People (mostly conservatives) who are of the "I don't care if you listen to what I say on the phone because I'm not breaking any laws" school of thought are naively and lazily handing over control of the freedoms of which they are so vocally proud to people who have little regard for personal privacy or liberty. Just as they shop at Wal-Mart while bitching about jobs moving abroad, these same people can be seen waiving flags while the foundation for what that flag used to represent being whithered away. Unfortunately, 57 Democrats proved themselves weak and susceptible to Administration fear-mongering, leaving the concerned minority with fewer allies than we might have assumed.
We should all be at least a little worried at this point.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
A Couple of Bourne Observations
***NO SPOILERS HERE****
So, I just got back from seeing the new Bourne Existential movie, and I have a few observations to make.
1. Having seen shots from Turin, Madrid, France, London, and NYC, I have to say that while they are all just big worldly cities, they make Dallas look pretty boring. Not that I'm looking for a greater bomb in the marketplace to person ratio, but all of those tiny streets just look fun.
2. I have now expanded the exclusive and invitation-only "Women who are allowed to date Travis Kelly" list to include Julia Stiles. I haven't decided where she ranks in regard to Reese Witherspoon and Jenny Lewis, but she'll have to wait patiently just like all of the other ladies. If nothing else, I suppose she could teach me to dance.
3. Was the last scene supposed to be a very convincing and not too subtle attempt to dissuade each and every potential Army recruit that they might end up an unwilling participant in a super-secret government killing program, or was that just my take?
4. Maybe it is just me. I just heard from my Peace Corps Placement Officer. After asking me questions about the most private and emotionally sensitive topics in my life, she told me that the possibility of my leaving in late October/early November was "very real." She couldn't tell me where I'd be going or what I'd be doing once I arrived. I suppose that all of this secrecy is just part of the DC vernacular. Hopefully this is one of the few things that the Peace Corps shares with the War Corps.
So, I just got back from seeing the new Bourne Existential movie, and I have a few observations to make.
1. Having seen shots from Turin, Madrid, France, London, and NYC, I have to say that while they are all just big worldly cities, they make Dallas look pretty boring. Not that I'm looking for a greater bomb in the marketplace to person ratio, but all of those tiny streets just look fun.
2. I have now expanded the exclusive and invitation-only "Women who are allowed to date Travis Kelly" list to include Julia Stiles. I haven't decided where she ranks in regard to Reese Witherspoon and Jenny Lewis, but she'll have to wait patiently just like all of the other ladies. If nothing else, I suppose she could teach me to dance.
3. Was the last scene supposed to be a very convincing and not too subtle attempt to dissuade each and every potential Army recruit that they might end up an unwilling participant in a super-secret government killing program, or was that just my take?
4. Maybe it is just me. I just heard from my Peace Corps Placement Officer. After asking me questions about the most private and emotionally sensitive topics in my life, she told me that the possibility of my leaving in late October/early November was "very real." She couldn't tell me where I'd be going or what I'd be doing once I arrived. I suppose that all of this secrecy is just part of the DC vernacular. Hopefully this is one of the few things that the Peace Corps shares with the War Corps.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Guns, Oil, and Money: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
So, I was quite flattered the other day when a friend told me that he was suprized that I hadn't commented on the recently announced arms deal between the US and various ME countries. The reason I hadn't commented is because I had been completely and totally out of the loop in regards to all things news. When I read what was going on, I was (unfortunately) not surprised, but was definitely scared.
For those of you who don't know, the US just announced, via a tag team tour of the region by Rice and Gates, that it would increase aid to 8 ME countries by over $60 billion over the next 10 years - IN THE FORM OF MILITARY AID. Essentially, we're giving them money with the understanding that they will turn around and purchase tanks, planes, missiles, bombs, etc from US companies. And just in case you thought Bush was turning meek in his lame duck days, he's claiming that these guns will help "empower the moderate voices in the region."
Wow.
If I'm ever asked to make a list of noteworthy moderates, I don't think that Charles Bronson or Tony Montana would make the list. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I tend to think that moderates can do almost all of their work WITHOUT TANKS. Does Bush really watch the news and think "Geez, if only the moderates were better armed they could make a real difference."
Not that our actions in Iraq are moderate by any stretch of the imagination, but nobody is as well-armed as we are, and all we've accomplished is the picking of a giant sandy scab. It's gonna decades to heal, if it ever does, and more guns is not their problem. In fact, the 190,000 guns that we've distributed to the bad guys hasn’t really made the place any safer.
