On idiocy

While she cuddles and pets
cute, clean piglet, he sucks diamond
engagement ring from her finger.

I know this will sound idiotic, but I am quite proud of myself for going all day and night yesterday without once watching TV or getting on the internet. This was not entirely voluntary as it did involve losing a transmission, having to rent a car, then waiting for someone to come rescue us. But really, this must be the first time in years I have managed to avoid the idiot box and the computer. It took me back to my New Guinea days when there were no such things.

Speaking of idiocy, it seems to me that American politics has reached a new low. The arguments being marshaled against health care reform are so idiotic it defies belief. And the fact that they are being treated seriously by the media, rather than being ignored or just laughed off, is even more idiotic. Socialized medicine, death panels, sex change operations, euthanasia, and the best health care in the world, are not serious arguments against reforming health care. They are simply nonsense. But these are exactly the arguments being shouted at our town meetings, over and over again by people whose goal is to prevent “any changes at all in health care.” The MSM should make this clear to the public, but they don’t, as they are part of the conspiracy to stop health care reform at any cost. It may be the case that some people are stupid enough to believe these lies, and because they are stupid enough to believe them, may also be acting in good faith, other than simply being rewarded for their rude and disgusting behavior, but that doesn’t mean their objections have merit. The result of this, no matter what the individual motives, is to prevent serious debate on the issues involved. These unwarranted attempts at intimidation by preventing serious deliberation are not politics as usual, they are fascist tactics, plain and simple. Even Rachel Maddow tonight said at one point “they have a right to attend meetings and shout and object...,” but I disagree entirely. They have a right to attend meetings, and they have a right to object, but they do not have a right to keep others from having a serious meeting and exercising their rights of free speech by shouting down and intimidating other people. I think I am detecting in Maddow a level of frustration so great she is having trouble even discussing it further. After all, there is nothing one can say about what is going on other than it is completely un-American as well as totally idiotic.

Idiocy on the part of some members of the general public is one thing, but idiocy at the highest levels of government is quite another. Now there are calls for an additional 40,000 troops for Afghanistan. And there are some hints that such troops might be forthcoming. Now that is carrying idiocy far beyond any ordinary understanding of that term. Most anyone with the mind of a squirrel understands that this is a “war” that cannot be won. Actually, it is a “war” that cannot even be understood. We did not engage in this terrible mistake to defeat the Taliban, but, rather, to defeat al Quaida (that in itself is probably not completely possible). But here we are at “war” with the Taliban. How did this happen? And why should it continue? The Taliban are no reasonable threat to us, and al Quaida apparently exist in many places other than Afghanistan. Personally, I do not believe there has ever been any serious attempt to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. I strongly suspect the whole Afghanistan “war” is now being waged for no reason other than to keep the military/industrial/political complex funded at the level they have come to expect. If we left Afghanistan the Afghans themselves would probably eliminate the Taliban as a serious problem as one of the main reasons they exist is to get rid of us. Afghanistan is Obama’s Vietnam. Saying that the “war” cannot be won militarily, but must also be won politically, is I think unrealistic when applied to Afghanistan. Politics in Afghanistan is not really politics as we usually understand it. It is tribal politics, carried out by warlords and other leaders who vie for power and influence in a system constantly in flux, depending upon who allies with whom at any given time. There are no really large scale political parties that constitute a single entity able to just take over and govern the entire nation. One’s enemy one day is one’s friend the next day. It has always been so and probably will remain so for a long time. The closest thing to a unity government occurs when there is an occupying power that tends to bring all these competing groups together to resist a common enemy. When the enemy is defeated and driven out things revert to normal. It is a system that has worked in Afghanistan for centuries. Who are we to insist they form a single ruling party? And why do they need to do so? I suspect we want them to do so as it would make it much easier to exploit them for a pipeline across the country and perhaps other things as well.

LKBIQ:
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Friedrich Nietzsche

TILT:
“If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat.”
Mark Twain