Alternative Comic (Books) Part 5.723

Do you remember the first couple of episodes of the X-Files? When there was this huge mystery and it seemed remotely possible that you could eventually figure it out? Well, there's a comic book that is pretty similar. It's name is Planetary, and it's pretty brilliant. And like X-files it's becoming increasingly clear that there is no big mystery out there, just individual issues. But it's still pretty brilliant--here's a page from the one about a secret cold war military base, where "the monster movies were made."



So check it out.

Helpful Household Hints

This story is just a little bit scatological. So you've been warned.

I am in the process of changing domiciles. Yesterday I went to the new place and filled out a bunch of paperwork, and then went and inspected it with the apartment people. Anyway, after they left, I stayed in the new place a moment, and, as often happens, I realized I had a special function in the bathroom I needed to perform.

So I went in there and performed my special function, and realized something. Unfurnished apartments are not furnished with dozens of things. And one of the many things unfurnished apartments don't come with is Toilet paper. So I had to improvise. They did provide a phone book, or I suppose the phone company did--so I opened it up, and took care of my problem.

Suffice to say, Law firms or attorneys form Bea to Fle should probably not expect a call from me.

Have a nice Saturday.

President George W. Bush and Mount Rushmore

Interesting article today at Salon about "Profiles in Courage," a book "written" by John F. Kennedy, and how it applies to President Bush. While I certainly would encourage checking the whole article out(although it does require you to see several ads if are not a member), one paragraph jumped out at me particularly.

" . . . when it comes to his domestic agenda, his programs are as unwise as any can be. Missing from the way in which Bush argues on behalf of his tax cut is any sense that the prospects of future generations will be severely crippled by the fantastic sums the government will have to expend in interest payments to cover the deficits his policy seems designed to produce. No tale of fiscal woe from governors, even those of his own party, moves him. No knowledge of what has happened in history when governments have acted with fiscal irresponsibility matters to him. It is as if the actual country, its families and their lives, are secondary to his inward determination never to back down on a promise that only the extreme right wing ever recalls him making. His policies are those of a man more concerned with the strength of his political base than the strength of his country."

Anyway pretty scathing--although the article is not unfair. It does mention his success in the foreign policy arena.

Loyalty Day Redux

Here's a picture of Early Americans celebrating the values and virtues that made our country great, a determination to be free and a willingness to challenge authority. Fights right in with Loyalty day, doesn't it?



Oh, and I know it kind of looks like some of those guys on the right have tails--but those are really the ropes they are pulling. Our early American Patriots did not have tails.

Happy Loyalty Day

I hope you are all having as fun a loyalty day as I am. But, amidst all the joy, let us remember what loyalty day is all about. Our president, George W. Bush, put it this way, "Our children need to know that our Nation is a force for good in the world, extending hope and freedom to others. By learning about America's history, achievements, ideas, and heroes, our young citizens will come to understand even more why freedom is worth protecting. . . .

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2003, as Loyalty Day. I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance. I also call upon government officials to display the flag of the United States on all government buildings on Loyalty Day."

Yep, in order to celebrate the freedoms this nation was founded on, we are called on to be loyal. I know that each of us will celebrate this momentous day in our own way, but when I think of loyalty, I think of dogs. Consider these words of Samuel Johnson, "I would rather see the portrait of a dog that I know, than all the allegorical paintings they can show me in the world."

That's why, this Loyalty day, I'm going to spend the evening crawling around on all fours and peeing on the furniture. And, of course, not worrying about the Government and what it's doing. Isn't that what loyalty is all about?

Secretary for Life Rumsfeld

I guess I shouldn't joke about this subject, but more than any one cabinet member in history, Donald Rumsfeld has consolidated power unto himself. Robert Novak, in his article today, traced Rumsfeld's recent consolidation of power in the Army, culminating in his dismissal of the Secretary of the Army, Thomas White.

He closes his article saying, "No previous secretary of defense has approached Don Rumsfeld's authority or audacity. He brought exile Ahmad Chalabi to Iraq against Colin Powell's wishes and without his knowledge. He is regarded as the hidden hand behind the assault on Powell by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has become Rumsfeld's confidante. Now, Rumsfeld's Army adversaries soon will be gone."

