Cracking Up
[Warning: irrelevant autobiographical ramblings. Please do not read.]
Last night, while lying in bed pissed off about what a shitty teacher I am (nothing like being shitty in a 2.5 hour seminar to make you feel great about yourself for the rest of the week, boy), gritting my teeth in anger about the current political insanity, trying to get the lyrics to "Bush was Right" (and that shitty Billy Joel song it emulates) out of my head, not sleeping, being pissed off about not sleeping (for the eleventy-zillionth time in the last seven years), worrying about getting old, panicking about not having written anything worth mentioning or having had any even vaguely interesting ideas during the course of the seven years aforementioned, being sad because I just finished re-watching Buffy season two and you know how that ends, freaking out because now I just watch Buffy re-runs instead of thinking about philosophy, wishing I were a super-hero vampire slayer instead of a schoolmarm, and thinking about that flipping insane sparrow story, I came to the realization that I don't seem to be able to trust my judgments about the Bush administration anymore.
I'm just too pissed off.
Oh, so, anyway, then this morning I see this at Atrios, and--now, I haven't been sleeping what you'd call a lot, mind you--just couldn't stop cracking up. So here I am down in the basement (uh, where the computer is...I'm not just sitting in the basement for no reason) laughing like a lunatic. (Um, you didn't think I meant 'cracking up' in the other way, did you? (er, which way is the other way?)).
Anyway, it's all just so damned absurd.
I do feel now rather like I felt two times before--when conservatives where accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" by bombing the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Except for the anger part. Both those times I kept going over and over the evidence and thinking I can't be sure but this just doesn't seem to add up. The "wag the dog" charges and the case for war both seemed to me to be too insubstantial to accept, but, then, good liberal that I am, I was too open-minded to take my own side in the argument. Is this just my liberal bias talking? I wondered.
I was following the election of 2000 too closely to be plagued by such doubts. In that case I basically devoted my whole life to following the news, and I was very sure that the Republicans were a lot wronger than the Democrats. So I'm not counting that case here.
Anyway, so that's all I have to say. Nothing interesting here. Just rambling, sleep-deprived autobiography.
My current position is something like this I guess: I can't tell for sure that this administration is dirty, but that's where the evidence seems to point me when I look at it as objectively and dispassionately as I'm capable of at this point (which is not very). I could be wrong, but life's like that. You have to reason as carefully as you can and then take your best shot, remaining open to new evidence and reasoning. This is about as clear as the evidence ever gets in politics. There's always a cover story, always plausible deniability, always at least about a third of the people that will take the side of the powers that be, no matter how bad they be.
I'm willing to listen to the analysis and findings of a truly independent investigation...but I doubt that we'll get one. Incidentally, the fact that Republicans are so opposed to one does not count in their favor here.
In the end there are so many good and capable people in this country that we needn't support such a shady cast of characters wth such a questionable record. If the best that can be said for an administration is we can't be absolutely sure that they're completely corrupt, then that's a pretty sad state of affairs. There are many possible administrations of which we could honestly say we're pretty sure that they're pretty good. That was the case, say, with Clinton. That bunch rarely rose about that level--we're pretty sure that they're pretty good-- in my estimation, but sometimes they did, as in Kosovo. One thing that reassured me about the Clinton bunch was that they never had a rabid cult-of-personality-based following. I don't know anybody who adored the guy or thought he could do no wrong. Of course, that was before the advent of the blogosphere, which I think is going to exacerbate polarization and dogmatism. So who knows?
I have no point.
Have you considered reading somebody with a clue? Might I suggest Mark Kleiman? That guy's really smart.
Anyway, it's not that I'm happy about the fact that Bush has a 34% approval rating...though that's probably better than he deserves as far as I can tell.
It's that pony shit, man.
That shit just cracks me up.
[Warning: irrelevant autobiographical ramblings. Please do not read.]
Last night, while lying in bed pissed off about what a shitty teacher I am (nothing like being shitty in a 2.5 hour seminar to make you feel great about yourself for the rest of the week, boy), gritting my teeth in anger about the current political insanity, trying to get the lyrics to "Bush was Right" (and that shitty Billy Joel song it emulates) out of my head, not sleeping, being pissed off about not sleeping (for the eleventy-zillionth time in the last seven years), worrying about getting old, panicking about not having written anything worth mentioning or having had any even vaguely interesting ideas during the course of the seven years aforementioned, being sad because I just finished re-watching Buffy season two and you know how that ends, freaking out because now I just watch Buffy re-runs instead of thinking about philosophy, wishing I were a super-hero vampire slayer instead of a schoolmarm, and thinking about that flipping insane sparrow story, I came to the realization that I don't seem to be able to trust my judgments about the Bush administration anymore.
I'm just too pissed off.
Oh, so, anyway, then this morning I see this at Atrios, and--now, I haven't been sleeping what you'd call a lot, mind you--just couldn't stop cracking up. So here I am down in the basement (uh, where the computer is...I'm not just sitting in the basement for no reason) laughing like a lunatic. (Um, you didn't think I meant 'cracking up' in the other way, did you? (er, which way is the other way?)).
