1
   

Join us in the world of George W. Bush: Obstinance

 
 
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2004 09:17 am
Stay the Course
Join us in the world of George W. Bush, where you never have to change your mind -- or the oil in your car.
By Charles P. Pierce
American Prospect Web Exclusive: 09.23.04

Just recently, I decided to be a little more flexible about being obstinate. When I was growing up, we were taught that it was not such a good thing to be obstinate. In fact, I first heard the word "obstinate" from a nun who was telling me that I was obstinate, and for a while I thought it was something like being a Methodist. I gradually came to learn that what Sister was talking about was that I wasn't being flexible enough in my thinking to accept unreservedly every word of rigid dogma that was being spooned into me. This made me even more confused than the doctrine of transubstantiation did -- and I spent a lot of years as completely baffled, which I might have been anyway, but surely the nun didn't help matters at all.

Anyway, I was in college before I realized that being a bit less inflexible on certain important personal issues not only made me more relaxed but also guaranteed I'd never have to stay in on Saturday night. At that point, I decided that I was going to be stubborn about being flexible. Now certain important Christian thinkers, beloved in the motels that dot that lovely New Orleans neighborhood known as Out By The Airport, might term me a "moral relativist" for having lived my life this way. I might even well be called a "pagan," though I'm not, largely because I look stupid in antlers. To hell -- you should pardon the expression -- with the hot-sheet parsons, I figured. I was happy.

Then George W. Bush changed my life.

He showed me at last that the nun had been wrong, that being obstinate was all that really matters in this life. No more sifting of endless options. No more of that exhausting reflection. Decide what you're going to do and, evidence and common sense be damned, just go do it. Who are you going to believe, yourself or your own lying eyes? It was not a good thing to be stubborn about being flexible. Far better to loosen up and get really obstinate.

(I took the president quite seriously as a role model because, well into adulthood, he apparently was quite stubborn in his flexibility toward the healing properties of strong drink and toward the relative necessity of actually working for a living. Of course, he was most stubborn in his flexibility toward the state of Alabama in 1972 -- which he evidently regarded as a noncorporeal state, much like the state of grace in that you didn't have to be there to actually be there.)

Now, I do not have a large military and a compliant Congress, so I am unable to start a war and then obstinately insist that the country I have invaded is rapidly turning into Rhode Island when all the available evidence indicates that it actually is turning into the Land of Mordor. However, it's an approach easily adapted to the small but surmountable problems of daily living.

Like the oil light, for example.

For a week or so, the oil light on my dashboard was blinking red. Then it went red and stayed that way. Many of my friends pointed out that this could not be a good thing. I kept driving the car until, one afternoon, there was a loud pinging sound and a rod came flying through the hood and killed a pigeon about 10 feet above my car. We towed it into the shop (the car, not the pigeon, which had fallen on the hood and stayed there), where the mechanic clucked at me.

"How long had the light been on?" he asked.

"Well," I told him, "the light isn't the important thing. The thrown rod isn't the important thing. Not even the pigeon is the important thing. The important thing is that I had gotten where I was going all those days. Until I couldn't, of course."

He was dubious. He pointed to the hole in the hood. He pointed to the corpse of the pigeon.

"Your car," he said, "cannot move any more."

"Nonsense," I told him. "My car is on the march and it isn't going back."

"It isn't going anywhere," he carped.

This went on for about half an hour. Ordinarily I'd have been concerned about not having a car, and about how much the repairs would cost, and I might've even spared a moment to regret the loss of the pigeon, which really was a mess. But this was much better. I simply insisted that there was no problem here, over and over again, and then I walked home.

A neighbor greeted me on my front lawn.

"Thank God you're back," he said. "There is a huge snapping turtle in your backyard."

I looked over the fence, and he was right. The thing was big and lumpy and unsightly enough to be governor of California. I came back around the front.

"It's OK," I told my neighbor. "It's gone."

There was a loud champing sound behind me.

"My lord," said my neighbor, "it's eating the picnic table."

"No, it isn't," I told him. "The picnic table is on the march and it isn't going back."

"It's a pile of splinters," said my neighbor, "and now the thing is after the fence."

"It's doing no such thing," I told him. "Look, there's a new section of fence right there."

My neighbor had started backing away at this point.

"No," I told him, "look: It's a great new section of fence, fresh paint and everything."

The champing sound got louder. I think my neighbor was running now.

