Money money money by the pound!
I keep hearing the song from Disney’s movie “Pete’s Dragon” run in my head. In that movie, a flim-flam man and his inept assistant run from town to town selling quack cures to people. In the first description, both the good doctor and his assistant ride a wagon into the middle of the town square – to a less than chilly reception. “Oh, no, I think they remember us. Oh NO, I think I remember them! Quick! Get us out of here!”
Of course, they stay, they perform a song and dance routine, dress up willing participants in new clothing and get them to say how wonderful the new medicines are, and suddenly every formerly angry townsperson (from the man whose hair turned pink to the woman who took the weight loss “miracle cure” and ballooned to roughly the size and shape of a young killer whale) are buying more and more medicines from the good doctor and his assistant.
And when they find out there’s a dragon in town, their eyes light up with glee – a dragon can be made into thousands of deliciously monetary objects. The dragon can be used to cure warts – and all of a sudden, their dreams of wealth and prosperity can finally be achieved.
Then there’s the southern boxing drama “Diggstown” with Louis Gooding, Oliver Platt, and the immortal James Woods. The idea being that two con artists face off in a boxing match that both are trying their very hardest to fix in their favor from the get-go. The good old southern boy who owns all the town’s deeds and properties gets taken by the smooth-talking Yankee. The opportunities mount until the very last – and the con turns deadly for more than one participant.
The movies never really tell you what happens to the loser on the con – or the person who can’t make the medicine sell. The Dickensian novels are filled with examples of ne’er do wells languishing in debtor’s prison for running up huge debts they could never repay – only to be pulled from the prison and sent to different portions of the globe by their families, off to do something else to keep them occupied for the time being.
Never do they return from the exile and run for an elected seat – and most especially not if their parents are politically well-connected. It’s unfortunate. Paul Krugman made the connection for me with the young Bush president, even as his father revels in his freedom as an 80-year old ex-president by jumping out of airplanes with the Golden Knights – even as Bush spends more “catchup” money on the Iraq conflict, and threatens to tar Congressional lawmakers with failing to support the troops.
It sounds very much like to me that Bush the younger is guilty as hell of the very thing he accuses anyone who doesn’t agree with his policies – from the beginning of the Iraq conflict to the present day. He’s never supported the troops; never given them the proper equipment, never the proper number of comrades, never provided the logistical support, never fed them the right way, never kept them out of unnecessary harm’s way.
The Iraq war was supposed to be an in-and-out operation – we catch Saddam, everyone throws flowers, and miracle of miracles, the Iraqi people dance the happy dance of democracy and the United States gets cheap oil. It all works out so well in the mind’s eye. Hell, a year ago I thought I’d be paying $1.25 per gallon of gasoline because of the oil exportation. I didn’t like the idea at the time and I still don’t, but it would certainly make my weekly tank for my Honda a little cheaper.
And why did I think so? Because the occupation of Iraq was supposed to last a week, maximum. According to Wolfowitz and Rummy, we’d do it on the cheap and the gratitude would be such that oil would flow in a cornucopia of gasoline, driving the American prices so far down, it’d never be an issue again.
The funny thing is, every time that one of the deceptive matchstick men from the movies or the novels tells someone their money will go to buy beachfront property in Florida, or that they’ll have huge returns on medicines, the sucker is always the one who winds up paying for it, in the end. Bush and his lackeys have finally hit on the magic slot machine – tell someone they’re not supporting servicemen and women in a time of crisis – even though your own policies have placed the servicemen and women in that position – and you get money. Gobs. Stacks. Money by the pound.
Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised – this is the same group of con artists that demanded the wildlife refuge in Alaska be opened to drilling. Never mind that the costs of raping a pristine wilderness area for the crude oil contained within would easily come to more than $3.50 per gallon of gasoline – the demands of the American consumer was paramount. A “wise energy policy” would be more important than preserving a bunch of critters.
It’s the same con artistry that tried to get the salmon on the West Coast off the endangered list because the North Atlantic salmon being farmed had begun to swoop in, and as one White House spokesman said, “Salmon is salmon.”
