Supporting Our Troops

"Support the troops" has become the rallying cry of almost every commentator of contemporary politics. For some, "support the troops" provides cover for anti-American ideals such as the squelching of dissent and calling for the death of those who voice disagreement with our president. For others, "support the troops" means calling for the immediate and total withdrawal of American soldiers from harm's way in Iraq. Still others think it means that all soldiers deserve to be lauded as heroes, regardless of their circumstances or deeds.

Some commentators have suggested that the time for questioning the decision to start the war, or criticims of the inept conduct of the war, or discussion of withdrawal, is only after the troops are home. In effect, these people would postpone examination of these important issues until they are irrelevant. While I respect their willingness to follow leadership, I refuse to allow current events to run their course without hoping to influence them.

I don't want to cause any of the troops to suffer from lower morale, but I certainly am not going to be quiet about my opinions on the wrong-headed nature of their mission. I sincerely believe they are there because the White House was captured by a weak man controlled by ambitious men with a poorly-thought-out, arrogant and optimistic conception that if we could somehow attack Iraq and install a functioning democracy, we would have a friendly source of oil and a domino with which to topple the various anti-western democratic governments in the Middle East. I believe that the White House intentionally sought to use the nation's warlike mood following 9-11 to lead us into a war it had hoped for long before taking office.

I believe that the White House hyped evidence that supported a decision to invade Iraq, and downplayed conflicting evidence. I believe they chose to focus on WMDs because they knew that, in a post 9-11 America, fear would sell a war. I believe that they knew the evidence supporting WMDs was weak, but they pushed it and engaged in group-think to convince themselves and others that the threat of a mushroom cloud justified an invasion. I believe that they intentionally understaffed the war, in the hopes that they really could pull off a cheap war and get greeted in the streets with rose petals. I believe that their mistaken optimism and inept handling of the immediate post-invasion aftermath resulted in a war that has become a quagmire, and will inspire more terrorism long into future generations.

Now, with all that said, what do I think about our troops? Well, I have a more balanced view than many. I don't believe they are all volunteer heroes. Some most certainly are, but some joined up because it was a way to win the respect of a hometown that never treated them with the respect they sought, or because it seemed like a decent career option, or because they thought they might get to kill a fire monster on a bridge.

I remember when I was growing up and contemplating college. My family could not afford to pay for college, and I looked into ROTC opportunities. I ruled out that option when I read the solemn pledge I would be required to take:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In a nutshell, to become a soldier, you must pledge to follow orders, no matter how much you disagree with them, so long as they are proper under regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a teenager who grew up when Nixon was in the White House, I was unwilling to surrender my conscience. I can see why that pledge is a necessary part of running an orderly military, but it didn't make any sense for a young man who was questioning everything up to and including God to make a pledge that I would kill people based upon the say-so of God-knows-whom.

I don't believe the troops are all above reproach. We know some of them have done awful things over there. On the other hand, I'm confident that I could do the same things in certain circumstances. In short, we have a bunch of teenagers and twenty-somethings out there with guns in their hands, surrounded by people they don't understand and who may want to kill them. In that environment, mistakes are bound to happen, and the anti-Westerners are going to exploit them for full propaganda purposes.

I respect our troops, and I think the job they are being called upon to do is insanely difficult. I don't think they are flawless heroes, but I think they are, as a whole, a remarkable achievement of discipline and effectiveness. I thank them for their service - directly and eye to eye when I meet them.

But when I read that criticism of our president or of the optional war he has thrown them into amounts to criticism of the troops, or decreases their morale, I don't have any sympathy. They did not choose this mission, and, though I understand their desire to complete it, they are not the mission. If they don't understand that fundamental fact, it's not my fault.

What Are We Becoming??

Some right-wingers are enthusiastic about Charles Krauthammer's article supporting torture. His first sentence complains that "During the last few weeks in Washington the pieties about torture have lain so thick in the air that it has been impossible to have a reasoned discussion."

Isn't that just a shame? All these namby-pamby moralists running around Washington, interfering with "reasoned discussion" about whether our nation should be a nation of torturers! All these limp-wristed lefties cluttering up the public square with silly concerns about America's god-given right to have Josef Mengele on the payroll!

