Statecraft Informer

Sparxafire!

Well, folks. I don’t want to damage the cultural and political fabric of our nation any more than it’s already ripped. I do regret that I must give up this blog due to professional developments in my life. It has been a pleasure, I’m sure.

Sparxafire!

This is just the kind of thing that ticks me off and gets this country into so much trouble! In today’s edition of the NEW YORK TIMES, yes… our national newspaper of record…. NOT the Wamego Times, Wamego, Kan., but the NYT lead headline is, “Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq.” Wow. This sounds like the troops are just getting so fed up, they’re begging/pressing to please just come home. Glass half empty.

Not.

They want to remove themselves from Iraq and go to Afghanistan to fight the original Al Quaeda that bombed the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

That’s very different.

These kinds of irritating headlines have an ever greater influence over the rapidly growing stupider U.S. population, who are not inclined to actually read beyond the headlines. Journalists know by now that if they can’t tell the story in the headline, pull quotes and photo captions, then the story won’t get told! That headline should have read, “Marines Want to Move on Afghanistan” or something similar. Glass half full.

This headline represents the exact same kind of logic that “Che-bush-ney” use when they talk about the international coalition in Iraq like they’re a big deal. Even Great Britain is withdrawing half their force, but the REAL story is that they only have about 5,000 soldiers left there!

It’s like bumping into a fence post and trying to act like you meant to do it. It’s childish and demeans not only those who write headlines like that, but it demeans the reader as well!

I am thoroughly insulted. As with anything else, there’s nothing to be done about it. Fire off a letter to the editor of the NYT and see what happens.

Sparxafire!

Oh, no! Somebody woke up the religious right extremists in the U.S., and they’re coming out cranky. I guess what did it is Republican candidate Rudy Guiliani’s lead in the polls — as far as Republican candidates are concerned. We all assume, or hope that no Republican has a chance in heck of winning the 2008 election based on the past eight years of shoddy, disgraceful, unlawful Republican rule. The Republican party is basically in shambles, and here come the religious extremists to try to kill it off — which is fine by your statecraft informer. The Republicans have made themselves obsolete and it doesn’t really matter who nails their coffin shut.

Religious right extremists cannot live with Guiliani’s pro life, pro gay stance (er, sorry…) when it comes to social values. They claim, if he wins the Republication nomination, they will take their toys and flounce away to form some other party. Yawn. This is very typical logic on the part of the ultra religious folks, who live their lives with an ever so tenuous grip on reality… They who claim that their god is actually in charge of everything, and who waste countless hours praying and whatnot to this alleged diety. That behavior alone qualifies one as well, loopy, at least. I cannot see the difference between believing in “Jonah and the Whale” and the “Tooth Fairy”… (At least, I think “Jonah and the Whale” is a bible story isn’t it? I get these things mixed up in my old age!)

So off they go to try destroy their political party, tra la… because it does not even occur to them that their twisted little pro-life, anti-gay, anti-science agenda is the real culprit that needs to die off. How tragic for them to be so off track, so mean and narrow and unenlightened. On the other hand, if they wish to crusade against the Republican party instead of unwed mothers, gays and social progress, I say, knock yourselves out! I honestly hope you win.

Sparxafire!

I do not live in a state anyone cares about. So, if there are political ads being aired, I’d have to go find them on the Internet – something I never do… Instead, I sort of run across them at news portals and whatnot. And so, it is with some herky-jerky reaction that I viewed Hilary Clinton’s new ad, explaining how very very much she has done to try to help the rescue workers who continue to suffer from the aftereffects of working at the Ground Zero cleanup.

This ad is clearly scaffolding for the general election, when the primary season still has a ways to go. Cleverly, as an intended consequence for sure, it sends a message to Barack Obama and John Edwards that she thinks she is the assumptive close to nail the nomination… No need to worry about campaigning against Dems for the nom…. she’s launching against the Rep leader already because, indeed 9/11 belongs to Rudy Guiliani, the Rep front-runner.

Never mind that all I ever hear about is the acute suffering and lack of help for the rescue workers… So, it’s not clear what Hilary has done, exactly…. And that’s not the point, after all.

Now, the Statecraft Informer / Jury-of-One is honestly still out on how to vote in 2008. We are not really pleased with any choice we see at this point. A lot could happen between now and election day, and your Statecraft Informer urgently hopes a lot does happen. Like some miraculous third party, formerly known as the middle class should shake of its coma and arise … Or Oprah would decide to run … other celeb, like Britney or Alec Baldwin or Ronald McDonald… or Bloomberg could fling in a few monkey wrenches… I don’t know… Ralph Nader? Is Ross Perot still alive?

Perhaps you chuckle at these suggestions, but the American Idol gets more votes every week than any presidential candidate could possibly hope for! Perhaps Dr. Phil is bunching up even as we speak to sail his hat into the ring! I hate to admit it, but there is room for something like this in this election, and I don’t think I’m the only one who is feeling room temperature about the race so far. Larry Craig is going to need something to do….

Sparxafire!

There are a lot of things I don’t understand about torture. For example:

1. We are obviously a country that engages in torture, in violation of international law.
So why don’t the international enforcers come after us and force us to stop?

