« Worse Than We Thought | Main | Well Isn't This Just Like A Man... »

August 29, 2005

Because I'm Bored

My God, it's like watching a train wreck.

I just can't stay away. I now know why some people watch reality TV.

The HuffPo is the comedy gift that just keeps on giving. What in the name of all that's Holy is up with this?

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.

Mein Gott Im Himmel! Does he have to spell it out for you people???? HURRICANE KATRINA IS AN RNC PLOT!!!!

In March of 2001, just two days after EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman’s strong statement affirming Bush’s CO2 promise former RNC Chief Barbour responded with an urgent memo to the White House.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! with evidence like that, the Shrub is goin' down! Can you say I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T? Good God. I have never been a fan of the Kennedys, but this is really a sad, sad day.

sally_struthers3.jpg And then there's this, which just made me think of those awful commercials with Sally Struthers:





Either way, I'm rapidly becoming addicted to Greg Gutfield. Just watching him bust on Deepak Chopra is enough to align my chakras well into the next millenium:

Because peace comes at a price, and no one knows that better than the leader of the modern peace movement himself, Deepak Chopra! Jeez! I hope he'll talk more about good and evil, and how you can't tell them apart! I love it when he makes peaceful sense of genocide - Like the way he wrote that the Holocaust happened not simply because Hitler was, like, evil - but because, like the present day, "all countries on both sides of the terror divide are enmeshed in the same conflicted mind set. The inability to accept and respect dissimilar views of the world is present. "

It's true - we really do hate it when people get gassed. But whether you gas people, or stop people from being gassed - it's all the same! We’re all just gases anyway. We really need to get out of the US vs Them mindset, people. Well, unless you're the U.S. Then "the blame for whatever follows will fall on America's head."

Man, he MUST take his peace train to the Sudan! I bet the randy thugs would really get into his sessions on "synchrodestiny," which might explore the "unfathomable mysteries of karma." Deepak could hold the session in a hot tub. Surrounded by carrots and potatoes. Or are those the floating entrails of African Inland Church members provided by friendly Muslim slave traders? Either way, it's all good people!

Posted by Cassandra at August 29, 2005 07:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Because I'm Bored:

» Breakfast: 8/30/2005 from basil's blog
Try one of these specials with your breakfast: WuzzaDem googles Cindy. Jay Tea (Wizbang) follows up his post on Muslim Americans. Cao looks at the Saddam-Bin Laden link. Assumption of Command finds a similarity between Iraq and Vietnam. The Volokh [Read More]

Tracked on August 30, 2005 06:26 AM


I don't know about regulating CO2, but we better damn well do something about all this unregulated Hydrogen.

Posted by: Pile On at August 29, 2005 10:02 PM

This reminds me of the Lucas philosophy. Young Annakin is taught about moral relativism by the Darth Sidious, which we all recognize as evil. "It is just a matter of perspective Anniken" he hissed. When Anniken spouts off this relativism to Obi, Obi replies that "then you are lost."

But later, when Anniken tells Obi that you're either "with me or against me" Obi says that "absolutes are the dark side talking."

Huh? I thought the Jedi were all about absolutes, right and wrong, and "perspective and relativists" were all about the Dark Side. But then, that wouldn't make for a Bush Bashing scene now would it?

Posted by: KJ at August 30, 2005 02:00 PM

In the Fog of War, I recall Robert McNamara stating that if we'd lost WWII, he and others would have been convicted of war crimes.

Posted by: Nathan at August 30, 2005 02:51 PM

Well, that depends. Consider who would have won if we'd lost WWII - people who were making lampshades out of other people's skin and purposely set out to exterminate the Jews. Lovely.

On the other hand, there were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We made a deliberate decision to kill a whole lot of people quickly in the hopes of bringing an end to the war instead of letting it drag on, and on, and on. When you look at the sheer numbers we lost, that may not have been an indefensible decision, but my God, the cost...

That's the crappy thing about war. The winners tend to make up the rules, so you hope the more ethical (or at least the more restrained) side wins.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 30, 2005 03:00 PM

I agree, but McNamara's comment seemed to be more of a statement about his and others' actions during the war than a statement about the other side's ethics/morals.

I just found it interesting that in what was perhaps the most clearcut case of good vs. evil in world history (WWII), one of the primary U.S. war architects considered his actions tantamount to war crimes. This indicates (to me anyway) that life (and certainly war) is never black and white...and, to make my point relevant, this is where Chopra's view makes some sense. If WWII was perhaps coal grey and off-white, certainly Iraq is pretty darn grey.

I also wanted to tell you guys that my grandfather - a highly religious, WWII veteran, former plant manager of the only factory making machine guns for U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam war, a loyal Fox news watching Republican, etc. - has finally turned against the Iraq war telling me this weekend that 1) he thinks the Iraq war was a horrible mistake, and 2) we shouldn't even be over there.

Posted by: Nathan at August 30, 2005 03:24 PM

I'm sure he has his reasons Nathan, but as you know, I don't agree. The Iraqis have a Constitution now, which is what we're trying to accomplish.

We're not going to re-fight the war here. This is going to be a long haul, but if we're successful we have a chance to transform the MiddleEast and give these people the chance to govern themselves instead of being ruled at gunpoint by a man who showed no compunction about gassing 5000 men, women, and children who'd done nothing to him. Talk about war crimes. And then there are all those mass graves.