No. God damn it, no. I won't have that reasoned discussion, and those who are promoting that reasoned discussion are debasing our country. Should our next reasoned discussion be about whether gang rape is an effective military tactic?

"Reasoned discussion" of American torture does not exist, and should not exist, and if you think it should exist, you realy need to stop and think about who you are becoming. And what you think America should become. Or what you think America is.

Classless Republican Political Hacks Deny the Boss

Millions of real Americans have felt that sense of exhilaration as you drive a little too fast with the windows down and "Thunder Road" blasting. Millions of us have been touched by the economic dislocation and working-class pain of "My Hometown". Countless hundreds of thousands have yeared to go "Racing in the Streets".

Bruce is an icon - a working class hero who produces insightful music, loves his family and opens a window to what is gritty and good in the American psyche.

Astoundingly, Bill Frist has chosen to inject politics into appreciation of American culture. When the senators from New Jersey introduced a resolution to honor Bruce on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of one of the greatest rock and roll recordings ever made, "Born to Run", the Republican leadership killed the measure.

What unexplored level of idiocy is this? What kind of mouth-breathing halfwit could behave in such a manner? I can only imagine that being that sort of sharply-limited moral amputee must hurt - kind of like an unstoppable ice-cream heaadache.

This is the same Senate that honored Ted Nugent. This is the same Senate that honored Carrie Underwood, and Seigfried and Roy.

I am honestly disgusted by this display of political chicanery. Not because I think that Bruce really care's a rat's ass about another honor or about whether Bill Frist likes him. But because this shows the utterly debased, clueless, classless, and out-of-touch Republican leadership at its natural state.

The Republicans don't approve of Bruce. America does. America will win out, eventually.

We Have Our Scapegoat

There is nothing Republicans hate worse than blame. They'd rather treat homosexuals like fully human beings than take blame. They'd sooner take Mary Poppins' proverbial medicine without the sugar than take blame. They'd sooner take their ugly cousin to the prom than take blame.

They'd sooner take a gay male prostitute into the White House pressroom than take blame. They'd sooner talk about their clothes than take blame. They'd sooner attack soldiers than take blame.

So, it's a wonderful thing that a liberal writer has stepped up to the plate and accepted blame for the war in Iraq. Now that we have someone else to blame, do you think that Bush will deal with the problem?

Scalito? Scandalito? ALIEto? Now, Elite-O?

The overwhelming incompetence of the Bush Administration is matched only by the arrogance of the white males who make it run.

Alito, the scandal-plagued, lying, right-wing zealot proposed for the Supreme Court by the hopelessly inept George W. Bush (do you get the idea W's getting as tired of being in the office as we are of having him there??) trumpeted his involvement with a group dedicated to preserving Princeton for the "right" kind of people (that's white, wealthy and male, in case you have to ask) as late as 1985.

It is amusing to see how some people claim to be against affirmative action, but they support every advantage (untaxed inheritance, "legacy" admissions, networks of powerful daddy's friends) available to the dumbest of the children of privilege.

The Senate failed the nation when they let this bum on the 3rd Circuit. I hope they don't fail us again, and allow his unworthy ass to sit in Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

Clarity and Chemical Weapons

A little while ago, I posted on the irrelevance of semantic fine points regarding the use of white phosphorous rounds in Fallujah. A few commenters took issue with me, assuring me that use of white phosphorous was not the same as using chemical weapons (among other arguments that totally missed the mark) and accusing me of slandering our troops.

Guess who else has called white phosphorous a chemical weapon? None other than our Pentagon, in reporting on Iraqi use of white phosphorous. I'm expecting the "comments" section to be jam-packed with intellectually honest and earnest apologies . . .

Moral Values?

This piece is over a year old, but today is the first time I've seen it, forwarded to me by a one of the more intelligent and wise people I am able to call a friend. It's funny that it took a year to reach me - during that time, I have received multiple copies of the same hate-filled screeds and loud patriotic proclamations that the right-wingers circulate like party bowls at a Dead concert.

