Muddle
By Cicero | Related entries in News
So.
I’ve been lying back on the couch these days. No blogging. No lots-of-things beyond work and being Papa. I am now taking daily walks after learning that my cholesterol levels read like fiction. Getting life insurance is sobering. You sit at home with an agent and talk about your life’s value in mere dollars. Your blood is drawn. Then you’re told by someone whose living involves making bets on people’s lives that you’re a risky prospect. Feh. Forty three.
So, it’s fish oil pills, oat bran, beans, niacin and rabbit food. This is my new grind. The daily red wine is a bonus. Walking the New England woods does me well, though it takes a lot of time. Sorry about not finding the time to blog a little more frequently. I’ve just been walking in the woods, through the headlines of late.
I haven’t had much to say. Sometimes the best etiquette in the salon is to politely listen, and reflect while gazing out the window. Lots of the talk in the salon sounds plausible and impossible all at once. “Intriguing idea, that man has. And yet…”
Muddle. That’s the word that tumbles in front of me as I take on November, 2006. It’s an odd time; the stock market is soaring, but exuberance is muted. It’s as though we’re donning our summer trunks, tossing the beach ball while manning the grill. The laundry’s on the line, and the larder is full in the house. But the summer sky is silvery gray. The air is forty degrees. It’s not summer. Not really — and everyone knows it. But for the moment everything is okay.
I know that bravado has gotten us nowhere. I was a part of that, in some small way. I don’t believe I was exactly ecstatic for war in Iraq, but I was for it. It seemed like a gamble worth taking, and I felt it possible that some good could come out of it. That was optimistic of me. Since then I’ve wanted to be supportive of the cause in any way possible. At this point, I see a muddle, if not in my own head then in the blank stare of our president. I voted for that fellow. I think he’s trying his best. But I don’t think he or his party can cut the mustard.
“Lead, damn it,” I say to myself when I see the president tongue-tied for the umpteenth time. It’s not going to happen. And now the other half is leaving the stage — Tony Blair. Say what you want about him, but the man could articulate what our president could not.
I feel muddled about the upcoming election. I don’t feel a passion for most of these people. I’m certainly not knee-jerking into voting Republican. My gut tells me to generally vote Democrat because the Republicans’ hold on all three branches of government has become a thick layer of ice at this point. Voting Democrat means voting for the ice pick. That’s the new gamble. And no, I don’t think Democrats have the key out of this muddle, per se. It’s as much their making as anyone else’s.
So in essence, I feel to be a part of the problem right now. A part of that ‘ole western malaise. I don’t want to make regular installments of malaise on this blog, which is about ideas and debate. So for now I will listen until the spark returns.
John Robb of Global Guerillas is coming out with a new book soon, called Brave New War. In the book description it says:
The tragedy of 9/11 represents the pinnacle — and finale — of terrorism the old way.
I’ve been turning that coin over and over again ever since I read it. 9/11 was the end of an era, not the beginning, as we tend to see it. The next ‘big attack’ will be of the new variety. I think that’s part of the muddle. I think somewhere in most people’s minds, they know it. But there’s little to be done, so let’s have a barbecue under a gray sky. Why not?
Mr. Robb makes a compelling case that we’re facing a fundamental shift in warfare, and that we must adjust to win. But I really don’t know what winning means by his definition. He conveys the sense that we must structurally mirror our 4GW adversaries to such a degree that we won’t recognize ourselves in short order.
Mr. Robb writes dispassionately, simply exposing the new rules such as they are. Take it or leave it, but ignore them at your own peril. That’s his tone. It’s like being told by an anonymous, brilliant physician that you have cancer, and your limbs must be amputated to give you a chance at survival. This physician may be right, but it doesn’t occur to him that you might be a craftsman whose purpose for living emanates from your hands. No, those must be sacrificed to achieve clinical success, even if the cost is spiritual ruin.
Thanks, Doc.
Last night my two and a half year old daughter took to trick-or-treating as a red ladybug. She was shaped like a little barrel in her foam outfit, replete with ladybug spots and wings. — and little antennae with fuzzy balls on the end. She flew from house to house with her pumpkin pail, buzzing in character. “Bzzzzz!” People who she didn’t know answered their doors, smiling and laughing, giving the little ladybug candy and winks. “Bye-bye!” she hollered, running to the next friendly house lit up with glowing pumpkins.
My daughter the ladybug must think the world is a wondrously safe and friendly place. That’s an illusion that any parent wants to perpetuate, perhaps long after it is constructive. I think it is because we all want to believe it. My little ladybug girl buzzed across a kind of cultural stage on Halloween night, one that we all hold dear. The stage holds us all up, whether real or not.
How fragile has this stage become? That’s the muddle.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:31 am
Great post, as always.
My best to your wife and daughter.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 am
I appreciate your feelings, and I agree that the Democrats probably don’t have the answers for a lot of this, either. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t think they’re possessed of such magical powers that they can just swoop in and make everything all right.
I really, really have to take exception to your statement “And no, I don’t think Democrats have the key out of this muddle, per se. It’s as much their making as anyone else’s.” I realize that it’s difficult to acknowledge just how badly the guy you voted for screwed things up, but to claim that the party that hasn’t been in control of either Congressional branch or the White House has equal culpability is kind of mind boggling. Of course there’s things they could have done better, and many of them cast politically expedient votes that have come back to haunt them. But considering that a large part of the problems we face come from inadequate oversight, I fail to see how the party that has been rebuffed at evey turn when they tried to question the administration’s tactics and policies is equally at fault with the party that was doing the rebuffing.
