Walter Pincus of the Washington Post has it right:
If ever there was a costly relic of Cold War spending that needs a dramatic overhaul it’s the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent, a program with a price tag of $355 billion or more over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Yesterday I was walking through Arlington National Cemetery, when I saw the following signs dictating that those in the cemetery should be solemn.
This sign made me think of the two-minute video in which John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) explains that people commonly confuse seriousness (which can be properly accompanied by laughter and frivolity, often enabling inspiration and catharsis) with solemnity. What is the purpose of solemnity?
It serves pomposity, and the self-important always know at some level of their consciousness that their egotism is going to be punctured by humor. That is why they see it as a threat. So they dishonestly pretend that their deficiency makes their view more substantial, when it only makes them feel bigger. [raspberry]. Humor is an essential part of spontaneity and an essential part of playfulness, and an essential part of the creative activity that we need to solve problems, no matter how serious they may be.
Apparently, humor (and other forms of free expression--something for which the soldiers allegedly died for--is more powerful than bullets. We wouldn't want people walking through the cemetery speaking out, especially using the weapon of humor, to question whether many of these soldiers died for lies, be it the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident, the alleged weapons of mass destruction, or the other lie from the steady stream of lies that has kept America constantly at war.
But what happens when President Obama aids the enemy? Will we as a nation insist that the President should also be subject to the law? Are we a nation of laws, or corrupt banana republic which only enforces the law against those powerless to resist?
Bill Moyers comments on the Obama Administration's decision to not bomb Syria, at least for now: >
Barack Obama: “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.” Matthew Rothschild responds at Common Dreams:
Was the U.S. an anchor of global security and an enforcer of international agreements when it overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, or the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954? Is the world a better place because the U.S. helped overthrow Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government in Chile almost exactly 40 years ago? Is the world a better place because the United States killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and because we dropped 20 million gallons of napalm (waging our own version of chemical warfare) on those countries? Is the world a better place because the United States supported brutal governments in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s, which killed tens of thousands of their own people? Is the world a better place because George Bush waged an illegal war against Iraq and killed between 100,000 and a million civilians? And what international agreements was the United States enforcing when it tortured people after 9/11?Bill Maher:
Forget the Syria debate, we need to debate on why we're always debating whether to bomb someone because we're starting to look, not so much like the world's policeman, but more like George Zimmerman -- itching to use force and then pretending it's because we had no choice.