Political debate in this country has been turned into nothing more than a verbal slugfest. We turn on those with views that are different than our own, and attempt to isolate ourselves from dissent. And, with many of my posts on this blog, I'm as guilty as anybody else in this regard.
So here's my stupid, vain attempt to apologize for my part in all of this, and try to begin a respectful discussion between political opposites. The idea is not to reach agreement, but to more fully understand other points of view. This is not a debate; there's no winner or loser - just two friends who see things from different angles sharing their opinions.
And, since YouTube is as polarizing a place as any, I'm doing this over there. Helping me out on this project is my conservative friend, PappyStu. (Oh, and intro music by audionautix.)
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
A Prince of a Soldier
At first, I was a bit torn about how to react to the news that Britain's Prince Harry, third in line for the throne, will be deployed to Iraq soon.
On the one hand, I've always said that if our leaders children were the ones on the front lines, our war decisions would very different. I admire the courage of this young man to not hide behind his title, but to fight for what he believes is right (even if I disagree with the war itself).
But are the royal family really the "leaders" of the United Kingdom? I'm an American, so I can't say with full accuracy what the English think, but it seems they're more symbolic and cultural leaders than political ones.
And as symbolic as the royal family is, this is not just any prominent son that we are talking about. It's not just young Harry's life that's on the line here, but the lives of every other soldier that is deployed with this attractive moving target.
In this situation, being a symbolic leader is far more dangerous than being a political one. And some British army chiefs have warned against his deployment as a "potential nightmare":
I don't think it's worth the risks. Any positive spin for the war effort by Harry's willingness to go has been accomplished (for better or worse). It's time to end this dangerous game and ground this prince's ambitions. More soldiers do not need to risk their lives so that this privileged young man can prove he's warrior of the people.
On the one hand, I've always said that if our leaders children were the ones on the front lines, our war decisions would very different. I admire the courage of this young man to not hide behind his title, but to fight for what he believes is right (even if I disagree with the war itself).
But are the royal family really the "leaders" of the United Kingdom? I'm an American, so I can't say with full accuracy what the English think, but it seems they're more symbolic and cultural leaders than political ones.
And as symbolic as the royal family is, this is not just any prominent son that we are talking about. It's not just young Harry's life that's on the line here, but the lives of every other soldier that is deployed with this attractive moving target.
In this situation, being a symbolic leader is far more dangerous than being a political one. And some British army chiefs have warned against his deployment as a "potential nightmare":
"When it comes to a Prince this is not just a matter of humanity for operational concerns, it has a potentially big strategic importance," said Mr Reid. "I'm not talking about the death, but the capture and so on."As much as the democrat (small "d") in me would love to see somebody of Harry's stature on the front lines with the average soldier, I have to agree with Mr. Reid. This is a strategic decision, with possible major repercussions on how this war is fought.
I don't think it's worth the risks. Any positive spin for the war effort by Harry's willingness to go has been accomplished (for better or worse). It's time to end this dangerous game and ground this prince's ambitions. More soldiers do not need to risk their lives so that this privileged young man can prove he's warrior of the people.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The State of the Union v. Oscar Nominations
Last night's State of the Union address began appropriately enough by marking the historic occasion of a President addressing a female Speaker of the House. From there it drifted into a feel-good, fact-less, national pep talk that could have originated from the middle of the road of any political party.
Bush has, apparently, just discovered that there are millions of Americans with no health coverage, and that health care costs have been destroying families and lives. Oh, and it seems that making a lot of pollution isn't very good for the environment either. But, by-golly-gosh, we're Americans and we work together to solve all of this, yes-siree!
The speech seemed to be nearly over by the time there was any mention that we might be in the midst of a quagmire. Excuse me, a war against evil. But we're just doing a swell job there, too, if we can just approach it with the same determination that's fixing all those domestic issues we just discussed.
All was swell, and without controversy, on the surface. Just don't scratch the surface too deep. For one thing (reports the Washington Post) Bush's description of "the enemy" was full of misdirection and outright lies. His blending of events and situations into one incohesive mass is typified is such quotes as "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat."
Meanwhile, the Oscar nominations (full list here) were all controversy on the surface, but logical and sound choices at the core. The big controversy is that Dreamgirls received the most nominations, over-all, but was snubbed in the Best Picture category.