I went in the house and luxuriated in my newfound peace. It is liberating only to make one decision a day, and to stick to it, no matter what evidence arises to the contrary, no matter how many pigeons die or how many turtles attack. I felt great moral clarity about myself. I felt at one with the American people -- at least those American people who don't fix my car or live on either side of me. A couple of more days and this just might be a foreign policy or something. Then I can find someone to deal with the turtle, which is starting up on the gazebo out back.

Colin Powell's number is around here someplace.
------------------------------------------------

Charles P. Pierce is a Boston Globe Magazine staff writer and a contributing writer for Esquire. He also appears regularly on National Public Radio.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,483 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2004 05:42 pm
Kind of like the black knight in the Monty Python version of the Holy Grail.




Bush: Have at you!

Kerry: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.

Bush: Oh, had enough, eh?

Kerry: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.

Bush: Yes I have.

Kerry: Look!

Bush: Just a flesh wound.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 05:18 am
uhhh... i thought it was abstinance? if only his mother had practiced it..
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 05:54 am
Some believe that staying the course is the best way to make undesireable situtations, such as in Iraq, better. Bush and this citizen are among them.

Kerry and his supporters are not.

Simple as that.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 07:02 am
After ONLY 18 months, the WORLD is seeing an amazing transformation that is not yet complete.

AFTER ONLY 18 MONTHS, there is a firm date for free elections in a nation that never saw one in it's past.
AMAZING, after ONLY 18 months.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 08:46 am
Any idea who is on the ballot, woiyo?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:05 am
Of course not. Don't ask silly questions like that, Squinney!

Also, don't ask how they plan on holding said elections when there are large parts of the country we don't control.

Don't ask what will happen if they elect someone who wants to kick America out immediately.

There's a lot of AMAZING things going on in Iraq right now.. but my guess is that an election won't be one of them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:17 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course not. Don't ask silly questions like that, Squinney!

Also, don't ask how they plan on holding said elections when there are large parts of the country we don't control.

Don't ask what will happen if they elect someone who wants to kick America out immediately.

There's a lot of AMAZING things going on in Iraq right now.. but my guess is that an election won't be one of them.

Cycloptichorn


Let us hope, for the sake of freedom loving Iraqis, that you are dead wrong in your "guess".
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:20 am
there will be an election....lots of countries have elections......the result of the election in this case is already decided however.....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:25 am
Let us hope I am wrong!

At what point do you stop hoping and start doing something about it? At what point do you hold the leaders of this folly of a war accountable for their mistakes?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:30 am
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Let us hope I am wrong!

At what point do you stop hoping and start doing something about it? At what point do you hold the leaders of this folly of a war accountable for their mistakes?

Cycloptichorn


You know the answer to your excellent question C. George W. has never been held accountable for his life-long serial failures. Poppy and his friends have always bailed him out.

Bush W keeps referring to "consequences" in every speech he's ever made. Strange isn't it that W. has never had to suffer the consequences of his actions. We can make it finally happen in this election.

BBB
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:34 am
Cyclo - It is not important for ME to know who is on THEIR ballot.

For 10 years following Gulf War 1 this Govt and the UN were HOPING things would change. That HOPE died when many UN Member Nations including France Germany and Russia got involved in the corrupt UN Oil for Food program and paid extortion to Saddam. HOPE ENDED and ACTION began when GW decided to ENFORCE the resolutions passed by the UN.

We held the "leader" responsible for the war accountible. We found Saddam buried in his "plot" and the US, Briton and Australia (among others) are now moving forward to develop a MORE STABLE environment in Iraq.

I suppose you supported the failed efforts of the prior 10 years hoping Saddam would become a humanitarian.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:38 am
Quote:
Cyclo - It is not important for ME to know who is on THEIR ballot.


It isn't? What if it's someone else who doesn't like America? The last time it was important enough to invade them. Are we going to let someone else in who hates us? Because that could very easily happen.

Quote:
HOPE ENDED and ACTION began when GW decided to ENFORCE the resolutions passed by the UN.


You're half right. Hope for a peaceful solution did end that day. Hope for us catching OBL ended that day. Hope for the US not acting like complete hypocrites (we are in violation of over 50 UN resolutions) ended that day.

Quote:
I suppose you supported the failed efforts of the prior 10 years hoping Saddam would become a humanitarian.


I support any efforts to solve a problem without turning to war. I think ten years is the blink of an eye in political terms, I think Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, I think that we went to war for different reasons than what the American public was told.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:50 am
Cyclo - very clever how you passed over ....."For 10 years following Gulf War 1 this Govt and the UN were HOPING things would change. That HOPE died when many UN Member Nations including France Germany and Russia got involved in the corrupt UN Oil for Food program and paid extortion to Saddam. "

1) It is important for our elected officials to follow who is on the ballot in Iraq.