In a novel from the 19th century, this behavior would almost immediately be smacked down and the perpetrators languishing in prison, only to escape and find their way to cause more mischief and devilment to their family. In the early 20th century, the escapades would be
The parallels are astounding between art and reality, though. Every so often a youngling comes along. The Bush dynasty for presidency is nearly complete; it is almost too much to hope that Jeb the younger won’t make it through to his father and brother’s seats, and will remain a more anonymous footnote to history when it is written that under his watch, an election was rigged to give the Florida election to his older brother.
George Bush’s early career was started and funded by his family connections. Every single powerful, wealthy member of the Bush cabal has helped him along his path – from his escape from the Air Guard in Texas to the horrible management of the baseball team the Texas Rangers, every time a foot’s been out of place, someone’s been there to pay the check. Never has Bush had to write one himself; suck it up, take the heat, fall from grace. He’s not the All-American success story he tries to portray – he’s a Texas oilman with exponentially more money than brains, and the worst sense of business acumen in the world. >From paying a $255 million contract to Alex Rodriguez to failing to secure body armor for American troops, Bush has made more bad decisions for the America shareholder than any other CEO.
And we’re still putting up with him. There’s no reputation to uphold here, no career that could be smirched because of his actions – he’s shown his true mettle time and time again. He’s flip-flopped on economic, environmental, and education reforms more often than a dolphin in his brother’s private aquarium.
The budgets for last year’s spending have easily exceeded what anyone was willing to pay for this. Had the administration came forward and said “Shinseki’s right, this is going to run $300 billion, easily, and we have to put 400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to make it work”, the American public would never have gone for it. The budgets submitted are like a child sneaking $10 out of their dad’s wallet when the old man’s not looking – and then saying, “I need some more cash to do this war game I’ve got going on.”
And Congress, the guy with the wallet, is going to give Bush the cash. They can’t do anything else for fear of being labeled unsupportive of the soldiers. Unfortunately, Congress isn’t the one who started an illegal war for illegal aims. Every time a Bushie screams, “We must stay the course”, the American public asks, “What course? Where are we going?”
Last year I dated a woman who was completely wrong for me – Christian conservative, whose entire approach to politics was that “They’re the government – I think they know what they’re doing, so I’ll support them.” Aside from putting zero work into a relationship, her political views ran exactly counter to mine. She was an ardent Bushie – I could never stand the man. And she allowed herself to be used by the administration, cheerfully acting the part of a “Yes Sir!” ditto head for every new program that came down the line.
I asked her once what we were doing in Iraq, and every answer she gave was a rote response from Rush Limbaugh or Bush’s press secretary. And that’s the scary part – they know that there is a portion of the American public stupid enough to be led around by the nose and sent willy-nilly into the breach to cover up the mistakes of the men in charge.
I really do hope Bush winds up being the one tarred and feathered. In fact, I hope he’s called out for a lawsuit.
It really is unfortunate, though. When a minister ran the treasury dry and screwed the country out of huge amounts of prosperity, three hundred years ago they’d simply lop off his head and call it a day. Now it’s like a CEO – no heads roll, but if they do, you get a glowing recommendation for the next company you start up.
So the song still runs through my head whenever I hear a Bushie explain that “we’re the good guys”, or that “Rumsfeld is going a good job, he doesn’t need to do this job at all”. I remember that every time Bush lost the con, someone was there with a net below him ready to stake him out for the next big thing he was going to run.
This time, the con’s hurt more than just himself. It’s hurt everyone around him. And there’s only a slight amount of hope that I have that says he’ll get tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail come November.
But it’s growing.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
ADD Resources: Adult ADD Symptom Checklist
FUCK.
It's official.
I've been putting this off for a very long time.
Time for me to meet the shrink once again. Of course, after checking with Premera Blue Cross tomorrow morning to make sure my ass is covered for this.
Oh, the fun that is...hey, I think I'd like to get a Novara mountain cruiser bike.
FUCK.
It's official.
I've been putting this off for a very long time.
Time for me to meet the shrink once again. Of course, after checking with Premera Blue Cross tomorrow morning to make sure my ass is covered for this.
Oh, the fun that is...hey, I think I'd like to get a Novara mountain cruiser bike.
ADD Resources: Adult ADD Symptom Checklist
FUCK.
It's official.
I've been putting this off for a very long time.
Time for me to meet the shrink once again. Of course, after checking with Premera Blue Cross tomorrow morning to make sure my ass is covered for this.
Oh, the fun that is...hey, I think I'd like to get a Novara mountain cruiser bike.
FUCK.
