Besides, The Parrots Are Still Beautiful
I recently suggested in a post that the
As I listened to President Obama's speech on national security I kept asking myself "Who is the audience for this talk?" It was an unfocused and unstructured effort. There was no central theme that might be taken for a new "doctrine." If those in attendance were national security experts then there was nothing in the speech for them on which to hang their powdered wigs and compose detailed analyses. It was a lump of words like a lump of clay. You can't really dissect something this amorphous and discover any hidden detail. References to "Rule of Law" described a "ruler," in this case "the Law," that seems a weak monarch whose suzerainty comes only at the pleasure of other interests. Moreover the language was undisciplined and a most un-ambitious effort to explain. Our principles are our strength he says but we may at times follow other principles to secure that strength, or something like that. The speech had a plaintiff mood more suited to a New Year's resolution than a statement of Executive policy. And then there were all the references to the prior administration's misjudgments that had such a sound of excuses.
All of these flaws can be found in just one sentence from
the speech. "There is also no question that
You like to watch.....
Details, details...
May 22, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really am just a broom who is dreaming that he is a wizard. Please don’t wake me up.
May 22, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quit duckin' & shuckin', Wizard. You're almost certainly the best writer 'round these parts, and the fact that only 20 people have seen fit to follow you is a testament either to the dumbing down of modern culture... or a deep-seated fear of brooms.
People. Follow that broom.
May 22, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies, and I'll set the record straight: It's an inside joke between the broomstick and myself.
That being said, I am also kinda disappointed in Obama's performance so far. I've made that kinda clear in one post or another.
And THAT being said, I believe that a) we're still one HELLUVA lot better off having him in the White House than McCain/Palin, and b) we've all become a little burned out by the rhetoric and back and forth that we've heard endlessly from our elected government over the past decades.
And, and, and....THAT being said, I just wanna say, I'm glad you said this, Broom!
May 22, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I’m happy to see my friends comment here. I am going to enter several responses in a spirit of dialogue. I hope no one will think I am just flogging my own post.)
I carefully said “…an image of a leader of a weak nation with even weaker institutions..” I did not say “a weak leader” because I have no problem with Barack Obama. I am grateful that you and others worked so hard to get him elected. I live in Oregon where the issue was never in doubt so I was never really in the fray.
In my opinion Mr. Obama is as fine a person for the Presidency as I could hope for. I especially appreciate his multi-cultural background because I think “American exceptionalism” is the Achilles heel of our national self-awareness. The antidote is a knowledge of the wider world. I find him suitably intelligent and thoughtful. He is a moderate but that is not a deal breaker for me since the nation is, at its best, moderate and I have to acknowledge that. So when I hear him speak as he did yesterday I take away that it is his considered judgment that this is what is politically possible. For me the weakness of the speech was Obama’s way of offering a commentary on the weakness of the Democratic Party, the weakness of the actual U.S. national security strategy and the weakness of the institutions like the Law and the Congress. As a former editor of the Harvard Law Review I’m sure he knows better than I what that speech was and was not. As I said I was struck by what this speech said about the audience, not the speaker.
Our work is in no way done.
May 22, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It struck me too, that there was a well crafted assenblage of words designed to instill confidence and power. They sounded good on the surface. As I began to realize he was going to continue doing what his predecessor had done, my mood was not swayed by the skill of his wordsmiths. His 5th class of detainee who are not prosecutable, but determined to do us wrong, he said we were not going to release. Without a trial? What nightmare would give birth to such legislation that would allow such a 'thing' to transpire under the rule of law? What civilized nation could live with the willful suspension of habeas corpus? I think he said there were 23 of them. Set the f@#kers free. If we can't survive the ill wishes of those 23 men, no matter how malevolent, then fuck me. I'm not ready to suspend the basis for western law established 9 centuries ago in order to 'warehouse' a couple dozen terrorists. When are we going to have the balls to walk the walk? Is our democracy this fragile, we must trade off the foundation of it because these men are so scary and powerful? Fuck!
May 22, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its called the law of war, actually. Its a firmly established principle of international law that you get to detain people you capture armed and on or in proximity to a battlefield for as long as hostilities continue for no other reason than to incompacitate them. If they're wearing a uniform and in the service of something claiming to be a government, they get more rights than they otherwise would have, but they don't get a trial or a hearing unless they commit a crime while in captivity.