The bottom line is, he's gone, we're there now, and we need to stay and finish the job or our credibility will be shot and our word worthless in the eyes of the world, and worse, as in 1991, we will have encouraged the Iraqis to hope, only to pull the rug out from under them just as they were ready to try for independence. Then they will be slaughtered as the Kurds were in Halabja because we listened to the voice of "international consensus" and 'reason' and showed mercy to a homicidal madman who used weapons of mass destruction on women and children.

No thanks. We need to finish the job.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 30, 2005 03:36 PM

"we have a chance to transform the MiddleEast and give these people the chance to govern themselves instead of being ruled at gunpoint by a man who showed no compunction about gassing 5000 men, women, and children who'd done nothing to him."

Well, I guess I don't see the difference between being ruled by Saddam or by fanatical Shiite clerics who will actually degrade the rights of women and shoot barbers who shave men's faces. I'm all for stopping genocide, but if that was our goal, we should have done it over a decade ago when it was actually occurring.

"The bottom line is, he's gone, we're there now, and we need to stay and finish the job or our credibility will be shot and our word worthless in the eyes of the world."

Ah, our credibility's already shot (remember those WMDs that were supposed to be there) - I think that's one of the things my Grandfather is most upset about. The inability to admit a mistake and correct it only makes our credibility worse, not better.

"Then they will be slaughtered as the Kurds were in Halabja because we listened to the voice of "international consensus" and 'reason' and showed mercy to a homicidal madman."

They're being slaughtered as it is. Ultimately, the Shiite's population advantage and close ties to Iran (arms, money, etc.) ensures that they'll dominate the country whether we're there or not. And the Sunnis won't (and aren't) taking kindly to this situation - the endgame (civil war) looks pretty inevitable to me. But most importantly, and this is the question I want you to answer Cassandra, why should America sacrifice its sons and daughters to support one group of Islamic fanatics over another?

Posted by: Nathan at August 30, 2005 04:00 PM

You are asserting facts not in evidence.

They are trying to build a democratic state and we are trying to help them.

Just because things may look inevitable to you does not mean they are, and I don't have to defend against your assessment of something that may not come to pass. And they are not being "slaughtered". A small number of people are being killed - the vast majority are able to go about their daily business. That will not be the case if we leave - that is WHY they are fighting - that is what they WANT.

I do not have time to argue this with you, and at any rate, you already know what I'm going to say, so it's quite pointless. Let's stop trying to crank one up, OK?

Posted by: Cassandra at August 30, 2005 04:08 PM

I just want to clarify this one point and I'll drop it. Are you saying the Shiites running the government we're trying to protect are not bent on establishing Islamic law as well as forging close ties to Iran? Is the Badr Corps not kicking the crap out of(and killing, as Steve Vincent found out) anyone not following their version of Islamic law? Are these people not radical Islamists?

Posted by: Nathan at August 30, 2005 04:22 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Have you bothered to read the Iraqi Constitution Nathan? Because I have. What, you think because their skin is brown or they worship a different God that they are sub-human?

Good Lord. Steven Vincent was in Basra, which is controlled by the British, and that shows, as well as anything, the folly of trying to hand everything over too soon. Not everyone is a radical - there are many moderates in Iraq too. They were a great people once - a civilized and tolerant people.

You have to try to inculcate Democratic values, and that takes TIME. That is part and parcel of what the Marines are trying to do as they train up the Iraqi Army. When the Marines put men and women through boot camp, they don't just stick a fricking M16 in their hands, they train the whole person.

It is supposed to be a life-changing experience, and it is. These people, many of them, WANT democracy. And they are not stupid. You are selling them short, and I am not going to argue this with you.

It will be up to them eventually, to make this work. But the people ON THE FRICKING GROUND OVER THERE, THE ONES WHO COME OUT OF THEIR GODDAMNED HOTELS AND TALK TO THE IRAQIS think they have a decent chance of doing it.

It's mostly the cynical journalists and politicians who are cowering in their hotel rooms who have their heads between their legs kissing their tuckusses goodbye.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 30, 2005 04:36 PM

All right, I think you've got some pretty expensive rose-colored glasses on, but whatever...I'll bookmark your page and shoot you off another message when Georgie's term is up and things are either 1) just as bad or 2) much, much worse. Of course, Fitzgerald may get to him first...

Posted by: Nathan at August 30, 2005 04:51 PM

Just one minor point about something Nathan said. He said:

"I'm all for stopping genocide, but if that was our goal, we should have done it over a decade ago when it was actually occurring."

People against this war often bring up the following counter points: (1) we should have done it 1992; (2) Iran is more dangerous, why not them; (3) NK is more dangerous, why not them.

People opposed to the Iraq War ex ante were never in a million years willing to say, ex ante, yes to war in scenario 1, 2 or 3. So please, all of you tempted to make one of these arguments, shut the fuck up about Gulf War I, Iran and North Korea. You wouldn't have supported a Bush war against them at that time either -- your argument is irrelevant.

Posted by: KJ at August 30, 2005 05:15 PM

There is a problem to the 'should have' argument. Yeah, there are a lot of should haves in this world. I should have stopped at that last stop sign. I should have gassed up my car before getting on the highway. I should have studied to get a better grade. I should have paid more attention to my child. I should have... I should have. Just because I should have done something before, doesn't mean I should continue that pattern. Yes, we should have helped fix things before... back in 1992. But we didn't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do so now.

Posted by: ceramic at August 30, 2005 05:28 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)