Monday, December 27, 2004
charter
What this is, is a three cent response to the Macho Response. You may notice that the title of each entry is linked to an entry on my friend Crack Emcee's own blog. I'll try to keep up.
not for everybody....just the sexy people!
Growing up, I was beaten just as often as CMC for the Sin of Inappropriate Music. Depressed Mode? You must be a fag POW! Dead KennyG's? Trying to destroy society POW! P-Fonque? Nigger-lover POW! And on, and on, andonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandon. But as I played more music, an amazing thing happened- I completely lost the ability to distinguish any difference between any of it. I mean, genres are a figment of some beancounting marketers imagination (what's left of it). And the only way I can interface with it is directly- if you say to me, "make a jazz noise here", I won't know what the fucque you're talking about. If, on the other hand, you tell me to deliver three notes in the Mezzrow style, and to do it presto, then we got something. Genres should be abolished- ask any musician what their real, day-to-day utility is. This is because music is a language, and if you restrict your dialectic to metalinguistic terms, you are stuck jerking off in a Frederick Jameson po-mo mobius strip. Where the soundtrack is A-Ha and Abba. But if you wanna get some work done, if you wanna get things jerking back and forth, you've got to approach your instrument with sincerity and commitment. Some sympathy, and some taste.
a little terminology please
Let's take "Guilty, guilty..." first. Crack, everything you say is correct, of course, but this doesn't mean it's right. Point by point, I agree with you, and with your overarching theme; to wit, the Left sold out long ago and is way past being relevant. Proof? Their inability to unseat a dimwitted Texan, twice. Further proof? The ascendancy of Bill Clinton- a "liberal" filtered through a Reagan lens. But your points belabor the obvious:
One: Bush, Inc. did steal the 2000 race. I'll admit that against someone as arrogant and lackluster as Gore, it was Bush's race to lose. But that doesn't add any legitimacy to the actual proceedings- a "legal" solution to a constitutional problem, delivered by Bush41's appointees. A cliche from the 80's rears its ugly head- if the Ukrainians can have another election, why can't we?
Your next two points: regarding Gay Marriage, everyone's credibility was lost due to excessive posturing. And Bush lied? So what. Presidents Lie, that's what they do. Anyone who says they're shocked suffers from excessive coyness, and should get over it. So I'm with you on both items here.
But the Kicker: It is a frequent error of armchair generals to confuse tactics with strategy. Our strategy- our global response- was never in doubt from the moment those planes hit the WTC. Realpolitik demands that we slap somebody down for being too bold, and that holds for whomever is in the Oval Office. But tactics matter- under Clinton, we had these fuckers running scared and running out of money. Bush, on the other hand, has a tantrum in public. Which is more effective? Under Clinton, sure, the WTC was bombed; but the perpetrators have been arrested, and more to the point, Clinton never lost his cool in the global arena. If the Shrub had merely paid attention, then operations might have continued as before; Delta Force would still be "kickin' down doors and sweepin' out corners", and these networks would have been rolled back. But NO! Dicknbush had their eyes on the Oil, and that's how Mohammed Atta slipped under the wire. And if you think we're winning, then you really don't understand Terrorism. How many days have gone by where you didn't think about 9/11? Be honest.
One: Bush, Inc. did steal the 2000 race. I'll admit that against someone as arrogant and lackluster as Gore, it was Bush's race to lose. But that doesn't add any legitimacy to the actual proceedings- a "legal" solution to a constitutional problem, delivered by Bush41's appointees. A cliche from the 80's rears its ugly head- if the Ukrainians can have another election, why can't we?
Your next two points: regarding Gay Marriage, everyone's credibility was lost due to excessive posturing. And Bush lied? So what. Presidents Lie, that's what they do. Anyone who says they're shocked suffers from excessive coyness, and should get over it. So I'm with you on both items here.
But the Kicker: It is a frequent error of armchair generals to confuse tactics with strategy. Our strategy- our global response- was never in doubt from the moment those planes hit the WTC. Realpolitik demands that we slap somebody down for being too bold, and that holds for whomever is in the Oval Office. But tactics matter- under Clinton, we had these fuckers running scared and running out of money. Bush, on the other hand, has a tantrum in public. Which is more effective? Under Clinton, sure, the WTC was bombed; but the perpetrators have been arrested, and more to the point, Clinton never lost his cool in the global arena. If the Shrub had merely paid attention, then operations might have continued as before; Delta Force would still be "kickin' down doors and sweepin' out corners", and these networks would have been rolled back. But NO! Dicknbush had their eyes on the Oil, and that's how Mohammed Atta slipped under the wire. And if you think we're winning, then you really don't understand Terrorism. How many days have gone by where you didn't think about 9/11? Be honest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)