This supposed snub is, presumably, a result of the latent racism of the Academy and Hollywood in general. Some of these racial snubs in the past may indeed have been unfair, this time, however, I don't buy it.
I loved Dreamgirls. I thought it was a wonderful movie, and certainly one of my favorites of the past year. The nominations it received were all well-deserved and I expect to see a few winners out of the group. But "best picture?" The performances (especially the supporting performances) were great. The art direction, production design, and music all worked together to bring the picture to life. But "best picture?"
I expected it to get a nomination in that category, because of all that went right with the film, but would have been disappointed if it won because of what went wrong. Mainly, the way the story fell apart at the end. Too many loose pieces and disjointed elements were conveniently washed away in order to bring all the characters into the big finale together.
And, as good as Beyonce and Jamie Foxx were, having a "supporting" cast (Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy) that could out-sing, out-act, and consistently up-stage them also took it out of the running.
So, let's see... The State of the Union versus the Oscar Nominations... which was more exciting? The envelope please... And the award goes to... Oscar Nominations!
Bush has, apparently, just discovered that there are millions of Americans with no health coverage, and that health care costs have been destroying families and lives. Oh, and it seems that making a lot of pollution isn't very good for the environment either. But, by-golly-gosh, we're Americans and we work together to solve all of this, yes-siree!
The speech seemed to be nearly over by the time there was any mention that we might be in the midst of a quagmire. Excuse me, a war against evil. But we're just doing a swell job there, too, if we can just approach it with the same determination that's fixing all those domestic issues we just discussed.
All was swell, and without controversy, on the surface. Just don't scratch the surface too deep. For one thing (reports the Washington Post) Bush's description of "the enemy" was full of misdirection and outright lies. His blending of events and situations into one incohesive mass is typified is such quotes as "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat."
At one point, Bush catalogued what he described as advances in the quest for freedom in the Middle East during 2005 -- such as the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon and elections in Iraq. Then, Bush asserted, "a thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics and in 2006 they struck back." But his description of the actions of "the enemy" tried to tie together a series of diplomatic and military setbacks that had virtually no connection to one another, from an attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq to the assassination of Maronite Lebanese political figure.Oh, and there were contradictions in his alternative energy plan too.
Meanwhile, the Oscar nominations (full list here) were all controversy on the surface, but logical and sound choices at the core. The big controversy is that Dreamgirls received the most nominations, over-all, but was snubbed in the Best Picture category.
This supposed snub is, presumably, a result of the latent racism of the Academy and Hollywood in general. Some of these racial snubs in the past may indeed have been unfair, this time, however, I don't buy it.
I loved Dreamgirls. I thought it was a wonderful movie, and certainly one of my favorites of the past year. The nominations it received were all well-deserved and I expect to see a few winners out of the group. But "best picture?" The performances (especially the supporting performances) were great. The art direction, production design, and music all worked together to bring the picture to life. But "best picture?"
I expected it to get a nomination in that category, because of all that went right with the film, but would have been disappointed if it won because of what went wrong. Mainly, the way the story fell apart at the end. Too many loose pieces and disjointed elements were conveniently washed away in order to bring all the characters into the big finale together.
And, as good as Beyonce and Jamie Foxx were, having a "supporting" cast (Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy) that could out-sing, out-act, and consistently up-stage them also took it out of the running.
So, let's see... The State of the Union versus the Oscar Nominations... which was more exciting? The envelope please... And the award goes to... Oscar Nominations!
Monday, January 22, 2007
Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, edition 2.2
Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, Edition 2.2 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.
As always, narrowing all the blog posts I receive down to the target number of seven entries per carnival is always tough, but I think you'll find it worth the effort. The first few entries this week each have to do the President's recent announcement of a troop escalation in Iraq:
Rey Thomas, of The Thomas Political Report, presents What The President Said, What The President Meant.
vjack, of Atheist Revolution, presents The Escalation in Iraq.
Madeleine Begun Kane (Mad Kane) presents Bellicose Bush (poem, satire).
We round out the week with a broad look at American's fears, outlaw politicians, the lapdog press, and an explanation of why we allow it all to happen:
GrrlScientist, of Living the Scientific Life, presents Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.
murad, of The New Business World, presents A Nation Without Leaders: A Poll On American Fears.
