| December 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
WASHINGTON — Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday his assertion that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq was reported "a little out of context," saying Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.
Oh right, that's just what he meant. Let's review his original statement :
(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
And now he's pretending that all that meant, yes we could have a victory, we just need a new strategy.
Yeah, right.
The good news is, Dean must have come under fire from his fellow Liberals for his original statement. If he'd only been criticised by Conservatives, it's doubtful he'd be back-pedalling.
I'd like to thank Don Bridge for his excellent posts here over the last two weeks. They enabled me to take a vacation from blogging, which I greatly needed. I could tell it was working because over the past week I'd started to see quite a number of news items I wanted to post about. In recognition of Don's excellent articles, which I have very much enjoyed reading, I have invited him to continue to guest-post for another two weeks.
There have been a couple of pieces in the past few days about the seeming overabundance of useless young males in our society. This is an article in The Washington Post by an academic who notes the trend as a problem in teaching that needs to be solved (true). This is from National Review Online, which responds to the first piece in a knee jerk “it’s the Feminist’s fault” diatribe (also true).
I have been monitoring this trend for some time. These surplus young men are mostly middle class. They are the origin of the stereotype of the grown guy who lives in his parent’s basement and spends his days playing video games. They don’t go to college, although it is available to them. If they work at all it is in some ephemeral profession such as “future rock star.” Although their parents have raised them as “too good to flip burgers” the truth is that they are nearly unemployable, because holding a job means showing up on time and not sleeping all day. They are adrift and aimless in a society with more opportunities than have ever existed in history. Many people just dismiss them as lazy bums (frequently true), but having been raised with no responsibilities they are unprepared to accept any. The Baby Boomers are regarded as the most spoiled generation in American history, but that isn’t true anymore. Compared to their children, the Boomers are Puritans.
Because I look at things from a skewed view (from the big picture, if you like) I see the problem as one of nature.
Here in America in the late 20th and early 21st century we’re seeing something that has never happened before. A combination of medical advances and lack of warfare have given us an un-culled herd of people, a kind of devolution, if you will.
Childhood diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, others) have been all but eliminated through vaccination, as have most other diseases that used to kill significant portions of the population (smallpox, polio etc.).
The last war to significantly reduce to male population in America was World War II.
So if you take away child mortality, most adult diseases and war what do you get?
A whole lot of useless young males sitting in their parent’s basement playing video games - that’s what.
Old Ma Nature is trying, though. Although HIV has not been the herd-reducer it could have been (still talking about America here), She’s busy cooking up new micro-brews for catastrophic readjustment.
Bird flu, anyone?
Do I sound callous? Not as callous as nature.
Re: the Merry Christmas vs Happy Holidays controversy.
First, it really isn't a controversy. You would think, from listening to talk radio and reading certain bloggers, that the nation is consumed with this issue. Nativity scenes being burned, children bursting into tears if the incorrect greeting is given, stores being boycotted because they're just trying to please everyone and offend no one at the same time, fistfights breaking out. But it really isn't that big a deal. Nobody is being frobidden from celebrating or worshipping whatever-they-call-it in any way they want to. It is just that time of year - the (dare I say it) HOLIDAY season between Thanksgiving and New Year's - there's nothing much going on in the news and they have to find something to rail about for three hours a day on radio, or an hour on TV, or post on the blog thingy.
And...once again...it's all my fault.
In the late 1980s I was operating a little theater company in the medium-sized city I lived in at that time. I was heavily involved in the (shudder) "arts" community. The term "political correctness" was first being coined. When we scheduled a Christmas-themed children's show I got a couple of complaints from Jewish groups. They weren't complianing about the Christmas theme, mind you, they were complaining that their children felt left out. So we brainstormed and made some changes to include Hannukah in the story. Then I got a complaint from a black group that we were leaving out Kwanzaa (which had mysteriously been created out of thin air about that time). So Kwanzaa was in the show too! If we'd had any Muslim or Hindu customers we would have jiggered it around to include them as well. Not to mention the large Zoroastrian community. One thing I didn't receive any complaints about was the fact that we were celebrating religious holidays. Not one complaint from atheists that we were indoctrinating their children. Zero.
And that was the time when I started saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." It was not a denial of the religious nature of this time of year, but rather an inclusion of, and celebration of all different faiths and beliefs.
So I started the whole "Happy Holidays" thing. Mea culpa.
But why do you people have to take what I say and do to such hysterical and confrontational extremes?
I am the reason that box office receipts for Hollywood films are way down. Yes, me personally. I don’t go to the movies anymore.
When a film is released that I am interested in, my reaction is: “Only six months till I can see it on DVD.” The last movie I saw in the theater was “The Return Of The King.” All of the usual reasons apply. I don’t like crowds. I prefer to sit in my living room. I like to take brief breaks to visit the bathroom or refill my drink.
That said – I finally saw the new version of “The War Of The Worlds.”
Eh.
I’m not sure what the reason was for that movie other than to produce a summer blockbuster. It’s a knee jerk Hollywood thing, I guess. Spielberg outgrew those kinds of movies a long time ago, but reflexively needs to still make them. Those who like to read political messages into movies have claimed that it represents a vision of America post-September 11th with ordinary people being chased around by forces bent on their destruction. But I still say: eh.
I have to take issue with the ending. The premise that all-powerful invaders were defeated by bacteria was fine for H.G. Welles. It was a novel concept at that time when we were first becoming aware of germ theory. But it doesn’t hold up today for a simple reason. So we have a species capable of interplanetary travel and highly superior technology and they don’t know the basics of germ theory? They were so intent on conquest that they didn’t run a few routine tests for environmental compatability? Am I supposed to believe that? This was also the credibility gap in the 2002 movie “Signs,” a creepy flick that fell apart because the species that can cross intergalactic space is allergic to water and didn’t notice that Earth is mostly water?
Or am I just picky?
I knew Vik wouldn't be able to go two whole weeks without blogging. The shakes got to him and he gave in to his jones and made the post below.
Vik! Put the mouse down and step away from the keyboard! Take off those pajamas, put on some clothes and go outside. It's a beautiful world out there. At least it was the last time I checked. Let me just click on the Weather Channel and see...
