Bacon Nation

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Did You Remember To Bring A #2 Pencil?


Paul McCartney should sue Stephen Colbert. Thanks to Colbert's riotous performance at the White House Correspondents' dinner last year, the press corps has done what it does best and put its tail between its legs by inviting Rich Little for this year. I know. I thought Rich Little was dead, too. But he's not, and now he's headlining, for the first time since, like, 1965.

What's this got to do with Sir Paul? Well, surely you remember that Paul McCartney played the Super Bowl half-time show the year after the Great Titty Scandal of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. He was invited because he was "safe" -- the same reason Rich Little was invited to the WHCD. But let us think this through in detail, because this parallelism has serious implications. By which I mean, this development initiates a complex, and potentially cascading, celebrity analogy.

If we map this analogy, it will read: Timberlake : Mcartney as Colbert : Little. I'm sure you remember your SAT prep course, so you know that ":" means "is to". And I'm equally sure you scored very high on your SAT's (that's why you read this blog), which is why you can see the horrifying implications of that analogy. Timberlake and Colbert are obviously parallel, if not exactly equal, terms. Which means that McCartney is LIKE Rich Little; he is a universal manifestation of Rich Littleosity. If I were Paul McCartney, I wouldn't like that. Not one bit.

And it gets worse -- let us do as one does with analogies, and solve for X (I may be blurring my SAT categories, but hear me out). If you were to substitute X for Little in the above analogy, you would have Timberlake : McCartney as Colbert : X. Now, regard the following options for X (for extra credit, show your work):

a) Charlie Chaplin
b) A Stooge -- Moe, Curly, whatever
c) Rich Little
d) Dave Chappelle
e) None of the above

Ok, now first you have to assume that a and b are legit even though they're dead. I'm stipulating that. Chappelle is obviously the way-out-there answer that only idiots choose, thus helping with the complex grading system. Between a and b it's a difficult choice -- but you'd never pick c. Never! C is the only choice lacking the cache of universal fame and a substantial body of work. C is bullshit compared to a or b. C changes the analogy from "youthful up-and-comers as opposed to founding fathers of the whippersnappers' art" to "youthful up-and-comers as opposed to aged, talentless hacks who nobody ever liked, ever and who made so little impression in their field that everybody figured they were dead years ago, and whose sudden return to the realm of the demonstrably living comes as something of a disappointment." It is for this reason that C would never be the analogous match for Sir Paul. Paul McCartney was a fucking Beatle, for the love of Christ. I know there's the Wings thing, and the Heather Mills landmine-charities-can-go-fuck-themselves-now divorce bitterness -- but he was a mother. Fucking. Beatle. He should, as far as I'm concerned, travel in a certain kind of analogous company. And that company should not include Rich Little.

Idiotic press corps, useless White House. First they fail to laugh at the funniest satirical comedy routine of a generation, and now this.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

In Which David Brooks Wins My Sympathy, And Hell Has Chilly Weather (But Not Freezing)

Hmmmm. Very interesting. This evening I sat down to watch the Bush interview on the News Hour, and I did so in a not happy frame of mind. After all, this makes the third time in seven days that I have had to listen to Bush speak at length, and to force myself to pay attention to what he says (rather than just yelling at the TV, hopping around in rage, and changing the channel). I hate it. It makes me grouchy. So I was surprised to find myself less enraged than just...glum.

This is despite the fact that all of the usual sources of irritation were there tonight. All of these boil down to the pain of watching Bush thinking he's smart when he's talking absolute shit. My favorite: Lehrer asked whether Bush thinks that Iraq is like a broken egg, and can't be put back together. Bush says he prefers to think of it as a cracked egg. Lehrer went, "A cracked egg?" as though hoping he'd misheard. So, Bush understands neither metaphor nor eggs. Nor, of course, war.

And there was worse, of course; the usual nonsense about Al Qaeda setting up camps; failed states and the West held hostage over oil (that one pisses me off particularly from this oil sucking president); failure not an option; listening to the generals about troop numbers. There were only two interesting things to report.

