On Language and Twitter and Peace and War.

I have aesthetic preferences when it comes to Twitter. I like a tweet that uses complete sentences, no abbreviations, proper punctuation, and exactly 140 characters. When the first draft of one of my tweets meets all these criteria, I feel as if it has automatically assumed a level of truthiness, as if the muses had written it, not me. Well, here's the tweet I woke up with this morning. It meets all my aesthetic criteria. The last period of my first draft was character number 140.

We're living one of the most important moments in the long debate over how democracies should wage war. The 'No' of the people needs to win.
— TrueBlue Liberal (@TrueBlueLiberal) September 6, 2013

I'm going to try to leave this as my only tweet of the day for as long as I can because I don't want to bury this thought under an avalanche of retweets and snarky comments about the Donalds Rumsfeld and Trump. I really believe strongly that "We're living one of the most important moments in the long debate over how democracies should wage war. The 'No' of the people needs to win." If wide majorities of the American public and their Representatives on both sides of aisle believe that we shouldn't be bombing Syria, then the President needs to stand by that judgment just as David Cameron is standing by his rebuke from the British Parliament. And these judgments of the people about the necessity and utility of adding more weapons and violence to the Middle East will not only be seen as historic, but they could be one of President Barack Obama's greatest legacies.  Here's another tweet of mine from yesterday morning that expresses my suspicions about the President's possible motives for going to Congress. The truthiness of this tweet is a little more suspect because I needed to abbreviate "Pres" and leave the initial "It" off the second sentence in order to fit it into exactly 140 characters, but I still stand by it:

Anyone else getting the feeling that Pres Obama went to Congress to get a No vote on unilateral action? Leaves him free to pursue diplomacy.
— TrueBlue Liberal (@TrueBlueLiberal) September 5, 2013

I believe that the candidate and constitutional law professor from Illinois believed (and believes) what he said on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Going to Congress before attacking Syria and having Congress assert its war powers by voting no is that candidate living up to his word, and his Congressional "loss" could be his ultimate objective. The Senator and candidate Obama did not want any President to have the war powers he (and his successors) currently hold.  Handing some of that power back to the people and their representatives could turn out to be one of his most important achievements. 

All the Way with BHO? (redux)

[I originally posted this on October 1, 2011, but I felt it might be time to trot it out again and place it at the top of the blog. I don't feel like I need to add any specific references to today's debate about unleashing American weaponry against Syria.]

As we get further and further in time from the Presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the parts of his legacy that stand out seem more and more impressive: Medicare, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, & 1968, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the Department of Transportation, Head Start, the Higher Education Act of 1965, Bilingual Education Act of 1968, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1968 inspired by Ralph Nader, the Endangered Species Act of 1966, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and more. The list of programs falling under the umbrella of The Great Society read like a Teapublican's wish list of the main elements of America's 20th-Century liberal legacy that they are working so hard to roll back.

But I remember 1968, and Lyndon Baines Johnson for me was a symbol of everything that was old and illiberal and out of touch, bordering on evil. It was because of one issue that overshadowed EVERYTHING that he did on the domestic front: Vietnam. LBJ didn't start the war and he had wide bipartisan support for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 (416-0 in the House and only Morse and Gruening voting no in the Senate) that gave the green light for his escalations (think "Surges" in 21st-Century Newspeak), but it didn't take long for that police action in Southeast Asia to tear the country, and the Democratic Party, in half.

There are major differences between LBJ and BHO, beyond the fact that the Obama's Affordable Health Care Act doesn't hold a candle to the domestic achievments of Johnson. First of all, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq will always be Bush's wars and the crimes of waterboarding and Abu Ghraib will always belong to the previous regime. But the biggest change between the war of my youth and these endless wars of the 21st century is the lack of a draft. If the privileged children of the suburbs planning on peaceful futures saw those futures usurped by their birthday drawing a low number in a draft lottery, then there would have been millions of young people in the street against these endless wars no matter who was living in the White House. There are some rumblings of direct action against the current corporate-controlled power structure which supports the current wars and leans from center-right Democrats to lunatic Teapublican fringe, but "Occupy Wall Street" is never going to motivate millions to hit the streets the way the Moratoriums and other mass marches against the Vietnam War.

He has almost closed down the illegal war on Iraq, but with Barack Obama's failure to close Guantanamo Bay, his willingness to impose the death penalty by remote control on American cititzens this week, his surge in Afghanistan, and his acceptance of the Patriot Act and other assumptions of the so-called "War on Terror", it may not be too long before responsibility for these awful foreign policies starts sticking to his administration. And until the military stops draining our national treasure, he won't have the resources to accomplish even one hundredth of what LBJ did domestically during his brief time in the White House.

Can We Permanently Ban "Boots On The Ground"?

I think it's been a while since I've gone off on a language rant here, but is everyone else (other than the usual suspects within The Beltway and The Media) as sick to death of this never-ending use of "boots on the ground" as I am?  The attached clipping in which John Kerry, Bob Menendez, and Bob Corker all employ the overused military jargon is from Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times yesterday, but it could just as easily have come from any other story about Syria, or the mouth of any "expert" I've heard on NPR or the PBS NewsHour in the past decade discussing our current or future quagmires.

