“As difficult as [the Iraq war] was … I think the price has been worth it, to establish a stable government in a very important region of the world”

- Leon Panetta

With “friends” like these, who needs enemies.

Seriously, what a wanker. None of his [...]]]> Via Glenn Greenwald (quoting I believe this DoD article):

“As difficult as [the Iraq war] was … I think the price has been worth it, to establish a stable government in a very important region of the world”

- Leon Panetta

With “friends” like these, who needs enemies.

Seriously, what a wanker. None of his kids were maimed or killed in this thing, so what does he care? Just once I’d like to see someone in this level say, “It wasn’t worth it,” because they always seem to be “worth it” – how else can we justify the endless war machine that profits them so much.

Anyway, read Glenn’s article, he lays out well why saying such is complete claptrap (and, in my opinion, why the Obama administration should be ashamed of itself for letting this be voiced).

UPDATE:

By the way – this is no reflection on the troops. I’m very sorry that they served in a counter-productive war. They didn’t deserve to. Saying the war was stupid and pointless does not diminish their sacrifice that was made in the name of loyalty, patriotism, and protecting the country. What it diminishes is the assholes, and I do mean assholes, who squandered their lives, health, and in some cases futures on what can only be termed a “war of choice”.

That many were killed and many more wounded (not even counting the hundreds of thousands of innocents on the other side), is crime against humanity perpetrated against them. Those who started and continued this thing, should pay here, not the poor men and women in the trenches who, as Glenn points out who, “gave so much, for so little”.

The war supposedly ended yesterday (a lie I am sure but) and no one cares. All the cheerleaders silent. The great mass of bloodthirsty [...]]]> I sincerely feel for the veterans of this war. We tainted them with this immoral slop, chicken-hawks all we let them bear the wounds (physical and emotional), and then lost interest.

The war supposedly ended yesterday (a lie I am sure but) and no one cares. All the cheerleaders silent. The great mass of bloodthirsty Americans (once a majority!) engrossed in the next distraction.

The soldiers left to come home to – nothing.

You can call those who opposed this war whatever you want, but at least we are not the pathetic wretches who sent them there to die and now cannot find a modicum empathy, not to mention interest, for that which they wrought.

Immoral bastards all.

Just sayin’.

UPDATE:

Maybe this guy is a nice guy and this is just a bad shot, from the Wiki-Commons site it says he’s Canadian. All Canadians are nice right (actually I find them to be but…)?

The point is, [...]]]> If you don’t want to be treated like “jack-booted thugs”, don’t be “jack-booted thugs”.

Just sayin’.

UPDATE:

Maybe this guy is a nice guy and this is just a bad shot, from the Wiki-Commons site it says he’s Canadian. All Canadians are nice right (actually I find them to be but…)?

The point is, there are a lot of police officers who like to dress up like soldiers (and “dress up” is the proper term – I think it is essentially the same as “playing war” as a kid).

Unfortunately I think this is counter productive as the “in your face” testosterone/steroid high they display engenders anything but respect. As a male I can tell you it does one thing and one thing exactly – gets my back up.

If you want my respect, wear normal shoes, don’t tuck the pants in them, drop the military gear, and by all means drop the fucking Ray-Bans (or Okies or wrap-arounds or whatever). Be a normal human being rather than acting like an ape with your chest out. Oh, and positively skip the “steroid” look.

Seriously, I remember when police officers seemed like normal people with a badge. We need to bring that back.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. [...]]]> Joseph Stiglitz via Digby:

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

- Joseph Stiglitz

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — After top Penn State officials announced that they had fired Joe Paterno on Wednesday night, thousands of students stormed the downtown area to display their anger and frustration, chanting the former coach’s name, tearing down light [...]]]> Another example of where my faith in humanity, or it’s future, is challenged (from NYT):

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — After top Penn State officials announced that they had fired Joe Paterno on Wednesday night, thousands of students stormed the downtown area to display their anger and frustration, chanting the former coach’s name, tearing down light poles and overturning a television news van parked along College Avenue.

Ok, yes, we in the “court of public opinion” honestly cannot know if Joe Paterno is guilty of, by his relative inaction, aiding a pedophile. Yes, this does have all the trappings of a mob lynching.