First, this is the second time in three days that a major interviewer has asked W whether he thinks it's fair that only the members of the armed services and their families are asked to make sacrifices in this "ideological war of the century". It's sad that it took four years for people to start really pressing this most obvious of questions -- I mean really, it's a war for the soul of the country, and I don't even get to rivet something? -- but it's even sadder that it will evidently take Bush more than four years to figure out why the question matters.

But that's only a lead-in to the really interesting bit, which wasn't in the interview at all. If you can get it on YouTube, watch David Brooks' analysis after the interview. It's a crie de coeur, really; I almost felt badly for him. He said everything I would have said -- about the reductiveness of Bush's analysis; his inability to explain why the number of troops he's asking for will work (an insurmountable task, of course, but he doesn't even try); the lack of seriousness about trying to explain to us why we should listen to him; the lunacy of continuing to rely on the "I listen to the generals" dodge; the cynical political calculation behind the "no sacrifices necessary, thanks!" rhetoric. Brooks' summation, after a pained statement that he'd like to be convinced that the plan will work, but isn't getting what he needs from the president: "You gotta ease the skepticism based on three years of failure, and that involves granularity; that involves evidence; and that involves treating people like adults and not talking down to them." Amen.

Things look very grim for this surge plan and this president, as for the war. Everyone has fled the plan except for the neocons, and they're hedging their bets. And to say that it serves Bush right is really no consolation at all. Watching Bush flail around isn't even enraging anymore, or at least not the way it used to be. It's just pathetic.

But it will be a cold day in hell when I start feeling sorry for him.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

The Spurge Seech: Surge This, Bitch

Ok! I've got my beer, my VCR remote, and my scintillating wit. Let's watch us some Bush speech (one day after everyone else).

Minute 1: Oops. Biffed the first line. Inauspicious, no? Reminds me of when he gave the Abu Ghraib speech and couldn't say Abu Ghraib because he'd practiced too many times and choked. And so, for the first of many times this evening, I'll say: Ass!

Minute 1, still: First mention of "our mission". First time I'll ask, what the hell is, or ever was, our mission??

Minute 1 again: He just said that 2006 was the year of our troubles. Because before that it was all going well? Ass!

Minute 2: That's it? That's it?? That's the much-vaunted admission of error? The situation is unacceptable and where mistakes have been made the responsibility rests with me??? Thanks for nothing. First of all, the responsibility clearly doesn't rest with you, or you'd be fucking impeached. And also, how about getting specific about the mistakes?

Minute 2 note: I'm now talking directly to the TV, 'cause I'm already irritated.

Minute 2 note again: W looks tired and scared. And thin. Which makes his ears stick out more. And who gave him that awful haircut?

Minute 3: Failure in Iraq would be bad? Agreed. We all agree on what the outcomes of such a failure would be? Not so much agreed -- actually, nothing more hotly contested.

Minute 3: First mention of Iran. Hmmmm.

Minute 4: First mention of 9/11 and implication of "they'll follow us home". My first use of emesis basin.

Minute 5: Iraqi gov't has put forward aggressive plan to secure the capital. True. They've had one for a long time, really. It's called sectarian warfare.

Minute 5: Error admission: too few troops. New info: too many restrictions on troops. Shadow "we're going after al-Sadr" reference? Maybe.

Minute 6: This will succeed because now we're going to hold cleared areas, for real. Because of the more troops. Didn't we try this over the summer, with no success? Yes we did. In "Operation Together Forward". How I hate the names of these ridiculous campaigns.

Minute 7: Maliki says he won't interfere. Nice way to gloss over the whole "Maliki is owned by al-Sadr" thing. Which is, by the way, an insoluble problem.

Minute 7: If Maliki doesn't follow through he'll lose the support of the American people? Um, what support?

Minute 8: We can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers. Something about that formulation is so juvenile. Who wrote this crappy (and boring) speech?

