Copyright © 2006 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2006 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings. Email: |
Room for compassion? I haven't criticized Israel's responses to Hezbollah in the past couple weeks; sure, some have called it "disproportionate," but without an understanding that goes deeper than the spin both sides are putting on everything, it's difficult to get beyond Israel's claims that they've been pamphleting endangered neighborhoods with messages to get out, that their lives are in danger. And truth be told, my own feelings have been running with Israel: if their patience has been exhausted, I think we can see why. But still. News today, even in that context, that Israel has initiated a 48 hour cease-fire is telling. From my point of view I'd been thinking that the wrong verb was being used with respect to a ceasefire: Hezbollah shouldn't be "negotiating," it should be "capitulating." Seriously, think about what these schmucks did: they invaded Israel and captured a couple Israeli soldiers. What were they thinking? All that having been said, if we believe that Israel has been judicious in getting its evacuation messages across, the deaths of the innocents need to be laid at the feet of those who stayed. Think about how we see those who refuse to evacuate when a hurricane approaches: don't you marvel at their stupidity, the way they play with the odds? (Or smokers, even, who think they can beat the odds.) I'm not going to pretend to say that I know everything that's
going on with respect to this crisis. But it does seem to me that
Israel didn't need to do a cessation. The fact that they
have shows a high level of emotional intelligence, and let's give
them credit for that.
In praise of community Web sites. There's a bit of a Luddite in me which maintains skepticism about using the Internet to meet people. I mean, what's so bad about the good old ways where you'd hang out in a singles bar hoping someone would buy you a drink (or expecting to have to shell out for the aforesaid on the other end of the transaction), maybe meeting Mr. or Mrs. Right. (Or maybe, if you haven't heard it yet - - Amanda Marshall's tune "Sunday Morning After," about the aftermath.) Or if you're lucky in the wrong way, the Preppy Murderer. But I will tell you that through flickr (a photo sharing Web
site owned by Yahoo!) I've met a number of nice people, and
shared several afternoons' photo safaris in NYC. Today I did
another, with somebody who was a complete stranger, who found
time in a busy life to shepherd me and a couple other people
through various neighborhoods in Staten Island. Prior to today,
my knowledge of Staten Island was about the size of a pinch of
cayenne: I'd driven through it on the way to Pennsylvania, and I
forced our daughter on a hike a couple years ago. That's all. I'm
sure this afternoon was a tip of the iceberg thing, so much more
to do: but the largeness of our host's heart in guiding us
through these neighborhoods was nothing short of wonderful.
Thanks, James!
New boldness for Bush? Today on CNN, reporter Suzanne Malveaux (speaking to Wolf Blitzer) framed Bush's position on Israel v. Lebanon as follows:
I about fell out of my chair over that one. Lack of American support was certainly not an issue in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Check out results from pollingreport.com (scroll down to "ABC News Poll" [or use your browser's "find", Ctrl+F on PCs], since this shows a historical trend going back into 2001). The question? "Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?" "Favor" answers were in the 70's in 2001, and consistently in the 60's right up to the invasion (except for two instances). Have I cherry picked? I don't think so - - scroll through, there's lots of support, expressed in various ways. Malveaux seems to feel as if Bush was acting courageously, boldly, defying popular opinion. If that's what she thinks, she's wrong: the Bush administration carefully manipulated public opinion by repeatedly conflating Iraq with 9/11, threatening mushroom clouds, and so on. As I've pointed out here before, Cheney took his own sweet
time — waiting until long after
the invasion (see UPDATE AND WELCOME) — to
correct a supposed "misstatement" he'd made on NBC's Meet The
Press that Saddam Hussein had "reconstituted his nuclear
weapons." No, there was nothing pioneering about Bush leading us
into war, unless you consider how willfully he lied to the
American public.
In God We Trust. Yesterday Bush signed a proclamation recognizing the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower signing a law making "In God We Trust" the national motto. It's all too lovely, of course: the 1950's were a period of Communist fear-mongering, and America sought to defend itself from the godless commies by also injecting God into the Pledge of Allegiance. Bush's proclamation subtly ties America to hope that God will help us out of the Bush messes, by citing Francis Scott Key's forgotten verses to the Star-Spangled Banner. The funny thing, of course, is that when Bush proclaims that "[f]rom its earliest days, the United States has been a Nation of faith," he sweeps past the religious intolerance which existed when we were a group of colonies and villages segregated on the basis of faith; he sweeps past the history of the Dutch in New Amsterdam (now New York), where tolerance first appeared; he ignores the horrors of white supremists who hung Jews; he ignores the intolerance which people like JFK had to respond to when campaigning for political office. Sadly, there is nothing in Bush's proclamation which speaks to any limits on the influence of religion, nor a recognition that atheists exist. Even his use of the word "we" in the statement "we recognize a divine plan that stands above all human plans" is an intolerant expression that there is some universal "we" of which we are all part. I'm sorry, Mr. President, but this is not my understanding of
the founding principles of the government, and I think you'd find
few Founding Fathers who would agree, or God would be in the
Constitution. And He's not.