It's funny that a year ago, she anticipated Dick Cheney's current behavior: "--- When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral."

If you have a few minutes, please take the time to read it and reflect on it.

Rhodes Scholar from Kansas City

Scott Erwin hales from Weatherby Lake, a suburb of Kansas City. He was named a Rhodes Scholar today. Rather than blog about his opinions on the war, he went over there to teach democracy, and was severely wounded and almost killed in an ambush. It's wonderful to see that this kid, who almost had no future, has a bright one.

Cheap Christmas Trees Helping the Habitat

If you're in Kansas City, and you want to pick up a Christmas tree for ten bucks, while helping restore some habitat, KC Wildlands is offering beautiful, fragrant red cedar trees on a cut-your-own basis at two locations on Blue Springs Lake on December 3. Even if you prefer a different variety of Christmas tree, these would make excellent wreathes for anyone you want to make happy. If you're feeling broke this year, this could be a solution for your gift obligations.

So Sad, So Wrong

I don't care who can be blamed for this. I don't care if it's Brownie, or Nagin, or Barbara Bush. I just hope whoever allowed people to return to their houses, only to find dead family members rotting in New Orleans homes, manages to do something good with the rest of his life.

Pancho's on Main

Damn!!

Pancho's on Main has been around for a while, and yet it was only today that I managed to haul my honky ass into this glorious 24-hour spot of fine food heaven.

People, trust me on this. I had a fiesta taco (what the hell is a fiesta taco?) that balanced grease, spice and meat in a crispy shell of sour-cream-soaked bliss. I had it, and whatever you had for lunch today sucked in comparison.

And then I had this burrito they call "texacano", or something like that. It's chicken and sour cream and potatoes (as an Irishman, I REALLY appreciate it when someone else features potatoes in their best food!) in a burrito, and you get to add some serious salsas at your will. Their hot avocado salsa will MESS YOU UP!!! and make you beg for a rematch. Beg. And even though you know you're going to get messed up again, you hope you'll talk your way through the eight count. Because you want to wind up on your ass again, don't you??

When you're hungry for a quick meal, and you're thinking about dropping in on McDonald's or Burger King or Subway or any of the other corporate chain restaurants that infest our landscape, please consider supporting a place like Pancho's or Kitty's or Mario's or one of the other places that makes Kansas City different from Wichita or Los Angeles.

Anyone Up for Bolivia & Beer Tonight?

If any readers of this blog want to view a more complete selection of the photos we took while in Cochabamba, Bolivia, we're having a happy hour from 4:30 - 7:00 tonight. Free beer and munchies, too. Email me at dan@gonemild.com for an invitation. (I would post the info, but I can't afford to pay for everyone in KC with an internet connection!)

Jim Talent - Stupid, or Intellectually Dishonest?

Jim Talent is either stupid or intellectually dishonest. I would put my money on the latter, but the former is always a possibility.

He is crowing about his cosponsorship of a bill that would prevent any oil pumped out of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to be sold to foreign countries.

How can anyone with even a single brain cell believe that this measure will accomplish anything other than shifting oil supplies from one port to another, with the only accomplishment being higher prices for the consumers?

How dare he insult us all by claiming to represent us with symbolic idiocy like that?

Scalito? Scandalito? ALIEto?

As described previously in this blog, Alito believes that a burdensome law is not really burdensome if people can lie to get around it. Now, he's arguing that he shouldn't be held to his statements that his "personal belief" is that a woman’s right to choose is not protected by the Constitution because, after all, it was on a job application.

So, okay, we now have him saying that he's willing to lie to get a job he wants. What kind of ethical vacuum is this person? How can any Senator possibly vote to confirm him?

Walt Bodine Must Go

I know that Walt Bodine is something of an institution here in Kansas City, and that a shitstorm erupted when Patty Cahill tried to get him off the airwaves a few years ago when he still had a little dignity. But, seriously, it's time. If you listen to Walt's show lately (and, because ratings aren't done for public radio, I have no idea how few of you there are), you are subjected to a rambling, inattentive, unfocused, unpleasant old man. They've promoted the smooth-voiced and charming Martha Lally (scroll down) to the cohost position, and now's the time to move her into the sole-host role. It was a good ride, Walt, but you've slid out of the saddle.

