, those who they lost.
Of course, I mentioned Kristin, of whom I have written here often, and our friend Lizzy, still after 4 years losses that really make no sense, that grind at my emotions daily.
But I can't help thinking about other musicians that have left us, especially whose who went too young. We can't help wondering what they might have done, if they had stayed with us longer.
In the late '50s, we had The Day The Music Died. Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, The Big Bopper, all in one plane crash. And reportedly a coin toss kept Waylon Jennings off the flight. It may seem grim to speculate, but I think, of the three, Holly would have had the longest and deepest career. His music was pretty revolutionary, an amalgam of fresh rock and country influences and creativity that, I think, would have lasted quite a while.
Valens, while clearly talented and a major fave of mine, was a little more mainstream and conventional. While he did some great songs, and his sparkling Come On Let's Go was, I feel, not treated well by Los Lobos in his biopic La Bamba, my gut tells me that if he were working today, his last new recording would have come by the middle or end of the '60s, and he'd be doing the state fair circuit like so many older rockers.
And J.P. Richardson, The Big Bopper, well, IMHO would be hosting a syndicated oldies radio show, as Chantilly Lace would have been his only hit.
In the early '70s we had another tragic 3 losses, not together, but awfully close: Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison. I consider myself truly lucky to have seen all three, Hendrix twice. What they have been doing today? Again, pointless conjecture by no one but me.
Hendrix was the most prolific of the three, playing and recording every chance he had, and was at the time of his death making plans to work with jazz arranger and composer Gil Evans. With that kind of vision, and open-mindedness, he would at the very least be a 2nd generation Les Paul, perhaps not recording anything new, but still playing often, to adoring crowds.
Joplin, while surely at the peak of her powers, was also at the peak of drug addiction and self-destruction. It's hard to predict what she would have done, but I can picture her as an elder stateswoman of rock, an older Aunt to Bonnie Raitt, Rickie Lee Jones, Joni Mitchell, and a contemporary of Mick Jagger: not doing anything new or different, but still doing what she did so well.
Morrison is a little trickier. He seemed like the rock'n'roll precursor to Marlon Brando, excess weight, excess partying, and mediocre artistic output. While The Doors created some truly memorable music, it was a combination of talent that made it work. How many people know that Light My Fire was actually written by Robby Krieger, the guitarist, and not Morrison? I suspect that Morrison's best was already behind him when he died.
Again, all speculation by someone who takes music really seriously, but has no crystal ball into the future, just a lot of memories of the past. For more, see the 27 Club. And this gem by Stephen King.
Of course, I mentioned Kristin, of whom I have written here often, and our friend Lizzy, still after 4 years losses that really make no sense, that grind at my emotions daily.
But I can't help thinking about other musicians that have left us, especially whose who went too young. We can't help wondering what they might have done, if they had stayed with us longer.
In the late '50s, we had The Day The Music Died. Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, The Big Bopper, all in one plane crash. And reportedly a coin toss kept Waylon Jennings off the flight. It may seem grim to speculate, but I think, of the three, Holly would have had the longest and deepest career. His music was pretty revolutionary, an amalgam of fresh rock and country influences and creativity that, I think, would have lasted quite a while.
Valens, while clearly talented and a major fave of mine, was a little more mainstream and conventional. While he did some great songs, and his sparkling Come On Let's Go was, I feel, not treated well by Los Lobos in his biopic La Bamba, my gut tells me that if he were working today, his last new recording would have come by the middle or end of the '60s, and he'd be doing the state fair circuit like so many older rockers.
And J.P. Richardson, The Big Bopper, well, IMHO would be hosting a syndicated oldies radio show, as Chantilly Lace would have been his only hit.
In the early '70s we had another tragic 3 losses, not together, but awfully close: Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison. I consider myself truly lucky to have seen all three, Hendrix twice. What they have been doing today? Again, pointless conjecture by no one but me.
Hendrix was the most prolific of the three, playing and recording every chance he had, and was at the time of his death making plans to work with jazz arranger and composer Gil Evans. With that kind of vision, and open-mindedness, he would at the very least be a 2nd generation Les Paul, perhaps not recording anything new, but still playing often, to adoring crowds.
Joplin, while surely at the peak of her powers, was also at the peak of drug addiction and self-destruction. It's hard to predict what she would have done, but I can picture her as an elder stateswoman of rock, an older Aunt to Bonnie Raitt, Rickie Lee Jones, Joni Mitchell, and a contemporary of Mick Jagger: not doing anything new or different, but still doing what she did so well.
