Rambling Rhodes

More like 60%, according to FOX News. And we're talking 60% of registered voters: 8 million people in a country with a population of 25 million. And that's how many voted. Whichever party wins this deal could take quite a bit less than half of the total votes because the ballot is so thoroughly divided.

That kind of success can be the kind that isn't in a country where the losing party shoots at you.

I'm glad so many people had the balls to turn out, but I'm thinking we're getting a little ahead of ourselves calling this a win for democracy, or Iraq.

I'm hardly going so far as to say it was a definitive victory either for Democracy or Iraq, but it IS a victory for Iraqi people who defied the warnings of terrorists. Amongst all the prognostications that the elections would be a bloodbath, I'm greatly relieved and a bit more optimistic that the situation in Iraq isn't quite so dire.

I think this falls under the heading of what my friend John Galt calls, "The revolution of lowered expectations."

*sigh* Yes, Joshua. Considering I had no "expectations" for this election, I suppose it was a revolution. Fuck dude. If you can't feel hopeful about this, you can't feel hopeful about anything.

I think it's about 40% of the population under 18 there...

If you can't feel hopeful about this, you can't feel hopeful about anything.

Ha.

I’m just glad I’m stupid enough to be hopeful. I’m glad I’m naive enough to suspect Iraqis actually wanted to vote. I’m very glad I’m not so aslosh with solipsistic hatred that any success in Iraq makes me trot out a cynical riposte so the rest of my buddies on Olympus will nod in wry assent. I’m glad that a picture of a mother holding her daughter to cast the ballot reminds me that this is number two in a series. All other things aside – which is a difficult thing to posit, I know – I’m glad to be on the side of holding elections. In the end I’m glad to be glad. And now I will go skip through the daisies and sing happy songs about bunnies, because I am obviously a fool. What was the cover story of the Village Voice I saw in the library today? “Bush’s plan to destroy the world.” Destroy it some more, George. James Lileks

But, by all means, Joshua, wallow away. That seems to make you happy so, well, whatever makes you tick my man.

Ryan, does the word "groupthink" mean anything to you? You and James Lileks (and Michele Catalano and Mitch Berg and…) have a psychological explanation for every voice that criticizes the U.S. program in Iraq. Awash with solipsistic hatred? Give me a fucking break.

You know those posts I put up on my blog about how poor rural voters might have had reasons other than guns god and gays for voting Republican in the last two elections? It's called critical thinking. You might try it sometime, shithead: I'm not interested in skipping through the daisies because this vote doesn't necessarily mean anything. You look at the history of countries that collapsed into violence during the 20th Century, a lot of them had recently democratically elected governments with an unstable popular mandate from a heavily armed populace. It's not a sure thing, obviously. Who knows—maybe this time it'll take. But the election itself is up there with, "Mission accomplished." Nothing's fucking accomplished until there's infrastructure in place: until Iraq has a stable security force, a stable communications system, and a popular culture that endorses its own government. We're trying to build a house during a hurricane, and personally I'm about up to here with fucking cheerleaders throwing a fucking party every time someone drives home a nail.

Yeah yeah, bitter cynical blah blah blah.

Jesus fuck.

Groupthink = Any mindset that runs counter to what Joshua thinks.

I'm not throwing a party. I'm simply optimistic.

And as for "critical" thinking, I'm pretty sure I've exhibited critical thinking skills on more than a few occasions in my countless debates with you and others, so in that regard you can just go piss up a tree.

If you don't think the vote means anything, that's your thing. When I see images of people with tears in their eyes because they actually got to vote, I tend to think the vote, you know, maybe means something to them. Must be groupthink, I suppose.

Not to mention that if folks like Raed are to be believed, many people who are voting are simply more afraid of the Government than of the Insurgents. Which does explain why so many people say they are voting for the current prime minster rather than the SCIRI candidate (or whatever the front group for SCIRI is).

What I think is odd is how our blantaly left-liberal Mainstream Media who wants nothing more than to embarass a sitting president has completely forgotten about the "one person, one vote, one time" meme that was so popular among Administration officials and right-wing bloggers shortly after the Statue-pulling-down triumphalism.

I'm awaiting for someone who takes his profession as a journalist very seriously to correct this, which he has the power to do being a blogger... as we all know they can take down any biased reporter they want.

I notice, David, that you spend a considerable amount of time putting a lot of stock into what Raed and Riverbend have to say, but you remain rather quiet on what Healing Iraq and Iraq The Model opine. Reasons for that? Hmmmm? Oh, right. . . groupthink.

I read Riverbend from time to time, Raed not so much.

As for the media, David, I'm curious, what was the big story about the Iraqi elections, from your perspective?

To the rest of your rhetorical spittle-fest, I can only respond: gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble.

Groupthink = Any mindset that runs counter to what Joshua thinks.

Yeah, Ryan, that's exactly what I said.

Listen fuckface you're attributing motives to me (solipsistic hatred) that aren't accurate and using it as an excuse to write me off with some right-wing pop psychology bullshit. You're not discussing my points on their merits. Much like the leftwing assholes who write the Bush victory off to guns god and gays. There are practical reasons that I'm not terribly impressed by this election.

When I see images of people with tears in their eyes because they actually got to vote, I tend to think the vote, you know, maybe means something to them.