I hate to ruin the tone, but I do take exception to hearing all of the people who enabled Bush now claiming that he somehow let them down. Bush has done exactly what those who oposed him expected him to do, and when the people who voted for him somehow try to say that they are no more culpable than the people who voted against him, I think it’s important to correct the record.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:29 am
ChrisO - perfect response. I, too was enjoying the post until - somehow, magically - the party out of the power, out of the money and out of the media for six years has been equally responsible for this mess. That’s silly.
And everytime we visit with conservative friends they wail and bemoan how they didn’t see this coming - and I have to remind them of the ugly, ugly arguments we used to have 3 years ago in which I warned them of the exact situation they are so upset about today!
Conservatives have suddenly developed collective amnesia and the dire need to believe they are not responsible for voting in and supporting these guys through two election cycles even in the face of overwhelming incompetence and corruption.
Get over, grow up and take some responsibility folks.
And don’t let it happen again.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:35 am
I agree with ChrisO.
Culpability falls more on those of us — myself very much included — who supported the war, and less on those who opposed it. More on Republicans — myself not included — and less on Democrats. We are each responsible for our ideas, and our actions including our votes.
With power comes responsibility. Mr. Bush has made every decision on Iraq, from the start to the present. It’s on him primarily. To use the language of psychobabble the Dems have been ennablers. But it’s Mr. Bush who has been the primary actor in this drama.
But, Cicero, dude, just get on the Zocor, man. 40 mg a day and I can eat whatever I want and still have the cholesterol of a marathoner. Life’s too short not to enjoy the occasional slab of fatty animal product.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 am
My sentiment remains that culpability rests on both sides within our political system. I am well aware of the Republicans’ culpability, things being what they are, having matured under their unanimous watch. I also think that if Democrats could actually convince a few folks that they’re not insane on the question of national defense, they would handily beat candidates like George W. Bush. If Democrats could refrain from making their party leader a barking head like Howard Dean, I for one might take them more seriously.
I attribute W’s two presidential wins to Democratic incompetence. They may be able to claim un-involvement in Bush’s policies that are leading to leech-infested waters; but they are not without responsibility. They failed to lead. They failed to offer a truly viable option. They deserved their fate as a result. They must prove why they’re relevant, lest they be routinely defeated by people like Bush. Lots of people on the left muse about ‘Bush the Chimp,’ and perhaps he is. But what does it say to be beaten twice by a chimp? And please, don’t give me ‘the election was rigged’ or ‘Americans are stupid sheep’ as a comeback. Those kind of responses only prove the point that Democrats need to revamp their thinking.
Democrats checked out too long ago. They’ve thrown too much of their credibility at the KOSer crowd. They’ve fielded exceptionally weak candidates, two elections in a row. Gore couldn’t beat Bush in 2000 in a landslide? After 8 years riding on the coattails of the Golden Clinton Years? That speaks volumes about how he was the wrong man for the job. That election shouldn’t have been close. It was a cinch, and he botched it. Big time.
The first thing the Democrats should do right now is gag Kerry and Gore. Just shut them up somehow. The show is over for those two tape loops. And Dean too. Why on earth are Gore and Kerry the dominant voices in the Democratic party right now. Clear the decks!
I’m also concerned, per Global Guerillas, that there is something fundamental about our political system that cannot address existential threats as we face them. I hope I am wrong. But with that view, I see both parties as culpable in the general dysfunction.
As far as cholesterol goes, the first phase is to lose weight and see what can be accomplished without drugs. Then another blood test, and we go from there. In all likelihood, I will wind up on a statins of some kind. I’d rather not if it is possible. Oats aren’t all that bad. And I’ve figured out a way to make Thai curries with simulated coconut milk using a mixture of flour, Rice Dream, Soy milk and a touch of coconut extract.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:12 am
I wonder why the stock market soaring is supposed to be so great; “what goes up must come down” and “the bigger they are, the harder they fall,” apply to economic situations too.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:18 am
By what logic should Gore have won in a landslide? Vice presidents are traditionally at a disadvantage, as they own the policies of an administration over which they had little control. And in Gore’s case, he represented an administration that was coming off of two years of non-stop impeachment and Whitewater coverage. And call it sour grapes, but even many conservative commentators have acknowledged that the press savaged Gore. In spite of all that, he won the popular vote. Saying the Democrats are culpable for the Republicans’ actions because they failed to beat them in an election is pretzel logic at its finest.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
You’re really reaching, Cicero. It’s “stop me before I kill again” logic. It’s Chris’ fault because he couldn’t stop you and me from advocating what turned out to be a disastrous policy?
And don’t fear the statins: you get used to the third testacle pretty quickly.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:31 pm
“If Democrats could refrain from making their party leader a barking head like Howard Dean, I for one might take them more seriously.”
Here’s a project for you - go back and review what that crazed “barking dog” Dean said throughout 2003 about the Iraq situation. Now compare with that wonderful statesman George W. Notice the difference? One was 100% right and the other 100% wrong (and continues to be).
Now - stop ingesting Republican stereotypes and talking points about Democrats and think for yourself - who should be making the decisions here?
It’s amazing what a little dose of realiy will do for you - and our country.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Eural:
You’re wasting your time. It’s like asking someone who was closer to right about Iraq: the French or us?
The mere fact that Mr. Bush has been right so seldom that he approaches asbsolute zero matters not at all: he has the jutting chin and the chest-thumping down pat, and mere bloody-minded incompetence is nothing compared to all of that.
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
No one nails the fog quite like you.
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I attribute W’s two presidential wins to Democratic incompetence.
I completely agree. The Dems almost won 2000 (some argue they did), and they could easily have won 2004 if they had fielded a decent, smart-tough candidate. Even in 2004 I don’t think Bush won it — the Dems lost it.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:53 am
2007 altima nissan ser2007 nissan altima
2007 altima nissan ser2007 nissan altima source