In light of years of bullshit in my journal, and, finally, of my spending two hours yesterday when I got home responding to petty horseshit instead of caring for my newborn daughter, I have created these rules for my journal, in the interest of helping all those who mean as well as burninginwater.
ROBERT'S JOURNAL RULES
1. Assume that Robert is interested in debate, and not in simply recording and/or sharing his thoughts for Posterity in his own journal.
2. Assume that Robert has posted frivolously, not even having given his words adequate thought. Corollary: he has just been waiting for you to enlighten him.
3. Assume that Robert really knows better than to disagree with you, despite any opposition he pretends to give, and that he is merely waiting for the right face-saving time to reverse himself, proclaim you wiser than he, and congratulate you on your brilliance. Though you may have seen him pretend to be persuaded by others, it is clear that in your case he is arbitrary, capricious, and stubbornly obstinate to spite you personally (while at the same time too cowardly to admit his obvious error). Take his responses as personal attacks on your honor, or dismiss him as irrational. Either way, reject his view if it is not yours.
4. Assume that your own motives in attacking his obvious absurdities are disinterested, dispassionate, and entirely noble. After all, it is your duty to enlighten him with your brilliance. He has just been waiting for it, and you owe it to him. Bring him out of his darkness with your light!
5. After he has done you the courtesy of responding, again pretending to be sure of what he thinks and not at all persuaded by you, raise irrelevant issues and engage in personal attacks. When all else fails to persuade him that now is the right time to reverse course out of deference to you, unfriend him--blaming him for failing to realise your superiority. After all, he asked to be corrected by posting thoughts different from your own, which he couldn't possibly have truly thought! No one could have.
6. Sulk, and raise supporters to your cause to defame him. Nothing says Truth and Justice like slander!
7. Remember to express sorrow for his closed-mindedness, with words such as " . . . I don't feel as though anyone else's experience, intellect, or education really, honestly matters to you." (all_hail_duke) It is very important after Robert has spent hours reading, considering, and answering your comments to accuse him of not caring or being open to other points of view. Be sure to fail to weigh the possibility that Robert considered your points but simply disagreed, was sure of his disagreement, and had thought about all your arguments on his own before you made them--and dismissed them for good reasons. Take this as personally as you would any other mortal insult.
8. Continue to persist in your views, dismissing his, even as you attack his closed-mindedness.
9. Never, ever thank him for his courtesy and respect, no matter how many times he attempts to explain himself despite his better judgement.
10. EVERYONE MUST AGREE WITH ME. "It is Robert who thinks that, not me," keep telling yourself.
I expect you all to adhere to these rules from now.
While the thoughts, words, and positions of others matter to me, I reserve the right to decide what I think.110 comments | comment
There is a certain freelance editor on Facebook who does very well, and good for him. He lives off his editing. He thinks he is a great editor, and others think he is a great editor. I do not think he is a great editor. I own a book he edited, and I found so many errors in it I could hardly believe someone paid him to edit it. He and I differ on grammar, and that is fine too. But the last straw was this post, yesterday:
One reason to love my editing client, Author Jamie McGuire, and her incredibly successful novel, "Beautiful Disaster" is sentences like this: "Locals could smell a hustler from a mile away, but I had two things in my favor that covered the scent of any con: Youth…and tits."
Let's run through the list:
1. Unless "Author" is Jamie's first name, there is no reason to capitalize "author".
2. His first two commas imply she is his only client. They should not be there.
3. His third comma implies it is her only novel. That may be true, but it should not be there, because he is discussing "her novel Beautiful Disaster". Not "her novel, Beautiful Disaster".
4. That brings me to the fact that the title of the novel should be italicized, not in quotation marks.
5. The word "incredible" is most often used improperly, and this is just another example of this. The word "incredible" means "impossible to believe". As in, "Bush's claims of WMD were incredible." NOT as in "her incredible success". "Incredible" does NOT mean "amazing" or "impressive". I blame the show That's Incredible! for twisting the meaning.
6. After the colon, the "y" should not be capitalized, because we are still in the same sentence, in my view. I know that Americans like to do things that don't make sense, so I say "in my view". But I don't like it.
7. The ellipses . . . should have spaces before, between, and behind them.
8. "One reason to love [this writer] is sentences like this"? No. He's missing part of his sentence.
How about:
"One reason to love [this writer] is her tendency to/propensity to/habit of writing sentences like this"
Or:
"Among the many reasons to love [this writer] are sentences like this".
In any case, the parts must agree.
My high-school students write better than this, and this guy is an editor? I just can't stomach it any more.
If you don't care about things like these, hire him. If you do, I'm available for $40 an hour, just like him.
I am not going to name him. I am not going to diss him on Facebook. I am not going to share my feelings with our mutual friends who employ him. But I had to get them out someplace. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! He STINKS!