Morrison is a little trickier. He seemed like the rock'n'roll precursor to Marlon Brando, excess weight, excess partying, and mediocre artistic output. While The Doors created some truly memorable music, it was a combination of talent that made it work. How many people know that Light My Fire was actually written by Robby Krieger, the guitarist, and not Morrison? I suspect that Morrison's best was already behind him when he died.
Again, all speculation by someone who takes music really seriously, but has no crystal ball into the future, just a lot of memories of the past. For more, see the 27 Club. And this gem by Stephen King.
If it keeps on rainin', levee's goin' to break
My last post took on the insurance industry on two issues:
Don, friend, I have to respond with two points: Bullshit, and so what.
First, of course the insurance business model includes investments. But unless they took the premium from the very first customer, invested it and earned Billions from it in what can only be considered a Ponzi scheme, then the investment capital comes from profits.
Second, when my meager 401k from working at Capitol Studios takes a market hit, I lose money. Too bad for me. But when State Farm loses money in the stock market from their "sound investments", they simply pass the loss onto us in the form of higher premiums. Thus, I am legally forced to buy a product, and I am forced to pay for the mistakes of management. In the "Free Market", so dear to conservatarians, I can only think of one way for this too happen: State Farm has better lobbyists than me. The Center for Public Integrity has much to say about insurance lobbying here and here.
This statement from the Wikipedia entry on Insurance Companies is especially poignant:
Except when you're a big insurance company. Bastards.
On your last point, Don, yes, I have a blog, which is nothing but my opinions. And though you tried to distract from my secondary point about the essentially slimy nature of insurance companies in general, you did not in any way contradict the main point, which is the evil practiced by these companies when facing large payouts. From the original ABC News article:
- They are larcenous lying cheats esp. in re: Katrina claims,
- They make exorbitant profits from products I am legally forced to buy.
You fail to realize that most insurance companies do not make an operating profit, in fact in most cases they lose money on their underwriting. They make their profits by making sound investments with the premium payments they receive. You however have a blog so feel feel to spread slander and incorrect information.
Don, friend, I have to respond with two points: Bullshit, and so what.
First, of course the insurance business model includes investments. But unless they took the premium from the very first customer, invested it and earned Billions from it in what can only be considered a Ponzi scheme, then the investment capital comes from profits.
Second, when my meager 401k from working at Capitol Studios takes a market hit, I lose money. Too bad for me. But when State Farm loses money in the stock market from their "sound investments", they simply pass the loss onto us in the form of higher premiums. Thus, I am legally forced to buy a product, and I am forced to pay for the mistakes of management. In the "Free Market", so dear to conservatarians, I can only think of one way for this too happen: State Farm has better lobbyists than me. The Center for Public Integrity has much to say about insurance lobbying here and here.
This statement from the Wikipedia entry on Insurance Companies is especially poignant:
Additionally, “speculative risks” like those incurred through gambling or through the purchase of company stocks are uninsurable.
Except when you're a big insurance company. Bastards.
On your last point, Don, yes, I have a blog, which is nothing but my opinions. And though you tried to distract from my secondary point about the essentially slimy nature of insurance companies in general, you did not in any way contradict the main point, which is the evil practiced by these companies when facing large payouts. From the original ABC News article:
Cori Rigsby says she recalls a senior coordinator ordering that an engineering company be told to alter the findings in its report so that State Farm would not have to pay. "Tell them if they don't change their report, we're not paying their invoice," she remembers the supervisor saying.They're still bastards. And your comment reads like a State Farm training manual. Thanks.
Friday, August 25, 2006
I was raised on robbery
Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. That is, if a good neighbor is someone who robs your house, steals you blind, lies to you, and still expects you to pay them. Thankfully, some brave whistleblowers came forward.
From ABC News, we learn that:
I had State Farm car insurance off and on for many years, and one time I actually read the Annula Financial Report, in the mid '80s. I was shocked, shocked to find that, after all accounting for expenses, at the end of the balance sheet were billions of dollars in pure profit. And their '05 report, available here, shows $847 Million in profit for '05, as opposed to $3.076 Billion for '04!
How this will play out is anyone's guess. As this is pretty standard Republican-approved corporate behavior, there may be some small sanctions. But look how easily Ken Lay, et al, have so far gotten off, for a barometer of punishment likelihood.
Here in CA, Financial Responsibility laws dictate that to legally drive, one must have Auto Insurance, or post a large cash bond that only movie and rock stars could afford. I am capitalist enough that I feel that everyone should be able to make a buck. But I have long felt that if the government requires me to buy something, who ever sells that something should make only subsistence profit, not billions.
