Skip to main content

follow the leaders?

in the wake of the latest photos from abu ghraib (WARNING- this may not be something you want to open at work or in the presence of children), you would think that the american government would finally be putting it's seriously sorry face on, at least for the cameras.

instead, the sorry press attache/ flack who drew the short stick that morning went out to answer questions armed with this response: it's unfortunate that the photos (which were taken in the same time period as the original photos of prisoners at the prison facility in iraq) are now being circulated.

no, it isn't. there are many words to describe the latest round of photos and "unfortunate" isn't anywhere on the list. repulsive. nauseating. profoundly depressing. "unfortunate" doesn't cut it. and it certainly doesn't cut it when what you're saying is that it's unfortunate that people are seeing the photos, implying that it's more a problem that the acts are known than that they happened in the first place.

it would be nice to think that the people who say they want to rid the world of tyranny could hold themselves to a higher standard than the tyrants they are decrying.

i'm sure someone will swing for this, too, and i'm sure it won't be anyone in a position of actual authority (as per usual). someone needs to explain to the american government (a very different animal than the american people, i would like to point out) that leadership does not come so much from imposing one's will as from setting an example and taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …