now this is not deeply reasoned with precise logical postulates, I know - but those who say Israeli abuse of Palestinians and refusal to give back the West bank are the root of all the problems seem to want to gloss over an obvious question that arises: if such is the case why does Israel persist? They hate the Arabs? Irrationally seek unremitting vengeance against them? They prefer chaos as part of a long term strategy? All in part or whole may contribute to policies if one assumes the policies are abusive - but there's a simpler answer and much more practical: Israel needs the West Bank in order to properly defend itself come an invasion from Lebanon or Syria - you need space to maneuver in order to defend in strength and the West Bank is that space. On top of which, should a future war go badly, it gives them something to surrender to achieve a truce. You never hear this military argument when people discuss Israel's posture towards the Palestinians and the West Bank but it's the argument that makes the most sense - it's also the argument that suggests that there's no way in hell they're giving up the West Bank. Unfair, sure, I guess - but abusive? Not necessarily.

[and when China makes the same argument viz Taiwan? will you be so accommodating of practical necessity then? god damn Chinese - we're on a collision course: I wonder what it means that they're such bad drivers? My, that's an off colour joke. Very nasty. When did an expectation of anything else become the norm? Not sure, but I'm willing to blame television]

QED

Lot of shit, no shovel

This attempts to make the case for the surge and because it's written by an officer actually on the ground in Iraq and involved in COIN operations you respect the argument - except for three glaring flaws persistently hanging over it: 1] he never addresses how many troops would be required to make the strategy work in a general enough way to make it viable within any meaningful context; 2] he glosses over the fact that even if you can effectively marginalize the 'terrorists' and create secure corridors within the country there is absolutely no reason to believe that good things will then just naturally inhabit those corridors - ie the political motives and intentions of various factions are extremely confused; and 3] he glosses over the key element of security, once achieved, needing to be maintained indefinitely by a highly suspect Iraqi military and constabulary. Without three you just got a big pile of shit and no shovel.

In short, it all sounds nice and neat and professional on paper, but much like Descartes' proof for God, you already need to accept the existence of the thing you're trying to prove exists in order for the proof to be acceptable. Or - it's like buying a used car based on it having a nice paint job and never looking under the hood because, you know, under the hood is where all the bad stuff is and oh my you really need a car and would just rather assume it drives as nice as it looks.

Finally the Nazis prove good for something other than making for excellent gun fodder in sundry movies and video games: Germany's stern anti-cult laws, an angst ridden response to their Nazi past, have led to Scientology addled Tom Cruise being banned from working in the Fatherland. How wonderfully absurd life is: even the darkest fucking clouds still manage a little flash of silver.

I laughed, I cried, I wrote a novel

"... I started that particular viral video, that was my creation. She was a dishwasher at a restaurant I worked at, so hot and only sixteen, soapy water all splashing up on her t-shirt, cute little laugh - just so wrong that I had to get it on video. Now she has an agent, gonna be a big star they say. Big enough to not be bothered to return my calls, ungrateful bitch. But it was me made her, sure as shit. So I wrote a novel, 518 pages of unadulterated reality, exposed her whole sordid mess. Truth will out, right? Has to. Just have to find a publisher and then her little joy ride is so over..."

and I see Drum now points out how books begin to appear blaming American military decline on liberals - but I told him this would happen at least a year ago! I wrote in the pages of his blog and was damned to hell by the illiberal whelps that populate it for being a war monger - I told them to steer away from the 'withdraw from Iraq' nonsense because it played right into conservative long range plans to blame everything on liberals. Idiots didn't listen. I told them that this surge is just politics - I told them that McCain's piety viz surge is all about eventually blaming liberals when the shit hits the fan and that therefore the democrats should temper their speech, be careful of what they say and how they say it - I pointed out that this is what Hillary seems to understand and it's idiotic to fault her for it and force her to the left which will hurt come the general election. But they didn't listen.

Not that I really expected them to listen - that'd be silly. Oh, the games we must play...

chess is for losers

If Romney wins nomination he will deflect questions concerning his Mormon faith by claiming attack on any faith in a god is an attack on faith in general and that such an attack is liberal in nature - and this will work, already is - see his response in debate that he shouldn't have to defend his faith. Mormonism is patently absurd even by the forgiving standards of most religions but Americans are not so much concerned with orthodoxy of a particular creed as they are with the ease of an outward show of faith in a supreme whatever [as long as it relates, even if only anecdotally, to the rabble of the Rood, awash in the tears of their Christ] . It will not surprise me to see Romney try to defend all his blemishes behind the white light of faith - you can also see that coming: "... it's not so much that I flip flopped on abortion that bothers liberals, it's that I'm now pro-life and they are the party of death..." etc etc.