18 comments | comment
These prices will remain in effect until March 9. If you have read my journal and liked it, you might like my actual serious work. If you have read one of these and would like to share it with someone else, now is the time to buy him or her a gift! These book prices will not be this low again for at least another year!
My wife and I are moving from the United States to Saipan in three weeks. (I am the only man in America who just got a teaching job. The problem is it's not in America!) We are looking into quarantining one of our two cats, whom we have had for eight years. We very much need to find a new home for the other, whom we just got last year (August 3, in fact). He's a grey-and-white tabby, short haired, with cute white paws, named Kalamazoo ("Zoo-Zoo").
Zoo-Zoo is affectionate, playful, and smart. He is neutered.
These pictures are from last year, when he was a kitten. He is still handsome.
Someone please give him a home, because our local Humane Society, Cat Adoption Team, and other no-kill shelters have waiting lists months long and I have to be on Saipan on September 1! We are trying desperately to find him a new home.
The Cat Adoption Team said, "We apologize that we are unable to take your cat, but as I am sure you can understand, there are so many folks who are unable to keep their cats due to moving and the economy we just don't have room right now like we would like to."
Before you decide we waited too long to find him a home, please know that we didn't know we were moving to Saipan until now--I only just got the job.
//
ONLY FOR FRIENDS: If I know you, I will provide a financial incentive. If you agree to provide (or find, after we leave) a home for Zoo-Zoo, we will compensate you financially. Please contact me for more information.
As you know, I write letters of praise all the time, because I feel very strongly that good work should be acknowledged. I feel equally strongly that bad work should be. As a result, I am posting this letter everyplace I can, and this is my first public entry in a long time.
//
M. Musquin:
Yesterday evening my wife, my daughter, and I ate at your restaurant, Le Bouchon. You assaulted our daughter and insulted us, and we will never return.
It was obvious you cared more for your cheap carafe than you did for your customers. The carafe was on the table because your waitress Gigi understands customer service. She did an outstanding job. Instead of berating your staff for actually treating me well, you should have been thanking her. Tea is very important to me (I drank two carafes full). I was very conscious of the location of the carafe, and I would never spill it. To suggest that I would break your precious carafe is to imply that I am thoughtless oaf, which I am not. “I only have one,” you said. So? It was in no danger, and if you continue treating your customers like crap, soon you will have none.
You also overreacted to our daughter touching your mirror. Yes, the mirror moved, and she was surprised. But I told her to be careful, and she was studying what had happened so as not to move it again. Everything was fine until you grabbed her and gave her to my wife rudely (and impatiently) saying, “Keep your kid.” Again, you implied that we did not know what we were doing and that your physical possessions were more important to you than your customers.
The next time you grab our daughter, we will call the police and press assault charges.
Equally obvious was the reason your restaurant was empty on a Friday night. I think everyone understands that you should be alone with your possessions so that no one ever comes near them. I think you should be alone with them. You stared at us until we were out the door, baselessly afraid that our daughter would harm your restaurant. You treated us like criminals. You are a big jerk.
Equally obvious was the fact that your staff suffer a great deal under your oppression. They understand all of this, but they are powerless to tell you anything because you are their employer. I am happy to tell you for them.
I hope you go out of business soon, and I will do everything legal in my power to contribute to this happening. I will tell everyone I know to go elsewhere for a pleasant dining experience, and I have already begun doing so. For $71.50 we could have had a much better supper at Carafe.
You do not know how to run a business. You do not understand customer service. And your food? It is bland and overpriced.
This afternoon I wanted to post about something that happened today, but, suffering paranoid delusions as I do, I decided I didn't feel comfortable posting about it in my journal, due to fear of someone taking it and behaving maliciously. That is no way to live, so I came to a radical solution: my biggest friends purge ever! I decided to unfriend every single reader and community I had friended (total: 638!) and start refriending from scratch, refriending only those I knew in person, liked, or otherwise trusted. So that is what I am doing.
Even those whom I had met and liked but simply weren't very involved in my journal are now relieved of duty.
There are 287 of you who have me friended. It will take me a little while to go through you all and decide with whom I feel most comfortable. If you wish to be refriended, let me know, and let me know why, if you don't mind. I think I have the right to know who is reading me and why.
Thanks. And before anyone says, "He's doing this because of what happened this past weekend," well, in a way, that's true. As a result of that situation, I have learned that I cannot trust all my readers with what I wish to post going forward, and I would like to be able to post what I like in an atmosphere of relative security.
I had dozens of persons friended whom I didn't even remember friending, whom I didn't know at all. I might as well have been posting publicly, since I was essentially posting to strangers.
To quote the Master Control Program, "End of line."