2) Do you think Kuwait felt that Iraq was not a threat? Do you think that Saddam was saving the BILLIONS he received in Oil for Food for a rainy day? Do you really believe Saddam did not posess the means to develop WMD and use or sell them?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 10:59 am
Quote:
Cyclo - very clever how you passed over ....."For 10 years following Gulf War 1 this Govt and the UN were HOPING things would change. That HOPE died when many UN Member Nations including France Germany and Russia got involved in the corrupt UN Oil for Food program and paid extortion to Saddam. "


I did? We didn't hope things would change, we DID change them.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. Not even it's neighbors, really; their ability to launch full-scale attacks was severely limited by problems with troops and weapons during the 13-year period following GW1.

Corruption amongst France, Germany, the UN, whoever, doesn't surprise me at all. Our own governement is rife with such corruption today. This is not a valid point whatsoever.


Quote:
1) It is important for our elected officials to follow who is on the ballot in Iraq.


Now, this is as far as it has to go with you, becuase you are content to follow those who would tell you what is right and wrong. Many of us are not content to be led around by the nose.

Quote:
2) Do you think Kuwait felt that Iraq was not a threat? Do you think that Saddam was saving the BILLIONS he received in Oil for Food for a rainy day? Do you really believe Saddam did not posess the means to develop WMD and use or sell them?


'BILLIONS' are chump change these days. Saddam would have needed a lot more money than that to effectively make an attack on another country happen; war is expensive, as we are finding out every day.

And yes, I truly believe that Saddam didn';t have the means to develop WMD. EVERY piece of evidence available supports that belief. You'd be hard pressed to find a piece of counter-evidence (such as, a WMD of any sort, or a functional WMD progam).

I ask again. Are you an 18 year old male? Do you believe there is any way of solving disputes other than violence?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 11:40 am
Cyc,

Why do you keep repeating the idea that Saddam was not a threat because he couldn't afford or manage a war with another country? No one has claimed he would or could.

The worry stems from associates of Abu Nidal and al Zarqawi and Bin Laden getting their hands on a weapon Saddam provides them to attack a target he wants them to in exchange for unfettered access to Iraq and future weapon donations.

Saddam was hardly a defensless child being picked on by bullies. Sometimes violence IS the only alternative.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 11:48 am
Given that the route we chose to take

A: Didn't net ANY of those weapons that Saddam was going to provide (funny how he was going to do that, seeing as he didn't have any or any programs with the capability of building any)

B: Opened up the country (Iraq) to huge amounts of terrorism and anti-US sentiment while killing thousands of innocent Iraqis

C: Cost the US huge sums of money which could have been used to help secure, say, our borders to keep said weapons from being brought in

and let us not forget

D: Severely curtailed our ability to find and stop those terrorists who WANT to use the weapons against us by tying up our military for years

apparently there IS another answer besides violence, because violence apparently didn't solve one damn thing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 12:26 pm
He had money from Russia, France and others to purchase weapons, to hide weapons, to move weapons, to build weapons.

We know now, thankfully, that saddam wasn't as far ahead as he appeared to be. In 91, it was found that saddam was much farther along in building a nuke than we first thought possible. Without the war, we still wouldn't know what weapons Saddam had or didn't have. That alone makes the war a worthy effort.

Turns out Khaddafi was much further along than the UN believed him to be as well.

It is unfortunate that innocents die in a war, but we can not let that dictate our actions as it certainly won't stop the bad guys. They kill innocents every day. Some merely for something to do, others in hopes of a ransom. They kill innocents on purpose. That to me speaks volumes.

I do not understand who you can think our abilities have been curtailed. Iraq is now one less place terrorists will find a safe place to train or to get weapons. Palestinain terrorists find that it is much less lucrative to send their children to Allah than it once was.

Quote:
apparently there IS another answer besides violence, because violence apparently didn't solve one damn thing.


You are wrong.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 12:29 pm
Abu Nidal
[quote="McGentrix"]Cyc,

The worry stems from associates of Abu Nidal and al Zarqawi and Bin Laden getting their hands on a weapon Saddam provides them to attack a target he wants them to in exchange for unfettered access to Iraq and future weapon donations.[/quote]


In November 2002, Abu Nidal died in Baghdad.

George W. keeps making the same mistake in his speeches. He can't tell the difference between Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 12:31 pm
BBB,

I am aware of when abu Nidal died. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Join us in the world of George W. Bush: Obstinance
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:46:17