It's official.
I've been putting this off for a very long time.
Time for me to meet the shrink once again. Of course, after checking with Premera Blue Cross tomorrow morning to make sure my ass is covered for this.
Oh, the fun that is...hey, I think I'd like to get a Novara mountain cruiser bike.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
CNN.com - All apologies: OutKast
What’s the reason for an apology? What form does it really come from?
In one of the forums I participate in, we were discussing a theory of reasons.
The theory of reasons put forth by one Scott Maddix is that if asked to, say, watch a movie like Van Helsing, and I refuse, most times I will feel obligated to give a reason for my refusal. I could say that I heard the movie was slightly better than sticking my fingers into a wood chipper, or that I had to get up early the next morning, or that I was in the middle of writing a letter to the editor. Rarely will I ever say, “I just don’t want to see the movie, thanks,” and let it go at that. I need to give a reason for it.
Lots of people do this. It’s kind of like saying, “I don’t like fish”, and then explaining to the populace at large that it smells strange, that you never associated it with good food, that the flavor of tuna or the smell of the sea makes you nauseated, that you don’t like the number of bones, that it’s slightly creepy, and that at your friend’s Vietnamese wedding, the relatives at the next table picked the entire deep-fried fish (fried whole, mind you, head, eyeballs and all) down to the skull, and that particular image stuck with you through the entire week while the squid you DID eat danced the mambo on your intestines.
One of the people I most admire has the ability not to do this. He won’t say, “I don’t like the music” for a concert I want to attend, or “I’m gonna be wrecked that day”, or “I have political connections that won’t allow me to dance the boogaloo with you in public.” He just politely refuses, and if he feels in conversation that it’s pertinent to divulge the reasons, he brings them up. But never does he actually give a reason for his choice.
But nine times out of ten, someone WILL say, “I’m just not a big fan of music that’s country-western because it sounds too twangy to me.” Inevitably, someone will begin asking, “Well, what about Willie Nelson? What about alt-country? What about rockabilly? What about, what about, what about?”
We’re conditioned to ask about the preferences of others in order to explain and relate to each other. For instance, I know not to ask my friends who are vegan about the choices they have made for their food preferences, because their exact reasons are ridiculous to me, and therefore no real dialogue can occur.
As a side note: I detest it when people choose a “moral superiority” reason for their personal lifestyle choice. For some: sure, veganism is a way of life chosen for its ethical and aesthetical reasoning (body scent, personal choice to not harm animals, etc). However, things STILL die to provide your fat ass nutrition, from every stalk of wheat down to the carrot juice you pureed with some bananas for breakfast. Death and the cessation of life is a natural force; entropy, likewise, is a vital source of the experience. Simply by not choosing to consciously consume animal flesh doesn’t make you absent from it; nor does it make your life cruelty-free.
Saying that I choose to be a vegetarian because it’s pure and natural and socially responsible is completely inaccurate – organically-grown vegetables harvested using migrant labor are far from socially responsible, and it’s a hard sell to buy everything “naturally” grown, since the standards for labeling something organic have slipped so far.
Choosing to be a vegetarian for the sake of being a vegetarian, for health reasons, for personal reasons, is fine. But evangelicizing vegetarian or veganism lifestyles because it affords one a self-ascribed moral high ground is not – and nothing makes me want to break out the barbecue beef ribs and have a few platters of veal than some holier-than-thou idiot asking me if I truly know the suffering of my food.
It’s the same for me as being asked, “Don’t you know that Jesus loves you?” For my money, Jesus would demonstrate his love for me a whole lot more by banishing people who ask me of this routinely. My religion is my personal choice, and fits into my “lifestyle” category (due primarily to a discussion of dietary guidelines between myself and two adherents of religious dietary guidelines – a Judaic scholar and a Hindu devotee).
Likewise I think most apologies fall somewhat into the same category. If I truly feel remorse for bumping someone in the grocery store with my cart, then I’d probably say, “Are you all right? Would you like me to call a doctor?” as opposed to, “Sorry”. And I’d get eyed with a certain amount of suspicion. Normal people don’t fall over themselves to apologize for minor bumps and physical contact.
Social boundaries and personal spaces excluded, there’s not a lot to apologize for, socially. Minor gaffes are covered up or forgotten.