Note: because everyone is passing through the "unfriending" tunnel before emerging on the other side, I won't be able to keep track of what filters everyone was in (politics, Claire, etc.). If you find yourself refriended but not seeing the content you did before today, assuming you want to see it again :), please let me know.
[EDIT: I have now gone through all 287 and kept 66. If you wish to be refriended, just comment here.]
Last night's supper at the Bridgeport Ale House, which we realised was only our second, was very good. Joe and Nev are good company, and we had a great time talking to them about New Orleans, the Northwest, family politics, Bush, religion, parking courtesy, food, and LiveJournal. Today we hike with them!
A 50-inch water main break left the city without drinkable water, and the massive power outages caused by the storm are likely to take at least three or four weeks to repair.
Nagin said both the city's airports were under water, the Southern Yacht Club had burned to the ground, an oil tanker had run aground and was leaking, there were gas leaks throughout the city, and Interstate 10's twin spans heading east over the lake were "completely destroyed."
I remain very upset by this Humanity-created disaster. The more I read the more I read that the situation is worse today than it was yesterday. No water, no food, no shelter, no law. The entire city is in a pool of unsafe, unsanitary water. Well, Bush will protect us.
Severe weather occurrences like hurricanes and heat waves already take hundreds of lives and cause millions in damages each year. As the Progress Report has noted, data increasingly suggest that human-induced global warming is making these phenomena more dangerous and extreme than ever. "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service," science author Ross Gelbspan writes. "Its real name is global warming." AP reported recently on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis that shows that "major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific ... have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent" since the 1970s, trends that are "closely linked to increases in the average temperatures of the ocean surface and also correspond to increases in global average atmospheric temperatures during the same period." Yet just last week, as Katrina was gathering steam and looming over the Gulf, the Bush administration released new CAFE standards that actually encourage automakers to produce bigger, less fuel efficient vehicles, while preventing states from taking strong, progressive action to reverse global warming.
--the Center for American Progress (Goodness knows America needs some!)
So, really, Bush has had the most scientific information on global warming presented to him of any president and responded the worst, in ways that not only have increased but will continue to increase the various weather dangers.
I guess you could say that in the past four years, he has not only been neutral but actively harmful. Why, it's almost as if he had a hand in Hurricane Katrina!
17 comments | comment
In advance of Hurricane Katrina, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, a major American city, New Orleans, is being completely evacuated. As usual, however, I'd better not mention global warming or Bush's responsibility.
Four years ago, when Bush consciously, wilfully, and maliciously pulled the United States out of the Kyoto treaty, he did so saying it would be bad for our economy. The larger ironies of how well our economy has been doing and how much cheaper oil is now ASIDE, I guess that means that not only is New Orleans expendable, but it is an active detriment to our economy that has to go! Good riddance, New Orleans, you DRAIN ON OUR ECONOMY! We're going to fill your drain with water but good now!
It drives me crazy that since at least 1990 I have known we needed to switch to renewable energy sources and we have yet to do so! The polluters and their supporters ARE TO BLAME, whether the Kyoto treaty would have taken effect by now or prevented this or not. Kyoto was just a good first step. Much more needed and needs to be done! Those who have supported pollution have supported its effects, and are responsible for them!
Oh, well, there's no proof of artificial climate change anyway, so let's drill in Alaska.
by Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers Mayflower Church, Oklahoma City
As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, a church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.
Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by those who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.
We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:
Not fallen off the couch, as he did when he choked on that pretzel.
Jumped it.
According to UrbanDictionary.com, "jump the couch" has now become slang for "a defining moment when you know someone has gone off the deep end. Inspired by Tom Cruise's recent behavior on 'Oprah.' Also see 'jump the shark.' "
The former stateside National Guardsman who was sometimes M.I.A. jumped the shark by landing on that "Mission Accomplished" carrier. (With Tom Cruise cockiness.)
Then, as president, he jumped the couch by pedaling through the guns of August - the growing carnage and chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He did do a few minutes of work this month, calling a Shiite leader in Baghdad a few days ago to lobby him to reach a consensus with the Sunnis, so Iraq doesn't crack apart. But the Shiites and Kurds ignored the president and skewered the Sunnis.
Iraq, it turns out, is the one branch of American government that the Republicans don't control.
As blogging grows, companies eye legal pitfalls By Martha Graybow
Fri Aug 26,11:32 AM ET
As Corporate America wades into the burgeoning world of Internet Web logs, companies are being warned they could face legal hazards when employees are let loose in the free-wheeling blogosphere.
Blogs, online journals that are proliferating on the Web, are attracting attention from big businesses looking for new ways to connect with customers. Sun Microsystems Inc., Microsoft Corp. and General Motors Corp all have officially sanctioned corporate blogs for employees to write about products and strategy.
But lawyers see possible legal pitfalls for companies looking to join the blogging phenomenon. What, for instance, would happen if someone at a publicly traded company unwittingly divulged confidential financial information or a trademark secret on one of these Web diaries?
There already have been cases of people being fired for writing about life inside their companies on blogs not affiliated with their employers. Experts say the real test will come when courts must consider the legal ramifications of what employees say on corporate blogs.
I remember having a hard time focusing, what seemed like hours of tasks and seconds to do them. Beneath me was the road, black topped, six foot embankments dropping on either side, a canal to the north reeded and muddy, and farmland stretching everywhere else. It was the Mulla Fayad expressway screaming "welcome to the cootch of civilization" its mouth split wide by a 250 lb aerial bomb and two propane tanks wired together as a carepackage from the insurgency...
Six foot down lay Ingram, next to his rolled truck, forearm severed but for a 3 inch chunk of skin. The lower arm made a 120 degree angle halfway between his wrist and elbow, and two, yes two, tourniquets were trying to stop the growing blood puddle and failing. Six foot down lay Brown, face first in the mud, shoved into by the weight of the truck he´d been tossed from, crushed by. He spoke through red chunked teeth, a jaw broken in two places, and gurgles, and curses. Six foot up was the lieutenant being command-like and frozen in his truck. Six foot up was the cyber-one (Still waiting on that charicature to be posted deanmoriarty77) blanking on the medevac request. It was the enlisted men and I who went six feet down to help our friends. 3 on the guns. 1 securing detainees. The rest treating wounded, wide eyed, breathless. We had to do anything. Check Joe for breath. Bleeding? Bones? I blank. Get Doc. Yelling 2 litter urgents to Reggie, get him on the medevac request. Check security. Get hextend (blood clotter) to Ingram, open the flow. Calm him. Me. Pray. Tighten tourniquet. The puddle is growning and somehow his sleeve is making a sickly balloon of blood. He gets quiet. Keep him talking. Yell stop standing around, get stretchers, prep medevac site. I say goodbye to Brown, levelling with him on the extent of his injuries, trying to joke, trying to calm. he and i had a conversation 45 minutes prior. we both agreed these hasty planless, aimless patrols to nowhere was a waste of manpower. That we were sure to get hit. Same old story two months into this year. We load the wounded and I gain some focus while pulling security, waiting for recovery assets, waiting to be attacked again. Focus gets me into the downed humvee, forcing it gas down, oil spewing, up the embankment, surprised it still ran (sort of). Sitting there waiting to be towed (I stayed behind the wheel) I lost focus again, going from wide pan frantic scan to close in fixation. Shrapnel in the windshield, bloodstains and pools lingering inside. A persistent hanging odor, a mixture of freon and mortality had me a the heave. Anyone who´s worked in a slaughterhouse or grocery store meat department knows the stink I speak of. The meat locker. Processed and reprocessed air. Stale. Soaked. Heavy. once it got in my nostrils I smelt it with and without the air on, in and out of the truck, and two days on. Mixed reactions of Iraqis we drove past won fixations as well. Faces. Reactions, and no sound. Children not trying hard not to look at the wreckage we towed through their city. Adults had a hard time not reacting likewise. Eyes not averting, pointing fingers and mouthed words just barely held back. Quickly hidden smiles, doubletakes, stares. The first impression that destruction leaves. My windshield catching their thoughts before they saw me, torquing the wheel behind it.
I am going to think of Sergeant Thomas Strickland every time I think of this war. He was twenty-seven, to be twenty-eight next month. I am thirty-five. I can imagine dying at twenty-seven, but it is wrong, very wrong, to die for nothing, in a sinkhole on the other side of the World in Iraq, a place we have no business being, simply because Bush had wet dreams involving Saddam Hussein in prison.
2 comments | comment
LJ user rev_wayfarer, a.k.a. Sergeant Thomas J. Strickland, 27, has died in Iraq. Stationed in Al Mahmudiyah, he was one of those who died when his vehicle overturned in a sinkhole on August 15. I heard about that on the news and thought it was just about the most senseless example of death in this whole senseless war: dead because they drove over the wrong patch of ground. Their vehicle flipped into the sand and buried them alive, choking on sand, trapped in their own vehicle. Now I learn one of these unfortunate victims of Bush was an LJ user. This fascinating excerpt was written two days before his absurdly horrific death, on August 13:
The insurgency is on the rise in our area, with a most impressive coordinated assault on one of my sister FOBs (St. Joe) under their belt. Apparently they have enough folks and sophistication in my back yard where they can simultaneously place accurate mortar rounds on three seperate locations (at least 30k apart) to tie up any ground mounted quick reaction forces, as well as offer up multiple RPG strikes on the guard towers at Joe. These RPG attacks really bring out the QRF who face their own ambush as they come out the gate, at least 12 insurgents occupying buildings with an overwatch position to Joe's only entrance armed with more rpg's and small arms. The only possible responses are tanks or Apaches. Luckily we have both on call. 12 dead insurgents, destroyed buildings, a compromised FOB, sustained, accurate and unaswered indirect fire and lots o [sic] unanswered questions later... I'm here.