Novak does use strikingly non-judgmental language to describe Rumsfeld's takeover.

I also find it ironic that Rumsfeld is doing all this in order to force upon the military a smaller more-streamlined army. As Novak puts it, "Rumsfeld is forcing a thinner Army, and does not want a service secretary allied with "dinosaur" generals backing "heavy" forces with plenty of armor and artillery." Kind of a different view than you normally get from conservatives, who talk about Clinton starving the Military, while President Bush has restored it's honor.

A Vaguely Dishonest Article

Is it dishonest to deny that you seek military options when you are closing the door to every non military option? I guess that's a question every reader will have to settle for themselves, but it doesn't sit very well with me.

Michael Ledeen, writing at National Review, is concerned that we are not being tough enough on Syria or Iran. He states, "If we want a free Iran and a free Syria — and we must, if we really want to win the war against terror — we will have to fight for it. Not militarily, in these cases, but certainly politically." I'd be curious to know what Mr. Ledeen means by "free." Two democratic nations, or two nations friendly to the United States? But laying that aside, it's clear that Mr. Ledeen intends for us to believe that he favors the peaceful pursuit of our interests in Syria and Iran.

Except for he opposes efforts to enter talks with Iran or Syria. He states, "It is therefore disconcerting and discouraging to see the National Security Council's top man in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sneaking off to secret meetings with representatives of the Iranian regime, and to see Secretary of State Powell enthusiastically contemplating a trip to Damascus. There is nothing to be gained from talking to the mullahs. They are declared enemies of everything we hold precious. . . ." So he opposes President Bush's State Department, which is trying to work out a diplomatic solution to this problem. So assuming we don't talk to Syria or Iran, what other tools do we have at our disposal? Hmmmmmmmmm. Well, I guess we do have a military presence in the region.

Jack Kemp

Well, Jack Kemp weighed in on Newt Gingrich's criticisms of the State Department last week, but I was unable to remember where I had seen his comments. Fortunately his article today is all about putting the hammer to Newt. A few choice tidbits.

"By constantly harping on the need to reform and transform the State Department without providing any specifics, it becomes clear that Gingrich is using the easy target of the State Department bureaucracy as a pretext for criticizing Bush's diplomatic policies through Powell. Gingrich appears to be attempting to drive a wedge between the president and his secretary of state in the name of reform, which plays right into the hands of America's adversaries. It also plays right into the hands of the Daschle Democrats who would love nothing better than to create dissention over foreign policy within the ranks of the Bush administration and blame the president for a failure. . . .

"He really goes over the top when he lashes out at Powell for "throw(ing) away all the fruits of hard-won victory (in Iraq) by going to Syria." In Gingrich's words, "The concept of the American secretary of state going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist-supporting, secret-police-wielding dictator is ludicrous."

"What's ludicrous is the implication that Powell would go to Syria on his own without orders from the president."

Good stuff. However, don't think this particular issue is over. There was an article yesterday by Frank Gaffney that stated, "Official Washington is notorious for its tendency to respond to unwelcome performance assessments by "shooting the messenger." The reaction to Newt Gingrich's recent, scathing critique of the State Department's conduct of diplomacy in recent months, however, seems closer to the gruesome punishment of "drawing and quartering" -- in which the victim's arms and legs were chained to, and then pulled apart by, four horses." Gaffney goes on to largely reiterate Gingrich's attack.

Does it Matter?

Now that the war is over, my main purpose has been to look to the future of Iraq and our involvement in it, rather than to dwell on the past. I think the best thing we can do is take this troubling situation, and work to turn it towards the benefit of the Iraqi people and, ultimately, ourselves.

That said, it is troubling how little it seems to matter that we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction. That was the most compelling reason to invade, and everybody knows it. I suspect the US will forgive President Bush for obfuscating on this matter; but other nations around the world are less likely to be forgiving. Anyway just something to think about.

Tough Questions

Well, it turns out that we haven't found any WMD yet. And it also turns out that we don't care. The liberation of the Iraqi peoples is a noble goal in and of itself, and we should be satisfied with that. But, of course, one might ask if we are now required to rescue other peoples throughout the world. Paul Krugman, is one such "one" who asks, in his latest article.