Of course, State Farm can afford better lobbyists than I can.
Bastards!
From ABC News, we learn that:
State Farm Insurance supervisors systematically demanded that Hurricane Katrina damage reports be buried or replaced or changed so that the company would not have to pay policyholders' claims in Mississippi, two State Farm insiders tell ABC News.Kerri and Cori Rigsby, independent adjusters who had worked for State Farm exclusively for eight years, say they have turned over thousands of internal company documents and their own detailed statement to the FBI and Mississippi state investigators.
I had State Farm car insurance off and on for many years, and one time I actually read the Annula Financial Report, in the mid '80s. I was shocked, shocked to find that, after all accounting for expenses, at the end of the balance sheet were billions of dollars in pure profit. And their '05 report, available here, shows $847 Million in profit for '05, as opposed to $3.076 Billion for '04!
How this will play out is anyone's guess. As this is pretty standard Republican-approved corporate behavior, there may be some small sanctions. But look how easily Ken Lay, et al, have so far gotten off, for a barometer of punishment likelihood.
Here in CA, Financial Responsibility laws dictate that to legally drive, one must have Auto Insurance, or post a large cash bond that only movie and rock stars could afford. I am capitalist enough that I feel that everyone should be able to make a buck. But I have long felt that if the government requires me to buy something, who ever sells that something should make only subsistence profit, not billions.
Of course, State Farm can afford better lobbyists than I can.
Bastards!
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Somewhere, over the rainbow...
Two music posts in a row, wow. What will people think.
I have long been of the opinion that there are certain pieces of music that don't need to be recorded ever again, because they have already been perfected. Here are a few:
But when it does, we should revel in it. Recently I posted about Jake Shimabukuro, who has elevated the ukulele to a place reserved for guitar gods with his take on George Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". But talents like him don't happen often.
One of the "untouchable" songs for me has always been "Over The Rainbow". Young tragic Judy Garland's take on it is sublime, a perfect mix of innocence and soul so compelling that I could not imagine it ever being considered seriously by another singer.
But many have tried. Lord, how they have tried. Overblown, histrionic, wrenching versions of the song have been attempted by many, and yet they always come up short.
Until these two:
A huge man, with a huge talent. I couldn't find any videos of him, but here is a video which uses his mix of "Somewhere..." and "What a Wonderful World".
As a former guitar player, I'm clearly a sucker for talent, virtuosity, and soul. This guy really has all three. Here he is playing what turns into a "Wizard Of Oz" medley. Stunning. Made me really smile.
I have long been of the opinion that there are certain pieces of music that don't need to be recorded ever again, because they have already been perfected. Here are a few:
- Satisfaction - Rolling Stones
- In The Mood - Glenn Miller
- Yesterday - Beatles/McCartney
- Won't Get Fooled Again - The Who
- Bridge Over Troubled Water - Garfunkel & the short guy
- Best Day Of Your Life - Green Day
But when it does, we should revel in it. Recently I posted about Jake Shimabukuro, who has elevated the ukulele to a place reserved for guitar gods with his take on George Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". But talents like him don't happen often.
One of the "untouchable" songs for me has always been "Over The Rainbow". Young tragic Judy Garland's take on it is sublime, a perfect mix of innocence and soul so compelling that I could not imagine it ever being considered seriously by another singer.
But many have tried. Lord, how they have tried. Overblown, histrionic, wrenching versions of the song have been attempted by many, and yet they always come up short.
Until these two:
A huge man, with a huge talent. I couldn't find any videos of him, but here is a video which uses his mix of "Somewhere..." and "What a Wonderful World".
As a former guitar player, I'm clearly a sucker for talent, virtuosity, and soul. This guy really has all three. Here he is playing what turns into a "Wizard Of Oz" medley. Stunning. Made me really smile.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
I only want to be with you
The wealth of videos available today from YouTube, Google Videos, Yahoo Videos, and Archive.org is pretty amazing. One has to be pretty creative in the searches, but many gems are out there.
Here's something I found (I already knew about this recording, as I bought the album in the mid '80s):
From Wikipedia:
This song, is of course from the young Dusty Springfield:
Here's Dusty:
Here's something I found (I already knew about this recording, as I bought the album in the mid '80s):
From Wikipedia:The Tourists (1977 - 1980) were a moderately successful British pop band, but are better known for two of their members (Annie Lennox & David A. Stewart) who went on to achieve superstardom as Eurythmics.
