DragonFlight

Is it just me, or is mediocrity becoming the norm? Is this the planet to be on? Last night while watching TV I experienced a “twilight zone� moment spread over the period of an hour. There are maybe at most a dozen shows I might watch on a permanent basis. I spend the rest of the time with my finger firmly pressed on the remote and indulge in high-speed channel surfing in hopes of finding something even remotely interesting. On this occasion I was rewarded with three separate incidents that would have made Rod Serling blush.

The first was a news clip. There was a reporter speaking with a Mexican woman about the proposed wall between Mexico and the United States that had just been approved by the Congress and signed into law by the President. She was saying something like, "I am totally against this wall; it
is against the inherent rights of all Mexicans.� Now that really caused me to raise an eyebrow. Though I believe the wall is a lame idea, I hadn’t been aware it was the right of all Mexicans to cross our border at will. I didn’t know it was the right of any person from the two nations along our borders to enter our country without going through proper checkpoints, or vice-versa.

I surfed on, still shaking my head in disbelief, and came upon the second incredulous newsreel. This one occurred on a beachfront perhaps somewhere along the southern California coast. There was a group of at least seven police officers arresting a young man for something; I didn’t quite catch what. The man was not cooperating fully, but the police were finally able to subdue and handcuff him. While placing him in the car, one of the officers told him, “You are being arrested for resisting arrest.�

I mumbled to myself, “What? How can you be arrested for resisting arrest?� I briefly envisioned hearing, “signpost ahead: the next step the twilight zone.� I presume the officer meant to say you are going to be charged with resisting arrest, along with the reason we’re arresting you in the first place. It just struck me as rather odd he hadn’t said that. No doubt this one was just a fluke, the officer having made a mistake.

The last TV spot was the real mind bender; the best saved for last. This was some sort of Judge Judy type court show I’d never seen before. A man and a woman were called into court on suspicion of owning some drugs found in their car. I had missed the part about why they were stopped in the first place, but apparently some drugs had been subsequently found lying on or wedged between the seats of the two suspects. Both denied owning the drugs, and both had come up with a negative drug test.

The car had been impounded, and the judge called a drug-sniffing dog into the courtroom to go check out the car (which I presume was nearby) for any signs of more drugs. While passing through, the dog happened to be attracted to the male suspect and walked over to him. The judge, taking notice of this, became suspicious and asked one of the bailiffs to search the man.

Guess what? If you surmised that they found drugs on the guy, you win! The judge could hardly believe it, and neither could I. He repeatedly stated that in all his years on the bench he had never seen anything as stupid as a person charged with possession of drugs, actually bringing drugs into the courtroom and his own hearing. Meanwhile, I’m dumbfounded while staring at the screen and thinking “Dooooooh!� Move over Mr. Serling and make room for Homer Simpson.

At this point, I expected to wake up and find it had all been a dream. I looked around, half expecting to see Serling’s ghost-like apparition smiling at me from some corner. I had thought the present political climate in the nation was totally inane. Last night I sensed perhaps it is just business as usual in a world and nation that had long ago subtly entered that Twilight Zone unnoticed.

In the 21st Century, an epoch in which we might have expected some enlightenment from Homo sapiens, and on the verge of establishing a World Federation founded in peace and harmony, and ready to explore the galaxy; we are instead still bogged down by greed, avarice, fear and universal conflict. A powerful and privileged few, simply by virtue of having lots of money and ambition, not any inherent humanity or awareness, still force us to rely on fossil fuels, support a military industrial complex that needs war to survive, and display a willingness to convince us there are no such things as Global Warming which might in the end make all our previous history a moot point. I mean why should we be concerned with the habitability of the planet in 50-100 years when we can make an extra dollar now (so much for “real� family values and the well-being of grandchildren)?