Michael Boldin, of the Populist Party of America, presents Outing the Constitutional Criminals.
Finally, one of my favorite posts in a long time, John Wesley, of Pick the Brain, presents Resist the Temptation to Submit to Authority.
The next edition of the Carnival will be posted on Monday, February 5th, 2007 with entries requested by Saturday, February 3rd, at midnight. Submit your blog post for the next edition of the carnival of the decline of democracy using our carnival submission form. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.
As always, narrowing all the blog posts I receive down to the target number of seven entries per carnival is always tough, but I think you'll find it worth the effort. The first few entries this week each have to do the President's recent announcement of a troop escalation in Iraq:Rey Thomas, of The Thomas Political Report, presents What The President Said, What The President Meant.
vjack, of Atheist Revolution, presents The Escalation in Iraq.
Madeleine Begun Kane (Mad Kane) presents Bellicose Bush (poem, satire).
We round out the week with a broad look at American's fears, outlaw politicians, the lapdog press, and an explanation of why we allow it all to happen:
GrrlScientist, of Living the Scientific Life, presents Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.
murad, of The New Business World, presents A Nation Without Leaders: A Poll On American Fears.
Michael Boldin, of the Populist Party of America, presents Outing the Constitutional Criminals.
Finally, one of my favorite posts in a long time, John Wesley, of Pick the Brain, presents Resist the Temptation to Submit to Authority.
The next edition of the Carnival will be posted on Monday, February 5th, 2007 with entries requested by Saturday, February 3rd, at midnight. Submit your blog post for the next edition of the carnival of the decline of democracy using our carnival submission form. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Accidental beheading a "mishap" not "mistreatment"
Saddam Hussein's two co-defendants were executed today. Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad Hamed al-Bandar were hung side-by-side using the same gallows as were used for Saddam just a week or so ago.
The Iraqi government admitted that, in what is explained was a "rare mishap," al-Tikriti's head was severed by the rope, with the body and head falling below the gallows and landing several yards apart.
According to an Iraqi government spokesperson:
The Iraqi government admitted that, in what is explained was a "rare mishap," al-Tikriti's head was severed by the rope, with the body and head falling below the gallows and landing several yards apart.
According to an Iraqi government spokesperson:
The convicts were not subjected to any mistreatment. Their rights were not violated. There was no chanting. The Iraqi government acted in a neutral way.I don't know about you, but I'm relieved to know that nobody was mistreated or had their rights violated by having their heads ripped from their bodies. I mean, that may be disgusting, brutal, and viscous, but at least there was no chanting this time.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Still Surgin'
Okay, yesterday I gave you my pre-speech opinions via my Uncle Joe Bile character. Then I watched the Bush, the whole thing, awake and sober. I didn't finish off the bottle of Scotch till well after he got off the air (Glenmorangie, yum).
So, let me ask you, besides the form of the rhetoric, and a slight touch of well rehearsed humility, is there anything actually new or different about this "change of course?"
It's "only" 20,000 more troops (actually, 20,000 of the same troops on longer tours and shorter stateside rotation), not the 100-200,000 troops that a real "surge" strategy would require. And it sure as hell isn't any kind of a stepping down or withdrawal.
Still, it's not exactly the same failed strategy. It's more of the same failed strategy. It's the same, but different.
Now, according to the President, when we "go from door to door" looking for insurgents, we'll have more soldiers to stay behind and maintain the areas that we've secured. He made it sound like they're ringing doorbells and asking if everybody is alright inside, rather than kicking in doors (or what's left of them) and machine-gunning down anybody who moves.
And, the president cautioned, if we pull out too soon, we'll end up having to stay in Iraq a lot longer. That's right. If we leave, we'll be stuck there, but if we stay, we can go home. Really. That's what he said.
It was a kinder, gentler, more conciliatory stayin' of the course, but in the end, all he really said was, "Screw you, we don't care what the people (American or Iraqi), the generals, or the Iraq Study Group have to say, we're Staying the Damn Course!"
So, by accepting more responsibility for American troops we'll force the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own security, and by re-committing American troops we'll be able to bring them home, and by fighting a civil war in Iraq we'll soon capture terrorist master-mind Osama bin Laden.
Oh, wait, there was no mention of Osama in the speech. I guess the statute of limitation on that September 11 thing has run out. Too bad.
So, let me ask you, besides the form of the rhetoric, and a slight touch of well rehearsed humility, is there anything actually new or different about this "change of course?"
It's "only" 20,000 more troops (actually, 20,000 of the same troops on longer tours and shorter stateside rotation), not the 100-200,000 troops that a real "surge" strategy would require. And it sure as hell isn't any kind of a stepping down or withdrawal.
Still, it's not exactly the same failed strategy. It's more of the same failed strategy. It's the same, but different.
Now, according to the President, when we "go from door to door" looking for insurgents, we'll have more soldiers to stay behind and maintain the areas that we've secured. He made it sound like they're ringing doorbells and asking if everybody is alright inside, rather than kicking in doors (or what's left of them) and machine-gunning down anybody who moves.
And, the president cautioned, if we pull out too soon, we'll end up having to stay in Iraq a lot longer. That's right. If we leave, we'll be stuck there, but if we stay, we can go home. Really. That's what he said.
It was a kinder, gentler, more conciliatory stayin' of the course, but in the end, all he really said was, "Screw you, we don't care what the people (American or Iraqi), the generals, or the Iraq Study Group have to say, we're Staying the Damn Course!"
So, by accepting more responsibility for American troops we'll force the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own security, and by re-committing American troops we'll be able to bring them home, and by fighting a civil war in Iraq we'll soon capture terrorist master-mind Osama bin Laden.
Oh, wait, there was no mention of Osama in the speech. I guess the statute of limitation on that September 11 thing has run out. Too bad.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Uncle Joe Surges into Iraq
A video blog entry today:
Your Uncle Joe Bile supports his president in sending 20,000+ more troops into Iraq. The only way to win is to refuse to loose, even if it takes another 30 years. "Real men don't pull out!"
Your Uncle Joe Bile supports his president in sending 20,000+ more troops into Iraq. The only way to win is to refuse to loose, even if it takes another 30 years. "Real men don't pull out!"
Monday, January 08, 2007
Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - 2.1
Happy New Year & Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, Edition 2.1 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.
Having taken a few weeks off for the holidays there were many, many, great blog entries in my in-box. It's always hard to narrow it down, but I think you'll enjoy and learn from what I've selected:
Justin Lowery presents US Policy: Self-Determination or Imperialism?
Bill Losapio presents The Source of the National Debt, Why It Will NEVER Be Paid, and Why the Federal Reserve Should Be Liquidated (part 1 of 2).
David Gross presents The Picket Line — Is there any hope for a People Power movement in the U.S.A.?
John presents Heroin Sheikh: US Overthrow Means More Opiates for the Masses.
Rey Thomas presents The Thomas Political Report: For Bush, Troop Surge Is Last, Best and Worst Hope.
J.C. Wilmore presents Why Republicans will be excluded from power in the 110th Congress.
Dana presents Testing and mind reading.
Charles Feldman presents U.S. Solves Housing Shortage - Puts Everyone Behind Bars.
The next edition of the Carnival will be posted on Monday, January 22nd, 2007 with entries requested by Saturday, January 20th, at midnight. Submit your blog post for the next edition of the carnival of the decline of democracy using our carnival submission form. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.
Having taken a few weeks off for the holidays there were many, many, great blog entries in my in-box. It's always hard to narrow it down, but I think you'll enjoy and learn from what I've selected:Justin Lowery presents US Policy: Self-Determination or Imperialism?
Bill Losapio presents The Source of the National Debt, Why It Will NEVER Be Paid, and Why the Federal Reserve Should Be Liquidated (part 1 of 2).
David Gross presents The Picket Line — Is there any hope for a People Power movement in the U.S.A.?
John presents Heroin Sheikh: US Overthrow Means More Opiates for the Masses.
Rey Thomas presents The Thomas Political Report: For Bush, Troop Surge Is Last, Best and Worst Hope.
J.C. Wilmore presents Why Republicans will be excluded from power in the 110th Congress.
Dana presents Testing and mind reading.
Charles Feldman presents U.S. Solves Housing Shortage - Puts Everyone Behind Bars.
The next edition of the Carnival will be posted on Monday, January 22nd, 2007 with entries requested by Saturday, January 20th, at midnight. Submit your blog post for the next edition of the carnival of the decline of democracy using our carnival submission form. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
