Words fail me . . . I saw this and just wondered how it was going to play in the driver's seat of a Bradley in central Iraq. I guess we know now . . .

I'm shocked. Shocked! To discover that further idiocy is going on here.

What amazes me beyond words is that 56% of the country still thinks we're doing A-OK over there. I keep picturing an excruciatingly young Harrison Ford leaning forward, shoulders hunches, and shouting toward a communicator, "Just a slight, er, reactor core leak. We're all fine here! How are you?"

According to Congressional Quarterly's Midday Update newsletter for today, he also said, "Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case."

It's painfully obvious that someone doesn't know what he's talking about. Just not who he thinks it is.

14 months to Election Day: Tuesday, November 2, 2004.

Back in the halcyon days of 1984, I got it into my pointy head that I should join the Army to get the finances to go to college. Things got very strange in ways that need not be detailed here, but I had the transcendental experience of reading my first piece of news since I started Basic Training and having that piece of news be Ronald Reagan's "We begin bombing in ten minutes" comment. At the time, I mentally considered my options: standard cannon fodder or radioactive dust within the next six months?

Right now, my brother Eric (Ron Post to my Russ, if you're up on your Matt Howarth references) is stationed in the Baghdad Airport as part of the 82nd Airborne, and he's supposed to be there for the next year. I was scared when I read Reagan's idiot quips nineteen years ago, but didn't get angry over the situation. Now I face the very real likelihood that I may never see my brother alive again, and that his chances of survival were just cut in half by a draft-dodging cokehead MBA with the IQ of a turnip, and I get REALLY angry.

Paul - my brother is in Afghanistan as part of a different brigade within the 82d. Listening to him talk about how that war is basically being ignored makes me angrier than I can express.

My first thought was that the Democrats ought to be spreading this all over the airways and coming down hard, but then. I wonder just how many dittoheads, attack dogs, and the just plain underinformed and non-thoughtful people would consider it merely a demostration of our macho toughness. No, I'm not demonstrating much faith in the American public in general. I think I have some really good reasons not to. One of the is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Excuse me while I go take something for the nausea. And maybe go donate some more money to Howard Dean.

MKK

"One of the is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

You said it better than I could.

"donate some more money to Howard Dean."

Another good idea.

The depressing thing is that this will probably just serve to fire up the "Let's Roll!" crowd, who are all about machismo from a distance, anyway. They're unlikely to spot the problem here, and people who are likely to be disturbed by the quote were probably already unhappy with the way things are going.

I think that everthing after "Adam Felber has more" is made up.

The big question is how folks will spot the tipping point when the guys shooting at our troops stop being leftover Saddamistas and start being Iraqi patriots.

It gets better - TBogg has the story about how he tried to stop congress from doubling the amount of money that military families (many of whom are on foodstamps) get as a death benefit.

To $12,000.

If you want to look at it another way, think of it as a percentage increase in the high one figures of the amount of money he handed himself as a tax cut this year alone.

Gah. Sorry. Swap that. The increase is a one-figure percentage of the amount &c;

Then there's the 100% tax on disability costs for vets. Then there's the schools for military kids. Then there's the raise Bush promised during the campaign but decided on 20/1/01 he couldn't afford. And so on, and so on, and so on. Support our troops.

Jim, I certainly hope no one thought the part after "Adam Felber has more" wasn't made up.

By the way, he said to nobody in particular, I wouldn't support a political movement that I felt was constantly telling me that most Americans are fools and knaves.

The thing about democracy is that, if you pay a lot of attention to current events, you will find yourself in disagreement with "most people" a great deal of the time. This is because "most people" have other things on their minds. If you want to conclude from this that they're mostly "dittoheads," "attack dogs," or "underinformed", well, you're free to, even though this is exactly the kind of talk Karl Rove likes to see coming out of liberal mouths. Demonstrating patent contempt for one's fellows isn't really a very effective way of convincing anyone of anything.

Politics is work. Part of the work involves being "happy warriors," including when we don't feel like it. A reliably salient characteristic of work is that if we don't do it, the opposition will.

"donate some more money to Howard Dean."

We are. I've just returned from a Dean meet-up this evening (my 3rd and the largest yet--over 50 people). There were a few ex-McCain supporters there who like Dean and I talked to a veteran of Afghanistan (so not exactly flag-burning lefties). The conversation turned to Bush's remark and there was unanimous disgust that an American President would so carelessly invite attacks on American servicemen and women for nothing more than a soundbite or his own macho kicks.

Regarding "flag-burning lefties". It's an old subject on Electrolite, but just to reiterate a data point: I grew up in the anti-Vietnam War left, and I don't believe I've ever actually seen a flag burned.

Indeed, all the antiwar lefties I ever knew were vociferous in their belief that the flag and other symbols of American patriotism belonged to them as well as to everyone else. And there's been a flag in Teresa's and my front window since long before 9/11.