This song, is of course from the young Dusty Springfield:
Her first single was "I Only Want to Be With You", which was a success in both Britain and the United States. This was followed by a series of classic and successful singles, including "Wishin' and Hopin'", "Anyone Who Had a Heart"', "I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself", "Stay Awhile" and "All Cried Out". Springfield recorded a number of Bacharach-David compositions, including "The Look of Love" (from the 1967 movie Casino Royale, which was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Song in 1967.) By 1964, Springfield was one of the biggest solo artists of her day. She created a controversy when she refused to play in front of a segregated crowd in South Africa. She was often a featured artist on the British music show Ready Steady Go!, produced by Vicki Wickham, who would later become her manager.
Here's Dusty:
Monday, August 21, 2006
It's only words: Cut out the "Cut and run".
Words can be pesky little things. They can express love, hate, and anything in-between. A single word can cause, in certain circumstances, death, or worse. And words can tell a story, not just in the presence of a narrative, but by their very use.
From Kevin Drum, I found this piece by Spencer Ackerman at TNR:
And Kevin has some advice for GWBush:
I'd like to add to this, and ban another word, well, phrase: Cut and run.
As Wikipedia says:
No kidding. No one serious about a non-partisan solution to the crisis that is Iraq will use that phrase. It is not an accurate description of any position by any responsible Progressive or Democrat.
Rather it is a pejorative, designed to create an emotional response, to accuse someone who never expressed the idea (Straw Man, table for one?) of being a craven coward, disloyal. It is the modern political equal of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It is used by thugs, or right-wing partisan pundits, or the simply ignorant. It is the phrase of Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Bay Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and GWBush.
When confronted with the phrase, you may correct the speaker if you have the time, ignore it as if not heard, or simply shake your head and say "There you go again." But to respond to it as if it was a legitimate idea is enabling the opposition, and a victory for malicious framing.
Just say no to "Cut and run".
From Kevin Drum, I found this piece by Spencer Ackerman at TNR:
I spent the last week in Dearborn, Michigan, home of the largest and oldest Muslim community in the United States, and I have a news flash: President Bush's recent formulation of the enemy in the war on terrorism as "Islamic Fascism," or, as it's more often known, "Islamofascism," is extremely offensive here.
"Islamofascism" merely strokes an erogenous zone of the right wing, which gains pleasure from a juvenile reductio ad Hitlerum with the enemies of the U.S.
And Kevin has some advice for GWBush:
. . . you should probably avoid any phrase that's used primarily in the fever swamps of the hawkish blogosphere. Following their lead will merely dig you into an even deeper hole than you've already dug all by yourself.
I'd like to add to this, and ban another word, well, phrase: Cut and run.
As Wikipedia says:
Cut and Run is also a phrase used by politicians to describe a total withdrawl from a war. The phrase is mainly used by politicians who support a certain war. Cut and Run has most notably been used to refer the total withdrawl of American soldiers from Iraq.
No kidding. No one serious about a non-partisan solution to the crisis that is Iraq will use that phrase. It is not an accurate description of any position by any responsible Progressive or Democrat.
Rather it is a pejorative, designed to create an emotional response, to accuse someone who never expressed the idea (Straw Man, table for one?) of being a craven coward, disloyal. It is the modern political equal of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It is used by thugs, or right-wing partisan pundits, or the simply ignorant. It is the phrase of Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Bay Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and GWBush.
When confronted with the phrase, you may correct the speaker if you have the time, ignore it as if not heard, or simply shake your head and say "There you go again." But to respond to it as if it was a legitimate idea is enabling the opposition, and a victory for malicious framing.
Just say no to "Cut and run".
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Runnin' with the devil
Rick Moran at RightWingNuthouse (nope, still no irony) has finally seen the...well, not the light, but he's at least able to distinguish dark and light and see shapes in Iraq:
Sounds positive, productive, right? Guess again. First off, he's only looking through one eye, the right one:
So only fellow Authoritarian cultists are to be taken seriously, no one on the left need apply. Never mind that the left has been saying that Iraq was a disaster since, oh I don't know, before we attacked? And the left doesn't do research and scholarship? Dude, meet Juan Cole.
We on the left have been accused of having a circular firing squad, and sometimes that has been true. But one thing we're not is Authoritarian. We roundly condemned Clinton for Lewinsky, NAFTA, and several other issues. But the Right simply cannot criticize Fearless Leader, he of the steely gaze and 8th grade grasp of world affairs. And I don't mean affairs with cabinet members, no sirree.