Garden Gnomes - Magnificent Obsessions

Somebody in Leavenworth has been stealing garden gnomes for months. For some difficult-to-fathom reason, garden gnomes attract the attention of odd people. For example, "FreeTheGnomes.com provides Garden Gnome Liberation information and calls to action. We advocate an end to oppressive gardening and freedom for garden gnomes everywhere." In England, land of dotty people I would like if they hadn't oppressed my ancestors, there is a Gnome Reserve and Wildflower Garden that boasts 1000+ gnomes, and claims to captivate people for an average 1-2 hour visit. Indeed, some repressed obsessions of less-accepted natures find expression in gnomes, including "Bush Whitehouse Man-Whore Ready For Action" gnomes and the Scandalito "This is what I do to my Congressional Promises to be Ethical Gnome". More pathetically, there's even an apparently non-satirical series of individually stamped and hand-numbered George W. Bush gnomes (ironically, this Ohio-based company is taking votes on whether people are pro- or anti-Bush, and their Diebold machines have not registered any votes whatsoever - Ohio voter fraud is spread wide!).

In the charming movie, Amelie, the painfully-lovely star steals her father's garden gnome, and he receives postcards from all over the world, showing his gnome in exotic locales, sparking him to finally indulge his long-suppressed urge to travel.

Less charmingly, the website Die Screaming With Sharp Things in Your Head includes a collection of impaled garden gnomes.

Obviously, garden gnomes tap into a well of obsessiveness among many in our repressed world. That's probably a healthy thing, and, as such, I wish Officer Ron Fowle had simply ignored the private shangri-la he found at the end of a gravel path in Leavenworth. Instead, he followed it and found fifty or so garden gnomes, in an area decorated with garden chimneys, yard art, hammocks and benches. Someone's piece of heaven here on earth (yes, it was stolen, but aren't they all, at least on a metaphorical level?) has been dismantled. You can see the forlorn collection in the stolen property room.

And the world is a little sadder today because it is missing a hidden shrine of obsessiveness . . .

Great Racks!

I just got back from driving to and from Jefferson City on the first day of deer season. It looks like the season is going well for the hunters, judging from the racks of antlers I saw on dozens of pick-up trucks.

Will I Be Voting Republican for Missouri Governor?

Jay Nixon has filed the paperwork to run for Governor. Even though he has employed some very good friends of mine, I don't like Jay Nixon at all. During the Kansas City School District litigation, he proved himself to be an untrustworthy political opportunist willing to use the children of Kansas City to score political points. He's one of those guys who you know has been plotting his political future ever since he got beat in a race for kindergarten line leader. Some people are called to politics because ambition leads them there, and some are called for public service. I don't think either of our likely candidates should be in the election - they are both hopeless boobs. This could be a true goober-natorial race.

Worth it?

A guy comes to Kansas City for a Chiefs game with a couple buddies, and gets "lucky" at a Quik Trip. The woman invites him back to her place and hops in the shower with him. When he steps out of the shower, though, the woman and her friend are gone, along with his wallet, cash, credit cards, cell phone, his and his buddies' Chiefs tickets, and his car.

My brother's understanding of the male psyche led him to conclude that the "victim" probably told his buddies: "You know, today I lost my car, my wallet, my cell phone, my Chiefs' tickets, but all things considered it was a very good day."

Melting Skin Off of Children - a Complex, Difficult Issue?

Some right-wing bloggers are furious, simply furious, I say, about the reports that the Bush administration has used chemical weapons in Iraq. My blog friend Anti-Media, for example, fulminates:

There's a breaking story....
....that the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah. Don't believe it. It's false. The story is stupid. The use of white phosphorus is legal.

The story is not even news.