I like Dean, too, not because his positions match mine perfectly (they don't -- I'm further to the left on some issues and more of a cranky libertarian on others), but because he articulates a civic Americanism in which someone like me actually exists. I don't doubt that a President Dean would regularly annoy me. I doubt very much that his decisions would have me wondering whether I wanted to remain an American citizen.

Ooops.

14 months to Election Day: Tuesday, November 2, 2004.

Arithmetic never was my best subject. It's 16 months. (Twelve plus four.) Sorry.

re: "flag burning lefties"--a figure of speech there and a sloppy one at that. I've never seen a flag burned either and everything I've ever read suggests that the practice as dissent is largely (if not entirely) apocryphal. So I probably shouldn't reinforce the myth by associating the two. Feh.

I've already sent my Senators and Representative a very angry and upset e-mail.

Let me rephrase that: VERY angry and VERY upset e-mail.

(Patrick & Teresa would probably recognize the tone of the e-mail as similar to way back years ago when I let myself get involved in fannish politics. Yes, I'm THAT upset!)

Right, nobody in particular he says and quotes my words. Patrick, dammit, we've had this discussion before. And I still think there are more of them out there than there are of us. Look at the way people responded to our war of agression! Look at the insanely high ratings it got that little piece of shit occupying the White House. Yeah, ok, after we got in there and couldn't find the WMD and things started looking ugly he suffered. But not nearly as much as he ought to. It isn't only pundits who are accusing people of treason and aiding the enemy by objecting to having their personal libertries trashed. There are millions and millions of people right here in America who don't see any reason to get upset because Mr. Ashcroft wants to tap lots of phones and hold people without trial, because, well, they don't have anything to worry about, our government will only go after the bad guys so let's give'em what they need. Honest to god. There are millions and millions of them who think this way. I know because I Iisten to them and talk to them on buses and on airport shuttles and in the street. I know because I keep in touch with where I grew up and with the people there. My own personal experience tells me that the goddammed American public really isn't to be trusted. If the American public could be trusted to do the right thing we wouldn't have needed the Civil Rights Act or Brown v the Board of Education, or any of that. My own personal observations. And I'm goddammed tired of your looking down your nose at my personal observations and experience.

I'm not a happy warrior not even at the best of times. And this isn't that. I'm grouchy, sharp tongued, opinionated, and unable to resist argument. Which is why in almost all my involvements with the world, I try for positions which do not require me to demonstrate 'people skills' or to be a 'team player'. When I volunteer I ask for something in the back room, just me and my friendly computer. I had thought however that some of my friends might allow my natural grumpiness to display itself without explaining to me how I'm helping out the Republicans and making Unca Karl happy. I mean, it is my friends I'm talking to here, yes? I'm not out on the street corner with a bullhorn telling people they're stupid. I may not be oversupplied with people skills, but I know better than to do that. I'm not a political movement. I'm not publishing articles in the daily press and trying to change peoples' opinions. I'm just talking here with some people I know. Will you please just ease off a little? Or am I required to get my own blog to be grouchy and misanthropic?

If only Karl Rove would get overconfident and let El Presedente do a whole long press conference. Bush was very close to fully revealing that truest part of himself - the mean, thin skinned bully.

There was a swagger in Bush's manner that might have embarrassed Patton. Maybe not Patton. Me, definitely.

Almost no pundit gasbag energy expended on this, at least that I caught.

I wish some of those military families would speak up, tho I'm sure it's difficult for them.

What might Iraqis be thinking, if any of them picked this up on their dishes? Does it get any more arrogant, ignorant, ugly American? Did Bush forget it's still supposed to be their country.

Seems that Rove's response to the increasing criticism of how reconstruction/occupation is being handled is to ignore the actual questions raised, and the policy changes proferred, in order that Bush not have to admit any mistakes were made, and to frame the critics in a Vietnam War framework, as being those who want to cut and run, while Bush won't leave Iraq till the job's done. Well, none of the critics are talking about the US leaving right now; they're talking about including other countries, the UN, and most of all the Iraqis in this transition period. Instead, Bremer cancels local elections through-out the country. Does Bush even know what's going on there? Does anyone know if he reads any newspapers, I mean on his own, not a White House clipping service?

Another good reason to reinstate the draft.
Kids with parents making 40,000$ or more should all be primarly drafted to combat units regardless of gender.
Otherways no-one will care and the wars dosen't really cost anything.

Because frankly my dear, poor people don't count, for the filthy rich people making the decisions.

Patrick, this time I have to agree with MK. We, the voting public, are being used in the most cynical and scabrous fashion, and if we aren't getting at least a little pissed off by it, I wonder what's wrong with us. People from the Rockerfeller center-right all the way over to the far left are pissed. Let's work with that passion, for a change. Both of my Senators (one chairs the Armed Forces Committee, lots of military voters in this state) and my Rep are getting phone calls over this outrageous Bushism.

In destroying the muslim insurrectionists in the Phillipines, Gen. John Pershing crushed them with such savagery that they were broken for nearly a century.

When Hitler's "Werewolves" (his partisan nazi soldiers in occupied Germany) rose up against American occupation they were crushed with similar effectiveness.