Anyway, it's all just so damned absurd.
I do feel now rather like I felt two times before--when conservatives where accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" by bombing the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Except for the anger part. Both those times I kept going over and over the evidence and thinking I can't be sure but this just doesn't seem to add up. The "wag the dog" charges and the case for war both seemed to me to be too insubstantial to accept, but, then, good liberal that I am, I was too open-minded to take my own side in the argument. Is this just my liberal bias talking? I wondered.
I was following the election of 2000 too closely to be plagued by such doubts. In that case I basically devoted my whole life to following the news, and I was very sure that the Republicans were a lot wronger than the Democrats. So I'm not counting that case here.
Anyway, so that's all I have to say. Nothing interesting here. Just rambling, sleep-deprived autobiography.
My current position is something like this I guess: I can't tell for sure that this administration is dirty, but that's where the evidence seems to point me when I look at it as objectively and dispassionately as I'm capable of at this point (which is not very). I could be wrong, but life's like that. You have to reason as carefully as you can and then take your best shot, remaining open to new evidence and reasoning. This is about as clear as the evidence ever gets in politics. There's always a cover story, always plausible deniability, always at least about a third of the people that will take the side of the powers that be, no matter how bad they be.
I'm willing to listen to the analysis and findings of a truly independent investigation...but I doubt that we'll get one. Incidentally, the fact that Republicans are so opposed to one does not count in their favor here.
In the end there are so many good and capable people in this country that we needn't support such a shady cast of characters wth such a questionable record. If the best that can be said for an administration is we can't be absolutely sure that they're completely corrupt, then that's a pretty sad state of affairs. There are many possible administrations of which we could honestly say we're pretty sure that they're pretty good. That was the case, say, with Clinton. That bunch rarely rose about that level--we're pretty sure that they're pretty good-- in my estimation, but sometimes they did, as in Kosovo. One thing that reassured me about the Clinton bunch was that they never had a rabid cult-of-personality-based following. I don't know anybody who adored the guy or thought he could do no wrong. Of course, that was before the advent of the blogosphere, which I think is going to exacerbate polarization and dogmatism. So who knows?
I have no point.
Have you considered reading somebody with a clue? Might I suggest Mark Kleiman? That guy's really smart.
Anyway, it's not that I'm happy about the fact that Bush has a 34% approval rating...though that's probably better than he deserves as far as I can tell.
It's that pony shit, man.
That shit just cracks me up.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:04 AM
12 Comments:
The last third of your post chimes in with my thoughts regarding a thread at Obsidian Wings, about Tacitus's new site and how all we need to do in Iraq is pull up our socks and screw our Will To Prevail to the sticking point.
Alot of the complaints coming from the righty fever swamp boil down to "if we'd end this divisiveness and just unite behind the President, this would be a piece of cake."
My response to that is "if that's what he wants, why did he do such a shoddy job of uniting the country behind him in the first place?"
The people of this country are not united behind Bush because he didn't take the trouble to do it right.
The bigger question is WHY was that too much trouble for him?
"My current position is something like this I guess: I can't tell for sure that this administration is dirty, but that's where the evidence seems to point me when I look at it as objectively and dispassionately as I'm capable of at this point (which is not very). I could be wrong, but life's like that. You have to reason as carefully as you can and then take your best shot, remaining open to new evidence and reasoning. This is about as clear as the evidence ever gets in politics. There's always a cover story, always plausible deniability, always at least about a third of the people that will take the side of the powers that be, no matter how bad they be."
Winston,
Two words: inductive logic.
Winston,
Four Words: You are not Alone!
As a true child of the '60s, let me put in my Three Words:
Right on, brother!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The people of this country are not united behind Bush because he didn't take the trouble to do it right.
The bigger question is WHY was that too much trouble for him?
I agree with the premise, Dookie. (You can either accept my affection or my contention that pseudonyms do not inherently warrant the same respect as real names.)
It's my memory that GB41 felt he deserved re-election without campaigning, since he'd done such a universally-admired job with Gulf War I. (He lost to a guy who was damn good at campaigning.) I think his son shares some of that arrogance.
But another instance where the apple doesn't fall so far from the tree is a weakness at rhetoric: opening your mouth is more an opportunity to get in trouble than to inspire. GB41 lost an election on three lousy words. (Read, my, and lips.) And, IMO, John Kerry would be president today absent the single careless "I voted for it before I voted against it."
So, GB43 cannot stay on the Bill Clinton/Dick Morris "permanent campaign" trail, for lack of requisite skill, and it should be admitted, the lack of a sympathetic ear among the chattering classes. It is too fraught with danger.
If We the Chattering People are to arrive at the necessary parameters of debate, as concerned citizens we must rely on our own devices and not political rhetoric.