But the serious unseriousness of Moran goes deeper:
Jeebus Christ on a stick! If GWBush were to go on national TeeVee and say something like: "My fellow Americans, I now realize that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and I will do everything in my power to bring our troops home safely," he would be cheered in the streets! He would probably win a third term. But he can't do that, because Iraq isn't a serious place for him, but a concept. As Rick continues, he makes the point, unwittingly:
Conflating Iraq with Iran & Syria, surely this will win points with the Neocons and 101st Fighting Keyboarders, but not with anyone connected with reality.
As his commentor Blogenfreude points out:
Anyone interested in a truly navel-gazing, almost serious self-dialog about Iraq should follow the link to Rick's place, And then read the comments.
But one thing completely missing from his hand wringing is this: Who is to blame? Who is at fault? Who is the Commander-In-Chief?
It would be less painfully funny if we were actually engaged in talks with Iran, But no, we can't talk to them. Why, I dunno. Ask He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named.
Oh, and this is priceless:
Bastard.
. . . to join a growing chorus of conservatives who are becoming very critical of our involvement and try and break through the spin and myopia of the Administration which is making the situation worse by pretending that things are getting better or are not as bad as we think they are.
Sounds positive, productive, right? Guess again. First off, he's only looking through one eye, the right one:
Lest one think that these books are the products of left wing loons or authors suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, the one common thread running through both volumes is the massive amount of research and unprecedented access to documents that went into writing them. To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself.
So only fellow Authoritarian cultists are to be taken seriously, no one on the left need apply. Never mind that the left has been saying that Iraq was a disaster since, oh I don't know, before we attacked? And the left doesn't do research and scholarship? Dude, meet Juan Cole.
We on the left have been accused of having a circular firing squad, and sometimes that has been true. But one thing we're not is Authoritarian. We roundly condemned Clinton for Lewinsky, NAFTA, and several other issues. But the Right simply cannot criticize Fearless Leader, he of the steely gaze and 8th grade grasp of world affairs. And I don't mean affairs with cabinet members, no sirree.
But the serious unseriousness of Moran goes deeper:
Yes we need more troops – a lot more at least temporarily. Order must be brought to Baghdad and its environs and to do that we would need, according to General Trainor, is perhaps as many as 50,000 more Americans to both police the area and ferret out insurgents and the death squads.
For that to happen, the President would have to admit he and Donald Rumsfeld have been wrong all along and that in order to achieve stability, the additional troops must be sent.
. . .
Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now.
Jeebus Christ on a stick! If GWBush were to go on national TeeVee and say something like: "My fellow Americans, I now realize that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and I will do everything in my power to bring our troops home safely," he would be cheered in the streets! He would probably win a third term. But he can't do that, because Iraq isn't a serious place for him, but a concept. As Rick continues, he makes the point, unwittingly:
In war, rhetoric must match reality or you lose credibility. By constantly reminding us that Iraq is at the forefront of our anti-terror strategy – and then not doing the things necessary to win through to victory – the President takes the risk that our deterrent will lose its edge. And this is no more true than in the actions of Iran and Syria.
Conflating Iraq with Iran & Syria, surely this will win points with the Neocons and 101st Fighting Keyboarders, but not with anyone connected with reality.
As his commentor Blogenfreude points out:
But guys – Wolfowitz said the oil would pay for the war! Perle – he said we’d be greeted with rose petals! Bush says we’re winning, that Iraq is a real democracy! Cheney said it’s dead enders … last throes and all that! Don’t let me down like this … how are we going to get on with nation-buildin’ and democracy-deliverin’ if you keep up with negative posts like this???
Anyone interested in a truly navel-gazing, almost serious self-dialog about Iraq should follow the link to Rick's place, And then read the comments.
But one thing completely missing from his hand wringing is this: Who is to blame? Who is at fault? Who is the Commander-In-Chief?
But if we are not willing to do what is necessary to win, then the only sane, moral course of action is to bring the troops home as fast as humanly possible. Such a humiliation should not result in a single additional death or injury to the men and women who have performed so bravely and selflessly in the face of blunder after blunder by their superiors.And regarding dialog with the warring parties, including Iran, he says:
Clearly some kind of diplomatic demarche is in order. Whether it involves sitting down in formal talks and making clear that our apathy toward their support for terrorists is at an end or we actually threaten force against assets that are supporting the insurgents, peace will not come to Iraq until those two nations stop their meddling.
It would be less painfully funny if we were actually engaged in talks with Iran, But no, we can't talk to them. Why, I dunno. Ask He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named.
Oh, and this is priceless:
By constantly reminding us that Iraq is at the forefront of our anti-terror strategy – and then not doing the things necessary to win through to victory – the President takes the risk that our deterrent will lose its edge.
Bastard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)