. . . why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

For those who would like more information on the Ivory Coast situation, here it is.

Abandoning Iraq

There was an article by Doug Bandow today, in which he decried America's potential nation building operation in Iraq. He states, "Having invaded Iraq, Washington has little choice but to help rebuild that nation. However, America's basic objective should be to safeguard U.S. security, not to inaugurate an Iraqi New Deal. That means being less concerned about whether Iraq holds together, who rules Baghdad, and how the country's politics are practiced, and more concerned that any regime neither traffics in weapons of mass destruction nor terrorism."

First of all, don't the rulers of Iraq maybe exert some influence over whether their nation supports weapons of mass destruction or terrorism?

But more to the point, regardless of the difficulties, the creation of a stable, democratic, capitalist Iraq would have positive reprecutions throughout the region. It would be a blessing to the Iraqi people, who have had to suffer under Saddam's despotic rule. It would show the Middle East that we come not as conquerors, nor in vengence, but to help.

There are going to be strong pressures on President Bush to abandon Iraq, but I encourage each of us to support him in his efforts to rebuild Iraq. Here is President Bush's E-mail address. president@whitehouse.gov

From Brandy

Here is Brandy's response to the Kathleen Parker article from earlier in the day.

I completely agree that everyone has become sooo one sided that key issues and understanding are being missed...I too have fallen into this, and its all about pride! I am a huge fan of Rumsfeld and so want to be supportive in all the man says and does (and because I have been so vocal about supporting him its added prideful pressure to ALWAYS stay supportive), but the truth of it is he has frightened me with some recent ranting, and although I still admire him, I have to vocally NOT support him on SOME issues. I think if we all could just say, yes, everyone/party/political view has good and bad points and work together -wow, how much good could be accomplished.

Now then that being said, it will NEVER happen.

I remain a bit more hopeful, but recognize, like Brandy, that combativeness may be in our nature.

More Media Coverage

I was reading an article about those voices in Hollywood that have supported the war effort and are unhappy with their fellow actors who have spoken out against the war.

Then I came across this quote from Steve Doocy, of Fox News' morning show "Fox and Friends."

"In the past, Hollywood celebrities have never been held accountable for some of their kind of kooky ideas that aren't in line with the balance of America."

Read that again. Mr. Doocy is arguing that celebrities need to be held accountable if their thoughts differ from the balance of America. First of all, who determines what the balance of America is thinking? Secondly, why does someone need to be held accountable for thinking differently from his fellow American? Did that suddenly become a crime that needs to be punished?

Divisions

This is from Kathleen Parker of the Chicago Tribune (I think, the article was published at Townhall.com).

She comments, "There seems to be little sense of a middle ground these days. It's an either-or world, a condition that may be blamed in part on President Bush's "you're either with us or against us" mantra following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If you write in support of Bush policies, such as the war on Iraq, for example, those who disagree infer that you're either on the Haliburton payroll or jockeying for a job with the Bush administration.

I assume that those who write against the war get similar mail suggesting that they're either Clinton apologists, or communists, or teen-raping, pot-smoking, baby-aborting Hollywood agitators. What were once differences of opinion among gentlefolk have become vast ideological divides between fanatics and zealots."

I've noticed this as well. The concept of respectfully disagreeing seems to have gone by the wayside, and now politics is a war in which there can be no comprimise except for victory. I believe that most Conservatives and most Liberals love their country and want to make it better, but this is not a popular view these days.

Caleb Responds to H. L. Mencken

Caleb has some comments on the Mencken Quote presented yesterday. Enjoy.

If we use education to reduce all citizenry to controllable norms and other governments use ignorance to keep the people from learning enough to know that maybe life could be better, and other governments use religion as a method of enforcing a whimsical detachment in their people then maybe people are just easily controlled, unoriginal, slobs for whom detached malcontent is the norm, and the governments no matter how much they plot and connive to keep people under their boot are nearly assuming an unoriginal, outdated, worldview that profits them nothing. Are then all social programs similarly useless ways of placating the already sedentary, and uncaring masses?