What the fuck has my chain of command been doing? We were winning somewhat when I left. And now we're being pinned down in our own fucking homes? Insurgents are pushing locals out of their homes and taking over my area at will? What kind of fucktarded plan have we been half-assedly executing? Obviously the kind that neglects sound contact with locals. Obviously the kind that gives further distance to unbridged gaps between soldiers and locals. Obviously the kind that has shown enough weakness when confronted by the insugency [sic] that it has been encouraged to grow.
Back home (the USA kind) I have no home, no job, and my commander in chief is on vacation (he's about 20 days behind Ronald Reagan right now in the race to become the most vacationing president ever. Hey W! we all got our fingers crossed! Here's to you and two more years of presidency...er vacationing!). Luckily pretty much everything that is important to me can fit into the back of a truck. Luckily I just paid off one of those.
In their fear to build relationships and get out of their hiding holes the FOBbits above me have fucked my friends and I.
We've just completed the first 1/4 of our tour. we've sent 4 of 24 members of this platoon home with injuries.
Thankfully we're not like another who has sent 8 home in body bags...but we got 9 months to go.
From now on, whenever anyone suggests that those who oppose this war or its execution are harming troop morale, I will simply quote him: "What kind of fucktarded plan have we been half-assedly executing?"
Obviously it's a good thing this anti-American communist is dead, because also obviously he was against our Illustrious Leader, and that is not allowed. Even more obvious is that his destruction of unit cohesion is to blame for the accident that led to the deaths, so he got what he deserved, the unpatriotic traitor. It's just a shame he had to take good Americans with him on his descent into HELL.
On second thought, it was worth their sacrifice just to get rid of such a bad apple.
Really, he must have been an ENEMY COMBATANT ON A SUICIDE MISSION, to destroy one of our vehicles!! Oh, the evil of our enemy knows no bounds! It will even masquerade as American!
What IS the official reason for the skyrocketing fuel prices? The average price per gallon of gasoline has gone up 50% since January. What is the official reason for that, and what is the real reason, if they differ?
Can anyone provide to me the exact quotation and source for Bush in late 2001 urging everyone to go shopping to fight terrorism?
[I believe this is the main one:
"And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry. It's to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."
As dissatisfaction with the administration's Iraq policy mounts, President Bush's approval ratings have plummeted to just 36 percent -- three points lower than President Nixon's approval ratings during the height of the Watergate scandal in the summer of 1973. According to Gallup, "Americans have become negative about the war in Iraq more quickly than they did for the Vietnam War." The most recent quarterly data found "50% say it was a mistake to send troops. ... In the comparable quarter for the Vietnam War, Gallup found 41% saying the conflict was a mistake." On the surface, Bush claims to respect people who disagree with him. On Monday, a White House spokesperson said Bush "believes that Americans, obviously, have a right to express their views. That’s part of being American. That’s one of the things we’re fighting for.” In actuality, the administration has launched an effort to demonize Bush's critics. It's an underreported aspect of a coordinated public relations campaign by President Bush and his allies to rebuild support for the war. Real leadership means accepting real debate.
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS CRITICS WANT TERRORISTS TO WIN: Aboard Air Force One Monday, "Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman ... said that President Bush believes that those who want the U.S. to begin to change course in Iraq do not want America to win the overall 'war on terror.'" Duffy said that Bush "can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror ... but he just has a different view."
RUMSFELD COMPARES CRITICS TO COMMUNISTS, STALINISTS: In a press briefing yesterday Donald Rumsfeld, referring to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), noted that "it's been alleged that we're not winning" in Iraq. Rumsfeld made it clear that he has no respect for people who question his policies or progress in Iraq. He noted that "[t]hroughout history there have always been those who predict America's failure just around every corner. At the height of World War II ... [m]any Western intellectuals praised Stalin ... [f]or a time, Communism was very much in vogue." Rumsfeld added, "those being tossed about by the winds of concern should recall that Americans are a tough lot and will see their commitments through." Apparently, our most important commitment is a reflexive acceptance of Rumsfeld's policies.
BUSH SAYS SHEEHAN DOESN'T SPEAK FOR MOST FAMILIES: The White House touts the "private meetings" President Bush has with the families of fallen soldiers. Yesterday, at a resort in Donnelly, Idaho, Bush dispensed with confidentiality to score political points. Speaking with reporters, Bush claimed Cindy Sheehan -- a war critic who lost her son in Iraq -- "doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with." Bush was met in Donnelly, a town of 130 people, by more than 200 protesters.
