Indulging My Inner Curmudgeon
I've been overwhelmed trying to dig out of the hole my jury tenure caused at work. Don't know if I ever will get back to any further revelations about that jury experience, absorbing, instructive, and wrenching as it was.
But in the meantime, getting the ducks in a row for some ridiculously fast-tracked environmental sampling for client next week has been hell. Normally we'd have a couple weeks to finalize sampling plans. In this case, client was still dictating changes today, despite the fact that we mobilize on Monday. Today was maddening as a result, but at least big chunks are now in the printing process. Many miracles were accomplished today, the sort of thing no client, nearly always shielded from the complications of actually assembling a high-quality report, will ever properly understand or appreciate. With luck the other pieces will find their way there tomorrow morn.
So that is largely why you have heard little from me. Besides the fact that I have been far less able to properly winnow and glean from proper news-sources for the last couple weeks.
But a while back (a week?), I did notice a couple headlines that raised my dander. This will doubtless be largely in the preaching-to-the-choir category. These are the irritants we (or at least I) notice not uncommonly, but usually choose to stifle ourselves on. But, in keeping with tune-lyric on latest birthday mixed-disk from Eric ("a secret meeting in the basement of my brain"), we're going for divulging.
First there was:
“Bush regrets tough talk on war”
What the hell does that mean? The man has so many deplorable qualities it's hard to grant him species membership. He seems to have coasted through life without ever having been responsible or accountable for anything (okay, I guess he admits to fathering the girls). Repeated business failures (at least in terms of any performance or actions on his part), major underachieving on the academic front, and AWOL in the military. That is far from a complete list.
But that "tough talk" was totally calculated, and not something subject to take-backs now. He almost undoubtedly has been the biggest single American booster of terrorism and specifically anti-American terrorism in history as a result of his swaggering braggadocio. His need to prop up his feeble insecure self has led to at least tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Of course there is a lineage of non-performing egomaniacs in the string, Reagan and J. Wayne particularly prominent.
On a somewhat lighter note, I flinched at this:
“Survivors being hailed as heroes”
This was in connection with the tornado that wiped out a BSA camp-out in Iowa. As compared to the former item, where in my opinion we collectively have been way too indulgent and polite about a war-criminal who should be in irons now, some nuances are needed here.
It is impossible to truly imagine and properly empathize with the reality of finding yourself in a natural disaster and having companions killed more or less right before your eyes. It would be hard enough as a jaded adult, never mind a young adult. My sympathies are certainly with the survivors, relatives, and friends. And I have since come to perceive that there may even have been heroic actions by some of the scouts.
But I feel I have to object to the mindset that seemed to be behind the original headline, namely that surviving this debacle was the equivalent of heroism. I think some ego-boosting for survivors and positive thinking is probably appropriate. But I am pretty sick of the idea that the concept of "heroism" has been so fuzzified that it includes merely surviving a horrific natural event. I tend to want my heroes (and heroines) to have chosen to take on some significant risk in the interests of benefitting others or at least undertaken some sort of ordeal in the interests of survival.
As just one maybe borderline case, how did John McCain become a triple-A hero by being a POW? I don't know what he did or didn't say under the torture he now sanctions our government using. If the story is correct that he refused to accept an exceptional release because of his paternal connections, I give him some props there. But, as compared to, say, actually being engaged in combat, e.g., risking his life for others, while his internment may have been hellish, it's hard for me to grant him the saint-hood he and his followers seem to assume is his natural due.
And then my curmudgeon really sprang into action in the aftermath of Tim Russert's death. I tagged a couple supportive posts last weekend, before the week-long full-on infatuation-ceremony got under way. I know I'm way out of step at this point, but I have to say it. Tim doubtless had some terrific personal qualities, was seemingly an ace when it came to family matters (far from a commonplace in those elitist circles!) and was obviously lovable and had many gifts when it came to charming people from all across the political spectrum.