Whether its right or whether its smart is a legitimate and necessary debate. Whether its legal isn't.
May 22, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for cluing me in to 'the law of war'. I will confine my debate henceforth to the rightness and intelligence of conducting this open-ended, so called, 'war on terror'. "Captured on the battlefield" takes on a much darker meaning in an open ended conflict that extends into the living rooms around the world. Again... Fuck!
May 22, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just dig when & where we decide the "Law" has to kick in. It becomes really important when we wanna hold people forever because they might fight us... but when it comes to declaring & prosecuting our wars... the "Law" kinda hasta needsta go take a little breather. Just a mo' to freshen up. We'll just carry on war-starting and war-making without it.
Funny how the same thing happened on Contract "Law." My, didn't we all just get a larnin' in the sacred nature of contracts when it came to bankers bonuses. Whooeee, that thar was shur some fiiiiiine contract "Law." But the automakers? Seeya, wouldn't wanna be ya.
But hey, screw-it Peegmon, it's time for us to get creative. I say we try each of that hardcore 24 terrorizers, and if they get off, well, we just set one of those personalized hunter-seeker-watcher-killer drones on their ass, 24/7, 365. They so much as twitch in a violent way, or meet with any dudes with moustaches, and it's ZoooompBABOOM. Bye bye baddie.
However, we ALSO set drones on the asses of the 24 people most responsible for the pathetic mess we're all in. I'm sure the public would love to vote on this. And if THEY try to creep the place up further, HOLYBLISTERIN'GAWDWHAT'STHATMYRTL.....WHAM.
And I feel absolutely safe in saying that there'd be 24 smoking holes somewhere in America before the 1st launch in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And it's called a "drawing room," actually. ;-)
May 22, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 22, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was it, aL Libi, who gave us false info to justify Iraq war ("Were Saddam and Osama secret lovers, and where's Hoffa buried? You don't know? -Private, fetch more water.") and was released to Lybian custody? He must have known a lot; names and everything. Turned up dead somehow.
May 22, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, those captured fighters are called POWs and they are guaranteed rights (such as the right to not be tortured). They are soldiers in a war between states where the battleground is defined and there will be an eventual end of hostilities (there are often prisoner exchanges, too).
But these are some new form of enemy combatants to whom no laws or protections apply according to Bush and now Obama. They are evil Islamofascist teerrorists not glorified soldiers of war (with God on their side). They're scary monsters, not human beings. Scary monster don't get lawyers.
But according to the Supreme Court, a conservative one at that, and despite the best efforts of our Congress, they are covered under our laws,treaties and military regs (see Hamden and Boumedienne). They have to be confirmed as enemy combatants and then given trials in some form with basic due process rights. Evidence of their guilt (no, not silly confessions they made under torture) must be presented and convince judge or jury.
This new "preventive detention" that Obama is talking about (holding people indefinitely without charges, due process protections or some kind of adjudication is against our laws, international laws and everything we are supposed to stand for.
Holding POWs during a war between state entities is completely different than imprisoning a suspect forever and without a trial or any kind of review or challenge to their guilt. It is even more troubling than "preventive war" (see: Iraq) in that it contradicts the foundations of our society.
I have some neighbors that I know are thieves and drug abusers (my good neighbors have told me so). Not only that, but they're members of a gang, and as long as the gang exists, we're at war with it. Sure would be nice if we could get some "preventive law enforcement" up in here. Lock 'em up before they commit a crime and throw away the key.
May 22, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Obama spoke of being “at war” which of course is not the case in any respect from the nature of the threat to the posture of our society in these times. The policy we need is more akin to re-enforcing levees in the face of a flood than some military contest between nations. From the afternoon of 9/11/2001 the response has been entirely misguided. Now we are down to 23 mortal threats. I say launch the nuclear aircraft carriers, place one of these desperados on each carrier and send them steaming around the world – forever. It would make about as much sense as all this talk about “terrorists.”
May 22, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are better than this....
Our government should reflect that.
May 22, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch, I hate to say that my reactions and feelings are similar.
This was a speech he should have written with time and care. Not slapped a bunch of boiler plate together in a rotundra and stammered through. It should have been something equivalent to the brilliantly analytical, balanced, and sympathetic Philadelphia speech.