I found this article interesting, in that it serves Bush' interests to tarnish and slander all who oppose his war in Iraq. He can generalize that all who oppose his war want all the troops brought home immediately.
"Those who advocate the immediate withdrawal ... not only from Iraq but from the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States," he said.
And that is true. But that is not the issue. I advocate the immediate admission of error, the immediate apology to the U.N., and the immediate humble request that the U.N. take over the situation in Iraq, with our force being just one equal part of a larger one. This would, of course, mean bringing some of our troops home but more into Iraq from other countries. Only the legitimacy of the U. N. can bring peace and order to Iraq. Unilateral occupation is what has created the resentment giving rise to the armed resistance there. I will always wonder why that is hard for the Bush supporters to understand. It's the arrogance and domination, stupid.
Bush, who is seeking to quell growing criticism at home over the Iraq war, told the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Salt Lake City on Monday that "a policy of retreat and isolation will not bring us safety."
That is also true. No one has advocated that. But I understand, again, that it serves Bush's interests to misrepresent the opposition to his gross blunder in Iraq.
16 comments | comment
Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, today called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Before the ascendancy of the internal combustion engine IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORLD, we all travelled by horse (horse and wagon, et cetera), sailboat, even bicycle. (Much of the World still does.) The end of fossil fuels, at worst, would mean a return to those methods. What is fearsome about this? I do not understand. But that is not even what would happen, as we are creating new ways to harness the power of the Sun, water, and wind. So: even the worst case is simply what we had before, and that is not what will happen.
Let's drop fossil fuels today! (By "drop" I mean the decision to switch gradually, not an instant cessation of use.)
"Our mission in Iraq is clear: we're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror.
"We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."
So, there you have it: the mission defined by Bush. Of course, the reality is that he has created the terrorist presence, the source of violence and instability there. If anything, he is laying the foundation of a generations-long conflict with his abject failure.
Chuck Hagel tells it straight: "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
Iraqi negotiators have reached agreement on one major roadblock to a new Iraqi constitution and an agreement could be reached on another as soon as tonight, a senior Iraqi official told CNN on Sunday.
Negotiators clarified the role of Islam in the constitution, said Hachim al-Hassani, speaker of the National Assembly. Al-Hassani said the compromise language called Islam "a main source of legislation" -- wording that he said concerned him and women's rights advocates.
Published on Saturday, August 20, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Hypocrites and Liars by Cindy Sheehan
The media are wrong. The people who have come out to Camp Casey to help coordinate the press and events with me are not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words out of my mouth. I have been known for some time as a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly. I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big movement occur from such a small action on August 6, 2005?
I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews in less than a weeks time. I believe it. I would go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty tired of answering some questions, like: 'What do you want to say to the President?' and 'Do you really think he will meet with you?' However, since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to step back and ponder the flood gates that I opened in Crawford, TX.
I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush's ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:
"I got an e-mail the other day and it said, 'Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity '. There's people on the fence that get offended.'
And you know what I said? 'You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'
"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."
I think the Republicans are going to have a great deal of dissent in the next decade. I think the Republican Party is going to split in half and die in the next five. It will remain in name, but having lost half its supporters, its death will be sealed. The lost half will either join the Democratic Party or create a third party.
When Bush steals elections, America loses. When Bush gives the Treasury away to the top tenth of one percent, America loses. When Bush unilaterally spits on the Kyoto, ABM, and IOC treaties, America loses. When Bush lets America get attacked because he cares more about missile defense than al Qaeda, about which he had been warned by Clinton's staff as well as his own, America loses. When Bush responds by trusting local Afghani warlords to help us catch or kill Osama, America loses. When Bush lies and stampedes us, the UN, and the rest of the World into an irrelevant and self-destructive war in Iraq, America loses.
"After the failure of Hanoi's Tet offensive, the guerrilla threat was substantially eliminated. Saigon and all other urban centers were far safer than major cities in Iraq are today."
In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
I have always felt Bush stole it, and I am obviously not the only one. I have seen some say Bush would have won the recount. How do they respond to this?
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.
Some said that the perception that the war was faltering was providing a rallying point for dispirited Democrats and could pose problems for Republicans in the Congressional elections next year.
Republicans said a convergence of events - including the protests inspired by the mother of a slain American soldier outside Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas, the missed deadline to draft an Iraqi Constitution and the spike in casualties among reservists - was creating what they said could be a significant and lasting shift in public attitude against the war.
The Republicans described that shift as particularly worrisome, occurring 14 months before the midterm elections. As further evidence, they pointed to a special election in Ohio two weeks ago, where a Democratic marine veteran from Iraq who criticized the invasion decision came close to winning in a district that should have easily produced a Republican victory.
