For some curious reason, baby magpies tend to remind me of Liam Gallagher.
And if anyone is wondering.... yes, these two posts together are a social experiment.
One of my issues with Obama is that his followers all proclaimed he'd end all the American wars as soon as he got in office. They're still at war. His flock said he'd do all kinds of glorious things. When's that going to happen?
Maybe I can't hold him responsible for what his sheep say but that's what happens when you have style over substance. When your pretty speeches don't actually say anything somebody's going to fill the void. In his case it's the people who blindly believed whatever they thought he meant to say.
I disagree that it's style over substance. I would agree that the style can often overshadow the substance, but it's so long since the US has had a leader with both that many can assume it's an either/or option. Being able to string a coherant sentence together is a sign of organised thought and although that's a pretty low bar, it's still something to be desired in the leader. If Nixon were alive, he'd probably be kicking himself for not playing the "pretty speeches = no substance" angle in 1960. All Bush and his supporters offered was to restore honour and dignity to the White House. How did that work out?
As I mentioned in January, there are many parellels between Obama and Tony Blair including the disappointment among some more rabid supporters that he hasn't clicked his fingers and ushered in a new golden age. It's to his credit that he is considering all angles rather than taking a narrow ideological view as his opponants would, and as some of his supporters would have him do. I'll assess his performance on how it matches his platform, not on his ability to fart out fairy floss.
I don't fault Obama for not having a magic wand. But his catchphrase was "yes we can" not "yes we might eventually". He seems to be spending more time trying to make people happy than fixing the problems he inherited.
I don't fault Obama for the economy. That will take years to fix no matter who's in office.
But Obama and the democratic congress got in office promising to end the war. It's still going. They both have the power and authority to end it but they're using the same excuses Bush used. Obama even kept Bush's defense secretary. That's not change. That's more of the same.
I think he should stop trying to please the unpleasable. Bipartisanship is admirable, but when the other side makes it clear that they will do anything to block you no matter what you do, then it's time to quote election results and get on without the other side.
There are many ways the war could be ended. They could pull all troops out tomorrow and leave all the locals to their fate. I'm not convinced that's an acceptable solution. There is a view among both the anti-war side and those who supported both invasions, that America has a responsibility to clean up the mess it made before leaving. I have a lot of sympathy with that view. But then there's another saying that I heard quoted with regard to the surge: "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got."
Part of what started this mess was an attitude of "Something must be done. This is something. So we'll do it." Just as dangerous as that is the attitude of, "Something else must be done. This is something else. So we'll do that."
There's no good way out of either war. It's a question of finding the least worst. I don't know if this plan is the least worst or not.
Cute magpies! great video i like, a love for the nature.
ReplyDeleteHow cute.
ReplyDeleteOne of my issues with Obama is that his followers all proclaimed he'd end all the American wars as soon as he got in office. They're still at war. His flock said he'd do all kinds of glorious things. When's that going to happen?
Maybe I can't hold him responsible for what his sheep say but that's what happens when you have style over substance. When your pretty speeches don't actually say anything somebody's going to fill the void. In his case it's the people who blindly believed whatever they thought he meant to say.
And yes I put this here on purpose.
I figured you did.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that it's style over substance. I would agree that the style can often overshadow the substance, but it's so long since the US has had a leader with both that many can assume it's an either/or option. Being able to string a coherant sentence together is a sign of organised thought and although that's a pretty low bar, it's still something to be desired in the leader. If Nixon were alive, he'd probably be kicking himself for not playing the "pretty speeches = no substance" angle in 1960. All Bush and his supporters offered was to restore honour and dignity to the White House. How did that work out?
As I mentioned in January, there are many parellels between Obama and Tony Blair including the disappointment among some more rabid supporters that he hasn't clicked his fingers and ushered in a new golden age. It's to his credit that he is considering all angles rather than taking a narrow ideological view as his opponants would, and as some of his supporters would have him do. I'll assess his performance on how it matches his platform, not on his ability to fart out fairy floss.
I don't fault Obama for not having a magic wand. But his catchphrase was "yes we can" not "yes we might eventually". He seems to be spending more time trying to make people happy than fixing the problems he inherited.
ReplyDeleteI don't fault Obama for the economy. That will take years to fix no matter who's in office.
But Obama and the democratic congress got in office promising to end the war. It's still going. They both have the power and authority to end it but they're using the same excuses Bush used. Obama even kept Bush's defense secretary. That's not change. That's more of the same.
I think he should stop trying to please the unpleasable. Bipartisanship is admirable, but when the other side makes it clear that they will do anything to block you no matter what you do, then it's time to quote election results and get on without the other side.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways the war could be ended. They could pull all troops out tomorrow and leave all the locals to their fate. I'm not convinced that's an acceptable solution. There is a view among both the anti-war side and those who supported both invasions, that America has a responsibility to clean up the mess it made before leaving. I have a lot of sympathy with that view. But then there's another saying that I heard quoted with regard to the surge: "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got."
Part of what started this mess was an attitude of "Something must be done. This is something. So we'll do it." Just as dangerous as that is the attitude of, "Something else must be done. This is something else. So we'll do that."
There's no good way out of either war. It's a question of finding the least worst. I don't know if this plan is the least worst or not.