Minute 8: Ouch! The smoke going up my ass stings mightily! The Iraqi army are going to get their shit together, and then Iraqi civilians will cheer up and build their society back. And it's true, that will happen -- after a giant civil war.

Minute 9: Yay! Benchmarks! Security by November. Oil revenue sharing. Infrastructure (paid for by Iraqis). More elections. Less de-Baathification. And a firm promise that if the benchmarks aren't met, we're going to break out the napalm. Or leave precipitously and take our equipment with us. Wait, neither? We're going to do nothing? Oh. Well, benchmarks are still good, right?

Minute 10: Of course, he's instituting the one idea of the Iraq Study Group that I thought was suicidally stupid: embedding Americans with Iraqi units. Can I get some volunteers?? Anyone?

Minute 12: 4000 US troops to Anbar. That'll do it, I think. Ever seen Anbar on a map, by the way? It's fucking huge.

Minute 12: Iran and Syria. Wait -- Iran and Syria?! We're going to cut off their supply networks. We're going to disrupt their attacks on our forces. Huh? Whoah, whoah, whoah. When did Iran and Syria attack our forces? You know, last week when everyone said the Petraeus appointment was because W wanted a guy who could run an air war so he could shift targets to Iran, I thought it was all conspiracy theorizing. But now I'm not so sure. Yikes! We're invading Iran!!!!

Minute 12 note: Is it a good idea to further convince Iran and Syria that their interests are linked (which they aren't necessarily) by talking about them like siamese twins?

Minute 13: A carrier strike group is going. What's a carrier strike group? Is that part of the 21,500?

Minute 14: We will make allies in the area by scaring the shit out of them.

Minute 15-16: Freedom, terrorists, Condi doing diplomacy. I'm taking a nap.

Minute 17: Victory, still. Iraq will be a democracy that fights terrorists. Honestly, it's just laughable at this point. I realize that for him this is a scaled back and "realist" formulation of our goals; but to everyone else it still sounds like he's on acid.

Minute 18: Ah, pretend bipartisanship. He talked to congress, and decided, upon consideration, to tell them to go fuck themselves.

Minute 18: AAAACK! Lieberman's heading up a working group. The one member of congress mentions by name and it's that assclown. Damn you, Connecticut!!!! Damn you to hell!!! I hope people there who voted for Lieberman have the decency to lie about it.

Minute 19: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time." Really? I think an end to poverty is the calling of our time. But it hardly matters, since both are totally screwed.

Minute 21: Wait -- where's "May God bless America"? Don't presidents always tell God to bless us? I do believe they do, because it's always irritated me. Now, evidently, God = The Author of Liberty. God wrote a book? Is it any good??

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Sick of the Surge? Let's Spurge!

Well, it's almost surge day. I have excellent intentions of doing "live" surge speech blogging tomorrow. "Live" is in quotes because a) I won't be home when the speech is on, so I'll have to tape it, and b) as I watch the tape and type, I'll need to pause from time to time to, um, vocalize. I say "excellent intentions" because I don't know that I can listen closely to an entire Bush speech. He is so very not euphonious. And I may stroke out in the middle, removing the choice entirely from my hands.

But just in case this all happens, and the VCR functions, and my blood vessels stand up to the challenge of watching a monkey give a presidential address, let's assess where we stand, at Surge Day Minus One.

The surge, she is dead.

Everyone in the world is now on record (except the president, of course) with an opinion, and all of those opinions converge on one thing: the surge won't work. Every single respectable Dem is on record saying it's a stupid idea. Biden gave a particularly ripe version, alleging that the Bushies don't care that it won't work, they're just stalling so that withdrawal will be the next guy's problem. McCain, the AEI crowd, the Weekly Standard crowd -- they all say they're behind the idea, but they're not, really. They want more than 20,000, and they're not going to get it because there isn't more than 20,000 to send; and they want a long deployment, and they aren't going to get it because the 20,000 is already made up of extended tours. So they're behind a surge, but they're directly opposed to the version of a surge that we're going to get.

