Squawk This Way

One exhausted parrot-point that my bud Bill O'Reilly perpetually trumpets is that the surge is "working." He frequently cites the decrease in American and civilian casualties as evidence of success. That's the no-spin zone, baby. Specious reasoning, Bill, and you know it. There are swarms of exiled Iraqis and more than a handful of dead. Not to sound totally irreverent, but I don't think there's nearly as many people to kill. Now, violence is down, and that's undeniably a major plus, but, as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice declared in a January 11th press conference, "Success in Iraq relies on more than military efforts, it requires robust political and economic progress." Oh odious reality! Why hast thou forsaken me?! In respect to creating a modicum of stability, the surge is "working," but in the context of the entire mission, the surge is a hangnail. We've almost ripped the nail off, but can't quite finish the job. Worse yet, the wound might trigger infection. And that's when it hurts like hell. Enter the Iraqi parliament. This window of relative calm is intended for the highly factious Iraqi government to forge a compromise, tenuous though it may be, to avoid gangrene. Exit the Iraqi parliament. There has been such sluggish political progress, if any, that the already floundering coalition of the willing withdrew British troops from Basra earlier this month.

My beef with BillO (besides 99% of everything he craps out his bloviating mouth) is that he, like this administration, has once again muddled and obfuscated history. My problem concerns his deceit. (I have a couple of friends in the Marines, and to see them being so flagrantly used as a crutch downright pisses me off.) In terms he might understand: we've been led out into the desert for, say, 40 months, give or take, and instead of looking behind and observing nothing but sand, Bill claims that the last oasis was in fact a Mission Accomplished sign. It never existed, but if Bill convinces people that the oasis was a mirage, and the sign was real, then...victory! (Aside: how he conflates dissent with emboldening (<-- *Shudder*) the enemy, I have no idea.) It's all about semantically outlining goals so that you can purposefully manipulate and redefine them later when you fall short. For example, remember earlier this year when the army failed to reach its recruitment goals? What did they do? They lowered the requirements:

They've lowered standards, accepting more soldiers with poorer scores on military aptitude tests and no high school diploma. They've raised the age of enlistment to as high as 42. They've offered millions of dollars in signing, promotion and retention bonuses. They're taking more people with medical problems. And they're using thousands of "moral waivers" to enlist recruits with records of petty crime or drug offenses. Steven Green, who was charged last year with raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl and killing her family in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, was one of those.

[Washington Post, June 3, 2007, Brigid Schulte: Why Won't We Let Them Fill the Ranks?]

Low and behold, they attained their recruitment goals!

To be continued....

Anonymous Bosch

Oh, Internet. How you make small people seem so big. Earlier today, after reading the user comments on Huffington Post, I slunk away in exasperation and disappointment. The thing is, I would genuinely love civil discourse over the rainbow variety of polarizing issues at bay, but internet anonymity imbues a handful of indignant underachievers with a fanatical pseudo-bravura that swallows rational dialogue. It’s an electronic playground and everyone’s got dibs on the kick-ass tire swing. In most of the HuffPo contributions, a commenter will posit some outrageous conspiracy involving the words “Bu$h” (with the dollar-bill-y’all “S”), “Repugs,” or “Clinton,” and five minutes later it’s a bitch-slap contest:

Conservative Ass#1: bill clinton is sponsible for not killin ben laden

Liberal Turd#1: the republiCONs and bu$h hate poor people and all minorities

…and, so on, so forth, until eight pages later when no thread of similarity exists between the content of the post and the context of the dialogue. It’s hilarious to peruse other totally unrelated articles, only to find the same Billy the Kid saloon brawl at the next bar. Hell, there’s articles on Barry Bonds that somehow manage to inject the logic of their conspiratorial or paranoid political argument into the sports section.

It takes restraint to earnestly approach an open dialogue. I’ll be the first to admit that I fall short of par when it comes to rationally approaching live conversation. So, the internet offers me a time cushion to mold an idea from batshit insane, to, say, mediocre, but juvenile. Yet, so many bloggosquawks waive their right to hash out a not-quite-as-barbarically worded polemic.

For those that read this: please, please sleep on your decision to submit Larry the Cable Guy/Alex Jones influenced, self-humiliating pablum. I’ll try to hold up on my end of the bargain.