But if he ever was a boon to providing accurate and essential information regarding political matters to us, for example via Meet the Press (doubt-meter ringing), that seems to have ended long ago. He was so fully sucked into the establishment over the course of at least the last seven years that there are remoras and lampreys doing graduate work on his technique.
Doubtless Bob Woodward's decline into sycophant was either purposely or inadvertently something in the way of an homage to Tim.
Before the pc-police come to take me away, let me just invoke a couple supportive posts. Here's Harkavy at the Village Voice:
It's tragic that Tim Russert unexpectedly died, leaving behind family and friends who loved him.
That said, let's try to keep this in perspective — and not the perspective offered up this afternoon by the Washington Post, which called him "the Democratic operative turned NBC commentator who revolutionized Sunday morning television and infused journalism with his passion for politics."
He did not revolutionize anything. He was a news reader, a media celebrity, not a soldier dying in a futile war.
As our body count in Iraq keeps right on climbing, I'll recall Russert's classic '02 interview of Dick Cheney on Meet the Press as a true exemplar of recent American journalism.
I don't mean that in a nice way.
The exact date was September 8, 2002, as Cheney and his frontman, George W. Bush, were lobbying Americans and members of Congress on the urgent necessity of invading Iraq. This was before the key Senate vote.
We now know they were lying, but many of us were thinking that back in '02. Drowning out the dissenters were most of the U.S. media outlets — not all, but most.
And media celebs such as Russert were playing their roles as wing men for schnooks such as Cheney.
In June 2005, I parsed Russert's '02 interview with Cheney in an item called "Shuck and Awe." So I'm just going to plagiarize myself and re-run that item here. See for yourself:
-clip-
RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of Iraq. You have said that it poses a mortal threat to the United States. How? Define mortal threat.
Yes, ask the vice president to define a buzz phrase that he and his handlers have spent a lot of time honing. Here's another softball:
RUSSERT: There seems to be a real debate in the country as to [Saddam's] capability. This is how the New York Times reported comments by Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who said, “The Central Intelligence Agency had 'absolutely no evidence' that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.” Is that accurate?
Gee, what do you think Cheney will say when you let him off the hook with a stupid-ass "Is that accurate?" appended to an otherwise-promising line of questioning? Here's how Cheney belted that blooper pitch:
CHENEY: I disagree. I think the accurate thing to say is we don't know when he might actually complete that process. All of the experience we have points in the direction that, in the past, we've underestimated the extent of his program.
Keep in mind, now, that Cheney was making up this shit. The Bush and Blair regimes were "fixing" the intelligence, as the Downing Street Memo, revealed three years too late, put it.
-clip-
And Matthew Rothschild posted this piece at The Progressive:
Tim Russert, by all accounts I’ve heard, including from people on the progressive side who knew him well, was a decent guy.
The news of his death came as a shock to me, as it did to everyone: He was a fixture for those of us who are obsessed with politics. And to be stricken of a heart attack at 58 is a fate that no one should have to suffer.
I feel bad for his family, and for his colleagues.
For many years, I looked forward to watching him on Meet the Press.
But I stopped after September 11.
As the praise for Russert has overflowed, I just want to register, even at the risk of showing bad manners, a discordant note.
I stopped watching him regularly after September 11 because he became a cheerleader for war.
He festooned himself with red, white, and blue, and in one of the first programs after the attack, he appallingly said that the Bush Administration would have to prepare the American public for a “disproportionate” response.
Such a response is, by definition, immoral under just war theory.
And he was essentially inviting Bush and Cheney to kill many times more than the 3,000 people who died on September 11.
He also did not explore with Cheney the Vice President’s comment to him that the United States would need to go to “the dark side.” Some early skepticism about the torture and kidnapping that was to come might have done the country good.
A year and a half later, right before the Iraq War, Russert let Cheney get away with an outrageous comment that was pure propaganda.
It was March 16, 2003, less than a week before Bush and Cheney started bombing.