What is really important to me is to find out when the Mother Ship is scheduled to arrive again, so I can book passage back to the Home Planet. It may be time to leave a solar system that has for some time now been cordoned off with yellow warning tape. The nostalgia of my youth arises within my consciousness as a recall a Broadway play entitled, “Stop the World, I Want to Get Off.� At the time I thought it was a joke!

Posted by Stephen at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

At the moment it’s important to me to attempt to communicate with other viewpoints. I recently read another blog in which the blogger didn’t understand how anyone could support the troops when they don’t support the war, believing it greatly undermined the soldiers. It is that post I am responding to, not in order to make right or wrong, but to create some understanding.

I can totally see your perspective on this, the dichotomy between those saying they do not support the war, but do support the troops. It seems like a contradiction in terms, yet it also seems insane to wage a war that is not supported by the majority. Certainly the troops get caught in the middle, for all the reasons you mention. In an “ideal� war, one that is truly justified, I would agree with your conclusions.

In my mind, this particular war is not justified. Even so, I still support the troops. They go where they are sent, having no say in the matter. It is a decision that is supposed to be made by the American people, through their representatives in Congress.

It’s probably also natural for them to believe their Commander in Chief would only send them in harm’s way in a “right cause.� I’m not going to debate the reasons given for invading Iraq; the various opinions have been already expressed ad nauseum. It is my belief, however, they were at best wrong, and at worst contrived and manipulated for reasons we are still not sure of. It is because of this that I cannot support the war. That does not preclude me from backing the Americans called on to serve in Iraq. Why would it?

Can you see the other side of the equation? At least half of the US population was not in favor of the war before it started, and polls indicate that 64% of Americans are not in favor of it now. The majority of Americans presently believe that supporting the troops means getting them out of a situation that has turned from bad to horrendous, and shows every indication of getting worse. This could mean the 2700 Americans that have already died, along with the over 20,000 wounded and maimed could greatly increase, and without the situation ever being resolved and victory (whatever that means) achieved.

It’s ironic that a ten member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker (a big Bush family ally), with the stated purpose of proposing the best way to proceed in Iraq, seems to be ruling out the prospect of an American victory, even while Dick Cheney is saying, “We’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.�

The commission is also looking at a "redeploy and contain" option for a phased withdrawal of troops from the country. This sounds awfully similar to what many Democrats have been proposing for several months now and which the Bush Administration has been chiding as “cut and run.� Senator John Murtha was called “unpatriotic� when he first suggested the possibility.

Perhaps Iraq is not ready for democracy. When you have three major factions in a nation that hate each other, how does an invading country force a democracy upon them and make it work? I would also suspect that since creating a democracy was a justification for invasion following threats of WMDs, the imminent nuclear cloud, and unproven attempts to make an Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, it might not really have been a serious goal, but one which sounded good when nothing else was panning out - all reasons to make some of us suspicious of the war.

What would truly be insane is to have our troops caught in the crossfire of a civil war. The Iraqis say they are in a civil war. Several thousand of them have died in the last couple of months, and the slaughter in the streets continues at an accelerating pace. Only our administration seems to think there is no civil war, and things are progressing well. Not even the generals, retired or active, agree with that assessment any longer. Do you honestly trust the White House to tell the truth when they are doing everything they can to justify the war, not admitting having made mistakes, and still talking about “staying the course?� Would this be sufficient for you if you had a son or daughter fighting there?

Please look at your rationale. This is not a black and white situation as was WW II where we had no choice, having been decidedly attacked by those with whom we subsequently waged war. It seems to say that any time a leader decides to start a war and gets troops there, the whole nation must support that policy, whether they agree or not, simply because troops have been sent. Are you really willing to give that much power and authority to one person? “Start a war, send the troops, and they must support.� That sounds a bit crazy to me. I thought we lived in a democracy, or at least a republic, where there is “government of, by and for the people.�

I agree with you that the troops are the losers in this tug of war. Of course they are, as you say, “patriotic young Americans who believe in what they are doing and are distressed, not by the war progress, but, by the always negative Media reports.� Though I would tend to disagree with you saying they aren’t distressed over the “progress,� and I don’t assume negative media reports mean bias; they might just indicate the reality of the situation. All too often people see bias where there is simply disagreement. I would hope that in the 21st Century it is not the purpose of the media to make armies feel good about what they are doing, but instead, to report the news. I hope we as a race are beyond that juvenile behavior, and not willing to sacrifice truth for patriotic cheer leading? How much more might the troops be distressed if in the present atmosphere of futility in Iraq there were no voices crying out for an end of a situation that possibly cannot end in victory? And, whose fault is that, the people who demand an end to the situation, or the leader that sent them into an unpopular and unjustified (no WMDs found, no acceptance of the American “saviors� – 80% of the Iraqis say they want us out) war?

You don’t honestly believe any Americans want our troops harmed do you? Can you feel my anger, and the anger of the millions like me who cringe at the idea of our young being slaughtered thousands of miles from home in a cause we never believed in? Can you begin to understand how terribly frustrating it is to be put in the middle of this? On one hand we are very proud of our soldiers, and on the other, we see suffering and dying for all the wrong reasons, and in the wrong place.

Let’s get on the same page, so that if we don’t at least agree we do understand why each of us feel the way we do, and realize it is justified from our separate perspectives; and not something that makes us “want to retch.� If you support the war itself, no doubt that makes it easier for you to put your whole heart into the entire effort.

Imagine if you can for a moment, you don’t agree with the war, but it’s happening anyway. Would you then not understand the dichotomy of caring for the troops, but wishing they were not involved, and desiring to end the situation? Has there never been a situation in your life where you supported an individual or individuals, but not necessarily what they were doing or why? Then imagine it not even being their choice, but someone else’s for them, someone you don’t even trust. It’s not a fun place to be.

Posted by Stephen at 08:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

What’s really important to me is to expose the phony “perception of democrats� created by the Right Wing propaganda machine, backed by lies, disinformation and distortion. How strange it is that every time a Democrat emotes, gets passionate or animated it is perceived on the right as melting down, going ballistic, losing it, or going bonkers. Republicans seem to believe Democrats must remain lifeless and listless while putting up with the constant harassment, bashing and despicable lies thrown at them. The only time I recall these people cheering such behavior from a Democrat was when Zell Miller DID go absolutely ballistic at the Republican National Convention and attacked his own party. It appears that as long as the anger is directed AT the Democratic party instead of FROM it, everything is fine in their myopic little world.

For over eight years the right wing attacked Al Gore for being bland. When in 2004 he finally did get animated and had some rather telling things to say about the Republicans in power, he was immediately attacked from the right. Not, as you would suppose, for what he said, but how he said it. Calling for the resignations of several members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Tenet and Rice, was not nearly as noteworthy as raising his voice. Funny that Gore was first ridiculed for being dispassionate, and then ridiculed for being too passionate.

Remember Howard Dean’s concession speech in Iowa for which he was thoroughly lambasted for being too excited when outlining his plans to win the primaries in other states? He was drawn and quartered nationally for being too loud and too boisterous, and not given any credence for attempting to give hope to his supporters after a disappointing defeat.

The game is to trick the Democrats into remaining passive-aggressive while the Republicans create various diversions, as loud and dirty as they choose. Thus we see the Swift Boat liars and the hypocritical outcry and convening of Congress over the Terri Schiavo debacle. Remember Bill Frist’s outrage as he made his erroneous and outrageous diagnosis of Terri Schiavo on national TV, and the nonsensical ranting of Tom DeLay? It’s okay when Republicans are loud and obnoxious, just not acceptable when anyone else is.

And now we have Bill Clinton being raked over those same right wing coals for daring to fight back against a concerted effort to make him responsible for 9/11, the “war on terror,� and the Iraq debacle, instead of the guy and party in office. The new strategy is to paint Clinton as the evil precursor to the rise of terrorism and portray Bush as an innocent bystander.

