Finality

I write this with no clear purpose in mind, nor any place to arrive, as it has been a long hard few months.

Money depresses me. I have been, for most of my adult life, bad at managing it, bad at living within my means, bad at disciplining myself to fix either of these.

My career, such as it is, depresses me. I don't seem to have one. I have a part-time job that pays badly, which I took to supplement my income as a substitute teacher, and if it seems as though that is a regressive step in my career as an educator, that's because it is. Despite a year of subbing, five years experience teaching, professional certificate, and a visit to a job-fair, I am no closer to having a job in the local public school system than I did when I left my cozy but un-lucrative private school job last June.

If this all sounds un-familiar, that's because I've rarely talked about it. I do not enjoy talking about myself, because the things I do on a daily basis are deeply unsatisfying to me. I am as mum when my wife asks me how my day was as when my parents used to ask the same question in middle school. I simply can't talk about it, because it reminds me of how much I hate it (you'll note I don't mention what my part-time job involves).

And if I hate my life, isn't that my problem? Yes, it is. My problem, and my fault. I am an educated man in a free society. There is not a soul on earth who is responsible for my lot in life other than myself. If I am to fix my life, than I first must fix myself, and become the man who can get the things I want.

That means making serious decisions and sticking to them. That means cutting away the loose ends of things that do not matter. Which brings me to the subject of addressing my six readers, and telling them that it's time to kill another blog.

Okay, so I did have a purpose in mind, I guess. But when I wrote those words, I was still deciding.

As I've mentioned before, this blog has never been what I've wanted it to be. Again, this redounds to me, who either badly concieved it (a weekly blog? please) or badly executed it (might as well have kept The Notion going, for all the good the switch did me). But the fact is, I'm never going to be able to join the blogger big boys. My heart is just not in it, so why continue the charade? I haven't continued it for three months, and what, two months before that? I believe my sub-concious is trying to tell me something.

I write this after spending a couple of days re-joining the blogosphere, as it were, catching up on all the amusement that the back and forth can offer. I've called out a jihadist and threw a stone at the notion that men are traditionaly "afraid of commitment". And it was fun. But I don't really have time for the full conversation. And if that's the case, why pretend that it really means that much?

Plus, Blogger is annoying me. this is the second time I've had to reset my password through Google. Sure, it's probably an automatic 'bot employed against we lazy posters, but it's still irritating. I'm not about to support another layer of code between me and my dashboard. So stick it, Google, you commie rag-picker!

And that is that. I'll leave the beast up here, for none to enjoy. If ever I pick the digital pen up again, it will be with a narrower purpose, and perhaps with some more credential behind me. And it will probably be on typepad.

Thanks for reading. I'm going to fix a few things right now.

Oh, Piss off, I was busy...

...getting married, among other things. And taking on new projects, and every other lame excuse I could mention. I have once more been considering kicking this puppy to the curb and moving on down the road.

Instead, I'm gonna try to revive my original intent for this blog, which was to be a weekly column of considered work, rather than dashed-off tripe in the mold of other, better folks. We shall see how that happens.

Cheers.

Go Tell the Spartans

In response to posts such as this, I think it good to mention my take on 300. My short review is as follows: It's a graphic novel turned into a film, and as such, thoroughly enjoyable.

My longer review: action scenes great, alternating between the chaos of battle and the tactics which impose order on that chaos. Dialogue windy but not horrible (a shame that movie Spartans can't be, uh, laconic). Historically, the film's incomplete to off. The most accurate portrayal, aside from the intro on Spartan boyhood, was of the uniforms of the warriors, from the red cloaks to the shields with the L on them (L for, uh, Laconia). Only problem is, that the bronze breastplates seem to be missing.

Larger than that is the fact that the real heroism of Thermopylae is missing. Leonidas didn't march against the Persians alone, but with a combined Greek army, including Athenians, Corinthians, Thebans, the lot. It was outflanked, and Leonidas volunteered his boys to hold the pass so that the rest could live to fight another day. It was a sacrifice to save the military strength of Greece, not a showing-off to rally the people. Spartans did not throw their lives away so that philsophers would admire them.

The bit about the Persian envoys getting tossed down the well and Leonidas telling Xerxes to "come and take" the Spartan arms appears to be legit, though. And like I said it's a comic book, with all the intensity from plot-frugality that suggests.

So check it out. There isn't much else worth seeing.

And Spank Me! And Me!

This post over at Protein Wisdom makes me ponder something I have long been pondering ("I 'fink so, Brain, but..."): the fact that victimization is the path to power in the modern age.

It isn't just that certain segments of society claim to be oppressed. Everyone does, be they of the Right or the Left, poor or middle class (and Ayn Rand even made a fair argument that the rich and powerful can be oppressed). Every rabble rouse begins with the pretense that the other side is a group of tyrannical psychotics devoted to the implementation of their hideously ill-informed social model, regardless of the real-life damage it does to those that they never see, and that the People! Must! Rise! More, that they are willing to silence ("marginalize") anyone who has the courage to stand against their madness.

Remember 1994, the year of the "Angry White Male"? Lefty chatterboxes had a pile of fun going after that one. How on earth could a white male feel oppressed in America? Ridiculous. Laughable. Yet the idea worked. The fact that some didn't think the AWM's had the right to feel oppressed changed not the fact that many of them did, and were willing to vote for those that said they would represent the AWM's feelings and redress their percieved wrongs.

Thus, the perception of oppression: making people believe that you are wronged, is a path to a place at the table, regardless of whether you bring anything to that table other than the hunger to be fed. Naked power, without expectation of restraint or result, belongs to him who sells his wretchedness with a scapegoat.

Sounds like more proof that we live in the Age of Revolution.

With Republicans Like This...

Living in the People's State of Baltimorea (which some call Maryland), generally one appreciates Republicans where one can find them, especially as I live in one of the Republican counties of that state. So you can imagine my dismay to discover that my Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest (R-1st Dystrict) voted for the Non-Binding Declarlation of Political Expediency.

Money Quote:

We need a sense of urgency to end our presence there and stop the violence
that has left over 3,100 American soldiers dead, and many more thousands
wounded. If sending more troops was the answer, I would be the first to support
that effort. But the Iraqi people have suffered enough and the military
families who have loved ones in harm’s way have sacrificed enough.

Meaning what? That we should retreat and say the hell with it? Or do something else, unnamed and so far, unpondered, but not surge?

In a war, someone wins and someone loses. Is Wayne saying we've already lost, or is he suggesting that we might have lost, pending the outcome of the surge that's happening regardless of this resolution.

This is sickening. For a man to cross the aisle like this, to vote for something that changes nothing, accomplishes nothing but a theoretically crowd-pleasing "truth to power" moment, against a war that he has thus far consistently supported, is either an act of gamesmanship or a massive act of Vietnam Syndrome flash-backing by a decorated Marine Platoon Seargent.

You can bet that there's a letter getting shot off. Will post when I compose it.

The Plan and the Problems.

Pat Dollard says the plan is multifacted, learns from mistakes, and is aggressive. A few points:

1. U.S. troops are to be gradually pulled back from all Iraqi cities and
towns and sent to seal the borders with Iran and Syria. The real insurgency is
not indigenous to Iraq, but being pumped in through Iran and Syria.

4. Generals and leaders from Saddam’s Baath party, many out of work for three years, will be encouraged to rejoin the military enticed with high-pay and bonuses designed to serve as retrograde pay for their time off. The Baath party generals will be key to victory in Al Anbar Province, as I will lay out later today or tomorrow.

9. Immediate, highly visible Infrastructure improvement first focused on the peaceful and cooperative areas of Mosul, Amara and Karbala. The idea is to make other areas around jealous of the rapidly modernizing cities, in order to incent them to tow the line of cooperation with the new Iraqi Government.

