Ya Think?

In a statement bearing as much surprise as an announcement that water quenches thirst, David Petraeus says the plans of a church (here I go again, bashing Christians) to burn Korans on 9/11 could endanger lives of our troops. Gee. Really? Think it even might turn friends into enemies?

These people are idiots. (Among other things, lost on them like warmth on a witch's tit is the association of book-burning with the sorts of people they claim to abhor.) They exemplify perfectly the poison that people pour into our body politic, in the name of some perverted idea of faith, of right and wrong. Worse (though not by much) than the anti-non-mosque at non-ground-zero crowd, they're not just expressing a short-sighted and narrow-minded opinion, they're deliberately trying to enflame. Both, though, are clearly doing us harm. And yet I'm sure they'd all say that our wars are god's work, and that they support the troops 100% (as long as they don't have to pay taxes to do it.)

In words that should be in my previous post, on irony, Sarah Palin, hater of non-mosques at non-ground-zero, has this refudiation of book burning:

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

The man of god has announced they're going ahead as planned. He's a guy who wants his country back, I assume. Which one would that be? Not, evidently, the one with lifted lamp.

Some have raised concern that it's not up to military leaders to make judgments on civilian activities, even such noxious ones as this. I think they have a point, and this article makes it well:

I've long argued that the way Americans treat Islam and Muslims definitely has an effect on the fight against terrorism abroad, but I'm uncomfortable with Petraeus drawing a direct line of responsibility between whether or not American troops live or die and whether or not a group of radicals holds a "burn the Quran day." There's something about that statement that crosses the line for me -- I just don't think that in a democracy people in uniform are the proper arbiters of what constitutes appropriate free expression, even when it's an event with fascist overtones as obvious as a public book burning. Suffice it to say that if Republican elites were committed to tamping down Islamophobic hysteria rather than exploiting it and Democratic officials were less timid about assembling a national-security narrative in which America was strengthened instead of weakened by its tolerance and religious plurality, we wouldn't be here.

Still, someone needs to call out the fundamental stupidity and destructiveness of the planned burning. And I find the last sentence, above, by far the most important, which is why I bolded it, and have said as much before. Rs are fomenting hysteria for political gain, at obvious cost to our country, and they couldn't care less. (The party leaders have been notably mum.) And Ds have failed to point out the obvious ways in which American tolerance and pluralism are part of our strength.

More thoughts on the military/civilian thing, here. A salient comment therefrom:

In my view, the general crossed a line. But he did so out of a sense of responsibility - as in his insistence on the importance of the Israel-Palestine question to the broader war. Alas, I see the American far right - in which I include the likely Republican candidates for president - crossing far worse lines of incitement out of irresponsibility and cheap politics. And then a farce like Palin - who wants more aggressive Israeli settlement in the West Bank and conflates the Cordoba complex with bin Laden - simultaneously declares her love for the troops.

And what is the price for her? It wins her votes. It flatters her vanity. It rouses the true believers. And it helps lose the war. (emphasis mine, big surprise.)

As usual, I don't know which is more depressing: that we have a party (and its universal propaganda wing of the airwaves and photons) shamelessly using hate as a political tool; or that there are so many Americans only too happy (or too stupid not) to be used this way.

Okay, I do know: it's the latter, by far. For it is on their backs that we ride ourselves to oblivion.

[Update: he's canceling it. Good for him. And he plans to meet with Imam Rauf. Hope he reads this first. It's pomegranates and hand grenades.]

[Update #2: Gates called him. Love to have heard the conversation. And the conversations before the conversation.]

He Should Come Here

That urologist who posted a sign in his office telling Obama voters to go away? Seems he'd be a perfect negative commenter here. Turns out he doesn't know what he's talking about. Angry as hell, all right. And perfectly uninformed:

The urologist specifically argued that officials, in light of the new law, are "cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services."

Colmes: What do you mean they're cutting nursing homes?

Cassell: They're cutting nursing home reimbursements.

Colmes: Isn't what they're cutting under the Medicare plan what was really double dipping; they were getting credits and they were getting to deduct them at the same time.

Cassell: Well you know, I can't tell you exactly what the deal is. [emphasis added]

Colmes: If you can't tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?

Cassell: What I get online, just like any other American. What I'm supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.

Colmes: It is; it's been online for a long time; it's also been all over the media.....

