Who says you cant lateblog on Fridays? No one I know! Anyway, here it is, late, since we didn’t make it home from the Wolf Parade show until 3am last night. About the show… I was underwhelmed. Unbeknownst to me, we caught the very last show on the tour, right before the band was heading back north for two months rest. That meant a very drunken band, and a pretty burned out vocal performance from the lead-guitar singer guy (not to be confused with the keyboard singer guy, neither of whom’s name I know). Can you say “whom’s?” Anyway, the show wasn’t very enjoyable for 8-months-pregnant Sharaun, and worrying over her hampered my experience a little too. Basically, I saw my hipster life die a slow death last night, while my family life phoenix began to flutter under the pile of ashes – and it all happened over an hour and half at a Wolf Parade show. Now some crap I wrote yesterday.
I wanted to thank stereogum for bringing my attention to Bill O’Reilly’s appearance on the Letterman show this week, as I found Dave’s conviction in the interview pretty out-of-character – yet a welcomed taking-on of Mr. O’Reilly. Hopefully the WMV link sticks around long enough for you to check it out as well. I’m still surprised that it’s taken criticism of this war this long to become this public, but I suppose that you could argue that criticism will inevitably grow in proportion to the length of the engagement and, more importantly, number of lives lost. Regardless of time and lives, I think it’s past-due. Knowing we can’t just pull out and nut on Iraq’s stomach at this point, one can make a fair projection of the pro-war curve – and so can the GOP. I’d imagine it’ll go something like this:
Of course, there will be outliers – those who will support the decision to go to war until the very end. You’ll find some of these people to be very intelligent, sensible, well-versed, and extremely convicted; you’ll also find some of these people to be ignorant, blindly accepting of authority, and willing to swallow a live grenade were it marketed to them correctly (likely wrapped in an American flag, affixed with J. Christ’s seal of approval, or heavily advertised during NASCAR). Likewise, you’ll find those who wouldn’t vote for war were an Iraqi-sanctioned team of terrorists in their living room slitting the throats of their family with dull wooden knives made from felled-for-sport 300 year old American redwoods. I am none of these, and I hope that I am among the growing majority; a growing majority that wants to know. If not for WMD… then what for? If not for 9/11… then what for? If not for proof of state-sponsored terrorism… then what for? What the heck for? To make the world a better place, of course! Yay! We’re all rainbows and kittens.
That’s it, weekend time. See ya.
Also written on this day...
- stretch, read, cook - 2024
- pop a hands-free wheelie - 2011
- room for small luxury - 2010
- lamentations - 2009
- thanks for taking bullets - 2005
- meth-bread - 2004
I’ve always been a pro-war guy . . . but defintely disappointed with the implementation of this particular war plan. Dave, I want others to give you more credit than your litany of “what for” rhetoric will generate . . . you sound like a liberal talk show host. As soon as you fall into that mold, half the people in the country tune you out (so 2 of your 4 blog readers), and that’s a shame because this is obviously a complex issue where we benefit from the kind of analysis you’re capable of. My take on the whole thing – WMD, Al-Queda ties, Saddam Hussein as evil . . . that was just marketing fluff to get everybody to buy in (obviously marketing only takes you so far, and we’re seeing the fallout now). The real purpose of this war is to send the message that the US has no tolerance for terrorism. George Bush is a simple guy, he liked this simple message and he endorsed a simple plan to get there. Since Fundamentalist Islam is the center of the terrorism threat, he literally invaded the geographic center of the Middle East . . . the choice of country only mattered because he could convice enough people Iraq was a good idea. The message to the leaders of the nearby Islamic countries is clear . . . take care of your problem with terrorism, or we will come and do it for you. The UN isn’t going to stop us, and it really isn’t relelvent whether we do a bad job or not, you won’t be in power anymore.
awwww, I’m sure Dave has more than 4 readers…
that’s the problem with writing about politics. no matter how much equal billing or how many opposing viewpoints you try to voice (in order to make yourself seem open-minded), you always favor your side of the argument. granted, my logic is not perfect – and i do rather like some points you made. i guess all i’m saying is, if the administration’s goal was to communicate intolerance of terrorism – invading iraq on a charge of WMD seems like an obfuscated way of saying it.
and yes, i think i have eight readers (on slow work days). 🙂
I won’t stop reading the blog because Dave is a pussy liberal. In fact I rather enjoy reading his political entries. And his commentary on religion, and all those other touchy subjects. I would encourage you to continue to write about these things more – even though you may face the wrath of Pat.
And as a side note, thinking about what Pat had to say, I’m even more scared that a complex war is being fought and directed by such a simple minded man. The FBI is probably on their way to my house now…
Wow… commenting on your own blog now? I thought that was a blogging faux pas.