2. In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declared torture to be illegal. In July 2006, your president disseminated “new and approved” torture guidelines. What kind of upstanding land of the free has to declare torture illegal??? And has a torture menu???

3. Everybody, but everybody says torture does not work.

4. Torture is scuzzy, low and primitive — traits the United States tries to avoid. We are supposed to be all about “twilights gleaming,” and “purple mountains majesty.” Oh, and human rights and “the pursuit of happiness.” Whereas torture is anti-gleam, non-majestic and inhumane.

5. Americans are apparently okay with torture. They do not seem to object or question the use of torture by the United States government. Have we all gone mad?

What are we thinking? Well, apparently, we tacitly agree that torture is OK when dealing with extreme religious terrorists who wish to harm the U.S… a tactic that is proven not to work. That’s all your statecraft informer can infer from the reaction of the populace… We are now officially sanctioned enablers of torture. I wonder if that could be worked into the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner, or perhaps the Pledge of Allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except our enemies whom we torture.”

Sparxafire!

I watched Ken Burns’ “The War” on PBS and it is taking me some time to process it. Of course, it is a stunning production, full of footage I’ve never seen before. And again, Burns has found wonderful survivors to interview, and fascinating threads to follow through the entire series. Of course, this is what happens when an artist is handed 100 percent support, and eliminates all fog of “how to make ends meet.” That’s what enables an artist to soar… and Burns soared for six years on this project. And I can see all six years in it.

My first thought: From the narrative of the survivors, one gets a glimpse into perhaps the main reason why soldiers are reluctant to discuss the war after they get home. The context is unbearable… it’s just not possible to sit in a warm, comfortable kitchen and describe the horrors, and, in the middle of it, be asked if you’d like a coffee refill or whatever. It’s too jangling, and the sympathetic listener is just flat inadequate. No matter how the listener responds, it functions as a reminder never to talk about it again, there is just no possible human response by someone who was not there, who did not see.

My second thought: How could I have been so selfish and self-absorbed as to not ask my father about his experiences in WWII? He was a veteran, and he died in 1979. Now he’s gone, and I have only the skimpiest understanding of what he did as a technical communications sergeant stationed in England… at least I think that’s what I recall.

While this is depressing, I guess the thread here is that all these failings seem to be hard-wired into the human animal — the selfishness, inadequacy of empathy and of course, the inability to avoid war in the first place.

Sparxafire!

This whole situation of Dan Rather peeling back the lid to reveal the stench of the behavior of the media since 9/11 is actually huge! There are many places online where you can get the full story, such as this post by Leslie Griffith on the Huffington post, “Thank You Dan Rather.”

It is so clear to me what the framers of the Constitution intended by creating three branches of government, with various powers that result in a system of checks and balances, AND, via the Bill of Rights, amendment one, to ensure a free press to keep everyone informed.

Thus, things like executive privilege and Congress denouncing citizen speech clearly go against the intent of the framers.

So, if it’s so clear, why must we endure these governmental attacks on free speech? Who is in charge of enforcing the Constitution, anyway? A president swears to uphold the Constitution, as does every other government participant. So how is it that the Constitution is in shreds? What’s going on here?

Without a free press, the branches of government do not function correctly, and we’ve lost it, people! How could everyone break down all at once? Sad to say, a lot of the fault goes to our broken down capitalistic, free market society. Simply this: The reporters and journalists were afraid of losing their jobs if they protested the clear and obvious censorship that was being forced upon them.

And, it was being forced upon them by media owners who were afraid to appear unpatriotic in the wake of 9/11 — again, for fear of losing viewers and advertisers. What a crappy loop! It can’t endure. Always remember how we were asked to respond to 9/11: shop.

Sparxafire!

Well, let’s see… what unfathomable smear shall we examine today? I think your president’s insistence on vetoing the SCHIP bill that provides access to health care for the uninsured children of the U.S. is a good start.

Now, the president doesn’t get the big deal: According to him, when a kid gets sick, he or she can just show up at some emergency room for treatment. How can we explain this type of thought process? Emergency rooms are not set up to handle rashes, ear infections, sore throats, tummy aches and any number of childhood ailments. This is equivalent to telling a motorist whose car is overheating to rush to QuikTrip®… Yesssss, you might be able to buy antifreeze at a QT, and they have other related, but not appropriate stuff there, like gas and air for your tires… But they’re really not properly set up to handle an overheating car… Ultimately, not very close, and certainly, no cigar!

Your president is a parent. He has surely endured a few episodes of illness or injury of his kids. It is a basic human skill to apply your own experience to broader issues. It is not possible to lack this basic skill and still be human! And at this point, I prove I am unable to explain your president’s logic, or lack thereof.

So now, UNPRECEDENTED-ly, (as far as I know), state governors, led by New York’s Gov. Spitzer, are suing your president for his “narrow stance” on this issue. Wow! That’s just awesome!

This just in from the White House website, “The President does not believe health coverage for poor children should be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken.” I admit this is kind of taken out of context, but still it makes no sense whatsoever.

My inability to explain the unexplainable is giving me a headache, so I’m off to the emergency room!