The idea of Herman Melville's posthumous novel Billy Budd is good ... innocent [one impressed from a ship named the "Rights of Man"] sacrificed for the good of the British Navy, the "official" story labeling a dangerous agitator. A law essay was written about how the captain was not "forced" into having a quickie court martial on board, the panel not very knowledgeable about the law.
The ship captain noted that it was probably ideal to keep him in custody and wait until they were back ashore for a formal trial. Anyway, the captain -- concerned about a mutiny and a witness to the alleged crime -- did not seem fully in his right mind. But, a false allegation could get the doctor in serious trouble, and how could he prove such an iffy thing anyway? The captain's closing argument to the panel to focus on their duty as members of the navy, not their natural sympathy and morality, was a powerful scene too. But, like the much longer Moby Dick, the book itself was rather dull. I could not get into the book, and had to skip over tracks of the DVD too.
I did find the "Giants of Political Thought" examination of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan [surely the same people who put out the Constitution volume narrated by Walter Cronkite]. It provided some analysis and put the book in historical context, discussing the man and his time. A reasonable two and half hours of discussion time, same format of various voices for different people cited along with a narrator. The book comes off like a neocon tract: the all powerful executive, the rather amoral stance, the concern for "public" faith, the opposition to criticism of the leader, and the basic fear that drives the whole affair. And, a critic of King James I even notes his problem was as much one of finesse as anything -- other royals had high opinions of themselves, he just was so much blunter about the whole thing.
Talking about statescraft, I did not see the YouTube debate, but suffice to say that I'm getting tired of the whole thing already. This is not very good, is it? Some already are worried about the frontloaded primary system, resulting in two nominees by early Spring, and lots of time before the election. One should also note that we already had various debates already, getting debate fatigue, and where are we? HC is still the frontrunner with OB a legitimate challenger, while EE is third. The others mostly do not exist, though DK forces us to realize a stronger position against the occupation etc. is possible. Anyway, again, I am sick of the status quo. If we spend all this time and get HC, well, f-it. Tedious process.
Dean was on Rachel Maddow/Air America tonight spouting the establishment line -- can't "cut and run" in Iraq, the "people don't want impeachment," "we can't do anything in Iraq until '09," etc. FU, Howard. Rachel was depressed at his spouting Republican talking points, and I agree ... I'm sick of it. The talk by some is that we will have to wait to 2008 ... but I want to underline that we have to want more too. Talk the talk, be angry that the majority's will is being blocked, that people like Gonzo are still in power (hey, is impeaching him so bad? censuring? oh must we just continue to embarrass him ... sorry, he has no shame ... it might feel good, but it's like yelling at a child*) , and so forth. If not, we will hear about how great it is that HC is the nominee, and lower expectations will kick in.
And, 75 degrees will feel cool since it was 105 in the shade before. Again, f-that. Yes, I'm getting rather upset about the whole process. Dean was right in 2002. Now, he is of the "hey, I will support the policy, but won't like it ... see I'm forced into to it. Really I am." I didn't much care for this in 1990 (Kuwait invasion preventable ... take eye off ball ... isn't that Joe Wilson? ... forced to fight), I surely don't now. And, I'm not alone.
Those low congressional approval ratings reflect a desire for action. But, at some point, you are tarred with the "same as everyone else" brush. Pretty sad to consider that when you just got into power a few months ago!
---
* A particularly nauseating example is Arlen of Pennsylvania, who is oh so concerned, but still is trying to find some "compromise" position to save el jefe from being hung on his own petard. But, again, it is a lie to only focus on Republicans here. If the leadership was consistently as hard hitting as the likes of Rep. Waxman, maybe something would occur. We get more and more news about how the President is wrecking the executive, but he will totally get away with it.
I'm sure he and his ilk are just crying in their coffee that the likes of I think he is an asshole and a threat to the constitutional order. As you know, we are misguided souls that threaten the well being of the nation. The fact we oppose him and his faith based system of governance underlines the righteousness of the cause. And, the idea that letting these people get away with it won't bleed over to 2009 because the next person will be oh so perfect or something is bogus.