The President is right to say bring it on. We need to extripate the remnants of Baathism now, when we have the resources in-country to deal with them. We must not leave them undisturbed for some weak new Iraqi democratic government to deal with. Wiemar anyone?

Ten casualties in Iraq today. "Bring them on," eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/03/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Paul,

I dug the Matt Howarth reference. :D

Of *course* this rhetoric will fire up Bush's base -- but we in the loyal opposition will never, ever capture their vote anyway, so who cares?

In 2000, Bush, running as a largely unknown quantity, failed to capture even a plurality of the vote by appealing both to the base and the moderates. I don't care how comments like this play with the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" crowd; I care that moderates and uncommitted voters see it for the horror it is.

And with the inevitability of more attacks, I fear that they will, at a terrible price for our troops.

"Bush, who during Vietnam war bravely combatted an extremely inconvenient schedule..."

Well, that's my laugh for the day. If only it were funny...

"Patrick, this time I have to agree with MK. We, the voting public, are being used in the most cynical and scabrous fashion, and if we aren't getting at least a little pissed off by it, I wonder what's wrong with us. People from the Rockerfeller center-right all the way over to the far left are pissed. Let's work with that passion, for a change. Both of my Senators (one chairs the Armed Forces Committee, lots of military voters in this state) and my Rep are getting phone calls over this outrageous Bushism."

I'm baffled by this. First you say that you say that " if we aren't getting at least a little pissed off by it, I wonder what's wrong with us," then you say that "people from the Rockerfeller center-right all the way over to the far left are pissed". Well, which is it?

The President is right to say bring it on. We need to extripate the remnants of Baathism now, when we have the resources in-country to deal with them. We must not leave them undisturbed for some weak new Iraqi democratic government to deal with. Wiemar anyone?

I suspect that the Baathists are unlikely to attack us right now, at least until we're through re-arming them and putting them back in charge. We're doing that right now.

There are other people over there who don't like us, if you haven't heard.

I wish some of those military families would speak up, tho I'm sure it's difficult for them.

They don't want their son or daughter to get the Uriah treatment.

Well, as the White House position on military pay and death benefits couldn't make clearer, our boys are fighting and dying for the right of fatcat investors to have their dividend taxes cut...

Well, as the White House position on military pay and death benefits couldn't make clearer

If you were wondering why Bush refused to up the death benefit for military families, I think it's fairly clear. You don't sell flood insurance when the river's rising. This is, after all, the CEO administration.

"My own personal experience tells me that the goddammed American public really isn't to be trusted."

Well, by all means suspend the right to vote, take the reins and have at it.

You know why the American public can be trusted? Because we are mostly a nation of decent human beings who, while taking some time to get the right thing done, get it done.

Considering yourself more enlightened and superior, speaking of looking down the nose, is I guess one way to cope with being on the minority side of opinion. You know a better way? Get off your ass and get busy.

Chris, while I wouldn't put it that way, I do have my moments of despair - when I look at Dubya's approval rating, for example. Other days I feel better, but I keep a sense of impending doom.

I'd love to get rid of this, but I need something to grab onto. As one of my favorite TV characters said not too long ago, give me something to sing about.

Chris: You are making unwarranted assumptions about me and putting words in my mouth. Just show me where I advocated suspending voting rights and putting me in charge. I was defending my right to my low opinion of the vast majority of the Amrican public. And you have absolutely no idea what I'm doing or not doing. I am trying in my way to contribute what I can to ameliorating what I see as the mess we've gotten into. So don't tell me to get up off my ass and work -- I am.

As for more enlightened and superior. Well, I'm certainly better informed. I know, for instance, that Iraqis did not plan and carry out the attack on the WTC, that we have not, in fact found WMD in Iraq, that Shrub took office through a combination of lies, legal manuevering, and physical intimidation. Superior? Well, some days yes, but most days no. I may have a low opinion of the American public, but I have a pretty low opinion of myself most days too.

Most people are, in fact, kind and decent to people they know and deal with on a face to face basis. But most people just don't give a shit about anybody or anything outside their own daily life. And, in the aggregate, these mostly decent people can be pretty dammed indecent.

MKK

Urm, guys --
Why do you think that approval rating is an honest figure, in the sense of 'would pass peer review'?

The GOP is running a very concious propaganda op; essentially all of the media outlets in the US are going along with it. They're going to lie about poll numbers exactly as much as they think they can get away with.

Some interesting observations about the last couple of months' public-opinion trends are offered up here, in a post by Andrew Northrup. Includes illustrative graphs.

Softly, Mary Kay, please. I know this has come up before. If there really are that many ideologically committed right-wing nasties out there, then our country as we've known it is indeed doomed, the Revolutionary Party for the Reinstitution of the Class System will triumph in the end, and you and I and all the rest of us are going to catch enough grief before it's over that we might as well not add to it by yelling at each other now.

Nobody's asking you to lie about your fears and dislikes. Some of those guys are truly scary. But I don't believe that everyone who might back them up under some circumstance or other is necessarily going to back them up under all circumstances. As Patrick keeps pointing out, a lot of the states you're talking about repeatedly voted for FDR.

Sure, I've got reactionary friends and relatives back home, just like you do. Some of them believe stories about Hillary Clinton that would have made Procopius blush. But I've also got my mother, who pledged her vote to Jesse Jackson a year before the election in which he ran; and until this spring I had my Granny, who voted the straight Democratic ticket all her life, and believed that while abortion was something you ought not do, it wasn't the law's business to say so. There are lots more like them.

These people don't identify themselves as left of center. (Frankly, that doesn't come naturally to me, either.) But they're not stupid, and they're increasingly uneasy about the way the country's being run. Many of them are aware that Republican officeholders have repeatedly lied to them. They're also aware that the national news media have increasingly failed to report the news. I genuinely believe they'd listen to a different take on things, if the right voice said it.

It's to keep them from listening to those other voices that the right wing keeps hammering on "liberal elitism". You know this trick from fandom. You point to some nearby group and say, "Those guys over there think they're some kind of an elite." Right away, the people you're talking to will figure that whatever that group is, they're not part of it and they probably don't like it.

Patrick wasn't saying you have to like or trust the vast majority of people in states that voted Republican. He was saying that if we don't afford them some basic respect when we talk about them, none of them are going to listen to us; and if they listened, some of them might very well agree with us.

It's the same reason the Wobblies had so much more impact than the Workers' World Party. People don't think of themselves as spineless lackeys of the bourgeoisie, and if you call them that, they'll know right off that you and they are not on the same side. But if you stand up and say "I'm a working man, same as you," then you can maybe start getting somewhere with them.

I have to think it's possible to coax a lot of those people to see things a different way. After all, the right has been gradually doing it to them for decades, and a lot of what it's been telling them isn't even true.

That's what Patrick was talking about: not the rights and wrongs of your or anyone else's personal emotional reactions, but what kind of language works better in public discourse. That's all.

Why should anyone be too upset by any of the idiocy that comes out of the mouth of the guy who currently occupies the White House? It's really nothing new. Honestly, it should be seen as perfectly consistent with the only OTHER kinds of things that ever come out of his mouth: outright lies, or self-serving bravado.

If its self-serving bravado (as is, BTW, 99% likely), then anyone firing on American troops can expect to have fire returned; as we tend to have better weapons and better trained soldiers who are usually better shots, the odds tend to be against the attackers. If, however, its the 1% chance (its an outright lie) then our troops are in deep shit, as the President has more or less declared open season on them.

That 1% chance is good enough for me to initiate impeachment proceedings (on grounds of unfitness to hold the office, by the way) against the commander in chief.

But then, I WOULD say that.

Somewhat related, so I thought I'd share it here.

This is the Quote of the Day from CQ Today's Midday Report newsletter/e-mail:

"We must find Saddam Hussein and his sons. When we do, then the people of Iraq will no longer live in fear of his return, which is a real and palatable state of mind of many Iraqi citizens. You can see
it in their faces, you can hear it in their voices." -- Sen. Pat ROBERTS, R-Kan.

I think Sen. Roberts meant "palpable". It doesn't strike me as palatable at all.

And let us not forget those lovely Pollkatz charts like this one . . . Bush is not nearly as popular as a lot of people think, and he faces an interesting and risky constellation of issues over the next year. Neither Iraq, Afghanistan, or the economy look like they will be going away as planned.

The main thing to remember is that 12 years ago his father was doing much better than this -- and lost handily to Bill Clinton, who at this point was either "Bill who?" to those who could not remember his '88 convention speech or an embarassment to those who could.

We need to bring three things to the fight this time, energy, unity, and optimism. We have to work damm hard, and just not stop, from here on out. The campaign has begun. And we have to keep our eye on the prize here -- Bush goes down this time. I don't care if you voted for Gore, Bush, Nader, Stassen, or LaRouche in 2000, I care what you will do and who you will vote against now.

And we have to be optimists. The necessary precondition to beating Bush is believing that he can be beat, visualizing his concession speech, and not letting go of that. You just can't make it through a campaign without thinking you will win, and I think we can. Our optimism has to extend to a positive program and image, one that will attract people, not just point out what Bush is screwing up (and we will have to do a lot of that too -- and he providing us a lot of help with that).

And don't waste your time worrying about the media. The first thing you have to do is create facts on the ground in places like Iowa and NH -- then you have leverage with the media. In the end the media follows, it does not lead. The trick is to be the one leading, the one creating change and unrest, which means you are the one creating stories, and that is what reporters want and need most.

Talking Dog --
The odds aren't against the attackers, in one very important sense -- there are potentially far more of them than there are American troops.

It's entirely possible for the relatively small number of US and UK troops in Iraq to get swamped by a general uprising; you can't move logistics trucks very well when there's a guy with an RPG behind every chunk of rubble on the road to Baghdad.

The other thing, of course, is that the objective is to bring peace, prosperity, and freedom; a very small number of nusicance attacks can prevent that quite effectively.

Didn't insert words into mouth, quoted your post and then made a comment . . .

Ahhh . . . the Bush stole the election bit is nice, and no we haven't found WMD YET, and I am willing to suspend passing judgment on that right now, and while nothing has unearthed on Saddam and the WTC, and probably won't, for the most part he stays on the spectrum pretty close to those who did blow the WTC up.

As someone with a foot in both worlds, the hyper informed and the rest of the country, I would always put my money on the rest of the country.

Ahhh . . . the Bush stole the election bit is nice,

Nice? Taken in context with your other statements I find this conveys no meaning at all. I can't tell if it's sarcasm or agreement.

and no we haven't found WMD YET, and I am willing to suspend passing judgment on that right now,

I'm not. It is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who bothers to inform himself that the 'proofs' of WND which this and the Blair administration used to justify this were false, non-existant, or over emphasized and they knew it at the time.

and while nothing has unearthed on Saddam and the WTC, and probably won't, for the most part he stays on the spectrum pretty close to those who did blow the WTC up.

What color is the sky in your world? In mine it's blue except when it's not and Osama bin Laden hates the secularist Baath party and its leaders only slightly less than he hates Americans.

As someone with a foot in both worlds, the hyper informed and the rest of the country, I would always put my money on the rest of the country.

Really? You prefer to have uniformed, ignorant, uncaring, non-thoughtful people making the decisions about how this country is run. Gee, you must be really happy about now.

MKK

I prefer my sky pre-tornado green . . .

Maybe I am being a simple minded OK Hick, but when you get right down to it there ain't much that difference between someone who writes a check to support terrorism and someone who actually carries it out, so that is what color my sky is.

And yes, until all the facts on the ground are known, I refuse to concede one way or the other. When is that time? I don't know but I will know it when it happens.

And with that low an opinion of people it is amazing you manage to function at all in normal America.

The American public, in general, gets it right. They got it right during Impeachment, and will get it right in the long run in what you consider to be an intolerable situation.

"when you get right down to it there ain't much that difference between someone who writes a check to support terrorism and someone who actually carries it out"

Is this a call for arresting Elliot Abrams and Oliver North? Just wondering . . .

The point being, Saddam dabbled in funding terrorism--but he didn't dabble in funding terrorism against us.

Of course, claiming that the "American public" have some innate knack for "getting it right" is as much magical thinking as the worse sort of New Age flimflam.

People screw up, sometimes individually and sometimes in large groups; sometimes briefly and sometimes for generations. This used to be something that conservatives knew--indeed, it was at the heart of the conservative reluctance to screw around with hard-won social stability. Which is one of many reasons I say there aren't many conservatives any more.

Indeed, if we're going to start bombing countries that sometimes slip money to armed NGOs, we'll have to start with a strafing run on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue.

People screw up, sometimes individually and sometimes in large groups; sometimes briefly and sometimes for generations. This used to be something that conservatives knew--indeed, it was at the heart of the conservative reluctance to screw around with hard-won social stability. Which is one of many reasons I say there aren't many conservatives any more.

But what is the hard-won social stability we're talking about here? I was utterly ashamed when Bush 1 stood by and did nothing during Tianenman Square—and not much when Yeltsin began organizing a new Russia (when loads of encouragement and financial support would have spared the Russians a lot of grief), simply because Bush was too comfortable with the diplomats and "rivals" he'd grown up with. (Let's not rock the boat) I hate to think of myself as that kind of conservative.

On the other hand, I can understand the unease with Bush 2's sudden zeal for regime change (who's next?).

All of which is a long way of coming back to Patrick's point...(and maybe I'm not a conservative.) That conservatism has morphed.

Maybe I am being a simple minded OK Hick, but when you get right down to it there ain't much that difference between someone who writes a check to support terrorism and someone who actually carries it out, so that is what color my sky is.

I'm restraining myself from stronger names than simpleminded hick only because I'm afraid of Teresa's disemvolwelling machine. See, I'm from Oklahoma too (and Texas and Kansas and Ohio and Michigan and California and Washington -- but I grew up and spent a large portion of my life in Oklahoma) but I refuse to stay a simple minded hick let alone be proud of it.

And you know, I often do have trouble functioning in 'normal' America. Sometimes it sucks to be me. As I believe I mentioned I may have a low opinion of most of the American public, especially in aggregate, but I have about an equally low opinion of myself most days.

MKK

MKK---

I'll concede that the majority MIDDLE-AGED WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MEN most likely support Herr Dubya---mainly because he's seduced them with at least the illusion of white male adult privilege and power. That is the means the U.S. has bought off the masses of what Michael Moore (in one of his rare right-on observations) calls "stupid white men."

But white males are not the exclusive population of the USA---they ain't even the majority!!! And if you look at the polls, I believe you will find that women, folks of color, gays/lesbians and other non-white het men are MUCH LESS supporting the Shrub!