The lazy use of this metaphor for ground forces -- for actual young humans placed in harm's way by politicians -- seems to flow most freely out of the mouths of old men in dark suits trying to look manly in front of old men in brass-encrusted uniforms, but can we please stop it? 

Just Call Me A "Global Functionality Facilitator"

... and if you haven't done so already, please find out what your title is with the Bullshit Job Title Generator.

Now I guess I'd better get back to work facilitating global functionalities.

Today's "Real Fact" & Giving Conservatives Credit Where Credit Is Due

First of all, I "love" the fact that Snapple gives itself full deniability by placing "Real Fact" and "Real Facts" within quotation marks. Yes, they seem to be saying, these "Facts" may be exactly as "Real" as Donald Trump's "University" or "hair". But given that this "Fact" #786 might actually be bullshit, I found it interesting to imagine the human brain using the same amount of power as a 10-watt bulb.  I assume that's a rough average, but I think we can probably be pretty sure that the most conservative among us are conserving energy (or hoarding it in their beer bellies) by using only 5 watts or less in their crania.

So, I'm giving credit where credit is due. Thank you to all the teabaggers and dittoheads out there doing their best to conserve brain power (even as they follow Michele Bachmann's advice and cling bitterly to their wasteful incandescents to light their homes).

Today's Fine White Whine Comes from the Vineyard of Donald Trump

"...It was a terribly drawn suit, an incompetently drawn suit and they did it very quickly. ... Maybe this is a mini-IRS. Maybe we need to get the Tea Party after these people because this could maybe be a mini-IRS." 

--Donald Trump on Fox News, 26 Aug 2013

The Total Collapse of
Teaparty (#TCOT) flag.

Translation: Waah Waah Waah.  The Lightweight Attorney General of New York under orders from our Kenyan President Obama is going after me and my phony baloney "University" just like the IRS under Obama's marching orders harassed those poor non-political Tea Party groups, so now those non-political Tea Party groups should come to my aid. Waah Waah Waah.

In a logical world Donald Trump's fraudulent "Trump University" scam would be just one more reason for his disqualification for any type of public office, but there's still a good chance that we'll see him as the game-show-host clown in the 2016 GOP Clown Circus (and of course if he can't make it, the game-show-host clown-in-waiting Chuck Woolery will be happy to fill in that spot on the debate stage).

2016 GOP Clown Circus Casting Couch Update: Scott Brown as the next bipartisan (i.e., losing) clown?

Here's the quote of the day from the ex-Senator from Massachusetts considering the suicidal 2016 GOP Clown Circus role played by Jon Huntsman in the 2012 debates.  He was quoted when visiting Iowa over the weekend:

“I want to get an indication of whether there’s even an interest, in Massachusetts and throughout the country, if there’s room for a bipartisan problem solver.” -- Scott Brown

He'll find out how much room there is in the 21st-century GOP for a bipartisan problem solver as soon as he's stupid enough to say something like, "Global warning isn't necessarily God's will" or "President Obama was probably born in the United States." His type of pointy-headed new-fangled Taxachusetts RINOism will find little welcome in the bloodthirsty Clown Circus galleries looking for red meat about God, guns, and gaybashing, but they will have fun booing and shouting down a (relative) voice of reason, and we'll have fun watching.
Go for it Scott.

2016 GOP Clown Circus Update: The New Fat Clown Throws His Hat Into the Ring

VOTE FOR ME!!

It has seemed clear all along that the role of the fat egotistical clown played so well by Newt Gingrich in 2012's GOP Clown Circus would be filled by Chris "Krispy Kreme" Christie in 2016, and the Governor of New Jersey made his ambitions obvious at the end of last week when he vetoed a ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles, a ban which he had proposed just last April.  He announced his veto on a Friday evening when the local news outlets might miss it, but the gun rights groups keeping score on such matters definitely would not.

It's official. He's running for the GOP Presidential nomination and a place at one of the 8 or 9 podiums (podia?) on the traveling 2016 GOP Clown Circus stages.

While having the role of the fat egotistical clown filled is good news for Clown Circus aficionados, there was bad news on Friday as well. The Republican National Committee and its chairman who goes by the improbable name "Reince Priebus" announced that CNN and NBC would not be allowed to host episodes of the highly-anticipated 2016 Clown Circus because those networks are considering the broadcast of a documentary and a miniseries featuring presumed Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.  The RNC's real goal, of course, is simply to deny us the pleasure of seeing their clowns showing their true colors on two more networks.  If "Reince" could, he'd simply anoint Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan or Chris Christie with the title of nominee without any of the party's dirty laundry being aired for the entertainment and edification of America's voters.

"There is no why."

Today is the 39th anniversary of one of the great works of art of the twentieth century (and one that would be totally impossible in our current international police state).

Today's Fine White Whine

"It's not really a bunch of whining, it's just us telling them what we're going to do about it, that's all," the man who uses the alias 'Reince Priebus' whined yesterday.

"Them" in the above quotation are the CNN and NBC television networks.
"Us" is the Grand Old Political Party of which 'Reince Priebus' is the chairman.
What they're "going to do about it" is restrict those networks' rights to broadcast portions of the entertaining 2016 GOP Clown Circus if the networks continue with their plans to broadcast documentaries on Hillary Clinton.

"Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah," Mr. 'Priebus' concluded.