Hunter, over at the indispensable Daily Kos, falls in line with Anti-Media, urging the lefty blogosphere to step back from these revelations. After all, the bombs were incendiary, and perhaps not chemical (though made of chemicals), and there's no proof that the United States necessarily signed the treaties that would have made such behavior illegal, so it may well be that it is totally legal for us to burn the skin off of children with incendiary bombs. As the right-wing bloggers are screeching, this story is stupid. We're well within our rights to melt the skin off of children.

But, still, some of us do have a few, minor, niggling policy concerns regarding potential policy reasons we should not do it:

# First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.

# Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.

# Third, BECAUSE IT FUCKING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.

Clarification: As pointed out in the comments, the exact effect of white phosphorous on the skin of children is the subject of some controversy as well. It is possible that it does not "melt" the skin off of children, but, instead, may scorch or oxydize or burn it off. This distinction makes a huge difference to some people, for some reason.

Gaf on Wornall

Went to Gaf, the new version of the Romanelli Grill for dinner tonight. Decent, but unspectacular food, excellent service, and a charming waiter. My Smithwick's was served at a temperature that let me know the bar knows what it's doing - chilled, but not ice cold - a temperature that showed respect for the flavor of the ale. Not a bad meal, by any means, but I thought the place was supposed to be new, exciting and youthful, but the average age was still 60+ (excluding grandchildren). The old neighborhood spot has changed a little, but not radically. You still won't be out of place wheeling in an oxygen bottle.

Lunch at the Bulldog with Ken was better.

Lousy Republican Loser

While the results here in Missouri were a mixed bag for both parties, and both are spinning their best to make it sound like it was a great day, one remarkable sour note came from loser Moira Byrd from Kirkwood - a predominately Republican suburb of St. Louis. After an ugly race in which Byrd sent out a mailer giving her an opponent an "F" in morality, Byrd failed to accept defeat graciously.

Rather than showing a little class, Byrd claimed that her opponent didn't represent "family values," and called her opponent's victory "a sorry day for Kirkwood."

Genevieve Frank Running for Office

St. Louisans (actually, residents of Ballwin, a suburb) have been granted an opportunity to have a major upgrade in the quality of their representation in Jefferson City. Genevieve Frank has thrown her hat into the ring for the seat that Jodi Stefanick held until she resigned to become Matt Blunt’s chief health care advisor. Genevieve Frank has dedicated her career to helping poor people with legal problems. Jodi Stefanick has worked to deny poor people feeding tubes.

I've known Frank for several years - she's a great person, and would do a superb job.

You Missed a Helluva Good Show, Sleepyhead

If you didn't look at the Kansas City sky at around 6:30 this morning, you missed one of the most spectacular sunrises I've ever seen.

"We're Back"

I love libraries, and it gladdens my heart that the New Orleans Public Library is back, and rebuilding itself. If you need something inspirational, you've got it.

ScandAlito?

I've caught some heat for my defeatist attitude regarding Alito, but this could drag me into the fight. He sat on a case in which he had a financial interest, after promising not to, and complained about the effort to get him to remove himself. Oh, and then he voted in favor of his financial interests.

It's hard for me to see how this does not establish him as an unethical scumbag. Anyone out there have an explanation?

Blunt Blunders on School Boards

Matt Blunt's approval rating is sinking fast. Actually, it might be more legitimate to focus on the larger side of that equation and say that his unpopularity is rising fast, since his disapproval rating, at 61%, far outweighs his approval rating, which is only 31%.

Any way you phrase it, though, the boy governor is desperate to score a few cheap political points. So, he's backing a half-wit constitutional amendment to require local school boards to spend at least 65% of their operating budgets on classroom intruction.

Huh?

Why would any thinking person want to put such a provision in the Constitution? While we can all agree that it's good to spend school district money in the classroom, where does the 65% figure come from? Why don't we make it two/thirds, or 75%? Or 50%? There is no justification offered - it just sounds nice. Coincidentally, the 35% left over for administration is a bigger number than his approval rating.

Blunt's proposal is short-sighted and, in a word, immature. If he wants to support Missouri's schools, he should take up the hard work of investigating the problems and coming up with solutions. Plucking a number out of thin air just doesn't cut it.