Seriously.
I was going to write about some upcoming books in the lastest couple of issues of Booklist and maybe link to some cool stuff that other folks had mentioned on their sites and also make sure all my French Canadian readers knew about this great new book on the history of hockey (perfect for you Cecil!). But then I read the news today, and after struggling to swallow the insanity of the proposed budget, which is all about funding a war no one wants anymore in the name of fighting "the global of war on terror" and keeping us all safe so we can die from increased violent crime back home while our undereducated sick children roam the streets in packs like wild dogs, I just couldn't think about books anymore.
Oh yeah, and I forgot about the part where we are reeling on a daily basis from the increasing impact of global warming and minimal federal effort to stop it.
And then I read about how we can not stop the war, or even have our elected representatives say we don't like the war, because "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds." (That's from Senator Gregg's resolution.)
Let's be clear, we will do nothing to stall or shorten this war and nothing to reduce troop levels in the field, because that would send a message that we don't support the troops.
Yes, getting them out of the war, or even saying we don't like the war, want the war or believe in the reasons behind the war, means we don't support the troops. Here's why the Republican minority wanted a vote requiring 60 votes to pass on all four proposed resolutions today:
Both Democrats and Republicans think the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would be concerned about the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle.
Because what we do in DC today, by refusing to expand funding or by not funding more troops means we are harming troops in the field. Forget about sniper fire or IEDs or grenades or the rest - saying you don't want to fund the war is where troops really face harm. (And mind you none of these resolutions stop funding, they just say they want to. We haven't even gotten to the do anything part yet, we can't get past the say we want to do something part.)
Even the architect of one of these resolutions has no clue what he's saying:
Gregg appeared to struggle to define the purpose of his proposal, insisting at one point that it is vital to protecting U.S. troops but then acknowledging that none of the resolutions under consideration would have any impact.
I think this is all bullshit political posturing and I have no patience for any of it. Part of my anger might be due to my latest reading, If I Die in a Combat Zone by Tim O'Brien. It's one of his books that I missed several years ago, when I was falling in love with The Things They Carried and In The Lake of the Woods. Here's O'Brien on what happens when a soldier goes home:
"After the war, he can begin to be bitter. Those who point at and degrade his bitterness, who declare that it's all a part of war and that this is a job which must be done - to those patriots I will recommend a postwar vacation to this land, where they can swim in the sea, lounge under a fine sun, stroll in the quaint countryside, wife and son in hand. Certainly there will be a mine or two still in the earth. Alpha Company did not detonate all of them."
Forgive O'Brien for his anger, he had been a soldier in Vietnam for several months as he was writing notes for what became his amazing memoir. You remember Vietnam don't you? That was the last fucked-up mess we kept fighting merely because we didn't know how to stop and didn't want to let down the troops. So much easier to give them heroic burials then to bring them home you see; so much more patriotic to hand out folded flags, slap yellow ribbon stickers on our SUVs and sing soulful country songs about God and country.
I'm not done reading my book; I expect to be even more pissed off tomorrow.