Before making any other responses, Chris, I would gently suggest that you might be mistaken about the backgrounds of those you are interacting with. Many of us are just as non-urban, non-coastal American as you, either in current resdence (me, for one) or background (again, me, and your gracious hosts here). Just a suggestion from still yet another one time Okie hick (Bartlesville, in my case).

I mean, it is my friends I'm talking to here, yes? I'm not out on the street corner with a bullhorn telling people they're stupid.

Last time I looked, Electrolite wasn't a private mailing list, but a fairly popular left-leaning web log. More people read this than just your friends. Even some of those drooling feeble-minded ordinary Americans for whom you have such disdain. HTH!

Sigh. Yeah, okay, I've got an attitude problem lately, but nowhere did I say drooling and feebleminded. I have said uninformed. I have said thoughtless. I have said less nice in aggregate than I'd like to see. I have never ever said stupid. In fact, I have defended Middle American on a great many occasions when other people have called them stupid. They are not stupid. They live in a different reality than I do; they have different values; and I don't trust them to do what I consider the right thing, but I came from there and they are not stupid.

MKK

It may be biased reporting in British media, but the US Army isn't looking so good as an occupying power. And Bush seems to be encouraging the idea of war, rather than of anyone's peace.

This whole business is just one small part of that frightening attitude.

Bring them on, Day Two: Nineteen injured, one dead.

By lowering the military death benefit from $12K to $6K, Bush has saved the American taxpayer around two million dollars this year alone.

Actually, there are two kinds of stupidity. One is the kind where you're just born without a lot of native smarts, like Keanu Reeves (whose forthrightness about this I find admirable: "You have your smart people, and you have your dumb people...I just happen to be dumb" is a QUOTE), or more severe cases, where it's called by gentler names (e.g. "developmentally disabled").

The other kind is a willful rejection of information that might change your worldview, or cause you to have to think. I call that kind "learned stupidity," and it's widely encouraged in this great nation of ours. One of my ex-boyfriends had it, a major reason for our breakup.

The first kind of stupidity is an unfortunate disability that can't really be changed, only accommodated. The second kind is an ongoing choice that people make, and that they can choose to discard.

Words are important: if you tell someone "you're stupid," that's a judgement; s/he will feel angry and defiant, or possibly reinforced in hir private self-doubts. This does not lead to desirable behavior. If, on the other hand, you tell hir "you're being stupid," that tells hir that s/he's doing something that s/he can stop doing.

The American people are frequently stupid, but this is a habit of theirs, not their immutable nature. They're being stupid right now (mod lies about Bush's approval rating); I hope to the gods that they'll stop being stupid by November 2004.

" I call that kind "learned stupidity," and it's widely encouraged in this great nation of ours."

In fairness, I think this is a pretty widespread human condition.

It's a lovely theory, making the distinction between being stupid and acting stupid, but in my experience, if you tell people who are willfully acting stupid that they are willfully acting stupid, they don't pull up short and say, 'Hey, I could change my behavior!' They say, 'Hey, you called me *stooopid" I'm not listening to you, you elitist swine!'

People who are invested in not changing their worldview will generally go to some lengths to defend its perimeter. One of the common ones is willfully misconstruing any attempt to jar it, and getting righteously indignant as an excuse to stop listening. I believe you actually have to be sneakier than that -- approach them with arguments that do not superficially appear to challenge their worldview.

I'm not personally any good at this technique, but I'm moderately certain it is what's required.

Patrick: Oh, yes, absolutely. So widespread that Ulrika's right, it's not so easy to jar people out of it. Remember William Gibson's comment about the stringtowners? "...who don't know shit and hate anyone who does"? That's most of the people I run into on a daily basis. And I'm certain that there are very few places in the world where they'd be less thick on the ground.

It's encouraged in this country (and probably elsewhere) because we have the most unfettered Capitalist system in the world...encouraged by advertising, by media who are owned by the advertisers, and politicians who are paid by them. It's encouraged because it gets people to buy things they don't need, eat more food than they want, and elect people who don't have their best interests at heart.

"It's encouraged in this country (and probably elsewhere) because we have the most unfettered Capitalist system in the world...encouraged by advertising, by media who are owned by the advertisers, and politicians who are paid by them. It's encouraged because it gets people to buy things they don't need, eat more food than they want, and elect people who don't have their best interests at heart."

Well, you know, Christopher, I just don't buy that. It seems to me yet another variety of American exceptionalism. Beat our breast, rend our tunic! Our capitalist conformity is worse than anybody else's conformity! We rock!

No it's not, as it turns out. This kind of picture of America as a living hell of conformity, full of people being forced to "eat more food than they want" (yes, the secret police showed up immediately when I went on the Atkins diet last year, didn't I mention it?), is just as silly as the Little Green Footballs picture of Europe as a dystopia under the jackbooted rule of EU bureaucracy and mandatory, soul-killing health insurance.

