Skip to main content

snow days made baby jesus cry

I can't escape the feeling that despite all of the families' grief, our military deaths mean little more to the president than the quarterly profit losses he grew used to hearing about in every business he ran into the ground. And like in those businesses, ultimately the loss is someone else's problem.

I have been intermittently following the various discussions on the left for and against the pursuit of articles of impeachment. I think that I had basically fallen on the against side, agreeing with several pundits that it would be a distraction from the fall elections. After today I'm leaning the other way. I spent the day indoors, avoiding the snow and slush to curl up with a little on-line news. I read excerpts from an article by Harper's editor Lewis H. Lapham, The Case for Impeachment. He wrote it in response to the report from John Conyer's committee investigating the lead up to war. In the closing paragraph he says,
Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man.
Reading the report one realizes that this administration has done absolutely nothing well and most of their decisions, if not outright criminal are completely immoral. They lie to us, and despite their attempts at secrecy every lie is eventually uncovered. Of course it helps that their lies are ridiculously blatant. For instance, "no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees."

Their most dangerous lies are connected to the fighting in Iraq, starting with the lie that led us to war. This week we learned that Bush received a report in October 2002 and another in January 2003 that cast serious doubts on his central claims of imminent nuclear attack. Although in 2003 his reasoning for going to war was convoluted and suspect, this may be the first evidence supporting the assertion that he knew Saddam was no threat. As bad as this is, it may not be the most criminal act of this administration. I think its negligence is much more criminal.

I know they've been lying, you know they've been lying. The question is, do they? Do they know they're lying or have they deluded themselves? Otherwise how could they behave as if being prepared to receive flowers and candy is the same as postwar planning. The lack of postwar planning led to the insurgency. And pretending the insurgency didn't exists, was in its last throes, was more foreign than it is was set the country on the path to civil war. Further feeding the fires of violence leading to civil war has been the death squads connected to the Iraqi Interior Ministry in a replication of the US strategy in El Salvador. He's breaking the military. Recruitment numbers have tanked, they're taking recruits who are much less than our best. Can the volunteer army survive this man? Is it any surprise that 72% of the troops think they should be home within the year? Of course they want to come home. What could be more demoralizing than knowing that you could be killed or permanently injured for no honest or discernible reason? I would imagine the prospect of having the government responsible for one's well-being post Iraq to be somewhat frightening. This is especially true when you consider that veterans face future health care cuts from Bush's budget. They pay more attention to meeting the needs of Halliburton and its subsidiaries than they do our troops. Such immoral choices, if they are not criminal, should be. More from Lapham,
We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminalĂ‚—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If You Love Your People, Set It Free (or How an Identitarian Came To Prefer Universal Policy Over Identity Politics)

This post is late because I was in LA last week, where I made a point of walking as much as possible to enjoy my audiobook. Although I still have 20/20 vision I have been slow to accept that aging has made it more difficult to read, making it feel increasingly like a chore. In fully embracing this I've finally started looking for audiobooks I might find engaging enough to not be constantly distracted. For my trip I chose Mehrsa Baradaran's The Color of Money, which looks at the persistence of the racial wealth gap in the US.  It was incredibly striking and depressing listening to The Color of Money while accidentally walking through encampments of the unhoused, watching new encampments sprout up in the short time that I was there. This is who we've always been. If you have any doubt, the history recounted in The Color of Money makes it clear that capitalism has always been about extracting wealth from Black people and keeping poor people poor. On checking into Twitter I wa…

Why Are We Expending So Much Energy on Something Barely Half of Black People Want?

Presidential contenders are being asked about their support for reparations. One could be forgiven for assuming that reparations has broad support within the Black community, it seems like an easy bet. But only slightly more than half of Black people support the idea. So why has the idea suddenly gained so much traction? Neither Yvette Carnell nor Antonio Moore, originators of #ADOS (American descendants of slaves) have the following to drive a topic supported by less than a quarter of Americans into the national conversation. I suspect that it has everything to do with Bernie Sanders, the obvious frontrunner since announcing, and the ongoing attempt to portray him as racially blind and unaware. When asked directly about his support of reparations in 2016, Sanders answered, "Its likelihood of getting through congress is nil. Second of all I think it would be very divisive." He then went on to explain how his policies would have a disproportionate positive effect on the Blac…

Even Shitty People Can Support Good Things

If in observing this reality, noting that $31,600, before taxes, for 52 weeks of labor represents a raise for a significant number of Black and Latino workers you're inclined to insist we also need to confront racism, you are not the left. While personal bias can sometimes have deadly results, the numbers pale beside the exponentially larger number of deaths that are the result of the deprivations of capitalism. And I have yet to hear any effective method I might use for addressing bias within others that warrants adding it as a goal to the already monumental task of getting even subsistence level needs consistently met. Whether you consider yourself left or not it should be clear that the only potential candidate interested in transforming our political system towards one that considers the needs of the most vulnerable is Bernie Sanders. I want to say something that will be treated as controversial or apologist in certain circles but shouldn't be by anyone with any sense of …