Russert: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
[Note the pronoun “we.”]
Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Russert didn’t challenge him on that bald-faced lie.
-clip-
But in the meantime, getting the ducks in a row for some ridiculously fast-tracked environmental sampling for client next week has been hell. Normally we'd have a couple weeks to finalize sampling plans. In this case, client was still dictating changes today, despite the fact that we mobilize on Monday. Today was maddening as a result, but at least big chunks are now in the printing process. Many miracles were accomplished today, the sort of thing no client, nearly always shielded from the complications of actually assembling a high-quality report, will ever properly understand or appreciate. With luck the other pieces will find their way there tomorrow morn.
So that is largely why you have heard little from me. Besides the fact that I have been far less able to properly winnow and glean from proper news-sources for the last couple weeks.
But a while back (a week?), I did notice a couple headlines that raised my dander. This will doubtless be largely in the preaching-to-the-choir category. These are the irritants we (or at least I) notice not uncommonly, but usually choose to stifle ourselves on. But, in keeping with tune-lyric on latest birthday mixed-disk from Eric ("a secret meeting in the basement of my brain"), we're going for divulging.
First there was:
“Bush regrets tough talk on war”
What the hell does that mean? The man has so many deplorable qualities it's hard to grant him species membership. He seems to have coasted through life without ever having been responsible or accountable for anything (okay, I guess he admits to fathering the girls). Repeated business failures (at least in terms of any performance or actions on his part), major underachieving on the academic front, and AWOL in the military. That is far from a complete list.
But that "tough talk" was totally calculated, and not something subject to take-backs now. He almost undoubtedly has been the biggest single American booster of terrorism and specifically anti-American terrorism in history as a result of his swaggering braggadocio. His need to prop up his feeble insecure self has led to at least tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Of course there is a lineage of non-performing egomaniacs in the string, Reagan and J. Wayne particularly prominent.
On a somewhat lighter note, I flinched at this:
“Survivors being hailed as heroes”
This was in connection with the tornado that wiped out a BSA camp-out in Iowa. As compared to the former item, where in my opinion we collectively have been way too indulgent and polite about a war-criminal who should be in irons now, some nuances are needed here.
It is impossible to truly imagine and properly empathize with the reality of finding yourself in a natural disaster and having companions killed more or less right before your eyes. It would be hard enough as a jaded adult, never mind a young adult. My sympathies are certainly with the survivors, relatives, and friends. And I have since come to perceive that there may even have been heroic actions by some of the scouts.
But I feel I have to object to the mindset that seemed to be behind the original headline, namely that surviving this debacle was the equivalent of heroism. I think some ego-boosting for survivors and positive thinking is probably appropriate. But I am pretty sick of the idea that the concept of "heroism" has been so fuzzified that it includes merely surviving a horrific natural event. I tend to want my heroes (and heroines) to have chosen to take on some significant risk in the interests of benefitting others or at least undertaken some sort of ordeal in the interests of survival.
As just one maybe borderline case, how did John McCain become a triple-A hero by being a POW? I don't know what he did or didn't say under the torture he now sanctions our government using. If the story is correct that he refused to accept an exceptional release because of his paternal connections, I give him some props there. But, as compared to, say, actually being engaged in combat, e.g., risking his life for others, while his internment may have been hellish, it's hard for me to grant him the saint-hood he and his followers seem to assume is his natural due.
And then my curmudgeon really sprang into action in the aftermath of Tim Russert's death. I tagged a couple supportive posts last weekend, before the week-long full-on infatuation-ceremony got under way. I know I'm way out of step at this point, but I have to say it. Tim doubtless had some terrific personal qualities, was seemingly an ace when it came to family matters (far from a commonplace in those elitist circles!) and was obviously lovable and had many gifts when it came to charming people from all across the political spectrum.
But if he ever was a boon to providing accurate and essential information regarding political matters to us, for example via Meet the Press (doubt-meter ringing), that seems to have ended long ago. He was so fully sucked into the establishment over the course of at least the last seven years that there are remoras and lampreys doing graduate work on his technique.