The letters to Bush being posted on congress.org's "Letters To Leaders" area are running about thirty to one against Bush's "bring it on" phrase. And they're very pissed-off letters.

The one below isn't from there, though. It was originally posted on tennessean.com, copied to Democratic Underground, and recopied to SmirkingChimp (where I saw it). I think it's one of the most effective responses to Bush I've seen, so I'm copying it here:

- - - - -

Martica - 07:38pm Jul 3, 2003 CST

As a mother on one of our brave troops in Iraq, may I just say, Mr. President, Perhaps you truly do believe in the invincibility of our military; however, the next time you invite attacks on my son, and others, kindly stand in front of our soldiers, rather than hiding behind.

- - - - -

Short, polite, and devastating. Dorothy Parker would applaud.

...who don't know shit and hate anyone who does"? That's most of the people I run into on a daily basis. And I'm certain that there are very few places in the world where they'd be less thick on the ground.

Oh, good. It isn't just me. You said it way better and more succinctly too. Marry me?

MKK

"Now I face the very real likelihood that I may never see my brother alive again, and that his chances of survival were just cut in half by a draft-dodging cokehead MBA with the IQ of a turnip, and I get REALLY angry."

Are you people serious? You really think volunteer fedayeen from surrounding terrorist cesspools, who have been flooding into Iraq for months and who formed most of the actual combatants fighting our troops (the official Iraqi army mostly gave up) - you really think those folks who are already there were just on the verge of dropping their weapons and going home, but just because President Bush "invited them to attack," they are now going to say "well, hell, Dubya, now you made us mad."

What planet are you on?

I think Sullivan had the right take on this.

"I suspect that the Baathists are unlikely to attack us right now, at least until we're through re-arming them and putting them back in charge. We're doing that right now."

No we're not. In fact, part of the reason reconstruction is going so slowly is that we are trying to be painstaking about not putting them back in power.

"People who are invested in not changing their worldview will generally go to some lengths to defend its perimeter. One of the common ones is willfully misconstruing any attempt to jar it, and getting righteously indignant as an excuse to stop listening."

Yup.

Now I face the very real likelihood that I may never see my brother alive again, and that his chances of survival were just cut in half by a draft-dodging cokehead MBA with the IQ of a turnip, and I get REALLY angry.

Are there links on Bush's draft dodging? I understood :

that Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. Bush enlisted on May 28, 1968 - when the unit he enlisted with had pilots flying combat missions in the skies over Vietnam. Link here.

If this isn't true, I'd be happy to check out any links contradicting it.

Quite right. George W. Bush is not in fact a "draft-dodging cokehead MBA with the IQ of a turnip," he's a National Guard service-avoiding cokehead MBA with an IQ considerably higher than a turnip. Electrolite regrets both errors.

By the way, I find it really notable that Teresa's long post upthread from here might as well have been invisible, for all that anyone in the discussion of alleged middle American awfulness seems to have responded to it. Or even acknowledged it.

By the way, I find it really notable that Teresa's long post upthread from here might as well have been invisible, for all that anyone in the discussion of alleged middle American awfulness seems to have responded to it. Or even acknowledged it.

I acknowledged and responded in email. Westercon is going on this weekend and I haven't had time to address it as fully as I'd like and it deserves here.

MKK

"If this [description of W's heroic National Guard career implying he could have been sent to Vietnam] isn't true, I'd be happy to check out any links contradicting it."

Here's one.

"A Military Career Distinguished Only by Favoritism"

Summary: George W. Bush earned the lowest possible passing score on his pilot entrance aptitude test, yet was skipped ahead of a waiting list of about 100,000 others to be admitted to the Guard; he checked off the box saying 'do not volunteer' for overseas duty; he flew a number of hours about 1/3 below his obligation for the last year he flew at all; he was suspended and grounded; he stopped showing up for his weekend service (despite two direct orders) with two years left in the obligation he had solemnly sworn to undertake -- right at the time they started testing for drugs and alcohol; and now he declines to unseal his military record, which could help clear up errors of fact here, if any.

Once again, that's:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003z8g

Patrick, a chara, I never said "forced." I said that learned stupidity leads there (among many other things). I don't think you're a victim of learned stupidity. Hence your ability to do Atkins with little or no fear of arrest...

OK, fine. It's just as bad everywhere. I haven't been out of the country in years, so how would I know?

And you're right, I somehow missed Teresa's lengthy post. This is odd, since I normally scan comment threads for her name and read everything I see under it. Now that I have read it, I still don't have a lot to say about it...she's right.

Mary Kay, I like you too. And thanks, but...

Thanks, Kip! :)

John -- I mistrust that HobbsOnline article on the Bush AWOL issue. For one thing, of the three items he listed, #2 is a strawman argument. Hobbs amplified a claim that the AWOL-arguers aren't actually making -- that the Bush family was "famous and powerful" -- so that he can tear it down. According to this page, Bush Sr. got his friend and business associate Sid Adger to call Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes to call General James Rose, the head of the Texas Air National Guard, to get Bush Jr. into the Guard. And according to this page, Barnes has so testified under oath.