If I’ve caused damage to someone with malicious intent, or unintentionally, and I feel remorse for it, I apologize. If I am making a personal decision that affects me, such as seeing a movie I don’t want to see, I won’t apologize for it, because that’s a personal decision. For instance, I feel no remorse for breaking up with the people whom I have had relationships in the past, because there were legitimate reasons for that decision. I can empathize with the ex-girlfriends I’ve had when I do break up, because it’s an emotional decision, but I don’t feel I should apologize for my decision.
But when I am wrong, and clearly so, and people are hurt or injured due to my error, I MUST apologize – that’s a socially accepted norm. But in order for me to do so, I have to make the personal determination that I *am* wrong.
In the next few weeks, the soldiers convicted of abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison will apologize to the world for their misdeeds. Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush have done so – in a backhanded manner. THEIR apologists have begun saying things that lead the populace to sing the praises of the administration – if not for directly condoning this behavior, then excusing it by saying, “We must know what the terrorist knows at any cost.”
Bush and Rumsfeld said, in essence, “We’re sorry about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal”. The question is whether they’re sorry the circumstances for its occurrence were ever put in place, or whether they’re sorry a service member who actually understood what a code of honor is stood up against the inherent corruption in the American political system.
I understand backhanded apologies very well, having used them multiple times in the past. I’m sorry I didn’t dump someone’s sorry ass sooner. I’m sorry I’ve had to explain myself four times to someone who just didn’t understand me. I’m sorry many people have chosen not to be my friend – and I’m sorry that in some circumstances, I’ve been snide, rude, and obnoxious to people that deserved every bit of it and more. Most of all, I’m sorry that there are people who can’t see the tip of their own nose – and I’m very sorry that for some very, very deserving individuals, retroactive abortion is illegal.
I know the soldiers who committed the crimes at AG are sorry – apologies from a convicted felon are always tinged with regret and sorrow – for his deeds and at getting caught for his deeds.
What makes a true apology, though, is true remorse. True repentance. And truly changing one’s behavior to atone for the sins committed. Hammurabi’s code still applies – an eye for an eye. There’s only so much that can be done before forgiveness can be earned. For the U.S. MPs accused of torture, and their chain of command (all the way up to the President) – I would have been much more inclined to forgive the sins committed at Abu Ghraib prison if the story had been released by the government…
…and not broken on CBS news.
For that matter, CBS itself needs to apologize, because they knew about it in January, and they sat on the story. Fulfilling a journalistic creed, perhaps – but only to the truths that do not embarrass the United States.
What’s the reason for an apology? What form does it really come from?
In one of the forums I participate in, we were discussing a theory of reasons.
The theory of reasons put forth by one Scott Maddix is that if asked to, say, watch a movie like Van Helsing, and I refuse, most times I will feel obligated to give a reason for my refusal. I could say that I heard the movie was slightly better than sticking my fingers into a wood chipper, or that I had to get up early the next morning, or that I was in the middle of writing a letter to the editor. Rarely will I ever say, “I just don’t want to see the movie, thanks,” and let it go at that. I need to give a reason for it.
Lots of people do this. It’s kind of like saying, “I don’t like fish”, and then explaining to the populace at large that it smells strange, that you never associated it with good food, that the flavor of tuna or the smell of the sea makes you nauseated, that you don’t like the number of bones, that it’s slightly creepy, and that at your friend’s Vietnamese wedding, the relatives at the next table picked the entire deep-fried fish (fried whole, mind you, head, eyeballs and all) down to the skull, and that particular image stuck with you through the entire week while the squid you DID eat danced the mambo on your intestines.
One of the people I most admire has the ability not to do this. He won’t say, “I don’t like the music” for a concert I want to attend, or “I’m gonna be wrecked that day”, or “I have political connections that won’t allow me to dance the boogaloo with you in public.” He just politely refuses, and if he feels in conversation that it’s pertinent to divulge the reasons, he brings them up. But never does he actually give a reason for his choice.
But nine times out of ten, someone WILL say, “I’m just not a big fan of music that’s country-western because it sounds too twangy to me.” Inevitably, someone will begin asking, “Well, what about Willie Nelson? What about alt-country? What about rockabilly? What about, what about, what about?”
We’re conditioned to ask about the preferences of others in order to explain and relate to each other. For instance, I know not to ask my friends who are vegan about the choices they have made for their food preferences, because their exact reasons are ridiculous to me, and therefore no real dialogue can occur.