"There is just no enthusiasm for this war," said Representative John J. Duncan Jr., a Tennessee Republican who opposes the war. "Nobody is happy about it. It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much."
"Given the speed with which public opinion has shifted over the course of the war and the size of the Republican majority in the Senate and House, no one has gone so far as to suggest that war policy could return Democrats to power in the House or the Senate."
Not true! I have suggested that there is very little chance of the Republicans maintaining control of the Congress and the Presidency after the next two elections. I did so here, four days ago:
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says
By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
1. Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Machine will be released next month. Nine of twelve tracks that were leaked on the Internet have been "reworked". Having heard those, I am very nervous, because I find them perfect as they are.
2. Iraqis working on their constitution missed their UNITED STATES imposed deadline today. The sticking points? How much freedom to grant to women and Kurds. "Bush: making the World safe for radical Islam!"
On the one hand, it's horrible that secular, stable Saddam has been removed from power so violently and precipitously that radical fundamentalist nuts have been able to take over in Iraq.
On the other hand, that the rights of women and Kurds are even being debated in this theocratic free-fire zone Bush has created (in Iraq, not the one here) is a remarkably positive development.
I'm as solid a leftist as anyone, but I find, more and more, that the Left does not want to understand what is happening. It wants to vilify and demonise, even when the evidence is to the contrary. I am tired of the conspiracy-theorizing left. Give me evidence, reasonable, convincing evidence, or shut up.
I am not moving to the center. I still want the majority to move MY way. But God damn it, liberals! Take off the tin-foil hats. Realize that the American Public is not as deserving of the benefit of the doubt as you would like to believe. Realize that in order to defeat the other side, you will have to adopt some of its tactics. You will always be better, but you cannot expect an ivory-tower attitude to carry you through. Remember Bill Clinton's populism.
In other news, Robin and I are watching The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. It's quirky and odd, but we like it.
This morning I read some articles posted by John Kevin Fabiani (yes_justice), LJ's reporter, and these lines jumped out at me:
"To the war's supporters, her behavior is self-indulgent and an insult to the men and women serving overseas. She has been pilloried on talk radio and savaged on the Internet. Conservative television personality Bill O'Reilly accused her of falling under the spell of 'far-left ideologues.' One Internet blogger said she 'deserves a padded cell.'"
" . . . She has triggered resentment in Crawford, within her own divided family, and across the nation, from those who say her son's death does not give her the authority to criticize the war. The Fox News television host Bill O'Reilly has called her 'treasonous', conservative bloggers have accused her of furthering a liberal agenda, and one local shopkeeper suggested unleashing skunks on her and her supporters to drive them out of town."
"Critics have started calling her a pawn of the left-wing. Some conservative organizations, talk show hosts and even some of her own extended family accuse her of shifting her position and say she is lowering troop morale.
"'To be perfectly honest, I think it is disgraceful,' said bookkeeper Diana Kraft of Vacaville, whose son is in the Navy. 'I don't know the loss she's feeling to lose a son because, thank goodness, I haven't had that, but we're in this war and we have to support the troops.'"
I do not really understand these lines. Can someone help me to understand the definition of "freedom"? Bush said on Thursday, "Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her position. And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position." Why do some some so-called supporters of the President oppose him on this?
Could someone please explain these persons to me? These so-called Americans seem to oppose freedom.
I am filled with the urge to confront these persons and ask if they believe in America's freedoms, just not for Cindy Sheehan.
[I have always felt, as did Patrick Henry, that there is no more important time to say what one thinks than when lives are at stake.
I have aways felt that if I were a soldier there is nothing I would want more than someone working and metaphorically screaming from the rooftops to spare me an unjust war. As a soldier, I would have fewer speech and dissent rights, so it would be even more important that my life be protected by civilians. I would find every protest of an unjust war to be the biggest possible morale boost, except of course for learning that the unjust war would be ended.
The news coming out of Iraq yesterday was that several more American soldiers had been killed. August's toll so far has been mind-numbing. For American troops, it's been one of the worst periods of the war. And yet there's still no sense of urgency within the Bush administration.
The president is on vacation. He's down at the ranch riding his bicycle and clearing brush. The death toll for Americans has streaked past the 1,800 mark. The Iraqi dead are counted by the tens of thousands. But if Mr. Bush has experienced any regret about the carnage he set in motion when he launched the war, he's not showing it.
Writing about Vietnam in the foreword to David Halberstam's book "The Best and the Brightest," Senator John McCain said:
"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay."
That point is no less relevant now. The administration is not willing to commit to an all-out effort to defeat the insurgents in Iraq, and is equally unwilling to reverse course and bring the troops home. Most Americans are abandoning the idea that the war can be "won." Polls are showing that they're tired of the conflict and its relentlessly mounting toll. It's hard to imagine that the population at large will be willing to sacrifice thousands of additional American lives over several more years in pursuit of goals that remain as murky as ever.