His #3 is also a distortion, claiming that the AWOL argument is based on "missing paperwork", when there is actual paperwork and the testimony of people involved supporting the claim that Bush wasn't where he ought to have been.

As far as point #1, the one you cite, I can't evaluate it till I know what "attached to" means in this context. Does it mean that when the 147th went to Vietnam, the 111th went too? Does it mean that when the 147th went to Vietnam, the 111th used their base and kept their seats warm? I dunno. I suspect that if you knew, you'd have said. I think Hobbs is cutting and pasting from other sources without linking to them, and possibly without knowing what the technical terms actually mean; I found a page that uses one of the exact phrases he does.

Another question -- when Hobbs says "the unit he enlisted with had pilots flying combat missions in the skies over Vietnam", does he mean the 111th or the 147th? Why not use a short, specific phrase instead of a longer, unclear one, unless he wasn't able to actually find a definitive reference and is just filling in holes with his own preferred interpretation?

Hmm, stick in the two words "Bush desertion" into Google and guess what you get.

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,760. Search took 0.29 seconds.

Sure some of these are rants, but many have copies of all the relevant documents.

Bottom line: Lt. Bush failed to take a required flight physical (note didn't "fail" "failed to take"), despite direct orders to do so, and was grounded. That is he took a deliberate act that removed the by then minimal chance that he could be deployed anywhere he might encounter danger (even peacetime flying can be deadly).

Coward. Let me repeat:
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,760. Search took 0.29 seconds.

The truth really is out there.

From Graydon,

"Urm, guys --
Why do you think that approval rating is an honest figure, in the sense of 'would pass peer review'?

The GOP is running a very concious propaganda op; essentially all of the media outlets in the US are going along with it. They're going to lie about poll numbers exactly as much as they think they can get away with."

That's a major part of the problem right now, Graydon. Many BS stories favoring Bush *would* pass peer review - they favor the GOP, and don't let inconvenient facts spoil the Story.

Bottom line: Lt. Bush failed to take a required flight physical (note didn't "fail" "failed to take"), despite direct orders to do so, and was grounded. That is he took a deliberate act that removed the by then minimal chance that he could be deployed anywhere he might encounter danger (even peacetime flying can be deadly).

I don't think it was the dangers of flying that had Bush worried. The physical he failed to take would have been the first one after the US military began doing random drug screenings.

I think that sounds pretty plausible, James.

In any case, he disobeyed a direct order. Even if it was to paint his belt buckle green, he should have been dishonorably discharged, right?

Oh, I'm sorry. That only applies to people who are caught being gay. All the "you have to obey orders no matter what" people now vanish into the woodwork.

Dishonorably discharged? Not necessarily. But certainly separated from the service. Convenience of the government, perhaps. A dishonorable can only come as sentence of a courts martial. I think that what you're groping for here is some variety of admin discharge.

Bush should have been booted out of the National Guard, though. No question about it. He's a disgrace to the uniform he wore.

Equally guilty with Bush are his commanding officers, who failed to deal with the problem at the time.

A dishonorable can only come as sentence of a courts martial.

Let's see. UCMJ 883.83, Art 885.85, 886.86, 892.92, 898.98, 907.107 and good old 933.133 all leap to mind. (Yes, I looked them up, I'm not that good. 133 is sort of famous, though) I'd bet 912.112 would get good play. Rumors have it that 912a.112a would play, as well, and generally, to dig yourself into this hole, 931.131 is almost automatic.) And I draw your attention to 803. Art. 3 (b) and (c).

So, actually, I think Xopher is almost right, and, of course, you're exactly right, we just haven't finished this properly. And, unlike that bastard, I do believe in due-process, and anyone who acutally looks at the Uniform Code of Military Justice will find that the Military does as well, only with it's own quirks.

So, 802 Art. 2, section (d) quite clearly applies (see Part 2 para B.) Order him to duty, and try him for the above violations. The court may well find him not guilty, in which case, his record will reflect such, and all of us ranting "libruls" will have to shut up.

As to statue of limitations, I point you to 843 Art. 43 (a).

Thanks, Avram, Bruce. At the very least I should bug Hobbs a bit on this.

A note from middle America:

In a bar in middle Tennessee, watching the last presidential election returns(it was just about the time the networks were calling Florida a win for Al Gore), I heard a woman next to me say with a sigh - a woman who had previously been having an intelligent (or at least, intelligible) conversation with the man next to her - "you know, if the right person came along, I'd vote for him for dictator." She was not being ironic. I think she was just upset about the great left wing conspiracy to take away the constitutional rights to bear arms, teach creationism in public schools, and to not be criticized for thinking everyone else is stupid.

To anybody still following - apparently the claim that Bush's national Guard unit had planes and pilots in Vietnam when he enlisted is a reference to a program called 'Palace Alert'. As far as I can tell, this was a *voluntary* program, open to pilots with far more flight time than Bush every had. It might not have involved the type of aircraft which Bush was trained on.