Books, politics
Oct. 1st, 2004 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenStopped by the local Borders. According to their computers, Alton's new book is out as of last month, the end of this month, or they have no idea. So apparently Alton's book has just dropped into the Twilight Zone and nobody knows when it's coming out. My guess is sometime before the 14th, though, as that's when he's supposed to start doing book signings. (One of which I'm tempted to go to, but we'll see how that goes as the day draws closer).
While at the bookstore I absolutely did not spend money on books I probably could have gotten from the library, and magazines that I'll only read a few articles of. Likewise while at the grocery store I did not buy a pint of Di's Candy Drawer simply because that store had it, and the one I usually go to hasn't had it for weeks now and I am so addicted to it stupidlimitededitionOMG!!
So you can stop spreading those rumors.
ETA: Though if I did buy books, one of them might have been the new Dave Barry book, where he and another author basically write Peter Pan fanfic. Granted it's a kids' book, so some of the narrative is a tiny bit "See Spot run", but OTOH some bits in the first few pages made me giggle, and I have neices and a nephew, so I'm calling it an investment. Uh, if I bought it, that is. Which I did not. Shut up.
I have abandoned all thoughts of doing anything this weekend that will involve large amounts of energy, and by large amounts of energy I am speaking comparatively and basically referring to anything from leaving the house to trying to bake bread. Instead I'll try to do as little as possible in the hopes I can rest enough to shake the last of what's bugging me. Though I will at least be making pork loin tomorrow night, as that just involves tossing it into the oven. So very little effort on my part which results in a pure shot of protein. I plan on injecting it directly into my veins.
Had a chat with a Dubya supporter earlier today. To say that he is die-hard in support of Dubya is to grossly understate his position on things like his belief that Dubya won the debate last night hands-down, no question, Kerry completely bombed and nobody can tell him differently. Still, we talked. Or tried to. After a while I found it interesting to see how he basically just parroted the talking points the same as Dubya does.
Him: We have to defeat the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11!
Me: I agree, but Saddam was not involved with 9/11.
Him: But Saddam is an evil man!
Me: Nobody's saying that he was good. What we're talking about is not if Saddam was a bad man, but whether or not he should have been our first priority.
Him: The world is a better place without Saddam! We stopped an evil man!
Me: Okay, let's try it this way - we have a house. There are things wrong with the house. One of the things wrong with the house is the broken plumbing. We all agree that the plumbing is broken. We all agree that the plumbing should be fixed. If you, personally, fix the plumbing then yes, thanks to you for doing a good thing. However if the plumbing is broken at the exact same time that the house is on fire I'm going to respectfully suggest you picked the wrong thing to focus on as the more pressing problem.
Him: The war in Iraq made us safer from terrorists.
Me: Actually, no it didn't. Acts of terror have been on the rise, the war in Iraq has proven to be a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, and now that we've pissed off our allies we have less people willing to help us who would have before.
Him: The world is safer.
Me: By what criteria are we measuring "safer" if not things like the number of terrorist attacks?
Him: Those attacks haven't happened here.
Me: O... kay. That's, uh, interesting priorities but all right. I can't dispute the lack of attacks here. But on the other hand if the US is safer why hasn't the terror alert gone down?
Him: Because terrorists want to get us.
Me: So we're safer from terrorists, but we're not safe from terrorists?
Him: Right.
Me: And we can be safer from terrorists, but not safe in a way that would actually be indicated by a change in the terror alert?
Him: Right.
Me: O... kay.
Him: And Kerry wants to ask other countries for permission to protect ourselves!
Me: Actually, no he doesn't. He has flat-out said he would never do that. What he has said is that there are ways to protect ourselves that don't involve pissing off our allies.
Him: If somebody wants to hurt us, we can't wait around for other countries to give the okay.
Me: But Iraq didn't want to hurt us. Not in the same way that, say, North Korea did at the exact same time we went to war on Iraq. Why attack Iraq and not North Korea, who provably had nukes and was even sending us little notes that let us know they'd be happy to zap a warhead onto the US just to see the looks on our faces?
Him: You don't go to war against North Korea. They'd kick our ass.
Me: So we're willing to try diplomacy with a country that can hurt us and would be more than happy to, but not willing to do it with a country that's not actually a threat?