Currently Listening to John Coltrane – Ascension

The Family Giuls

The New York Times ran an article today by Michael Powell that prodded through the prosecutorial portfolio of the infallible underdog superhero, Rudolph Giuliani, the red-nosed pain, dear. Luckily, the article strayed from heavy-handed moralizing and outright condemnation, to paint a vivid picture of a man with unwavering “moral certitude.” Giuliani’s record against the Cosa Nostra is undoubtedly intimidating. The man’s got stones. But, moral certitude frightens me. It’s like the overzealous, obstinate, family-vacation-loving father who, hijacked by his own hubris, doesn’t realize there’s a Portland, Maine AND a Portland, Oregon. Technically, he’ll get to Portland, but he might not have hotel reservations. He might be a kick-ass driver, but damn the mule for not observing the map. He might be cognizant of the rules of the road, but what harm is a little detour or shortcut, just so long as we arrive at where he saw fit. What it comes down to is, if you’re a passenger with unflinching loyalty, the trip might offer some perks, i.e. a Snickers. But, when you’re the pedestrian at the crosswalk, I’d consider stepping back off the curb a few steps to avoid being splashed by the cesspool that auto is likely to kick up.

Currently listening to Albert Ayler – Live in Greenwich Village

Back to the Waterboard

I haven’t made it through a single day without the mention of waterboarding and interrogation-related snafus in oh so long. Earlier this week, the Times ran an article that shed some much-reviled light on a set of terror detainee interrogation tapes that were for whatever malignant, conniving, or just plain ignorant reason destroyed. The tapes, created in 2002, were destroyed in 2005 because the drunk uncle of an unnamed CIA operative wanted to bury the evidence that he secretly recorded over the tapes with late-night soft-core cable porn before his wife got home from her nightshift. I think I can safely assume that the “alleged” tapes display what can only be described as “torture.” And, seeing as waterboarding has been the talk of the town in recent weeks, I’ll go ahead and assume that the tapes were some pretty damning evidence that we’ve been applying “enhanced” tactics for some time now. The noggin scratcher for me on this one is that, if they’re going to defend the practice of destroying recent footage of a technique they’re trying to sell to the American people, are they running out of storage space? Is it a matter of, “Hey, we bought some suave new cabinets from IKEA, but just got done cataloging our Dukes of Hazard memorabilia along the shelves?” That’s why you always keep your receipts.

Currently listening to Keith Jarrett - Spheres

Whimsy and the Beltway

...is exactly what I intend to opine on. Driven by the caprice of the uberhumid Austin, Texas world, and stenciled out of sheer disbelief, I'm hoping this forum might provide some unofficial conduit of expression and reaction for anyone who cares (or not, either way.) But enough of the existential mewling. On with the show...
Earlier today the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released a chipper report indicating that Iran nixed its nuclear weapons development program four years ago. Now, pit that against the previous turd blossom National Intelligence Estimates that begged to differ. Luckily, our ever-astute Commander in Chief did what any reasonable city alderman would have done when he go the response he was initially looking for, but, in reality, wanted just the opposite so as to react with some sort of feigned reassuring justification. And I quote, "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Nuclear weaponry isn't my forte, but I'd be willing to bet most countries with an iMac have "the knowledge necessary."
Unfortunately, we've lost the moral high ground around the globe. We don't have a leg to stand on. Unless, of course, you're referring to the copious quantities of universally destructive firearms. Other than those babies, no leg.
No need to fear, the Democrats are here. "The Party of Change." "A New Direction." I'm positively psyched that they eventually ousted Captain Amnesio Gonzales, but I'm having difficulty pinpointing which other changes they were referring to. Politics demands compromise. No doubt. Without it, bills languish and die, and everybody loses like the winner of a milk chugging contest. However, the Democrats have continuously caved under the slightest scrutiny, then declared consolation points like 7th place at the Special Olympics. But, I have to hand it to Republican strategists. They are masters of public opinion and cooked-up reality. How they are able to heap their fawning words at American troops, while simultaneously extending tours without extra leave, obfuscating and reducing soldier benefits and pay, and ignoring the degradation of post-duty treatment and facilities, is beyond me. I've worked myself into quite the huff, so I'll end on this musical shout out. Currently listening to Jaga Jazzist.

(Aside: I'm hoping to eventually narrow the scope of my posts, instead of broad, fairly shallow and obvious observations that generally lack credibility and so-called "facts." Thanks for the patience. I'm on a learning curve.)