All of which begs the question of why no one thought of such before. I think that a counterinsurgency campaign is an exercise in trial-and-error; first one must accept that the insurgency exists, and second, that one can't merely blow it away either with bullets or ballots. Hopefully, this plan will yield verifiable results in a relatively quick time frame. As Lincoln in '64, we are fighting the clock as well as the enemy.

Judging by this, early signs are not promising. However, note the following:

It also appeared to fit a pattern emerging among the suspected Sunni
militants: trying to hit U.S. forces harder outside the capital rather than
confront them on the streets during a massive American-led security
operation.

Almost sounds as though the countryside was where they were coming from, don't it?

Since It's So Obvious that Iraq = Vietnam...

Let's look at the results of pulling out of that war. Lawrence Haas does, and look what he discovers:

In 1975, a Democratic Congress cut off funds for the U.S. effort in Vietnam. The public, disillusioned over Vietnam and Watergate, elected Jimmy Carter, who promised honesty and applauded the end of “our irrational fear of Communism.”

As America turned inward in the late 1970s, enemies sensed our vulnerability and dangers mounted. The fear of communism was not so irrational after all. In Ethiopia, Angola, Rhodesia and elsewhere, the Soviet Union or Cuba worked to stoke Third World revolution. The Soviets more openly laid bare their expansionist agenda in late 1979 by invading Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 toppled a staunch U.S. ally. The student seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, leading to a 444-day hostage crisis, painted a picture of American impotence.

All of which resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan and a new belligerent American foreign policy, which further institutionalized the belief that Republicans are the hawk party and Democrats the dove party. Note as well the connection between the post-Vietnam era and the rise of current enemies.

The fact that this is penned by Gore's former communications director gives me hope that someone on the other side of the aisle appreciates that the post-Iraq situation will need to be handled by something other than blaming Bush for all our troubles. As I've recently been bothering the Commisar at Politburo Diktat, a conservative who's changed his mind about Iraq, I've been waiting six years for the Democrats and the Left to come up with alternative strategies to defeat the jihadis. So far, zilch. If that changes, I'll be the first to applaud it, and the courage of any Democrats to push against their extremists in doing so.

Blog Stuff

Updated a few links, and in adding Pajamas, found Camille Paglia's return to Salon. I'm nowhere near as interested in her as I was in my college days, and more or less made my departure from her obvious back in 2003 with a post at the Notion that I can't link because I can't get the archives to display (grrrrr....). Also, I'd like it if she wrote about pop culture without working over things I'm tired of hearing about (Anna Nicole Smith, Madonna), and was able to discuss the Iraq war without sounding like a Kossite (and that she would finish the second volume of Sexual Personae already), but she backs me up that Romney will be a formidable candidate and that Obama is not ready for prime time. So maybe I'll pay some more attention.

For What it's Worth...

Here's what USA Today says about civvy casualties in Iraq.

Like I've said, this is the sort of thing that's been promised before. And I think it's a bit early to talk about a monthly trend when the month isn't over. And even if it's true, we've seen things dip and peak with tedious regularity. But, there it is.

I have a problem...

This post made me actually laugh at the prospect of the Dixie Chicks being assaulted. I think I need to vent on this issue.

Al-Sadr, Where is he? I don't know, I don't know...

Not Iraq! (cheers)

I think I can pierce the mystery:

1. Sadr is one of the bulwarks of PM Maliki of Iraq.
2. Maliki has been under pressure from Bush to man up and start dealing with all the militias.
3. Sadr leaves the country before the American and Iraqi army start to bring the pain.
4. The reason we didn't wack Sadr back in 2004 was because he had the protection of the Shi'ite religious establishment, whom we did not want to offend.