How strange. This is one of the most interesting examples of bad process I've ever read. It's impact is not nearly as bad as that surrounding the Bush Administration's failure to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, but as for the process itself, it's at least as backward. What's left of The Who are touring this summer, and it seems as if Pete Townshend formulated a lot of plans for concert Web casts — of the entire tour — without getting his sole remaining band mate, Roger Daltrey, to agree:
I mean, how does this happen? I can understand drawing up the details of a concept in order to pitch it, but actually hiring people? (Is there more? Did Daltrey get cold feet?) I read something astute from Daltrey, though: "Guitarist
Townshend said Daltrey was not sure how 'the web has any real
contribution to make to our career.'" Perhaps you could argue
that it might bring new, younger fans to the marketplace, but I
would think you could whet that appetite by making a single song
performance available for free on the web. Not sure you'd need
the whole kit, with or without the kaboodle.
Worth asking. Because it's a great question that Dave Johnson poses.
Oboe blues. The oboe is a beautiful
instrument in the hands of someone who plays it well. It's not
whiny, actually, and is capable of a wide range of musical
expressions. Classical music listeners may have a sloppy thinking
that the oboist is just a link in the double play, handing off a
motif to the clarinet or the flute; but that's not so. The oboe
is an incredibly important instrument.
John Mack has died, and he was one of the best. The years Ab
and I subscribed to the Cleveland Orchestra series' at Carnegie,
he was always a standout part of the evening. Oddly, my
recollections of the Dohnanyi programs were that Mack was always
a crucial part. Get out your Cleveland Orchestra CDs under
Dohnanyi, and I'm sure you'll hear him. Rest in peace, John.
Fly-swatting envy. Remember that time in the spring of 2004, when Condi Rice was testifying in front of the 9/11 Commission, and said that in 2001 President Bush was looking for a broader, more strategic approach to al Qaeda because he was tired of "swatting flies"? And how Bob Kerrey asked to hear some evidence that Bush had tried even so much as to swat flies? Remember? What a cool exchange, really too bad it didn't stick in the minds of American voters: not just Bush's incompetence over the warning signals leading up to 9/11, but his failure to fire a lot of people in the aftermath of one of most horrible days in American history. (No, people like George Tenet would actually receive medals from the President. And at the President's party's convention in 2004, attendees would mock John Kerry's war medals. Do you need more evidence that the language has been turned upside down, than this use of the word "medal"?) Well, I doubt that you'd find very many people who would argue that Bush hasn't been playing some childish duel with his father, an "I'm going to topple the King" thing, with his march into Baghdad: GHW Bush knew he had no mandate for that March, and W knew not only did he have no mandate for the march, but that he had no inernational mandate for anything. But come hell or high water, he was going to do it. He is a man of God, after all, so long as the god has the name "Mars." (And I don't mean a Spike Lee character, either.) So with that in mind, I begin to understand what looks like a quiet, private enjoyment on Bush's part on watching Israel trounce Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's not just the fly swatting he didn't do in 2001, it's the Shock and Awe he couldn't do in Iraq thanks to the "overly precipitous" cave-in of the Iraqi forces in 2003. So, he must figure, this is a really cool video game to watch. And in some ways, Hezbollah has suggested that they thought everybody was in fly-swatting mode:
Truth be told, bully for Israel. This is the Dad who's had it up to here with all the whining, sniveling excuses of the snot- nosed kid over this or that, and read the child the riot act and grounded him for 314 days. Appropriately, the child says "Holy shit," and might rethink everything its done. Not sure if Hezbollah is at that stage, but I'm hoping they get there soon, before there are too many more lives lost: this is an alcoholic's intervention, if you will, writ large on the international stage. But as for Bush, well, this is the man he always wished he
could have been. He'd have love to have been in a position to
free a bunch of hostages on a runway in Uganda, and humiliate Idi
Amin. But no, he wasn't: he only faced a greater opportunity,
finding Osama Bin Laden, and fluffed that. Is it any wonder he
wants to see hostilities continue? I mean, sometimes it's not
enough just to see a statue tumble. (Wow, what a great piece of
election commercial that would be.)
Deck chairs, Titanic, you know the rest. Today's White House press briefing was given by NSA head Stephen Hadley, and some of the questions surrounded the announcement that U.S. forces in Iraq would be re-focused on Baghdad in an effort to stem the violence there:
Shorter Stephen Hadley: look, we really don't know what we're
doing, but we're crossing our fingers that moving a small number
of troops will somehow compensate for all the idiocy we've
displayed so far. Oh, and parents? Sorry about your kids.
Hmmm, this isn't good. The Pentagon has a Web site called Defend America, see? And I thought, well, if I wanted to report some good news about the earnest efforts of our government in this endeavor, this might be a good place to start. You agree? Good. So far we're in this together. And I hope we continue to be. Over on the right of that page, I saw a promising link, reading "Fact Sheet: War on Terror." Look, this seemed right up my alley: I'm reading Ron Suskind's book, and one aspect which has come through loud and clear is that the people in our government are earnest (at least as Suskind relates it). So, my thinking is, this would be a good link to share with you. For Sure! So I clicked it — uh, oh, the link takes you to a page on the White House Web site from early October, 2005. So. Dudes. Wasssup? Not much recently, you say? (I don't see how anyone can pretend to blame the "MSM" for not
reporting the good news when a Web site like this doesn't even
bother to. Know what I mean, Billy Jean?)
This just in. Er, me just in,
along with Ab, from the annual "drop the daughter off at camp"
trip up to Vermont. More arduous this year than the prior two,
but not really worth going into in this space. Sorry I can't stop
for commentary yet, but I'll be writing Monday night...
|
|