This tactic will work - still, I'd like someone to mount a rational challenge of it - for once you'd like to see these people exposed as the dirtbags they are - it's one of the ironies of TV: exposure is much greater but access much more limited: you never hear a counter argument laid out logically in an attempt to uncover the flaws in a line of rhetoric or reasoning - just a few questions asked and then move on. Quite absurd - it's as if all had agreed that the truth doesn't really matter, as if the dissembling dance around the subject is more important than the subject itself, as if the dance had become the subject - all has a very fin de siecle feel to it. Public discourse devolves increasingly into an anodyne game of checkers - chess is for losers!

reality explained

nowhere to be
nothing to do
if not for me
there wouldn't be you
there wouldn't be you
without a me
nothing to do
and nowhere to be

Now I see an aggrieved academic has ripped into Chris Hitchens for his 'I Hate God' polemic accusing him of selective reasoning and bad reasoning at that, phony scholarship, ersatz philosophic musings etc etc called to arms like a rebellious mob against the ramparts of religion and the pious practitioners barracks behind etc etc

I don't have much to say for or against Hitchens since I be not nearly learned enough to adequately defend or refute [I mean one can sound as absurd tearing down God as propping the old bastard up] - and besides, I kind of like Oxfordian styled screeds regardless of what they have to say-

But does it not seem increasingly that defenders of religion and adjunct godheads use response to arguments hurled against them as proof in and of themselves of what they defend? Intelligent design seems a perfect example of this: we can't really refute evolution so in arguing against we'll create a different set of criteria to support our claims - in other words, we don't really need to refute evolution, just sound like we have a plausible counter argument to reassure the faithful. Same goes with the decline of strict dogma and rise of universalism, a trans-confessional episcopaliansim - because you know in a world of loose individualism and appeals to limpid ironic poses and sloppy pandering to the senses it's really hard to stay rigid and not be laughed at.

A return to Roman pagan cults then? Now that would be ironic - and so conveniently modern. Given how unstable they are people remain quite predictable, no?

The Japanese are getting fat eating like Americans, thus erasing generations of healthy eating habits often extolled as particular to Japanese culture. Most will choose to see this as yet more corruption by merciless Yanks - but rather you know I'd say America didn't create the corruption but instead revealed it.

You could say that the 'genius' of America turned what was formerly seen as a weakness [the commonness of the common man] into a strength while exposing as weak what was formerly seen as a strength [the superiority of certain classes]. Those larded Japanese have taught me this.

- It's one of those odd things that seems to pass unnoticed but you can't be sure that it means anything.
- I'm not sure something has to have meaning to be meaningful. I'm not sure if those are the same thing.
- But it's odd, regardless, no? Why is Tiger Woods called black when his mother was Thai or Filipino or some such thing? Or Barack Obama called black when his mother was white? Or Halle Berry black when quite obviously there's a significant quantity of pale assed Euro trash genes coursing through that body?
- Are you a racist?
- No, of course not. [beat] I mean, I understand the allure of an extreme, intolerant point of view. Can be very calming. I was a misogynist for while just because it felt so damn good. [beat] I mean, everyone's a racist underneath it all, don't ya think? We're all too afraid to admit it but, truth be told, none of us can really stand the other.
- You are a racist.
- No. Well, yes, but only in the sense...
- I'd stop if I were you.
[beat]
- It just seems odd. [beat] I mean, Tiger is married to a Swede and they're gonna have a baby soon and if that thing comes out looking like Bjorn Borg are we supposed to call it a white baby or a black baby?
- Really, you need to stop.
- I mean, if it's white are black people gonna be all pissed off? And if it comes out looking like Emelda Marcos well the whole thing's a mess then.

Two Goats on Girl Island

Nautical Nan
Dressed like a man
And frequented bordellos
Playing coy
With the sailor boys
They were all such naughty fellows

Two Girls on Goat Island

The sea is cold to linger on the shore
There's two there I love, but only one is a whore
The other is something, but memory forgives me
The sea is cold - you see how it outlives me?