As a side note: I detest it when people choose a “moral superiority” reason for their personal lifestyle choice. For some: sure, veganism is a way of life chosen for its ethical and aesthetical reasoning (body scent, personal choice to not harm animals, etc). However, things STILL die to provide your fat ass nutrition, from every stalk of wheat down to the carrot juice you pureed with some bananas for breakfast. Death and the cessation of life is a natural force; entropy, likewise, is a vital source of the experience. Simply by not choosing to consciously consume animal flesh doesn’t make you absent from it; nor does it make your life cruelty-free.
Saying that I choose to be a vegetarian because it’s pure and natural and socially responsible is completely inaccurate – organically-grown vegetables harvested using migrant labor are far from socially responsible, and it’s a hard sell to buy everything “naturally” grown, since the standards for labeling something organic have slipped so far.
Choosing to be a vegetarian for the sake of being a vegetarian, for health reasons, for personal reasons, is fine. But evangelicizing vegetarian or veganism lifestyles because it affords one a self-ascribed moral high ground is not – and nothing makes me want to break out the barbecue beef ribs and have a few platters of veal than some holier-than-thou idiot asking me if I truly know the suffering of my food.
It’s the same for me as being asked, “Don’t you know that Jesus loves you?” For my money, Jesus would demonstrate his love for me a whole lot more by banishing people who ask me of this routinely. My religion is my personal choice, and fits into my “lifestyle” category (due primarily to a discussion of dietary guidelines between myself and two adherents of religious dietary guidelines – a Judaic scholar and a Hindu devotee).
Likewise I think most apologies fall somewhat into the same category. If I truly feel remorse for bumping someone in the grocery store with my cart, then I’d probably say, “Are you all right? Would you like me to call a doctor?” as opposed to, “Sorry”. And I’d get eyed with a certain amount of suspicion. Normal people don’t fall over themselves to apologize for minor bumps and physical contact.
Social boundaries and personal spaces excluded, there’s not a lot to apologize for, socially. Minor gaffes are covered up or forgotten.
If I’ve caused damage to someone with malicious intent, or unintentionally, and I feel remorse for it, I apologize. If I am making a personal decision that affects me, such as seeing a movie I don’t want to see, I won’t apologize for it, because that’s a personal decision. For instance, I feel no remorse for breaking up with the people whom I have had relationships in the past, because there were legitimate reasons for that decision. I can empathize with the ex-girlfriends I’ve had when I do break up, because it’s an emotional decision, but I don’t feel I should apologize for my decision.
But when I am wrong, and clearly so, and people are hurt or injured due to my error, I MUST apologize – that’s a socially accepted norm. But in order for me to do so, I have to make the personal determination that I *am* wrong.
In the next few weeks, the soldiers convicted of abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison will apologize to the world for their misdeeds. Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush have done so – in a backhanded manner. THEIR apologists have begun saying things that lead the populace to sing the praises of the administration – if not for directly condoning this behavior, then excusing it by saying, “We must know what the terrorist knows at any cost.”
Bush and Rumsfeld said, in essence, “We’re sorry about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal”. The question is whether they’re sorry the circumstances for its occurrence were ever put in place, or whether they’re sorry a service member who actually understood what a code of honor is stood up against the inherent corruption in the American political system.
I understand backhanded apologies very well, having used them multiple times in the past. I’m sorry I didn’t dump someone’s sorry ass sooner. I’m sorry I’ve had to explain myself four times to someone who just didn’t understand me. I’m sorry many people have chosen not to be my friend – and I’m sorry that in some circumstances, I’ve been snide, rude, and obnoxious to people that deserved every bit of it and more. Most of all, I’m sorry that there are people who can’t see the tip of their own nose – and I’m very sorry that for some very, very deserving individuals, retroactive abortion is illegal.
I know the soldiers who committed the crimes at AG are sorry – apologies from a convicted felon are always tinged with regret and sorrow – for his deeds and at getting caught for his deeds.
What makes a true apology, though, is true remorse. True repentance. And truly changing one’s behavior to atone for the sins committed. Hammurabi’s code still applies – an eye for an eye. There’s only so much that can be done before forgiveness can be earned. For the U.S. MPs accused of torture, and their chain of command (all the way up to the President) – I would have been much more inclined to forgive the sins committed at Abu Ghraib prison if the story had been released by the government…
…and not broken on CBS news.