Ask a thousand different suits in Washington why we're in Iraq and you'll get a thousand different answers. Ask how we plan to win the war, and you'll get a blank stare.
I was very excited just now to discover the community earthgov, devoted to the promotion of a one-world government. I invite you to read my introductory post in the community, to join the community, and to post your own thoughts there!
There's an angry mother of a dead soldier camping outside his Crawford ranch, demanding to see a president who prefers his sympathy to be carefully choreographed.
A new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans now think that going to war was a mistake and that the war has made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism. So fighting them there means it's more likely we'll have to fight them here?
Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday that sophisticated bombs were streaming over the border from Iran to Iraq.
And the Rolling Stones have taken a rare break from sex odes to record an antiwar song called "Sweet Neo Con," chiding Condi Rice and Mr. Bush. "You call yourself a Christian; I call you a hypocrite," Mick Jagger sings.
The N.F.L. put out a press release on Monday announcing that it's teaming up with the Stones and ABC to promote "Monday Night Football." The flag-waving N.F.L. could still back out if there's pressure, but the mood seems to have shifted since Madonna chickened out of showing an antiwar music video in 2003. The White House used to be able to tamp down criticism by saying it hurt our troops, but more people are asking the White House to explain how it plans to stop our troops from getting hurt.
"Palestinian rockets threatening Israeli cities, Islamic fighters streaming into Gaza, and planes slamming into Tel Aviv skyscrapers figured high on Netanyahu's roster of post-pullout risks as he geared up for an expected leadership challenge."
Are you an artist? Do you support the arts? Would you like to help a project that exists purely to help artists?
My friend Jason runs Niche, a new gallery space downtown in Gallery Row. Niche just opened this summer. Tomorrow night Art Scene will be visiting the space to review it. Jason is requesting minor housekeeping assistance to make the place look spiffy in advance of the Art Scene visit.
By minor he means three hours of touching up the place, which was already made beautiful for its opening this summer. It's got a couple of nicks and bumps he'd like to remove, and he estimates it can be done between seven and ten tonight. Free food and drink (including wine) will be provided if he gets four or more volunteers, which is all he thinks he'll need.
He describes what is needed as, "Paint touch-up, a little mopping and housecleaning."
I know you're asking, "Why should I help someone I don't know?" Well, it's true you probably don't know my actor friend Jason. If you saw him on The X-Files or Star Trek: Enterprise, you probably wouldn't have recognized him--he was covered with make-up on The X-Files, and he just played a regular crewman on Enterprise. But he has been in numerous stage productions, and you may have seen him in one of those.
It's also true you do not have to help him or anyone do anything.
But why you should, if you have even the slightest inclination, is that supporting the arts ultimately benefits everyone, including you. Niche is a new space that could conceivably host YOUR work. Niche could host your friends' work. Niche could host your favorite artist's work.
Bonus: Jason says that anyone who helps out for any amount of time will earn "big-time karma points". Will we see you there? Please come, even if only to hang out and offer moral support. Jason is doing this to help revitalize downtown and help new artists. If you love L. A. nightlife and art in general, what could be better than to contribute to their greatness?
Niche, a new niche for L. A. artists, is a nonprofit project, and the only compensation I am receiving for putting out this announcement is knowing I am helping the arts. I am an artist myself.
For the address and more information on this project:
“You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/ You call yourself a patriot, well, I think you're full of shit.”
--the Rolling Stones, “Sweet Neo-Con”, from A Bigger Bang, due out in stores in early September
"It is direct," Jagger says with a laugh. "Keith said [he breaks into a dead-on Keith imitation], 'It's not really metaphorical.' I think he's a bit worried because he lives in the U.S." Jagger smiles. "But I don't."
It never ceases to amaze me that some persons think being a public figure means sacrificing one's free-speech rights. Fuck that. Bravo, boys. Keith says in this interiew they're not touring for the money, so there's really nothing neoconservatives CAN do to them, let alone should.
"Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia."
. . .
The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, recounted the events in a telephone interview on Tuesday and called the move a municipal coup d'état. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life.
"This is the new Iraq," said Mr. Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."
In an ideal Democratic Party, Senators would begin calling for an end to this madness, demanding the Bush Administration resign for incompetence and face legal action for criminality.
all_hail_duke) It is very important after Robert has spent hours reading, considering, and answering your comments to accuse him of not caring or being open to other points of view. Be sure to fail to weigh the possibility that Robert considered your points but simply disagreed, was sure of his disagreement, and had thought about all your arguments on his own before you made them--and dismissed them for good reasons. Take this as personally as you would any other mortal insult.
