Friday, March 28, 2003
Hold your horses, OK? Since Bill is off to the military, my readership has been cut by about a third. So, I see no need to post with much more frequency than I have been. There hasn't been much time, lately. You really want to read about how I don't have much time lately? I'll write tomorrow when I have more to say. B'lieve me, I have plenty. Or whatever.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
So, the U.S. elected to attack Iraq, starting yesterday. Some Washingtonian today was making some really, really great magnanimous statements on NPR--talking about how awesome and powerful our aerial assault would be, and how it was really "up to the Iraqi people" to determine how long they'd suffer the bombardment before deposing their leader. Oh, I see! By dint of our powerful military, we have the right to force other nations to change their government! It's all so simple when Washington is in charge.
Here: I agree that Hussein is evil, that he poses a threat to everybody. But he has never been proven to support al-Quaeda, nor would he use Weapons of Mass Destruction pre-emptively against the U.S.--not unless he wanted to face a coalition of powers that would have no choice but to support a U.S.-led invasion. I'll also concede that pre-emptive action is in large part warranted by Hussein's record of atrocities, as well as by the nature of geo-political conflict in the world today. Taking out people like Hussein before they have time to do something horrendous is a good idea. But alienating the rest of the world in the process is a bad idea. The arrogance noted above, that's part of the alienation. The assertion that you can bomb a nation into taking political action, and that you are ever justified in doing so, is morally reprehensible. If you think it isn't simply because it's the United States that's doing the bombing, you're displaying exactly the attitude that much of the world finds so unattractive. How is it just for Bush to protect innocent Americans by harming innocent Iraqis?
I agree with the principle of the war, but not with its execution.
Here: I agree that Hussein is evil, that he poses a threat to everybody. But he has never been proven to support al-Quaeda, nor would he use Weapons of Mass Destruction pre-emptively against the U.S.--not unless he wanted to face a coalition of powers that would have no choice but to support a U.S.-led invasion. I'll also concede that pre-emptive action is in large part warranted by Hussein's record of atrocities, as well as by the nature of geo-political conflict in the world today. Taking out people like Hussein before they have time to do something horrendous is a good idea. But alienating the rest of the world in the process is a bad idea. The arrogance noted above, that's part of the alienation. The assertion that you can bomb a nation into taking political action, and that you are ever justified in doing so, is morally reprehensible. If you think it isn't simply because it's the United States that's doing the bombing, you're displaying exactly the attitude that much of the world finds so unattractive. How is it just for Bush to protect innocent Americans by harming innocent Iraqis?
I agree with the principle of the war, but not with its execution.
Saturday, March 15, 2003
For three long months, Chicago has been encased in a block of ice. Today, our frozen cage melted, and we emerged grateful and confused into a late spring day. There is nothing quite like the first warm day after winter in Chicago. It does not excuse the preceding ninety days of frigid suffering, and of course it has to come, eventually. Despite these facts, I still wait for it and I revel in it.
I'm watching a TV program on dunking right now, on ESPN Classic. It's great--it was made when Jordan was young, so I know it will end with Jordan doing a whole bunch of amazing dunks. The main things about Jordan are two: 1) People forget what a ferocious, graceful, and awesome dunker Jordan was. It was a long time ago, but he was unreal. I somehow need to put together a personal highlight reel of my favorite Jordan dunks. 2) That switch-hand layup against the Lakers in the '91 finals is so overrated. He should have dunked the fucker!
Now I'm going to be leaping and touching my ceiling for the rest of the night. If only I was a foot taller.
I'm watching a TV program on dunking right now, on ESPN Classic. It's great--it was made when Jordan was young, so I know it will end with Jordan doing a whole bunch of amazing dunks. The main things about Jordan are two: 1) People forget what a ferocious, graceful, and awesome dunker Jordan was. It was a long time ago, but he was unreal. I somehow need to put together a personal highlight reel of my favorite Jordan dunks. 2) That switch-hand layup against the Lakers in the '91 finals is so overrated. He should have dunked the fucker!
Now I'm going to be leaping and touching my ceiling for the rest of the night. If only I was a foot taller.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
A-Rod is playing tennis on TV, with triple break on T. Enqvist at the Pacific Life. I'm a huge fan of watching Andy Roddick play tennis on TV. I'd like to go to a pro tennis tournament sometime this summer...there's supposed to be a good one in Indianapolis, which isn't too far away. If I had friends, I'd ask them to go with.
Hey, I'm looking at W's response again (below), and there's another facet of it that I just fail to see as germane or even coherent. What the hell is he trying to imply when he says, "...it's hard to envision more terror on America than [9/11]....We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack." Categorically, now: 1) I can imagine "more" (i.e. worse, more deadly, more terrifying) terror striking the U.S. quite easily, as can anyone with cerebral cortex and a pulse; and 2) is the fact that we are now ACTIVELY PROVOKING radicals in the Middle East supposed to assuage my fears about more terrorist attacks?
Enough worry for tonight. Bed time.
Hey, I'm looking at W's response again (below), and there's another facet of it that I just fail to see as germane or even coherent. What the hell is he trying to imply when he says, "...it's hard to envision more terror on America than [9/11]....We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack." Categorically, now: 1) I can imagine "more" (i.e. worse, more deadly, more terrifying) terror striking the U.S. quite easily, as can anyone with cerebral cortex and a pulse; and 2) is the fact that we are now ACTIVELY PROVOKING radicals in the Middle East supposed to assuage my fears about more terrorist attacks?
Enough worry for tonight. Bed time.
Saturday, March 08, 2003
I like to read other weblogs, and I appreciated the comments on GW Bush I found here. Marissa, it's likely that we'd get along.
W and I, though: we wouldn't get along, if ever we met. I watched his Thursday press conference at my girlfriend's house, and I found the following statement highly illuminating as I read the transcript over at cnn.com:
QUESTION: As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
BUSH: I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there is an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom, and we're not changing.
And therefore, so long as there's a terrorist network like al Qaeda and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them, we're at war.
Wow! That's an incredible leap of logic for a man entrusted, as he repeatedly reminded us, with the safety of the American people. "If you don't agree with us: WAR!" This sounds to me suspiciously like the sort of fundamentalism the U.S. is supposed to be stamping out in the Middle East, and is just one example of how Bush and his ideologies seem offensive and dangerous to me. He expresses no interest in examining the causes of anti-American sentiment (doesn't even acknowledge that part of the question, acutally); his thinking is simplistic, stated in terms that even a third-grader could understand. Well, I don't think the current geo-political situation is as simple as "We good, like freedom, make war on evil America-haters." I'm interested in finding out why the U.S. is so widely disliked, and why people are willing to kill themselves to prove it. How did we get to this point, where our nation is so reviled that it seems sweet and honorable to kill oneself opposing it? Obviously, the U.S. is seen by some as malevolent and overpowering; that the use of military might will "correct" this perception seems a questionable assumption.
Please don't misunderstand me: I am in favor of using force to control Iraq (and North Korea!), but only because we have passed the point where force is unavoidable. But I am deeply disappointed in the way our nation's leaders have portrayed the need to use force in Iraq as immediate and pressing. I don't agree with this at all--Iraq is not a nation of wealth and power, as Bush describes it, but rather a state that has been tightly controlled since the end of the Gulf War. There are a lot of considerations to be made before invasion--and I've not been pleased with the tack taken by France and Germany in this matter--but it just seems like, through his administration's aggressive and solipsistic stance, Bush has botched any chance we had to capitalize on post-Sept. 11th goodwill and recruit supporters to the righteous cause of deposing Saddam Hussein. For this, I hereby formally announce my intention to vote against Bush at the next Presidential election, and I urge you to do the same.
W and I, though: we wouldn't get along, if ever we met. I watched his Thursday press conference at my girlfriend's house, and I found the following statement highly illuminating as I read the transcript over at cnn.com:
QUESTION: As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
BUSH: I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there is an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom, and we're not changing.
And therefore, so long as there's a terrorist network like al Qaeda and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them, we're at war.
Wow! That's an incredible leap of logic for a man entrusted, as he repeatedly reminded us, with the safety of the American people. "If you don't agree with us: WAR!" This sounds to me suspiciously like the sort of fundamentalism the U.S. is supposed to be stamping out in the Middle East, and is just one example of how Bush and his ideologies seem offensive and dangerous to me. He expresses no interest in examining the causes of anti-American sentiment (doesn't even acknowledge that part of the question, acutally); his thinking is simplistic, stated in terms that even a third-grader could understand. Well, I don't think the current geo-political situation is as simple as "We good, like freedom, make war on evil America-haters." I'm interested in finding out why the U.S. is so widely disliked, and why people are willing to kill themselves to prove it. How did we get to this point, where our nation is so reviled that it seems sweet and honorable to kill oneself opposing it? Obviously, the U.S. is seen by some as malevolent and overpowering; that the use of military might will "correct" this perception seems a questionable assumption.
Please don't misunderstand me: I am in favor of using force to control Iraq (and North Korea!), but only because we have passed the point where force is unavoidable. But I am deeply disappointed in the way our nation's leaders have portrayed the need to use force in Iraq as immediate and pressing. I don't agree with this at all--Iraq is not a nation of wealth and power, as Bush describes it, but rather a state that has been tightly controlled since the end of the Gulf War. There are a lot of considerations to be made before invasion--and I've not been pleased with the tack taken by France and Germany in this matter--but it just seems like, through his administration's aggressive and solipsistic stance, Bush has botched any chance we had to capitalize on post-Sept. 11th goodwill and recruit supporters to the righteous cause of deposing Saddam Hussein. For this, I hereby formally announce my intention to vote against Bush at the next Presidential election, and I urge you to do the same.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Work today was quite saucy. Actually it wasn't: it was boring as hell. This space is going to be absolutely brutal for awhile while I figure out how to write things that people will find interesting again (?) Anyway, I somehow manage to have quite a bit of fun at work while simultaneously being bored out of my skull. Rick and I will often sit and bitch softly about things for long periods; usually this will conclude with me saying something like "I should go pretend to work again." Then I'll go and listen to the same album for like the 37th time in a row, and I'll surreptitiously surf the web, and then maybe my boss will come by and we'll talk about LSD or last night's episode of Fear Factor. I mean, work could be far worse, you know? But I can still, like, feel my soul bleeding out through my eyes with every minute spent pretending to be busy. Is there an activity stupider than pretending to be busy? If there is, I don't know what it is.
With that, I give you this week's TOP 5:
1. "First It Giveth," Queens of the Stone Age
2. "Lyric," Zwan
3. "God is in the Radio," Queens of the Stone Age
4. "Come with Me," Zwan
5. "El Sol," Zwan
Yes, I have an obsessive personality. First it giveth, then it taketh away.
With that, I give you this week's TOP 5:
1. "First It Giveth," Queens of the Stone Age
2. "Lyric," Zwan
3. "God is in the Radio," Queens of the Stone Age
4. "Come with Me," Zwan
5. "El Sol," Zwan
Yes, I have an obsessive personality. First it giveth, then it taketh away.
Monday, March 03, 2003
Yes, well, I'm here now. I feel like I'm guesting on somebody else's website--which is, I guess, actually what I'm doing. It's been awhile since I wrote here, mostly because it was so damned hard to update the thing. I needed to set up secure connections, etc etc. Not that you want to hear about that. Or maybe you do. I'll keep you updated.
I like chicken
