h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I get very frustrated with H2G2 sometimes.

Today is one of those times.

The source of frustration: a conversation on BH's space.
The issue: someone lists the tools of statecraft (assassination, etc) and then lays them at the door of GWB as if he were the only leader in history to ever use them.

So, I point this out. And then, because I can feel a red mist descending, I unsub from the conversation (politely).

I'm ticked off with that because I cannot express in a way these folks will understand how massively, utterly, thoroughly frustrated I am with the "bush=bad" mentality.

Look, it doesn't matter who's in the White House! It doesn't matter who's in Number 10. They will do what they feel they need to do, regardless of morals, regardless of what you think is right, because (and this is what people don't seem to get) IT WORKS!.

It's bugged me, really seriously, for a decade. In ten years I have not been able to come up with a system that works any better. I therefore cannot advocate replacing the current governmental system with a better one.

But, you know, should anyone have that brilliant idea please let me know.

Because if you need a barricade manned, I'm there.

Until then, however, until that glorious day, do not DARE to look back over ten thousand years of civilised history and tell me that one rhetoric stuffed windbag is any better or any worse than any other. You are, as they say in the manor of my birth, 'avin a laaaaf, aintcha?

I do understand how you can find yourself in a position where you simply have to walk away from something because you're feeling 'the red mist come down' and reasoned debate taking a back seat. It's very hard to hold your tongue sometimes when you feel passionately about something. I often err on the side of letting my tongue have its say and it's gotten me a reputation for abrasiveness around this parish. I just think of it as speaking my mind.

With regard to Bush, I could list a whole host of reasons why I find the man and his policies (if his they be) contemptible, despicable, odious and abhorrent. But I won't because you started this thread to get away from such things. I should alert you however to the fact that you will continue to find such comments about him in my journal. I didn't think it was possible for me to despise someone's persona more than I despised that of Margaret Thatcher, but I was wrong. I'll say no more on the matter in this thread.

However, I will respond to your 'tools of statecraft' observation since you've brought that up here. I didn't get the impression in the journal thread that the 'tools' were listed with the idea of Bush being the sole proprietor, but that doesn't mean his administration hasn't used them. It ought to be the case that the more powerful you are the more responsible you should be, but mostly it seems to be the other way round - a fault of human nature? We're hardly likely to see the heads of state of countries such as Belgium, Norway, or Spain (and I choose those examples deliberately as being 'modern') involved in the sort of shenanigans that the US has involved itself in over the past century and which the UK used to but now often simply follows along like a hanger-on. I don't choose to use historical administrations and leaders because we're supposedly living in more enlightened times which, no doubt, people have thought throughout history, admittedly.

I believe that most of us have gotten past the idea of countries invading and occupying other countries without first being attacked by that country's military forces - ie, imperialism. People will cite the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, but when the IRA killed Airey Neave in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster and Earl Mountbatten on his boat, the British army didn't invade Dublin and occupy Eire.

I don't pretend to know a whole about the New American Century people or their policies. From what little I do understand though I believe them to be imperialists and I know them to be using Bush and his administration to achieve their objectives. They're the real 'you're either with us or you're against us people'. They're pulling the strings. And up to now they've pulling them rather succesfully. Eventually they'll fall as all who try to control society for their own ends and enrichment do, but they'll take (have already taken) a lot of innocents with them and many of them will amass (have already amassed) a substantial fortune on the backs of people who can ill afford it.

In being American and controlling the American population they've been given an easy time of it because Americans are generally less aware of what's going on than are citizens of other comparable countries, and less likely to do anything about it. American governments down the years have been very careful to nurture the idea that Americans have it so good that there's really no need for them to change anything. They've nurtured cheap and abundant goods, a comfortable lifestyle (for most Americans), the American Dream. The possibility of a poll tax riot kind of reaction is really not likely here. The civil rights marches and movement of the 60s was an exception and unlikely to happen again. Here in America it generally seems to take an abuse of power ending in a well publicised death(s) to turn public opinion, such as Kent State University.

Hmmm... apart from the fact that it's taken me well over 30 minutes to write this and my stomach is rumbling because I've yet to have breakfast, I seem to have come to an impasse. I'll just say that as long as Bush allies himself with and allows himself to be used by the NAC people, it will always be Bush = bad as far as I'm concerned. As long as he allies himself with the religious right it will always be Bush = bad as far as I'm concerned. As long he calls himself a compassionate conservative and then shows a complete lack of compassion for anyone who doesn't think his way, it will always be Bush = bad as far as I'm concerned.

I really need my breakfast.

BH, sir, you are entitled to your usual well thought out and reasoned opinion.

The impasse I reach, oh my brother, is that there cannot be a debate. If we're not careful the Fluffy Liberals take one trench and the Nasty Republicans another and then they all indulge in a bit of the old ultraviolence.

That's not debate. It's just people restating their position over and over. I think I said that I didn't feel like playing Devil's Advocate on the issue and once Mudhooks gets involved in anything I usually go quiet - because although she's often right something about the way she phrases things brings out the worst in me - she really doesn't deserve to be ill-used on that score.

Anyway.

I certainly didn't want to Felonius Monk my way out of the conversation and I do believe in respecting people's journals and local rules. And most of all, I didn't want to annoy you. So from what I see from your post, we're in agreement on the basics and nearly in agreement on Mr. Bush and IMHO that's all that really matters.

for the long post. Decent of you, old chap. If/when I stop by Austin, the first couple of rounds are on me.

And that, ladies, gentlemen and those still awaiting the committee's decision, is why I prefer to confine my debating activities these days to my (and my friends') journal(s). Since you unsubbed from the thread allow me to point you to this, if you havn't already lurked your way there:
F50359?thread=3136727?thread=&post=36330029#p36330029

And, of course, I shall take you up on your kind offer