But we also don’t know that he didn’t aid a pedophile (again through relative inaction, not literal aid). There’s no way in hell that you could get me to be so sure of my opinion about the subject that I would start literally rioting. I mean, we do at least know Mr. Paterno employed said pedophile and did hear of a literal vile act of said pedophile where it was reported to a “dead end” – that is an uncomfortably close relationship.

So, I could see expressing one’s opinion in a reasonable manner that your “off the cuff” opinion is he’s getting the shaft here – but it would take pure basest tribalism to riot over it.

That is, the only way that one could become so sure that Paterno isn’t guilty that one would start trashing stuff is out of shear ugly tribal mob mentality – perhaps the least pretty aspect of humanity (or lack off).

In the end the point I’m getting at isn’t so much whether Paterno is guilty or not, but rather that I find this as yet another example where so-called “factual decisions” (guilty or not guilty) are really based on arbitrary affiliation. If you’re Penn State fan he’s not guilty (with a vengeance), if you’re not a Pen State fan, then maybe your more open to all the possibilities.

In short, don’t assume your “hard earned” opinion (regardless of subject) is really “hard earned” rather than predetermined by you biases of affiliation/association.

To be clear, while I have no great love of any religion, I steadfastly believe in the right of all to worship any faith or for that matter, not worship at all (ie: [...]]]> I will note in the post below I used the term “convert”, which is a loaded word especially when talking about Islam.

To be clear, while I have no great love of any religion, I steadfastly believe in the right of all to worship any faith or for that matter, not worship at all (ie: be atheist). I don’t believe that anyone should be “converted” – Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., etc. are all valid choices.

Personally I find them all a bit silly, in the same way we find the trials and tribulations of Greek and Roman gods silly today. However, they also bring great beauty in terms of spiritualism, moral ideas, etc.

All that said, I have a disdain for Fundamentalism, regardless of underlying religion, particularly where such Fundamentalism requires the conversion or killing others, or encourages killing period.

So, while I am no fan of Islam, I am also no enemy. The same could be said of any religion. When I talked of “conversion” in my last post, I was talking about a conversion of secular views, not religious ones. That is, to make your supposed enemy see your side of things (and hopefully in the process vice-versa if we have any wisdom).

However “conversion” of the realm of the spiritual, I’ll leave to others of a different calling.

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not saying that he couldn’t have said it more eloquently, and unfortunately I don’t think that [...]]]> Apparently Paul Krugman is taking a lot of heat for words like these on 9/11:

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not saying that he couldn’t have said it more eloquently, and unfortunately I don’t think that for most “in its heart, the nation knows it,” however I still have to support Krugman on this one.

9/11 could have been a time of introspection, of shared grief, of unity. For a short time it was, however as Krugman says:

Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

and:

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

This is all entirely true. It was turned from something that should have mournful and sacred to a twisted mess of hubris and hate. From a source of common purpose, to a source of abject manipulation.

Surely no one could expect that revenge wouldn’t ultimately enter the picture, but America and it’s grief was used, and “used” is the right word, to achieve ends that went infinitely beyond “revenge”, into something far, far darker. Something that stains and perverts what it means to be American to this very day.

Americans, particularly those directly affected by 9/11 certainly have reason to mark the day, as all of us should. However something was lost, corrupted, stolen from them by those who perverted its meaning, turning it into something it should have never been.

So, don’t hate Krugman for giving bringing to the truth here, hate those who with their selfish actions profaned a sacred day.

“Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

- [...]]]> I’m mostly putting this here for a friend of mine who quotes this a lot. Being a geek at heart I tend to be a lot more tolerant of this stuff. From Jurassic Park:

“Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

- Dr. Ian Malcolm (aka Jeff Goldblum at his most annoying best)

Certainly applicable to a lot of science depending on your opinion.

PS: I tend to feel quoting Steven Spielberg on anything is dubious at best.

No insult to SwissInfo as this is endemic in the news industry, but why aren’t we as eager to name a Christian Fundamentalist a “terrorist” as a bunch of stupid violent tree-huggers (ones that give the rest of us tree-huggers a bad name frankly)?

In a word – “propaganda”.