Conclusion: a deal was reached with the al-Sistani, the Iraqi Ayatollah, that we would be permitted to go after Sadr's army provided that Sadr himself was not harmed. Sadr conveniently blows town and lets his lieutenants take the fall. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he returns post-surge and remains a noisy, albeit non-paramilitary force in Iraq for decades to come.

Empires Rise and Fall, Cultures Diffuse, Religions are Born and Die...

...but Chicago is still a bucket of sleaze, wrapped in a box of corruption, floating in a sewer of apathy. Gatewaypundit has the skinny.

And the comments suggest that Obama might be one of their peeps.

More Obamalamadingdong

Is the country ready to accept a black president? Probably.

Is the country ready to accept a woman president? Don't see why not.

Is the country ready to accept a Mormon president? It'll take a touch of salesmanship, but yes.

But the country is not ready to accept a smoking President. Hence, MoDo and the whole crowd now feel fully justified in sending him down the river.

One Man's Inconvenient Truth...

...is another man's rebellious editorial. Further evidence to my theory that we're all revolutionaries, or think we are, nowadays.

I remember a few years ago, thinking, surely activity on the Sun would make as big an effect on global temperatures as anything we do? Had no science to back it up, though. Not sure if I have it now, either. All I know is I do not trust the people who tell me that there is no debate.

Obama vs. the Great Australian Chickenhawk

I leave the appropriateness of John Howard's remarks to another man to decipher. But it seems to me that Obama's retort is a little un-just.

Australia's population is estimated at about 20-21 million people, far less than one-tenth of the United States. Moreover, Australia's military only numbers about 51,000 full-time troops and 19,400 reservists. With this force, Howard must keep commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, The Solomon Islands, and Malaysia, plus, you know, defend the sixth-largest country in the world.

By comparison, the U.S. Armed Forces (all five branches) has 2,685,713 members. Our troops in Iraq thus constitutes approximately 5.2% of our total military strength. Australia's? 2.7%. Factor in the budget support (US$522 Billion vs. A$22 Billion), each military recieves, and I think it's fair to say that the Aussies are pulling their weight. At any rate, the 20,000 more that Obama suggests would be, at this juncture, an unmanageable strain.

I'm going to assume that Golden Boy just didn't know this.

Further Essayist Useless 2008 Presidential Predictions

Or, Hail the Wounded Elephants

Pollster.com:

Collectively, these results support an intriguing possibility: Both Republican frontrunners may end up with problems with conservative, religious and/or committed Republicans, leaving a huge opening for a third candidate in the early primaries.

Duh. Meaning Romney, who's been working at this for a while, will have the advantage down the stretch. Also that true-blue cons like Tancredo and Huckabee will grow stronger as the race progresses.

George I, William I, George II, Hillary I?*

Michael Barone's take on the burgeoning dynasticism of our politics offers an interesting explanation: that the politicizing of First Ladies leads increasingly to the politicizing of families, and thus, the current War of the Roses.

Not that this is the first time Powerful Families have taken the top job: Before the Bushes and the Clintons were the Adamses, the Harrisons, and the Kennedys. But both Adamses were one-term presidents (and from different parties, at that), as were both Harrisons, and the Kennedy dynasty is at best still-born. The fact that George W. became president but eight years after his father left the post, that another brother waits in the wings for his chance, that Hilary may be poised to repeat W's feat, that is a horse of rather a different color.

All of which is depended on Hillary actually winning. If she doesn't, then the spell of dynastic power will be broken. I think the revulsion to Royal Presidencies may rear its head even if Hillary should win; monarchs are something Americans enjoy other countries to have.


*I am fully aware that George I should really be George II, and George II, George III, because of George Washington. Also, Bill Clinton would really be William IV (after William Henry Harrison, William McKinley, and William Howard Taft. For that matter, we've had four Johns, six Jameses, two Andrews, and two Franklins. I am a geek.

The Essayist's Useless '08 Presidential Predictions.