...For the record, Cassell's rhetoric about "cutting nursing homes" notwithstanding, the National Association of Home Care and Hospice praised the Democratic plan.

Yep. He'd fit right in.

On The Other Hand...

If Obama occasionally disappoints, this guy is simply stunning. And he's the friggin' LEADER OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS!!!!

First of all, as most people know, cows don't respire out their asses. It's methane, Mr Leader.

Second, to say carbon dioxide can't be harmful because we exhale it is like saying water can't drown people because we drink it.

Also, Mr Bo(eh)ner, you might want to look up the meaning of "carcinogen."

As I said earlier, I have to reconcile myself to the fact that there will always be thirty-percenters out there. But it's sort of hard to take when they're the ones floating at the top of the Republican party.

Like steatorrhea.
.

Patriots

Another month of enormous job losses. Over four million lost since the beginning of the recession. Fear, trembling, panic.

And still, all we get from the Republicans in Congress is obstruction and idiocy. John (Don't-pronounce-it-like-it-looks) Boehner calls for a government spending freeze for the rest of the year. This is the quality of their leadership, the best of their ideas. Even more dumbfounding is the lack of commentary in the media pointing out how stupid it is. It's like the emperor and his clothes: no one is willing -- no one of importance, anyway -- to stand up and say the guy is a f*cking moron. (Well, actually David Brooks, medium-coherent conservative depending on which direction he's bouncing on the I like Obama I hate Obama seesaw he's been of late, said something, three days after I started writing this.) (And, it seems, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. [May I also say I write many of these posts ahead of time. This was finished before I came upon the linked commentary. With which I wholeheartedly agree.])

As is obvious from my writing, I simply can't get my mind around it. In the greatest economic crisis since the Depression (and who knows where the bottom is?), you'd think all parties would work to find solutions. And you'd think that even those who disagree with Obama's approach would at least allow that he's making an honest attempt. But no. It's politics beyond usual. And the noise machines have ramped up the vitriol to frightening levels. And that I mean most literally. Abandoning even the prior pretense of "fairness and balance" (yeah, like "murder" means massage, "sunbeam" means soupbowl), Fox News announces a fight to the death (which could turn out to be true) with Obama. Morning to night, there's no lie too big to spread, no dire motive too insane to attribute. He's trying to destroy us! He's making up the crisis!! He wants to take over as a permanent dictator!!! He hates successful people!!!!

Under George Bush, the prevailing ethic was no-holds-barred greed and wealth aggregation in the few at the top. Some people made out like crazy and, obviously, didn't care a bit about the hole that was being dug for everyone else. What kind of idiot worries about a false economy if they're doing great? Who cares about the meaning of patriotism and country, if they're just words to allow obfuscation? So it's hard, even for a non-cynical soul like me, not to believe that this furious resistance is only about preservation of their riches and power, and not at all about what they think is right for the country. Showing absolutely no desire to help, their cynicism and unchecked self-interest is breathtaking. Their willingness to do and say anything, no matter how outrageous or self-evidently false is of unimaginable scope. An entire party, with a single mind, has decided not to help in any way, in a time of undeniable need. Not only not help: to apply effort only to destruction, without advancing a single useful idea.

In fairness, to do otherwise would require a complete rethinking of their paradigm; it would mean a shift from thinking only of self, to believing that there's merit in considering the country as a whole. That being only very rich instead of immeasurably rich could have long-term trade-offs that would be worthy.

(When the Seattle Mariners offered A-Rod a mere eighteen million a year, he felt disrespected, and went away and took steroids.)

Where's the outrage? Where's the so-called liberal press calling it what it is? Stupid, empty, hyperpartisan. Dangerous, destructive, unhelpful. Insane.

After 9/11, which was not anywhere near the threat to our survival that the current economic crisis is, Democrats -- who were in the minority in both houses of Congress -- rallied around the president. For whatever wrong reasons, many of them voted to authorize the Iraq invasion. They worked on and agreed to the ironically named "Patriot Act." Common peril led to common effort. Misguided, credulous, poorly conceived; but common effort. President Bush, it was believed by all, was doing what he thought best for the country. Until it was obvious the war was a disaster, and that Bush had taken advantage of the crisis to advance a very dangerous theory of presidential power*, there was broad support of his efforts to respond to the terrorist attack, setting aside misgivings and giving benefit of doubt. But that was Democrats. You know, the party that blames America first, according to Bill O'Reilly. That hates their country, according to Sarah Palin.