You let someone out of jail they're going to shed tears of releif. It's very dramatic and if someone takes a picture you might get the impression that something important has happened. But if they still can't get a job and they still don't take ownership for consequences and they have the same friends and the same influences-- guess what? That tearful moment of freedom doesn't mean a fucking thing. I would expect most people to know that, but no-- people insist on believing that history is a collection of events rather than a confluence of circumstances: the president gets out of the plane in his flight suit, declares "mission accomplished", the music comes up and the credits roll. Saddam Hussein's captured, the music comes up and the credits roll. The Iraqi votes, the music comes up, and the credits roll.

What kind of fucking sap looks at something like that and thinks, "Oh, this is important! This'll make the difference!"

History's full of those moments. If the infrastructure and commitment isn't there to justify them, they're often followed by the sound of explosions, gunfire and screaming.

Yes, because a criminal being released from prison is entirely tantamount to a nation experimenting with their first Democratic election in three decades. Totally the same thing. *sheesh* Dip back into your analogy bag and try for something else, good chap.

Oh, and by the way, I remember cringing when I saw the whole "mission accomplished" bullshit unfold, thinking "ooh, that's gonna come back to haunt him."

Yes, because a criminal being released from prison is entirely tantamount to a nation experimenting with their first Democratic election in three decades. Totally the same thing. *sheesh* Dip back into your analogy bag and try for something else, good chap.

I'm sorry: "criminal being"?

So, A of all good chap, the analogy is perfectly appropriate. Contrary to the implications of your "criminal being" crack, most criminals are criminals for reasons. Most of them are regular people who had to compete with some fucked-up circumstances and went the wrong side of the law. Some of them are drug addicts. Some of them were abused kids. The overwhelming majority of them are poor. They lead depressing and traumatic lives, and many of the behaviors that they commit in response to this state of affairs have been criminalized, so a lot of them end up in jail. Not unlike a region that had the misfortune to find itself liberated from the clutches of Ottoman Empire just in time to become a mandate in another kind of empire that was in the process of developing a fossil fuels addiction.

B of all good chap, all that aside, you're pretending to ignore my point because you're too dense to comprehend the analogy. As impressed as I am by your willingness to lay your intellectual pride aside and pretend to be an idiot just to win an argument, I still call bullshit on your cheap-ass evasion.

C of all good chap, let me put it to you this way: pictures of crying impassioned people don't mean a fucking thing. Period. If I cry real hard before a fight, does that mean I'm going to win? No. If I cry real hard before a math test, does that mean I'm going to pass? No. Physical and mental conditioning: background, circumstance and ability determine whether or not I win. Iraq is competing with forces that seek to destroy it. Crying over blue fingers isn't going to win the day. A working government requires more than crying and cheering and it surely to fuck requires more than 60% support from the population.

It's fascinating, sometimes, just how some people choose to read something in front of them.

Take Joshua, for example. When he reads "a criminal being released," he goes and assumes that Ryan Rhodes--'cause he's racist and prejudiced, dontcha' know--meant it as a "a criminal 'being,'" as in a criminal is a creature other than human.

Yet, what Ryan Rhodes typed, and what should be pretty obvious to most readers of the English language, was "a criminal BEING RELEASED," as in "the act of releasing a criminal." It's a semantic thing, you see. And, again, I find it interesting that Joshua read it in the only possible light that makes me out to be ridiculously prejudicial.

And Ryan Rhodes has no idea why he suddenly started writing in the third person. One of his other personalities must have taken over.

That's great, Ryan. I'm glad you didn't write "a criminal being". So are you saying that your definition of "criminal" for purposes of that statement was non-essentialist?

Oh, for fucking-PC-sake.

crim·i·nal adj. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
Relating to the administration of penal law.
-- Guilty of crime.
-- Characteristic of a criminal.

What, exactly, is it about my use of the word "criminal" that's got your undies in such a tight bunch? You wrote "let someone out of jail," I wrote "criminal," and now for some reason that's beyond me, you're trying to parse the two?

Ryan? You're evading the argument.

*sigh* No, Joshua, I'm not. The argument was basically over when you maintained that the election was no more or less momentous than someone (a *gasp* criminal) being let out of jail. You don't think the Iraqi elections were significant; I do. Argument is at an impasse, and it's rapidly getting boring. Then you threw some prejudicial bullshit at me, which I found just a bit insulting and took issue with. Evading the argument my ass.

(a *gasp* criminal)

Gobble gobble gobble.

You don't think the Iraqi elections were significant; I do.

That's what it boils down to because it's all you've got, Ryan. You get bored when you run out of information and ideas. I offered up some fairly concise reasons why I think the elections are not as significant as its cheerleaders in the press would have us believe: substantially low turn-out, armed populace, deadly ethnic rivalries. To which you replied that, A, I "can't feel hopeful about anything", B I'm "aslosh with solipsistic hatred" and C (kind of a last-ditch), politically correct. The reasons you've given for why the election is significant? "Images of people with tears in their eyes because they actually got to vote."

How touching. Layne would be proud.

Then you start quipping with me about the appropriateness of my analogies.

No wonder you're bored. You're practically asleep.

substantially low turn-out, armed populace, deadly ethnic rivalries

Hmm, wow, you just kind of described U.S. elections.

Never mind me, though. I'll be going back to sleep now.

Hmm, wow, you just kind of described U.S. elections.

You're quipping again, and it pisses me off. Low voter turn-out due to apathy is a different animal than low voter turn-out due to fear of terrorism and boycotting. You know that perfectly well but, as usual, you want to play rhetorical games rather than addressing the issue.

You'd make a great politician, Ryan. You should run.