Doubtless Bob Woodward's decline into sycophant was either purposely or inadvertently something in the way of an homage to Tim.
Before the pc-police come to take me away, let me just invoke a couple supportive posts. Here's Harkavy at the Village Voice:
It's tragic that Tim Russert unexpectedly died, leaving behind family and friends who loved him.
That said, let's try to keep this in perspective — and not the perspective offered up this afternoon by the Washington Post, which called him "the Democratic operative turned NBC commentator who revolutionized Sunday morning television and infused journalism with his passion for politics."
He did not revolutionize anything. He was a news reader, a media celebrity, not a soldier dying in a futile war.
As our body count in Iraq keeps right on climbing, I'll recall Russert's classic '02 interview of Dick Cheney on Meet the Press as a true exemplar of recent American journalism.
I don't mean that in a nice way.
The exact date was September 8, 2002, as Cheney and his frontman, George W. Bush, were lobbying Americans and members of Congress on the urgent necessity of invading Iraq. This was before the key Senate vote.
We now know they were lying, but many of us were thinking that back in '02. Drowning out the dissenters were most of the U.S. media outlets — not all, but most.
And media celebs such as Russert were playing their roles as wing men for schnooks such as Cheney.
In June 2005, I parsed Russert's '02 interview with Cheney in an item called "Shuck and Awe." So I'm just going to plagiarize myself and re-run that item here. See for yourself:
-clip-
RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of Iraq. You have said that it poses a mortal threat to the United States. How? Define mortal threat.
Yes, ask the vice president to define a buzz phrase that he and his handlers have spent a lot of time honing. Here's another softball:
RUSSERT: There seems to be a real debate in the country as to [Saddam's] capability. This is how the New York Times reported comments by Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who said, “The Central Intelligence Agency had 'absolutely no evidence' that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.” Is that accurate?
Gee, what do you think Cheney will say when you let him off the hook with a stupid-ass "Is that accurate?" appended to an otherwise-promising line of questioning? Here's how Cheney belted that blooper pitch:
CHENEY: I disagree. I think the accurate thing to say is we don't know when he might actually complete that process. All of the experience we have points in the direction that, in the past, we've underestimated the extent of his program.
Keep in mind, now, that Cheney was making up this shit. The Bush and Blair regimes were "fixing" the intelligence, as the Downing Street Memo, revealed three years too late, put it.
-clip-
And Matthew Rothschild posted this piece at The Progressive:
Tim Russert, by all accounts I’ve heard, including from people on the progressive side who knew him well, was a decent guy.
The news of his death came as a shock to me, as it did to everyone: He was a fixture for those of us who are obsessed with politics. And to be stricken of a heart attack at 58 is a fate that no one should have to suffer.
I feel bad for his family, and for his colleagues.
For many years, I looked forward to watching him on Meet the Press.
But I stopped after September 11.
As the praise for Russert has overflowed, I just want to register, even at the risk of showing bad manners, a discordant note.
I stopped watching him regularly after September 11 because he became a cheerleader for war.
He festooned himself with red, white, and blue, and in one of the first programs after the attack, he appallingly said that the Bush Administration would have to prepare the American public for a “disproportionate” response.
Such a response is, by definition, immoral under just war theory.
And he was essentially inviting Bush and Cheney to kill many times more than the 3,000 people who died on September 11.
He also did not explore with Cheney the Vice President’s comment to him that the United States would need to go to “the dark side.” Some early skepticism about the torture and kidnapping that was to come might have done the country good.
A year and a half later, right before the Iraq War, Russert let Cheney get away with an outrageous comment that was pure propaganda.
It was March 16, 2003, less than a week before Bush and Cheney started bombing.
Russert: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
[Note the pronoun “we.”]
Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Russert didn’t challenge him on that bald-faced lie.
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 9:25 PM
0 comments