For that matter, CBS itself needs to apologize, because they knew about it in January, and they sat on the story. Fulfilling a journalistic creed, perhaps – but only to the truths that do not embarrass the United States.
Monday, May 17, 2004
The hilarious thing about John Kerry's daughter appearing in a see-through dress at the Cannes Film Festival is that not only are people screaming bloody murder (primarily about not voting for Kerry because of his daughter's choice of clothing) about a grown woman well above the age of consent (who makes her own choices about her clothing)...
...but that these same people were mysteriously silent during the drinking binges of Jenna and Barbara Bush, and also said Jeb Bush's own daughter (who's in prison for drug abuse, carrying on a fine familial tradition) was "on her own".
Apparently we're also not on speaking terms with Newt Gingrich's daughter, Dick Cheney's wife, or the Nixon daughters.
Admit it, you like the nipples. I like nipples. Hell, Cosmo, People, Newsweek, and thousands of other happy magazines show worse on the front cover. Sometimes the U.S. military even tries to lock down photos of naked Iraqi penises taken by corrupt, abusive prison guards.
Now shut the fuck up and find a better excuse.
...but that these same people were mysteriously silent during the drinking binges of Jenna and Barbara Bush, and also said Jeb Bush's own daughter (who's in prison for drug abuse, carrying on a fine familial tradition) was "on her own".
Apparently we're also not on speaking terms with Newt Gingrich's daughter, Dick Cheney's wife, or the Nixon daughters.
Admit it, you like the nipples. I like nipples. Hell, Cosmo, People, Newsweek, and thousands of other happy magazines show worse on the front cover. Sometimes the U.S. military even tries to lock down photos of naked Iraqi penises taken by corrupt, abusive prison guards.
Now shut the fuck up and find a better excuse.
Here’s my problem.
I am having the hardest time biting my tongue when I hear someone say in casual conversation, “We have to know what the terrorists know at any cost.”
Primarily because I work in a fairly conservative area, and my political opinions regarding this sort of workplace conversation are akin to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule – don’t ask me what I think and I won’t tell you that your position violates every humanitarian ideal clung to.
The apologists for the Abu Gharaib prison abuses have already lined up for their President, stating boldly and without caution, that the people who were being tortured for information were “murderers, killers, thieves, terrorists, and bad guys”. What strikes me most about that particular argument is not that it’s a snap judgement on the individual (by simple virtue of being an Iraqi, the individual, unproven to be any of those things, is automatically subjected to the label of rapist or murderer). Nor is it the obvious racial attack based upon the ethnicity of the individual.
No, it’s that the due process of law applies not to every human being the United States comes across, but only the people who aren’t United States citizens.
The argument that the United States is at “war” doesn’t apply – with whom has a formal declaration of war been filed? Who has declared war on Saddam Hussein? Make no mistake – the United States never declared official war on Iraq, because Congress never officially declared it. George Bush chose to perform a “military action”.
Part of the problem I have is that I want to say there’s nothing – absolutely nothing similar from Pearl Harbor and World War Two here. There is no national sacrifice. There’s no rationing system. There’s no popularity for the war. Hell, we got a tax break out of it – one that not only has no effect on the finances of the American people, but served only to make the top 1% of American society richer.
Every time someone says, “Well, we have to do this to protect Americans,” I am reminded of every Hitlerian speech denouncing the Jews as the destroyers of the German people’s lives. It’s not a far stretch from there to here. I am reminded that each time I hear this, I hear blind faith in a leader who rose to power on money and the established grace of a small number of ravenously fanatic neo-conservatives.
Then I hear the apologists say, “But we have to know what they know at any cost.”
The cost was the America I know and love. She was whored out for a personal vendetta. She’s being whored out even further every time someone says the actions of the soldiers was justified in ANY way – which is the precise message sent to my ears every time someone says that information must be gathered at any cost.
Ursula K. LeGuin has a short story called the ones who walk away from Omelaas. In the story, an entire nation lives in a utopia, free and happy and gloriously robust. It’s powerful and warm and peaceful. Yet in the darkest cellars of the city, there is a person taken at random every year. The person is not taken because of a crime – if they have committed a crime, they may expect to go; if not, they may fight to be freed. They are fed little food. They cannot sleep for more than ten minutes at a time. They are kept naked. Never allowed to exercise. Every so often a guard comes and beats them, asking them questions they cannot answer, nor ever could answer. Humiliated. Poisoned. At the end of the year the person is killed, and another person is chosen.