Him: Saddam was a threat.
Me: I'm gonna have to bring up that whole "no WMDs have been found" thing.
Him: He was helping terrorists.
Me: Not Bin Laden, who was the guy we were supposedly trying to find.
Him: Saddam was a bad man.
Me: Okay, we're back on the plumbing/fire thing again.
Him: Kerry is not qualified to get us out of Iraq. You can't lead a war that you think is a mistake.
Me: No, you can lead a war you think is a mistake. Quite possibly you'll be doing a better job at it because you recognize the mistake for what it is and can then try to fix it.
Him: And how's Kerry going to fix it? With that coalition? He can't get one. Nobody is going to help us.
Me: Yes, because Bush pissed them off! That's the exact point to be made with the whole "don't thumb your nose at those who could help us" concept. If we want to fight a global war on terrorism then we need friends around the globe.
Him: So you're going to vote for Kerry, who's just going to abandon Iraq?
Me: Kerry has never said he was going to abandon Iraq. This isn't about abandoning Iraq. This is about recognizing that we have a bad situation over there and the situation needs to be fixed. The way Dubya is doing it is not working.
Him: Do you have a better plan?
Me: Frankly, I don't need a better plan because I'm not president of the US, nor am I trying to be. It's not about how I would do it, it's about how Bush is doing it.
Him: Kerry doesn't have the strong vision needed to deal with Iraq. Bush does.
Me: Bush doesn't have vision, he has stubbornness. Stubbornness isn't leadership. Leadership is saying "I made the right decision at the time of the decision" and then being willing to make new decisions when the old ones don't work. Bush's vision right now is that two plus two equals five. He can keep adding it that way all he likes, but it's still wrong. Heck, it's not even wrong, it's the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When Bush's plan is so clearly not working, why would you continue to support it?
Him: We live in a dangerous world.
Me: So this war on Iraq isn't exactly making us safer then, is it?
Him: It is.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
On the one hand it had me wanting to tear my hair out, grab him by the shoulders and demand to know how he could buy in to these word blurbs as though they were true when many of them are provably wrong, but on the other I suppose you have to give the Bush campaign credit for knowing what they're doing. If they say something often enough it doesn't actually become true, but enough people believe it's true and as long as they're voting for Bush then the existential difference really doesn't matter.
Dear God please let Kerry win come November. Please.
While at the bookstore I absolutely did not spend money on books I probably could have gotten from the library, and magazines that I'll only read a few articles of. Likewise while at the grocery store I did not buy a pint of Di's Candy Drawer simply because that store had it, and the one I usually go to hasn't had it for weeks now and I am so addicted to it stupidlimitededitionOMG!!
So you can stop spreading those rumors.
ETA: Though if I did buy books, one of them might have been the new Dave Barry book, where he and another author basically write Peter Pan fanfic. Granted it's a kids' book, so some of the narrative is a tiny bit "See Spot run", but OTOH some bits in the first few pages made me giggle, and I have neices and a nephew, so I'm calling it an investment. Uh, if I bought it, that is. Which I did not. Shut up.
I have abandoned all thoughts of doing anything this weekend that will involve large amounts of energy, and by large amounts of energy I am speaking comparatively and basically referring to anything from leaving the house to trying to bake bread. Instead I'll try to do as little as possible in the hopes I can rest enough to shake the last of what's bugging me. Though I will at least be making pork loin tomorrow night, as that just involves tossing it into the oven. So very little effort on my part which results in a pure shot of protein. I plan on injecting it directly into my veins.
Had a chat with a Dubya supporter earlier today. To say that he is die-hard in support of Dubya is to grossly understate his position on things like his belief that Dubya won the debate last night hands-down, no question, Kerry completely bombed and nobody can tell him differently. Still, we talked. Or tried to. After a while I found it interesting to see how he basically just parroted the talking points the same as Dubya does.
Him: We have to defeat the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11!
Me: I agree, but Saddam was not involved with 9/11.
Him: But Saddam is an evil man!
Me: Nobody's saying that he was good. What we're talking about is not if Saddam was a bad man, but whether or not he should have been our first priority.
Him: The world is a better place without Saddam! We stopped an evil man!
