Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Another Word Beef. | Main | Toast to a Bagel »


Theo Boehm

I am very sorry to say that the Iraq war is lost, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

It's not that, with great effort and expense, a reasonable solution to the problems of Iraq and the region could not be cobbled together.  It's just that we have shown that we cannot do it.  The United States is incapable of sustained, intelligent effort.  We should stop throwing away lives and treasure on what has become a lost cause.

Of course, our failure now means that more lives and treasure may be spent in unknowable ways in a dark future.  But that has been mankind's fate since the beginnings of civilization, hasn't it?  Will we "never know peace?"  Who can say?

George Bush isn't the first President to believe false reports, to stretch the truth to persuade the country, to indulge in disastrous military fancies and retain foolish officials after they have been shown for what they are.  He is also not the first to strengthen the hand of the Executive in an attempt to dilute our hard-won Constitutional rights.  All that and more could be said of Abraham Lincoln or even Franklin Roosevelt.

No, what makes George Bush so bad is his singular unwisdom.  He should have known the history of what Americans have done and had some sense of what they might be expected to do today.  He should have understood what this country has become.  And he might have had the self-awareness to realize his is not a character inspiring enough to lead the nation and persuade the world.  At best, he could have engaged in a modest, narrowly-focused defense, which would have served him, America, and the rest of the world much better than what has happened.  We have blundered into imperial overreach, from which there is no escape save ignominy.

God help us all.

m. takhallus

I'm troubled by the implication that somehow the American people were not up to the demands of this war. Baloney.

We have now fought this war for longer than WW2. We will certainly fight this war longer than the Civil War. We have given Mr. Bush every man and every dollar he asked for. Every man, every dollar. And this despite the fact that Iraq had neither fired on Fort Sumter nor torpedoed ships in Pearl Harbor.

The only blame that applies to the American people is that we made bad decisions at the ballot box.

Theo Boehm

Please note that I said "the United States," not "the American people." The American people are indeed at the center, but the United States is a more complex concept. Leadership is a central element, and, as I said in strong terms above, Mr. Bush has been found wanting.

The American people put up with 40 years of a Cold War, demonstrating remarkable perseverance. But it has been proven throughout our history that the people of this country will not stand for long shooting wars. Presidents from Washington to Eisenhower understood this. Mr. Bush can join Lyndon Johnson among Presidents who remained ignorant of this history and have thus lead the nation into disasters.

That is not to excuse completely the American public. We are simply not the same people who won World War II or even sustained the Cold War. But if a person would be President, that person should be mindful of the people he or she proposes to lead, and not make fateful decisions justified by high-sounding platitudes that are obvious humbug.

And, yes, the American people have begun to speak at the ballot box. I sincerely hope that we are not exchanging one sort of humbug for another.


"You can not, not have a democracy where the people don’t have faith in their central government to take care of them."

You can't have a republic with a people who expect the government to take care of them.


I totally agree that our country does not posess the same type of people it once had to win wars. I think we've been polluted w/some kind of pinball, video-game virus that makes us think we can win w/in an alloted time frame- or just shut the damned box off until we want another go--- failure is not an option for us.

Uh, until you check Reality.

Someday, it'd be nice to hear voices of the ~real Iraqii people~ and hear what they have to say(maybe i'm ignorant of this computer- they are probably there, eh?).

When we started this fight- it was to remove Sadamn. So many factors have changed since the initial rush and topple of his regime- so many others have thrown their hats into the ring- albeit in opposition, not as an Ally(how the hell do you spell AllI??). Iran, Syria, Pakistan...

What to we have to gain--if we win? What do we have to lose--if we forfeit? What do we have to lose-if we win? I'm just an ignorant plough horse, but i opt to stay and stabilize Iraq.

I don't think we are losing. I think we are gaining. If it's too slow for some to be considered a gain-- then everyone has their defition of exactly what a win is.

So does AlQ.


Watching Graham on Sunday, I kept waiting for him to start whining something along the lines of "Terri wants to live". Sorry, but he sounded like the same old line regarding any talk that was not in agreement with Bush. He did not sound genuine.


GN -

Belonging to a party means that Graham has to soft-pedal any disagreements he may have with Bush (though he talked a lot more about mistakes and faiures in Iraq than Bush ever has). Belonging to a party (I don't know if you do) also means that many people won't be able to hear anything good in anything Graham says. This is why so many of us ordinary people prefer not to belong to a party.

But regardless of who's asking it, his question has to be faced: "What happens when we leave?" There's more at stake than in Vietnam, IMO. Even though the ideological enemy is not as powerful as the Soviet Union was, Iraq is a much more central and pivotal country. Vietnam may have been a domino, but Iraq is the dice.


Amba,I completely agree that the question needs to adressed. I was a fairly loud voice in the beginning that we should have invaded Iraq with overwhelming force (Ala Japan in WW2). I was also a loud voice against the financial rape of our treasures for the benefit of corporations that "provide the resources ...yadda, yadda, yadda to rebuild the country.

My reference to the whining tone in Graham's voice speaks directly to the inability to disguise a lie as he speaks it.

Tonite, you will hear the same inflections in the voice of the President as he "pleads" with America to "STAND BY ME". I am probably cynical, but I think that the only one missing on the stage tonite will be Ben E. King.

Anyone (from either party) who requests oversight or approval status will be labeled as a "cut and run liberal".

I live in the same camp as our old friend MR from The Mighty Middle ... if we are going to war, let's go to war! No pleading neccesary!


Which raises this question .... bush is not in any way (and neither was Graham) asking the America "What happens when we leave?". He is informing America about "his" decision to create a larger presence on the ground. In form America that his advisors are once again ... off the mark ... and execising what he believes is his perogative as C-I-C to save us from ourselves.


Been off the blog trail for too long ... I must take some remedial spelling classes ...klassis? classis?


Some work on chassis? (Well, you had that!)

It's an awful feeling to support the policy yet not trust the motives, the good sense, or the competence of the people putting it forth and carrying it out. I cannot be like Sissy Willis and others who reconcile any cognitive dissonance they may be feeling by deciding to wholeheartedly admire the president. What if you think he did the right thing, but did it so badly, and ignored so much good advice, that he's made the case for those who thought it was wrong?


Nah, I would hope that the individual who sold his vision to the voters well enough to be elected (twice), would show some ... humility .... ask for and heed ... advice .... take an alternate path ... say "oops" .... anything but echos in the wind.

Sorry, but life and the world at large are more important than:
party lines
facades (read color codes)
shooting bb's when you have cannon and complaining that you need more bb's and time to affect the changes

I am cynical ... though I don't mean to be .... Might be the weather today.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004