In trying to actually figure out what could be the real reason for this deal, I figured that I had at least two options from which to choose. Option 1, the Bush Administration is completely corrupt and this $60 billion dollar donation to US arms manufacturers is simply that—a handout to ‘friendly’ countries for personal and/or political gain. Option 2, the vacuous Whitehouse braintrust actually thinks that by arming Iran’s neighbors they can intimidate Iran into backing down. (Note: see ‘arms race,’ ‘MAD,’ and ‘pipedream’)
Now, even I am not cynical enough to believe option 1. I don’t think that Dubya has enough to gain from such an arms deal that he would risk such a front page-bound move. Plus, he has certainly proven himself capable of such naivety in regards to easy fixes to complex problems. (Note: see ‘Iraq,’ ‘Afghanistan,’ ‘education,’ ‘AIDS,’ ‘Medicare,’ ‘tax reform,’ ‘social security,’ and ‘Al Gonzalez’) So, I think that it is most likely an unfortunate combination of options 1 and 2. He (Cheney) thinks that more guns can actually create peace, and the military industrial complex helped make the decision anything but complex for him.
Let’s, if just for a moment, look at this from Iran’s point of view. (I realize that if talking to Iranian leaders is unpatriotic that looking at things from their point of view is likely to get me shot for treason.) This map, which is oversimplified and pretty bad, but the only one I could really find,
shows the crazy number of permanent US military bases in countries that border Iran. Again, this map is rather vague, but the number from a map that appeared several months ago in The Economist put the number at 15. So, the US occupies two countries on your border, and has 15 PERMANENT military bases and two carrier groups well within striking distance of you. What do you do? You look remember that the US has never attacked a country with nuclear weapons and you start cranking the bitches out. As fast as you can.
Iran is only acting in its own interests, that is clear. I’m not sure in whose interests we are most interested. Looking at this map, I hardly think the region is suffering from a shortage of guns. I think that Dubya's legacy as a peace monger might be in jeapardy here.
For those of you who don't know, the US just announced, via a tag team tour of the region by Rice and Gates, that it would increase aid to 8 ME countries by over $60 billion over the next 10 years - IN THE FORM OF MILITARY AID. Essentially, we're giving them money with the understanding that they will turn around and purchase tanks, planes, missiles, bombs, etc from US companies. And just in case you thought Bush was turning meek in his lame duck days, he's claiming that these guns will help "empower the moderate voices in the region."
Wow.
If I'm ever asked to make a list of noteworthy moderates, I don't think that Charles Bronson or Tony Montana would make the list. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I tend to think that moderates can do almost all of their work WITHOUT TANKS. Does Bush really watch the news and think "Geez, if only the moderates were better armed they could make a real difference."
Not that our actions in Iraq are moderate by any stretch of the imagination, but nobody is as well-armed as we are, and all we've accomplished is the picking of a giant sandy scab. It's gonna decades to heal, if it ever does, and more guns is not their problem. In fact, the 190,000 guns that we've distributed to the bad guys hasn’t really made the place any safer.
In trying to actually figure out what could be the real reason for this deal, I figured that I had at least two options from which to choose. Option 1, the Bush Administration is completely corrupt and this $60 billion dollar donation to US arms manufacturers is simply that—a handout to ‘friendly’ countries for personal and/or political gain. Option 2, the vacuous Whitehouse braintrust actually thinks that by arming Iran’s neighbors they can intimidate Iran into backing down. (Note: see ‘arms race,’ ‘MAD,’ and ‘pipedream’)
Now, even I am not cynical enough to believe option 1. I don’t think that Dubya has enough to gain from such an arms deal that he would risk such a front page-bound move. Plus, he has certainly proven himself capable of such naivety in regards to easy fixes to complex problems. (Note: see ‘Iraq,’ ‘Afghanistan,’ ‘education,’ ‘AIDS,’ ‘Medicare,’ ‘tax reform,’ ‘social security,’ and ‘Al Gonzalez’) So, I think that it is most likely an unfortunate combination of options 1 and 2. He (Cheney) thinks that more guns can actually create peace, and the military industrial complex helped make the decision anything but complex for him.
Let’s, if just for a moment, look at this from Iran’s point of view. (I realize that if talking to Iranian leaders is unpatriotic that looking at things from their point of view is likely to get me shot for treason.) This map, which is oversimplified and pretty bad, but the only one I could really find,
shows the crazy number of permanent US military bases in countries that border Iran. Again, this map is rather vague, but the number from a map that appeared several months ago in The Economist put the number at 15. So, the US occupies two countries on your border, and has 15 PERMANENT military bases and two carrier groups well within striking distance of you. What do you do? You look remember that the US has never attacked a country with nuclear weapons and you start cranking the bitches out. As fast as you can.
Iran is only acting in its own interests, that is clear. I’m not sure in whose interests we are most interested. Looking at this map, I hardly think the region is suffering from a shortage of guns. I think that Dubya's legacy as a peace monger might be in jeapardy here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)