Question, do you think that perhaps the election of a 46 year old, former state senator named Barrack Hussein Obama may have been the moment that the US jumped the shark? Or maybe the world wide financial meltdown that proceeded it. How are we gonna top those?
I campaigned my ass off for him, and have definitely grown discouraged. Hillary was our only other choice? wtf.
Oh well parrots :)
May 22, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m gratified to hear you say you had a similar response. As I say I am not of a mind to say that Obama is the problem so I don’t think your efforts were in any way a waste of time or naïve or quixotic.
I have my own candidate for when the U.S. jumped the shark. It was the day that Senator McCain offered his wife to a topless beauty contest at some biker convention. I remember thinking that no one is serious about the impending national election. Although the under card fight between Obama and Clinton was still a draw, the whole thing had become a farce like professional wrestling.
May 22, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree on the wet t-shirt contest. Jaw-dropping. Although she is a looker.
(Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
I love Juvenal, makes me feel better to see the continium.
May 22, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Juvenal.
O Fortuna
velut luna
statu variabilis,
semper crescis
aut decrescis;
O Fortune
like the moon
you are changeable,
ever waxing and
waning
(Carmina Burana)
May 22, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love Carmina Burana!
May 22, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too! Go Carl Orf!
May 22, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say Car-mee-na, I say Car-my-na
Let's Carl the whole thing Orff.
-- courtesy of my Music Appreciation professor
May 22, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
my Music Appreciation professor
Clearly, not the guy you want to chat up on Eighth Avenue and 51st Street for directions to Carnegie Hall
May 23, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, you mean we jumped the shark during the first f***ing century AD?
May 22, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jaw-dropping
That's when I knew the dementia had erased all vestiges of sanity.
That, and the part where he chuckled and said: "Tonite, we're playing--what is it guys? Pin the Train? oh, yeah, Cindy will lead us in "Pull the train..."
May 23, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The left including Rachel did not like this speech at all.
I spent all my time on dickyc's speech. Which really was the same speech he has been making for almost eight years.
May 22, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I know what I campaigned for and spent over $1000 on under my given name in donations.
Search LisB if you know her real name and you'll find Lis only gave $250 or thereabouts. But Google my real full name and you'll find I gave much more.
Money I didn't think I had.
But I gave it gladly and I'm still glad I gave it. Like I said, the alternative could've been so much worse.
But part of, okay, most of the reason I fell behind Obama like I did was because I truly felt he'd be our Mr. Smith.
I truly felt he'd shake up Washington. Get us out of Iraq. End lobbyists and the drug industry and health care industry, and look out for our backs.
"He's a man, he's just a man.....he's not a King, he's just the same....as anyone I know......."
I wanted more change. But maybe I'm just not giving it enough time yet.
He got there just a few months ago, and we've got four more years.
Let's see what the next few years bring us. But, dammit, he'd better change.
May 22, 2009 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was hooey, fer Chrissakes. Lies, but nicely told. A lovely lovely ice cream cone, with warm butterscotch dribbled all over it, handed to the children by nice Mr Obama.
"I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable." I refuse to believe he said that, actually. I got so uncomfortable, I shifted sideways and TOTALLY jammed my left nut down one leg. Bugger! Because the dude followed it with complete horseshit about why he couldn't do A, or show us B, or even spell C.
I mean, does he think we're undertarded?
This was the kind of well-spoken syrupy tripe that made people want to throw stuff at Tony Blair in England from time to time. It's like, bloody hell Barack. Just say what you're gonna do, man up, take the hit, and stop with the "Didn't we have great ancestors, and let's not fight, and aren't we all just going to be special friends now?"
Same with the damn abortion thing. He didn't actually bridge the damn debate, he just said, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could talk about our differences civilly." Which I'm fine with. But in terms of substance, it was a pitcher of warm spit.
Same with health care. Blah. The wars. Meh. And above all, the bail-out and the banks. PROJECTILE VOMIT.
I'll still take him over any Republican, by 100 miles. And yep, he's done some good things. I like the energy investments and the auto bailouts and mileage regs - that counts for me. And some of the rest isn't that bad. Just... weak-ass.
But anyone that thinks we should be quietening down? Or just trusting him? Or waiting another few months? I think from here on out, I'm gonna be inclined to reply by stating the obvious. That these people really don't... KNOW... anything. It's that simple. They just... fell in love with the ice cream man.
And yes. The parrots really were quite nice.
May 22, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't handle ice cream - lactose intolerance...
May 22, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I was tired and depressed when I read this.
I might be suicidal, now.
Good grief.
May 22, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must say as a rhetorical performance I thought it outstanding.
Currently, there's a segment of the population -- maybe 20% or so -- that's up for grabs on what's to be done with and to "terrorists" who come into out hands.
Obama and Cheney are each after that 20%; each knows that it is the timber and pattern of the vocalization which will get to that audience; and each delivered that reassuring, sonorous sound well -- but Obama did it better.
Was it weightier content? a more strongly reasoned argument? Frankly Scarlett . . . .
May 22, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect Obama's going to need a very particular type of "timber" to get through to that audience.
Hey Axelrod. Hand me that Louisville Slugger.
May 22, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here it is.
May 23, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, Larry, I disagree. SHOOT THE PARROTS!!! My friend has a parrot, talky little shite, pretty feathers and all, and then he flies over and craps all over me.
As for the speech, weak swill. Not impressed. On the things that matter, Obama is down two strikes without taking a swing
1. Bank bailout
2. Rule of Law
Next upcoming pitches on health care and climate change, hope he gets a better grip on that bat or he's out.
May 22, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to agree with you on the "or he's out" part, but he could go wet noodle on every issue I care about and I'd still phone bank for him in 2012 against a Republican.
May 22, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friend's parrot is a great metaphor for our current economic policy isn't it?
May 22, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment entirely in bold.
May 23, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As is the former comment.
May 23, 2009 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could it happen again?!!
May 23, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it contagious?!!
May 23, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so, Sleepin'. You look fine to me.
May 23, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad I'm not the only one. Thanks, Larry.
May 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm touched. Am I wrong for being this way over Latin poetry?
Maybe so. But I am a sentimental fellow, who is drawn to ancient ideas, foreign extinct methods of communication, and Quimby's new improved No. 5 electro-skin-salve.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi, dixit Joe Wood
"Oh pointy birds,
oh pointy, pointy,
anoint my head.
anointy, nointy"
May 23, 2009 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I asked the lupins salesman to frequent my abode. He nary asked me why I stopped visiting his cottage, where he sold me 50 lupins. What a great poovy pole-leggar!
Dennis Moore then made things worse, when he stole the lupins from his carriage on the way to Liverpool, whilst reaping up the reward for my life's work; a boquet of lupins from thy humble breast.
I never recovered, though my recompense amounted to working on Mr. Tumblety's farmhouse, where in a basket I found some replacement lupins.
I fed them to my parrot Fred M. Jenkins, but he died from an unsolved knee injury. Poor bastard.
May 23, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
you
are perpetually putting the secret of
lifer in your pants and forgetting
it's there and sitting down
on it.
Little known Lupin facts.
1. Lupins - are an excellent replacement for Soy. In the days of the Roman Empire, an average Roman consumed lupin beans as frequently as 3 times a week. The British, however, never utilized the Lupin for anything more than ornamental purposes. It turns out that Lupins - prepared incorrectly - contain a powerful mycotoxin, capable of wiping out an entire civilization. Proper preparation requires soulful music, strong drink and intense conversation. Neither Empire successfully mastered the conditions of preparation. Alas.
2. There are more Lupins in the world than cars. And parrots. But not as many as cars plus parrots combined.
3. Lupinus subcarnosus (or "Buffalo Clover") grows only in Mexico. Tall & slender, it can reach heights of over 1,000 feet, without ever becoming thicker than a man's imagination.
4. Lupins must never be left unattended around Komodo Dragons. Never. Don't forget.
And don't forget that other thing either.
May 23, 2009 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed your lupins. Though seemingly harmless, lupins spare a vast reserve of physical strength for untidy and unspeakable tawdry occasions, of which I won't, out of decency, go further here.
May 23, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
More Widely-Known Lupin Fact.
5. A heathen plant, the Lupin is capable of almost any sin.
And don't forget that other thing. The one you left in your pants.
May 23, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The root of all sin. Superbia Lupine
May 23, 2009 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink