7/10/07
This morning, The Wall Street Journal, apparently exhausted from its ceaseless marathon of Bush cheerleading, took a break to report some actual news: A report to Congress has put the total cost of the Iraq war at $400 billion, so far.
This got me to thinking that critics of the Iraq war are ignoring one of the more enduring (albeit, compared to the truly stunning loss of life, utter destruction of a sovereign nation, and creation of a hotbed of terrorist activity that will plague us, and the entire world, perhaps for centuries, not the most salient) costs of the Iraq war. I am speaking of the fiscal costs of the war, but not “only” the $400 billion we have blown so far. I am speaking of the long run ramifications of this, to use a woefully inadequate word, counterproductive spending.
In the past, when someone, usually, but certainly not exclusively, a Democrat, proposed some asinine spending bill, those who still believed in fiscal prudence, usually, but certainly not exclusively, Republicans, could counter that, as desirable as the program might be (usually with a well deserved roll of the eyes), we simply could not afford it. Now, however, the proponent of the pointless program can counter “Well, if we could find $400 billion to spend on the Iraq war, we can find money for (Here insert the name of the program that will not only raid the treasury but have ghastly unintended consequences that will “require” yet another fiscal abomination to “solve.”).” Such an argument will become the Third Millennia equivalent of “If we can put a man on the moon, we can (Here insert whatever the speaker wishes the taxpayers to fund in order to fortify the spondulicks of his or her campaign contributors or some utopian goal that bears absolutely no relationship to putting a man on the moon.).”
One of the last arguments against runaway spending and kudzu-like growth of government has thus been destroyed by that self-proclaimed champion of “conservative” values, President Bush.
The Pontificator
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
WHAT'S UP WITH MICHAEL SAVAGE?
7/10/07
I enjoy listening to Michael Savage once in awhile. I know, I know. There is the (very) thinly veiled racism and homophobia and the not-at-all veiled xenophobia, the last of which Dr. Savage would not deny, indeed, in which he would take pride. There is also his general churlishness and ranting and raving, and his apparent complete loss of control at times, but what honest person, or at least what honest talk-radio listener, does not enjoy a good rant, and not just now and then? I am not sure if all of the above is sincere or if it is for effect. Having lost a minor talk radio gig for toning down the ranting and raving and for (Surprise!) not having a clearly defined and easily explainable and classifiable world view, I know the value that medium places on outrageous opinions expressed at the highest possible decibel level.
But even if Dr. Savage’s dark side is real, there are things I like about him. First, he is smart, an accomplished academic and author, intellectually several rungs above your typical talk radio host. Second, his underlying theme of borders, language, and culture, and his dire predictions of what will happen to this country as a result of unfettered immigration and unchecked free trade, though disturbing and dystopian, contain large elements of truth. Third, on the surface, he has a growing, though inconsistent, contempt for George Bush. (It is this attitude toward the President, though springing from entirely different origins, that also attracts me to Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller, by the way.)
The cynic in me, however, is growing more and more convinced that Dr. Savage, despite his clear intelligence and unusual insight, is a mere fixture in the Bush media machine. He is clearly not one of the vacuum headed parrots, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, ceaselessly repeating the banausic panegyrics to the Bush administration that have become the stock in trade of “right wing” talk radio. (One is reminded of the Twilight Zone episode “Eye of the Beholder,” in which the many television sets in the hospital ward never change from a program featuring the leader endlessly repeating “One leader, one people, one thought, one idea,” but that is another conversation.) Dr. Savage increasingly attacks the President, usually for his stance on immigration and his conduct of the war. (Dr. Savage apparently thinks that just about any conduct, no matter how reprehensible, on the part of our soldiers should be excused. After all, it’s war.) Dr. Savage is also starting to criticize the war itself, arguing that it just might have its origins in Mr. Bush’s desire to enrich his defense contractor constituency. (Gee, do you think?) However, whenever Dr. Savage attacks Mr. Bush, he usually ends that line of discussion with an admonition that we had better support Bush, or at least his “war on terrorism,” because the Democrats are far worse. For example, on the evening of July 3, Savage had one of his “experts” come on and blast away at Bush on immigration and spending, then go on to say that the Democrats are committing political suicide by not seizing on these issues but rather opposing Bush on the very popular “war on terrorism.” (Talk about Republican myopia! But that, too, is grist for another conversation.) The “expert” went on to say that it was the duty of all Savage listeners to back Bush in the “war on terrorism” for fear the Democrats will “cut and run” in Iraq and leave our nation to the tender mercies of the “Islamofascists.” Dr. Savage readily agreed.
So is Dr. Savage just part of the big Bush media machine, designed to win the confidence of those conservatives who are justifiably infuriated with Bush over immigration, spending, or his conduct of the war, assuring them he is on their side, and then telling them that, as much as they, and he, of course, are unhappy with the President, they have no choice but to support him and, presumably, whatever Bush acolyte wins the Republican nomination? A cynic might think so.
The Pontificator
I enjoy listening to Michael Savage once in awhile. I know, I know. There is the (very) thinly veiled racism and homophobia and the not-at-all veiled xenophobia, the last of which Dr. Savage would not deny, indeed, in which he would take pride. There is also his general churlishness and ranting and raving, and his apparent complete loss of control at times, but what honest person, or at least what honest talk-radio listener, does not enjoy a good rant, and not just now and then? I am not sure if all of the above is sincere or if it is for effect. Having lost a minor talk radio gig for toning down the ranting and raving and for (Surprise!) not having a clearly defined and easily explainable and classifiable world view, I know the value that medium places on outrageous opinions expressed at the highest possible decibel level.
But even if Dr. Savage’s dark side is real, there are things I like about him. First, he is smart, an accomplished academic and author, intellectually several rungs above your typical talk radio host. Second, his underlying theme of borders, language, and culture, and his dire predictions of what will happen to this country as a result of unfettered immigration and unchecked free trade, though disturbing and dystopian, contain large elements of truth. Third, on the surface, he has a growing, though inconsistent, contempt for George Bush. (It is this attitude toward the President, though springing from entirely different origins, that also attracts me to Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller, by the way.)
The cynic in me, however, is growing more and more convinced that Dr. Savage, despite his clear intelligence and unusual insight, is a mere fixture in the Bush media machine. He is clearly not one of the vacuum headed parrots, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, ceaselessly repeating the banausic panegyrics to the Bush administration that have become the stock in trade of “right wing” talk radio. (One is reminded of the Twilight Zone episode “Eye of the Beholder,” in which the many television sets in the hospital ward never change from a program featuring the leader endlessly repeating “One leader, one people, one thought, one idea,” but that is another conversation.) Dr. Savage increasingly attacks the President, usually for his stance on immigration and his conduct of the war. (Dr. Savage apparently thinks that just about any conduct, no matter how reprehensible, on the part of our soldiers should be excused. After all, it’s war.) Dr. Savage is also starting to criticize the war itself, arguing that it just might have its origins in Mr. Bush’s desire to enrich his defense contractor constituency. (Gee, do you think?) However, whenever Dr. Savage attacks Mr. Bush, he usually ends that line of discussion with an admonition that we had better support Bush, or at least his “war on terrorism,” because the Democrats are far worse. For example, on the evening of July 3, Savage had one of his “experts” come on and blast away at Bush on immigration and spending, then go on to say that the Democrats are committing political suicide by not seizing on these issues but rather opposing Bush on the very popular “war on terrorism.” (Talk about Republican myopia! But that, too, is grist for another conversation.) The “expert” went on to say that it was the duty of all Savage listeners to back Bush in the “war on terrorism” for fear the Democrats will “cut and run” in Iraq and leave our nation to the tender mercies of the “Islamofascists.” Dr. Savage readily agreed.
So is Dr. Savage just part of the big Bush media machine, designed to win the confidence of those conservatives who are justifiably infuriated with Bush over immigration, spending, or his conduct of the war, assuring them he is on their side, and then telling them that, as much as they, and he, of course, are unhappy with the President, they have no choice but to support him and, presumably, whatever Bush acolyte wins the Republican nomination? A cynic might think so.
The Pontificator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