Me: Okay, let's try it this way - we have a house. There are things wrong with the house. One of the things wrong with the house is the broken plumbing. We all agree that the plumbing is broken. We all agree that the plumbing should be fixed. If you, personally, fix the plumbing then yes, thanks to you for doing a good thing. However if the plumbing is broken at the exact same time that the house is on fire I'm going to respectfully suggest you picked the wrong thing to focus on as the more pressing problem.
Him: The war in Iraq made us safer from terrorists.
Me: Actually, no it didn't. Acts of terror have been on the rise, the war in Iraq has proven to be a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, and now that we've pissed off our allies we have less people willing to help us who would have before.
Him: The world is safer.
Me: By what criteria are we measuring "safer" if not things like the number of terrorist attacks?
Him: Those attacks haven't happened here.
Me: O... kay. That's, uh, interesting priorities but all right. I can't dispute the lack of attacks here. But on the other hand if the US is safer why hasn't the terror alert gone down?
Him: Because terrorists want to get us.
Me: So we're safer from terrorists, but we're not safe from terrorists?
Him: Right.
Me: And we can be safer from terrorists, but not safe in a way that would actually be indicated by a change in the terror alert?
Him: Right.
Me: O... kay.
Him: And Kerry wants to ask other countries for permission to protect ourselves!
Me: Actually, no he doesn't. He has flat-out said he would never do that. What he has said is that there are ways to protect ourselves that don't involve pissing off our allies.
Him: If somebody wants to hurt us, we can't wait around for other countries to give the okay.
Me: But Iraq didn't want to hurt us. Not in the same way that, say, North Korea did at the exact same time we went to war on Iraq. Why attack Iraq and not North Korea, who provably had nukes and was even sending us little notes that let us know they'd be happy to zap a warhead onto the US just to see the looks on our faces?
Him: You don't go to war against North Korea. They'd kick our ass.
Me: So we're willing to try diplomacy with a country that can hurt us and would be more than happy to, but not willing to do it with a country that's not actually a threat?
Him: Saddam was a threat.
Me: I'm gonna have to bring up that whole "no WMDs have been found" thing.
Him: He was helping terrorists.
Me: Not Bin Laden, who was the guy we were supposedly trying to find.
Him: Saddam was a bad man.
Me: Okay, we're back on the plumbing/fire thing again.
Him: Kerry is not qualified to get us out of Iraq. You can't lead a war that you think is a mistake.
Me: No, you can lead a war you think is a mistake. Quite possibly you'll be doing a better job at it because you recognize the mistake for what it is and can then try to fix it.
Him: And how's Kerry going to fix it? With that coalition? He can't get one. Nobody is going to help us.
Me: Yes, because Bush pissed them off! That's the exact point to be made with the whole "don't thumb your nose at those who could help us" concept. If we want to fight a global war on terrorism then we need friends around the globe.
Him: So you're going to vote for Kerry, who's just going to abandon Iraq?
Me: Kerry has never said he was going to abandon Iraq. This isn't about abandoning Iraq. This is about recognizing that we have a bad situation over there and the situation needs to be fixed. The way Dubya is doing it is not working.
Him: Do you have a better plan?
Me: Frankly, I don't need a better plan because I'm not president of the US, nor am I trying to be. It's not about how I would do it, it's about how Bush is doing it.
Him: Kerry doesn't have the strong vision needed to deal with Iraq. Bush does.
Me: Bush doesn't have vision, he has stubbornness. Stubbornness isn't leadership. Leadership is saying "I made the right decision at the time of the decision" and then being willing to make new decisions when the old ones don't work. Bush's vision right now is that two plus two equals five. He can keep adding it that way all he likes, but it's still wrong. Heck, it's not even wrong, it's the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When Bush's plan is so clearly not working, why would you continue to support it?
Him: We live in a dangerous world.
Me: So this war on Iraq isn't exactly making us safer then, is it?
Him: It is.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
On the one hand it had me wanting to tear my hair out, grab him by the shoulders and demand to know how he could buy in to these word blurbs as though they were true when many of them are provably wrong, but on the other I suppose you have to give the Bush campaign credit for knowing what they're doing. If they say something often enough it doesn't actually become true, but enough people believe it's true and as long as they're voting for Bush then the existential difference really doesn't matter.
Dear God please let Kerry win come November. Please.