I watched the Clinton-Wallace interview and saw no signs of Clinton acting inappropriately. I also believe Wallace had the right to ask the question. No one believes Clinton was unaware of agreeing to sit in the Fox “hot seat� and knowing he would be asked some tough questions.

What’s noteworthy is that he was hit with the conspicuous propaganda BS right out of the gate, and gave better than he took. That is apparently unacceptable. Why are so many indignant because Clinton, in inhospitable territory, and being immediately hit with the “big question,� fought back, and did it with passion and conviction? Oh right, I forgot, Democrats aren’t supposed to raise their voices and be passionate, especially when being attacked; and let there be no doubt, Wallace’s question WAS an attack. Anyone disallowing that needs to get an intellectual honesty check!

Since when has righteous indignation become inappropriate? What is wrong with anger directed at lies and innuendo? Ever since the Bush “doctrine� has become bogged down in the Middle East, with Iraq having sunk further into a quagmire of death and civil war, the Bush administration has become increasingly desperate to find a scapegoat. We already know that they don’t make any mistakes because they have told us so. Cheney still doggedly adheres to the correctness of the path as it is, and admittedly would make the same disastrous decisions again. So, if anything is wrong, it cannot be anything Bush has done; it must be the fault of the Clinton Administration. It’s rather frightening how easy it is to sell that package to ardent Bush supporters.

It doesn’t seem to matter to these people that Bush was president during 9/11, that Rice was National Security Advisor, or that Richard Clarke was rebuffed when he tried to brief the new administration on the Al Qaeda threat back in January of 2001. It’s not important that no meeting of high ranking government officials was formed to even discuss terrorism until the first week of September in 2001, or that the now famous PDB “Bin Laden determined to strike in US� was presented to Bush one month before 9/11 and was, for all intents and purposes ignored. It doesn’t matter that Bin Laden was allowed to escape Tora Bora as a result of the incompetence of Rumsfeld and Bush (not enough troops on the ground, and a decision to let Afghanistan mercenaries do the job instead of the US Special Forces). Of course the icing on the cake was the decision to pull out of Afghanistan and trump up a phony war against Iraq, making false allegations about a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program and a totally discredited Iraq/Al Qaeda/9/11 connection. Incidently, as a sidebar, Afghanistan has fallen right back into the Taliban driven quaqmire which was supposedly the precursor for the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda training.

Bush’s “war on terrorism,� questionably perpetrated to convince us that he is “keeping America safe, is something we have only his word for. Any criticism concerning possible mistakes and incompetence by this administration is now directed at former President Bill Clinton. No doubt this is the handiwork of the arch propagandist and Madison Avenue public relations firm of Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter et al, in that order. How dare Clinton have the audacity to speak out ardently in his defense against a party and leadership that not only haunted and persecuted him during his eight long years in office, but continues to do so in order to scapegoat the incompetence of their own six years in office!

What’s really important to me is that a whole lot of people in this nation wake up, and realize propaganda is no longer an acceptable ploy in politics. It is killing our nation. My online dictionary defines propaganda as “chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.� People who use propaganda are not in the business of disseminating the truth; they are more concerned with being right. Being right is not the same as being truthful.

Our nation is presently facing one of the gravest tests in its short history. We are divided internally, by a war of ideology, religious conflict, political strife, class/economic warfare and false rhetoric and outright lies. Externally, it is at war in the Middle East, physically and ideologically we have lost the aura of “moral rightness� that has long made us a favored nation in the world. And in spite of all this, and instead of doing what is necessary to heal the wounds of the nation, there remain those in power (as well as those supporting them) more concerned with justifying their position, staying the course, and finding reasons to blame others rather than take responsibility for their own mistakes. “God Bless America� is becoming more of a desperate prayer than a reflection of national pride!

Posted by Stephen at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)