Based solely upon that, the city thrives and lives and is healthy. The utopia is maintained. If ever the tradition was broken, the individual let out, or the beatings ceased, the city would fall to ruin; the peace and the harmony would be destroyed.
The story ends noting that some of the people who live in the city are taken every year to see this prisoner, and to have it explained to them. The people who walk away from Omelaas are the ones who can’t stand to see this or live in a society where brutal treatment of another human being – never by their own hands – is what makes their society function.
Evidence that 90% of the U.S. Military roundups collect people of zero intelligence value is commonplace. Over two-thirds of the people in Guantanamo Bay, according to Washington insiders, are innocent of any crime whatsoever. And yet we keep them locked up. We allow sadistic guards from our corrupted prison systems to watch over them. We force them to perform shameful acts. And then our leadership frantically tries to cover up the fact that it ordered this – maybe not deliberately. Maybe not immediately. But it built a fraternity order where racist policy is the norm – and the nebulous “protection” of Americans (a mission most unaccomplished) touted as the primary mission, with no stone (or couch cushion) unturned by the administration.
The apologist I have no sympathy for. I also have no time for them. The apologist will ask, “What about all the GOOD things Bush has done?” The No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded and overzealous – and cannot be mandated by the federal government unless the education changes are federally funded – as mandated by the Supreme Court. The tax cuts benefit the upper 1% of all Americans – a good thing if you make over $250,000 a year; bad if your $25 per hour Boeing job was slashed and you had to take two full-time $7 per hour jobs to make ends meet.
To the apologist, I will always say, there’s no farking excuse for this behavior. There’s no justification. There’s nothing one can say that makes me believe that trotting out “defense of our way of life” will ever make the sexual assault of a prisoner acceptable. There’s nothing that could make me believe the violation of civil rights, (regardless of nationality) is ever proper.
Go ahead and call me a closet liberal. I actually agree with a friend when she says on the standard party lines, I’m a Republican. I believe in less government interference in my daily life. I believe in free choice, free enterprise, and free will. I believe that programs that suck up tax dollars at the expense of standardized, core value services, such as education and national security should be prohibited. I’ve been told I’m un-American, unpatriotic, sympathetic to the enemy, and demoralizing our soldiers by protesting the president’s decisions.
None of which have any affect upon me, because I know that I’m not the one who locks the innocent in the dungeon, and kills them at the end of a year. I’m not the one at the giving end of a nightstick enema. I’m not the one who invades under false pretenses. I’m not the one who gave the order to ignore the Geneva conventions, and treat prisoners as subhuman in order to obtain information.
I’m still the man who’ll walk away from Omelaas.
I still love America. I love her dearly. I love the people of the heartland and the people who make up the cities. But George Bush’s Amerika is rapidly becoming Omelaas.
At some point, we have to ask ourselves why we make excuses for it – or even if we are.
I am having the hardest time biting my tongue when I hear someone say in casual conversation, “We have to know what the terrorists know at any cost.”
Primarily because I work in a fairly conservative area, and my political opinions regarding this sort of workplace conversation are akin to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule – don’t ask me what I think and I won’t tell you that your position violates every humanitarian ideal clung to.
The apologists for the Abu Gharaib prison abuses have already lined up for their President, stating boldly and without caution, that the people who were being tortured for information were “murderers, killers, thieves, terrorists, and bad guys”. What strikes me most about that particular argument is not that it’s a snap judgement on the individual (by simple virtue of being an Iraqi, the individual, unproven to be any of those things, is automatically subjected to the label of rapist or murderer). Nor is it the obvious racial attack based upon the ethnicity of the individual.
No, it’s that the due process of law applies not to every human being the United States comes across, but only the people who aren’t United States citizens.
The argument that the United States is at “war” doesn’t apply – with whom has a formal declaration of war been filed? Who has declared war on Saddam Hussein? Make no mistake – the United States never declared official war on Iraq, because Congress never officially declared it. George Bush chose to perform a “military action”.
Part of the problem I have is that I want to say there’s nothing – absolutely nothing similar from Pearl Harbor and World War Two here. There is no national sacrifice. There’s no rationing system. There’s no popularity for the war. Hell, we got a tax break out of it – one that not only has no effect on the finances of the American people, but served only to make the top 1% of American society richer.
Every time someone says, “Well, we have to do this to protect Americans,” I am reminded of every Hitlerian speech denouncing the Jews as the destroyers of the German people’s lives. It’s not a far stretch from there to here. I am reminded that each time I hear this, I hear blind faith in a leader who rose to power on money and the established grace of a small number of ravenously fanatic neo-conservatives.
Then I hear the apologists say, “But we have to know what they know at any cost.”
The cost was the America I know and love. She was whored out for a personal vendetta. She’s being whored out even further every time someone says the actions of the soldiers was justified in ANY way – which is the precise message sent to my ears every time someone says that information must be gathered at any cost.
Ursula K. LeGuin has a short story called the ones who walk away from Omelaas. In the story, an entire nation lives in a utopia, free and happy and gloriously robust. It’s powerful and warm and peaceful. Yet in the darkest cellars of the city, there is a person taken at random every year. The person is not taken because of a crime – if they have committed a crime, they may expect to go; if not, they may fight to be freed. They are fed little food. They cannot sleep for more than ten minutes at a time. They are kept naked. Never allowed to exercise. Every so often a guard comes and beats them, asking them questions they cannot answer, nor ever could answer. Humiliated. Poisoned. At the end of the year the person is killed, and another person is chosen.
Based solely upon that, the city thrives and lives and is healthy. The utopia is maintained. If ever the tradition was broken, the individual let out, or the beatings ceased, the city would fall to ruin; the peace and the harmony would be destroyed.
The story ends noting that some of the people who live in the city are taken every year to see this prisoner, and to have it explained to them. The people who walk away from Omelaas are the ones who can’t stand to see this or live in a society where brutal treatment of another human being – never by their own hands – is what makes their society function.
Evidence that 90% of the U.S. Military roundups collect people of zero intelligence value is commonplace. Over two-thirds of the people in Guantanamo Bay, according to Washington insiders, are innocent of any crime whatsoever. And yet we keep them locked up. We allow sadistic guards from our corrupted prison systems to watch over them. We force them to perform shameful acts. And then our leadership frantically tries to cover up the fact that it ordered this – maybe not deliberately. Maybe not immediately. But it built a fraternity order where racist policy is the norm – and the nebulous “protection” of Americans (a mission most unaccomplished) touted as the primary mission, with no stone (or couch cushion) unturned by the administration.
The apologist I have no sympathy for. I also have no time for them. The apologist will ask, “What about all the GOOD things Bush has done?” The No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded and overzealous – and cannot be mandated by the federal government unless the education changes are federally funded – as mandated by the Supreme Court. The tax cuts benefit the upper 1% of all Americans – a good thing if you make over $250,000 a year; bad if your $25 per hour Boeing job was slashed and you had to take two full-time $7 per hour jobs to make ends meet.
To the apologist, I will always say, there’s no farking excuse for this behavior. There’s no justification. There’s nothing one can say that makes me believe that trotting out “defense of our way of life” will ever make the sexual assault of a prisoner acceptable. There’s nothing that could make me believe the violation of civil rights, (regardless of nationality) is ever proper.
Go ahead and call me a closet liberal. I actually agree with a friend when she says on the standard party lines, I’m a Republican. I believe in less government interference in my daily life. I believe in free choice, free enterprise, and free will. I believe that programs that suck up tax dollars at the expense of standardized, core value services, such as education and national security should be prohibited. I’ve been told I’m un-American, unpatriotic, sympathetic to the enemy, and demoralizing our soldiers by protesting the president’s decisions.
None of which have any affect upon me, because I know that I’m not the one who locks the innocent in the dungeon, and kills them at the end of a year. I’m not the one at the giving end of a nightstick enema. I’m not the one who invades under false pretenses. I’m not the one who gave the order to ignore the Geneva conventions, and treat prisoners as subhuman in order to obtain information.
I’m still the man who’ll walk away from Omelaas.
I still love America. I love her dearly. I love the people of the heartland and the people who make up the cities. But George Bush’s Amerika is rapidly becoming Omelaas.
At some point, we have to ask ourselves why we make excuses for it – or even if we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)