The contrast, in this crisis, with Republicans in the minority, is striking, and deeply disturbing. Among the entire lot of them in Congress, there were only three willing to help. Among the shouting class, and their propaganda machine, not a single one. Before a nickel of the stimulus money was spent, there was universal resistance and condemnation. Hope for failure. Only the most horrible of motives have been ascribed to President Obama. There's absolutely no evidence of desire to help the country; only to continue to help themselves to the spoils. Except for Democrats, among those who have means there is no willingness to give up anything for the greater good. None. It's astounding.

And devastating. We're irreparably broken politically, and it will kill us.

Where did the patriots go? What happened to love of country among those who claim to own it? Only when it can be used to enrich themselves is the concept of use to them. Sacrifice? Pitch in? Compromise? I spit on your sacrifice, I reject your call for common effort and common ground. I have principles.

Principles. What are they, exactly? And where were they for the last eight years?
_______________________________

*Talk about irony: commonly repeated with horror, from the right, is Rahm Emanuel's statement that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. Which is exactly what Bush did with 9/11, trying to turn a presidency on the rocks after nine short months, into a monarchy. But hypocrisy is the mother's milk of politics.
.

Plumbing The Depths

Words come with difficulty. Bizarre. Unbelievable. Depressing. There are many more, but they seem to be piling up behind my right eye, building, plowing into it, hot, painful. Is this really an election? Can this truly be the centerpiece of a campaign as our economy collapses, deficits overwhelm all understanding, wars lumber on, oil runs out? Does John McCain mean what he says? Is this really an American hero, the role model of a senator and presidential candidate? He has a job for him in his administration? Famous for asking a single question, the guy later admitting he'd be better off in under Obama's tax plan. Now known for misrepresenting his situation, and for being under a lien over unpaid taxes!?!? Do the words "hero" and "role model" no longer have any meaning? In these times, are we that empty?

Nausea makes it hard to laugh, and crying does no good. The spectacle of John McCain elevating Joe (with his agent, his record contract, his offer from Laura Ingraham to mastermind a run for congress) to a national figure says a great deal about the current state of the Republican party: to whom they are trying to appeal and how little they think of those folks. And, of course, it says something pretty pathetic about the ones who cheer him on. It's not surprising that the party of Sarah Palin -- a singularly unprepared national figure -- would lionize a guy like ol' Joe. It's of a piece, I guess, with their criticisms of Barack Obama, a man of undeniable intelligence and depth, who's been thinking and learning and writing and talking about important issues for years. One can only conclude that dumb is their direction, that they've ceded the high ground, taken a pass on policy.

I'm sure Joe is a nice guy (actually, I'm not: he seems sort of nasty, and he is either really poorly informed or such a partisan that -- like the one who idolizes him -- he finds facts mere annoyances. Israel, he tells a crowd, is threatened with doom if Obama is elected. Marxism, he warns, taking up the latest deception.) I like plumbers. Plumbers have bailed me out, quite literally, more than once. I've even learned a little about their craft from watching them. I liked taking care of people with grease under their nails more than I did fancier professionals. But there's something surpassingly weird about this lionization and fawning by McPalin and their media sponsors. And it's not just that Republican policies over the years have been disproportionately disadvantageous to such blue collar folk.

In the near future I plan to write a little about the dumbing down of this country. It's undeniable. I blame Republicans: not all, just the most "base," as it were. The deniers of global warming. The rejecters of evolution, the young-earthers. The redacters of scientific facts. They're in the White House, they're in every state -- especially the South. They're in megachurches, sending money to their preachers who spend it on fancy homes and porn. Seriously. It's a curse on us all, because they can turn elections. They don't want hard; they don't want complex; they need enemies -- they cling to them, one might say, whether it's the devil, Muslims, or Democrats -- to keep themselves motivated and from facing reality. They think small, they think bumper-sticker thoughts. They love Joe the Plumber, but they really can't admit why. They would, however, happily vote for him. When the going gets tough, the weak get stupid.

A campaign, based on a myth. The ultimate rejection of seriousness. Vacuity as value. Anti-intellectualism as archetype.

It's funny.

But really, it's not.