Following another Instapundit link like the truffle-drunk pig I am, I happen upon this holding-of-breath over the Romney bid, which typically devolves into a WTF over the Obamalamadingdong bid. For the latter, I write this in the comments section:

Obama is running on his SuperStar! power, nothing more. As soon as he's asked a question of any weight, he'll reveal himself for the mountain of inexperience he is, and sad-eyed true believers will cherish the Lost Hope like Bobby '68ers, for decades.

For the former, I'll say that I've thought him the man to beat for at least a year, ever since I saw him on C-Span2 Late one night, talking to a Republican gathering in Iowa. In 2006. And what's more, he was an interesting and intelligent speaker. I said then, "He's way ahead of everybody in the field."

The New Tipping Point

Let's say that this article in the New York Sun is overstating it's case. We've been promised "turnaround" in Iraq a couple of times before, only to see more bombings. But note the criteria of promised victory: enemy demoralization. We have been told it is impossible to demoralize our enemy, that they are driven by an inscrutable fury. Is such an assumption truly supportable? If not, how may we convince our political class of it?

Thanks for the Day Off, Martin...

Martin Luther King Day sucks.

When I was in elementary school, every year we watched the same video about him. How he couldn't play with a white friend when he was little. About how he became a preacher. About how he stood up to the man non-violently, got arrested time and time again, and won a victory paramount to Ghandi's. And about how he was killed by a stupid little three-named cracker just because. By the time I was in fifth grade, I had it memorized.

I found out when I was in college was a player he was, and was actively nauseated. But if we can forgive Jefferson, we can forgive King and arguaby lesser offense. Nevertheless, I am weary of the noise about him, and especially about his "day".

The Examiner yesterday had an editorial about how MLK day should be a "day on," instead of a "day off." I didn't read it. I've heard that tune as many times as I heard "killing the man who said 'Love your enemies'" in elementary school. It's the same old routine every year: We mention the guy in passing and proceed to talk about his "legacy" and whether there's been "enough" "progress" since he died, and what "he would have done" had he not. I've yet to hear anything truly meaningful arouse from these. They've become ritual, an act of contrition: Bless us Martin, for we have thought insufficiently about what it means to be Black in America.

Jeff Goldstein tries to dismiss race, and raises a hydra of nonsense. What it "means" is whatever we decide it means, except we haven't decided. Unless we have.

I'm a pasty white honky with a nasal tinge to my voice. I haven't the foggiest notion of what it means to be Black in America, and I don't care either. As long as it means that you can vote and own property and sue and raise your voice like everybody else, I'm uninterested. I don't feel and particular obligation to help them, any more than I would help any other person. Whatever's "wrong" with the "black community" (euphemisms are fun!), I'm going to leave for that community to sort out for itself.

To my mind, Black Americans are in a position roughly analogous to Irish Americans, who were the original unwanted immigrant group, who also grabbed for political power as a way out of their troubles, and who also grew economically more slowly than did other groups that "came up" around their time. That's sad, but it also means that they too will have their day in the sun, to the extent that they haven't already. And it will happen from their own labor and their own freedoms, regardless of what MLK would have said or done, and regardless of what the Man thinks about it.

And if such be true, then I thank the man for his labors, and the day off.

Hip Pappy Nuh Yr

2007. This bizarre, un-nicknamed ("aughts"? Please.), decade of interesting times is running to a close. It will be 2010 before we know it.

I'm celebrating the new year by hooking up my computer at my new house to my new DSL via wireless and waving bye-bye to dial-up, hopefully forever. I plan on cleaning up this site a little, re-focusing, re-commenting, etc. but I'm still working to jobs and won't have a lot of time to post. With a bit of luck, elbow grease, and good old-fashioned frenzy, by the mid-point of the year all this will have settled down some.




Saddam strung up like a horse-thief. Huzzah. No need for the blog devoted to his trial then. Snipped lively. On we go.