Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
And Also: A bit amazing, really, to see someone play a cello that was made when Washington was president. And, not for usual classic music prices. Just a taste, but appreciated. Never say that I'm not one for the arts. More here.
I know what one might say -- hey, what about that speech? You mean "same b.s., different day?" Darn ... missed it. Shopping. I did ask someone last night about it. ["Did you listen to asshole?" Blunt, but honest, right? Some find such a tone a bit much, but they are kidding themselves. Reminds me of this idiot who always wanted to be "independent," which meant she had to take Bush seriously. Independent does not mean stupid.] She noted she saw bits and pieces, but couldn't really handle the guy without getting emotionally upset. I can relate. I simply cannot listen to the guy -- his voice is like loud car horns and nails on the blackboard, but worse given those things are inanimate objects.
Simply don't respect the man at all. It's rather depressing when you remember who he is and the power/responsibility he brings. But, there is a simple charm to such clarity. I am someone who loves to speak about the "complexity" of things, but the nature of the animal is that this would mean that everything could not be totally complex. Ironically, this would mean something was not -- a simple complexity rule would exist. Thus, I am pretty absolutist about certain things, like freedom of thought and basic fairness. And, my lack of respect for the asshole who "leads" us.
We really need to do something to stop this guy. Firmly. If not, the alternative leaves a lot to be desired. I'm not with Lawrence O'Donnell and his "the Dems are making a horrible mistake by actually showing being elected can lead to immediate domestic policy results" argument, one based on the sentiment that apparently (1) this will give them nothing to do for the rest of the next two years (half of which will be focused on the 2008 elections, another quarter on oversight/execution of the agenda) and (2) Bush is dominating the news (a possibility that always exists, plus when else will the media focus on Congress, if not when it first comes into power?). But, yes, Iraq must be faced as well ... firmly.*
The means are there, if the will is. H/t to Juan Cole for the title. Unfortunately, the speech seems to suggest not just the same b.s., but more fodder for thosewho fear the administration plans to attack Iran and/or Syria in some fashion.
Queue Cambodia comparisons.
* LOD is one of Al Franken's regular guests, was a producer on the West Wing, and worked for the Congress back in the 1990s. He also has a bit too much DLC in him, not too gung ho about Lamont, and then firmly saying obviously Lieberman would drop out if/when he lost the primary.
Lieberman btw is again being used as covered for Bush, part of a "bipartisan" (sic) effort to deal with Iraq. Meanwhile, a "bipartisan" opposition movement is growing. LOD also doesn't want the Democrats to firmly take part in the Iraq business, leaving it in Bush's hands. This again is b.s. -- they have a responsibility here. Bad things are not "meant" to be or anything, but you have to do something with them. This includes abuse of executive power.