So that covers that. For me, I'm with the Dems that the surge is stupid. I'm directly opposed to the neocon crowd in that I think their only slightly higher numbers are equally ridiculous to 20,000 (I enjoy Andrew Sullivan, but he needs to unconvince himself of the fact that 50,000 is the magic number. It ain't). But really I'm with Biden. The interesting thing is not the surge. The interesting thing will be after the surge, when we find out how we're really going to get out of this war.

Bush is Bush. He has never admitted a mistake, and he never will. And you're kidding yourself if you think he's going to make his first admission of a screw-up by admitting he lost a war. A war, for god's sake -- that would definitely be starting at the top. And you know it's not going to happen, ever. So the only question then is who is going to try to force his hand, and how far are they going to go to try to force it?

So, sure. I'll watch the surge speech (I originally typed that "spurge seech", which sounds accurate, somehow). I'll write you a little something about it. But it's only interesting as a starting point for the next political phase. In which Republicans castrate and cannibalize their own leader, I suspect.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

MIA

Happy new year! Saddam's dead. Did you hear? Of course you did. You probably heard other things, too. Like how our president was asleep when it happened (around 9:30 PM Crawford time). Like how it happened on a Sunni holiday, which is technically illegal in Iraq. How it was accompanied by sectarian shouting and heckling, which is technically illegal everywhere, and how it was all filmed on a cell phone, so that we all knew that the "this is the new Nuremburg" line was bullshit. This last, by the way, may or may not be illegal, but, either way, the Iraqi government wants to find the guy who did the filming so they can cut his balls off.

Look, I'm not interested in defending Saddam. It goes without saying that I think the death penalty is simultaneously vicious and idiotic, but who cares? The problem with this particular execution has nothing to do with whether you think the death penalty is a good idea. It has to do with whether you think the fantasy war league of us and the Iraqis is competent to handle the single most public-relations-critical execution in modern history. And clearly, that would be a giant NO.

Apparently, the Bush administration still don't know about YouTube. I confess, I dozed off in front of the TV on execution night, waiting around to see footage and find out which network would be first to go over the taste barrier by showing the drop. But when I woke up and saw the censored footage all over CNN et al, I knew I only needed to wait a day or so for the YouTube version. I know this despite the fact that I just got my first digital camera for Christmas. I know this because I live on this planet. So why, pray tell, does our government not know it? Why the fuck can't they get their act together to think ahead to how things are going to play in the larger world? Why can't they discern important events from unimportant events, and try to figure out a way to make us look good, just once, just for a change? Like, I don't know, realizing that a video of the hanging would get out, and on the strength of that fact trying to help the Iraqis find a place that didn't look like a horror film for performing the execution? Just for starters.

I can't decide if it's that Bush and company are actually getting dumber and clumsier, or if it's that the election finally took away the dreamlike aspect of witnessing their behavior. But I find myself once again shockable -- something I haven't been for years. I'm actually kind of shocked that we were so stupid as to hand off Saddam to be executed with no planning and no forethought. And I'm really shocked that Bush has managed to dither without any kind of Iraq plan for 2 full months since his ass was handed to him on an electoral platter. I find it genuinely astonishing that people aren't really horrified that the American president is sitting around in the middle of a lost war doing nothing, and that he has the gall to go to bed at 9 PM while soldiers are dying in Iraq. And at the end of the dithering we're going to get an idiotic "troop surge" idea that is already dead in the water, a mere week or two before our fearless leader gets around to announcing it.

In a weird way, it's reminiscent of 9/11, when Bush went missing, and you had the sense that we were all here on our own, without a president, or a face on the nation. It's a hideous face, granted, but its absence is noteworthy, especially at those moments when its presence is most obviously required. Bush chickened out then, a fact which both he and most of the country managed to forget; I wonder if he remembers his cowardice that day, as I so vividly remember it, now that he has once again disappeared in the face of trouble. Hell, in the face of his job.

Labels: