[Quote:]

In reading the Graves book, I was especially struck by this passage at the conclusion of Paul Fussell’s introduction:

Graves’s reliance on broad comedy to make very serious points about life and death seems to anticipate and illustrate Friedrich Durrenmatt’s post-Second World War conviction that “comedy alone is suitable for us.” The reason? “Tragedy presupposes guilt, despair, moderation, lucidity, vision, a sense of responsibility,” none of which we have got:

“In the Punch and Judy show of our century … there are no more guilty and also, no responsible men. It is always, ‘We couldn’t help it’ and ‘We didn’t really want that to happen.’ And indeed, things happen without anyone in particular being responsible for them. Everything is dragged along and everyone gets caught somewhere in the sweep of events. We are all collectively guilty, collectively bogged down in the sins of our fathers and of our forefathers … That is our misfortune, but not our guilt … Comedy alone is suitable for us.”

I mentioned this perspective in my post earlier today about Guantanamo, and the meaning of certain policies that the Bush administration has pursued since immediately after 9/11. I used the painfully familiar example of the “well-meaning,” ordinary German who insisted, after all the horrors of the Nazi regime: “But who could have known it would come to that?”

This particular frame of mind has been raised to a high (or low) art by the Bush administration, and by many of its supporters and those who defend our foreign policy in particular. The following may seem like a paradox, but in fact it is only two sides of the same coin — or two different ways of achieving the same goal. On the one hand, Bush and his numerous allies throughout our culture proclaim the foundational virtue of independence, self-reliance and individualism — that with sufficient “will,” we can accomplish anything. We are self-determining beings: we are what we choose to be. On the other hand, with regard to broad questions of foreign policy — and with regard to narrower questions such as the use of torture or warrantless spying — they announce: “We have no choice about what we do. We must do these things, if we wish to save our country, and civilization itself.”

But note the aim which both approaches serve: they want to be able to do whatever they wish — and they never want to be held accountable for any of it.

(read the whole thing)

[Quote:]

From Bob Garfield’s interview with Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi, who recently left Baghdad:

BOB GARFIELD: When you read criticism of the press in general, that it is somehow so fixated on bad news that it doesn’t report the good, that it’s essentially suppressing the good news out of Iraq, what do you all say to one another? How do you react?
FARNAZ FASSIHI: I can just say that if there were five car bombs going off in New York and 50 people kidnapped a day, I’m sure that metro reporters would be writing those stories and not talking about the school that was painted. When you’re sitting in Iraq and putting your neck on the line to try to bring as balanced a story as possible, it’s very frustrating to hear criticism like that, because you know, as a professional reporter, that the only reason you’re there is because you want to convey the truth. And I can say that everyone is trying to go out their extra mile to find out exactly what’s happening there, good or bad, to try to find progress, obstacles, frustration. And I think, considering, we’ve done a pretty good job. I’m proud of what my colleagues have achieved.

Microsoft iPod packaging parody

[Quote:]

On empire, what’s unusual about this administration isn’t only its focus on power, but on unilateralism. It’s the flip side of isolationism. The notion that alliances, economic or political, and international law inevitably hinder the most powerful nation. You know, the image of the strings around Gulliver. They said in the National Security Strategy of the United States, the 2005 version, that rivals will continue to challenge us using the strategies of the weak including “international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” They’re associating terror and asymmetric warfare with international law as similar ways to blunt the overwhelming power of the United States. That represents an attitude toward international law and institutions that, I think, is a real and dramatic break from past practice in the United States. In our history, certainly recently, there’s just no comparison to them — no government anywhere near as radical.

[Quote:]

One of the most shocking photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shows a grinning guard giving a thumbs-up sign over the bruised corpse of an Iraqi detainee. Subsequent investigation showed that the deceased prisoner, an Iraqi named Manadel al-Jamadi, died of asphyxiation on Nov. 4, 2003: He was tortured to death by Navy SEAL and CIA interrogators who took turns punching and kicking him, then handcuffed his arms behind his back and shackled them to a window five feet above the floor. Nine SEALs, a sailor and several CIA personnel were implicated in the killing. As it turned out, the Abu Ghraib guard who posed with the body, former Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., was not involved.

Two years after the photo came into the hands of Army investigators, the result of the case is this: Mr. Graner is serving a 10-year prison sentence for his role in the nonlethal abuse of other detainees at Abu Ghraib — and no one involved in killing Mr. Jamadi has suffered serious penalty. Nine members of the Navy team were given “nonjudicial punishment” by their commanding officer; the 10th, a lieutenant, was acquitted on charges of assault and dereliction of duty. None of the CIA personnel has been prosecuted. The lead interrogator, Mark Swanner, reportedly continues to work for the agency.

The de facto principles governing the punishment of U.S. personnel guilty of prisoner abuse since 2002 now are clear: Torturing a foreign prisoner to death is excusable. Authoring and implementing policies of torture may lead to promotion. But being pictured in an Abu Ghraib photograph that leaks to the press is grounds for a heavy prison sentence.

[Quote:]

The Ford GT began as a concept car designed in anticipation of Ford’s centennial year and as part of its drive to showcase and revive its “heritage” names such as Mustang and Thunderbird. Why am I telling you this?

One man located in Kansas City (Mission Hills/Prairie Village) waited 2 years for this $200,000 car.

He had this car only two days and had only put 9 miles on it.

via

[Quote:]

President George W. Bush, hit by polls showing America’s support for the
Iraq war at an all-time low, denied on Tuesday Iraq was sliding into civil war, despite the worst sectarian strife since a U.S. invasion.

And in the real world:

Iraqi residents push a cart with a wounded bomb victim in Baghdad February 28, 2006. Ten people were killed in one of the bombs that exploded in Karrada district, a witness said.

[Quote:]

Sunnis and Shiites traded bombings and mortar fire against mainly religious targets in Baghdad well into the night Tuesday, killing at least 68 people a day after authorities lifted a curfew that had briefly calmed a series of sectarian reprisal attacks.

At least six of Tuesday’s attacks hit clearly religious targets, concluding with a car bombing after sundown at the Shiite Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood that killed 23 and wounded 55. A separate suicide bombing killed 23 people at an east Baghdad gas station, where people had lined up to buy kerosine.

In addition to those known to have been killed Tuesday, police found nine more bullet-riddled bodies, including a Sunni Muslim tribal sheik, off a road southeast of Baghdad. It was unclear when they died.

[..]

The sectarian violence has hit Baghdad hardest because the population in the capital is about evenly divided between Shiites and Sunnis, more so than in any other region of the country.

[Quote:]

Three out of four U.S. soldiers in
Iraq reject their commander in chief’s strategy to keep them there, according to a unique poll that on Tuesday became the latest survey to evoke an increasingly isolated White House.
[..]

29 percent of the troops serving in Iraq favor immediate withdrawal, about half say the U.S. should pull out within six months, and 72 percent say they should leave the country within a year, said a poll released Tuesday by Zogby International and the Center for Peace and Global Studies at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, NY.

[..]

In the past, the White House has assailed critics of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq as being out of touch with troops who want to stay in Iraq until they accomplish their long-term mission.

[Quote:]

A story by Minnesota Public Radio reveals a disturbing new way that a political party is secretly grabbing sensitive personal information about voters.

This week the Minnesota Republican Party is distributing a new CD about a proposed state marriage amendment. Along with flashy graphics, the CD asks people their views on controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, and so on.

The problem – the CD sends your answers back to headquarters, filed by name, address, and political views. No mention of that in the terms of use. No privacy policy at all. The story concludes: “So if you run the CD in your personal computer, by the end of it, the Minnesota GOP will not only know what you think on particular issues, but also who you are.�?

And to make it even more scary, read the linked story – the GOP collects the info on a website that is so well protected anybody else can see your answers as well.

Or another way to look at all this: Once you vote on the GOP-supported electronic voting machines, they will probably know how you would have voted if your vote had actually been counted.