This is not an undue burden for citizens of a republic, if not a democracy. Even more so for our elected representatives, who if they approved military force against Iraq only because of administration rhetoric, lazily shirked their duty. I find their current protestations appalling, and more an indictment of them than the administration.
I wish the president were a better speaker, in this, a time of great philosophical challenge. But the past century only yielded a few presidents who were excellent speakers: Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy, with FDR kinda cool in his patrician way.
We the People are on our own, but it might be better that way.
Mr. Van Dyke:
I honor your request and this is your response:
...Dookie. (You can either accept my affection or my contention that pseudonyms do not inherently warrant the same respect as real names.)
This not affection - it is effrontery. If this is what passes for good faith in your set, then I count it a blessing not to be your friend. I reject your contention as well as your "affection".
Until you apologize, you are as one dead to me.
Winston Smith:
If you think that this is nothing more than nit-picking, then your pseudonym is well-chosen indeed.
Go over to Digby right now, do not pass go, and read his comments on Woodward. You are suffering from the liberal disease of being too open minded, that's all. We all have it, and we aren't going to pass a mental patriot act and so we'll have to take quinine every now and then (but G&Ts aren't so bad, are they). --Beel
Tom,
Please, please tell me that you are not seriously asserting that this mess is in any significant way the result of Bush being a bad speaker. That is utter foolishness, my brother. That he is a bad speaker has in no way harmed him. It's what got him elected in large part. The common man likes him because he seems like one of them. Most folks can't even TELL that he's a bad speaker.
This is not a communication problem. This is not a marketing challenge. THis is a substantive cock-up.
Duke,
I'm confused about the nit-picking thing. You mean about you being mad about Tom insisting on using a version of your pseudonym that you don't like? Sorry, I'm just confused.
Tom, I think you should stop calling the Duke 'Dookie'. Duke, I understand your pique, but suggest that you start calling Tom 'Tom-MEH' or 'turd-vd' or something if he persists. I think he genuinely did start it in good fun, but once somebody gets pissed off about something like this it's not fun anymore.
Jeez, you kids.
Winston:
Re nitpicking: You used the term in your response to the earlier fracas and I took it to mean all the personal stuff between myself and Mr VD. If I was mistaken and you were referring to something else, then your confusion is understandable and I withdraw my earlier comment.
Re starting in good fun: This started some time ago (maybe 2-3 months; not sure) and after the first two instances, I made my displeasure clear to Mr VD. After that he did not again play games with my handle until now. I agree that the matter is petty, but the principle is not. Mr VD arrogates to himself the right to express his affection in any manner he likes; the fact that I object to this particular expression is immaterial to him. Should not the first consideration of true affection be the wishes of the other person? Apparently not in Mr VD's world. In short, this is the affection of a bully.
I did not resort to responding in kind precisely because I preferred to make the point that despite our personal animosity I was willing to honor his request. Doing as you suggest would have been childish and I have to say that I am surprised that you suggested it.
I thought an olive branch might be accepted after I was so kind as to not take advantage of his previous self-embarrassments. I guess it wasn't noticed. Alternately, I thought I might get a rise out of him, although I didn't expect such an ejaculation.
Oh, well. Dead is good, too.
I dunno if the current row over Iraq was a result of Dubya's lack of communication skills. Certainly, it hasn't helped.
I think Clinton coulda pulled it off, though. The Balkan interventions made no practical sense at all, and weren't approved by the UN or NATO either. But except for some ineffectual carping by Tom DeLay, Clinton pushed the whole thing through pretty effortlessly. (Or at least he made it look effortless.)
First, my previous comment was posted while the comments were down. I assume that the same is true for Mr. VD's last comment also and that it is therefore a response only to WS's comment and not to mine.
Second, to set the record straight, I am providing sources for the history of this affair. The first use of a "personalizing" nickname was in June. I let this pass without mention in hopes that Mr. VD would realize he had made a false step. The second occured in August and I responded immediately in terms which I thought were adequate to convince him that he had not found a welcoming audience.
There was no repetition until recently and again I thought I had made my feelings clear. In his response, he says And since you previously rebuffed my attempt at personalizing your pseudonym in calling you "Dookie," you may call me Mr. Van Dyke. I am Tom only to my friends, and to those who approach me in good faith. , which request I was willing to honor in the interest of not short-circuiting future discussions, despite my low opinion of Mr VD both as a discussant and as a person. Then in his first full comment above, Mr VD included this "like it or lump it" statement: ... Dookie. (You can either accept my affection or my contention that pseudonyms do not inherently warrant the same respect as real names.)
To call this an "olive branch" is ludicrous – unless it's a branch from a Russian Olive tree. And if Mr VD thinks I would accept his bullying affection or feel any gratitude for his "kindness" in not tak[ing] advantage of [my] previous self-embarrassments, I submit that this is evidence that he is far less perceptive than he seems to think.
Third, on "as one dead": though the dead can speak to us, they cannot hear, so there is no point in trying to speak to them.
24 Nov 05
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home