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

« Not In My Bush . . . Administration. | Main | Where Angels Fear to Tread »

Comments

Tom Strong

I don't see any sort of impeachment effort getting off the ground. Not because I think the Democrats are above that, but because they simply don't have the votes. And they're not going to get them by the time Bush is leaving office.

But otherwise, sure - they're trying to gain power, and they're following the tried and true approach of opposition parties for doing so. Find a scandal, and blow it up to maximum effect in front of everyone. It worked for the Republicans, right?

amba

Yeah, but it's not working for the country. I suppose this is the way it's always been -- the powerful lob spitballs and Molotov cocktails at each other while the little guy ducks. Our problem is, we thought Democracy was going to be different. More fools we.

But then if it isn't different, in Democracy, we get the blame. There's a vicious cycle of politician sleaziness and voter cynicism, ignorance, laziness and indifference. Who can break this cycle?

jack Whelan

For me it's a question of balance of interests, and whose interests are being served and not served. In my view the problem with political discourse in this country is that it has gotten too caught up in the moral values debate. Politicians may or may not be moral. I admire those who are, but I don't expect them to be, nor does my vote necessarily depend on their being moral. It's a factor, but I care about how they will vote and whether their votes serve the interests I think ought to be served. Politics is about Power and the distribution of power, and currently the distribution is way out of balance, and the balance must be redressed, and the Dems are the only ones who can do it.

The Democrats have traditionally served the interests of the poor and working classes, and to some degree the middle class. Their power has been in numbers. The Republicans have traditionally served the interests of middle class small business owners, corporations, and the country club wealth associated with those two groups as opposed to Hollywood/Arts/university based wealth, whose values are often openly hostile to traditional moral values.

The tragedy of the Democratic party lies in that they have diminished their power in having lost the white working class in this country to the GOP because of the GOP's effective branding of the Dems as the party of gays and abortion. Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" is very good in laying this out, and how the GOP has used a deliberately manipulative policy similar to race-bating strategy used by southern patricians to ally themselves with poor whites as their power base. The political interests of poor whites and poor blacks have much more in common, but the southern bourbons were very effective in their divide-and-conquer strategy using "white" cultural values as their main technique. The GOP has similarly used, the gay rights and abortion issues for the same manipulative purposes. It serves the purposes of power if the relatively powerless care more about moral values than they do about the destruction of our republic.

It's important to keep this basic poltical strategy and the alignments that they have created in view. We get so hung up in the little picture, that we miss the bigger structural realignment that's going on. The biggest issue of the day is how power and wealth is aggregating in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The Republican party is the chief vehicle for the "aggregators" to achieve their purposes, and this trend must be neutralized. If that requires a jackal-like Democratic response to current GOP weaknesses, more power to them.

Elyas Bakhtiari

I don't think it's quite fair to compare a Democratic impeachment campaign to the Republican one against Clinton. Yes, both may be based more on political vengence than actual merit, but on the one hand we have a blowjob and the other a misleading justification for war.

Lying about a blowjob is a bit different than lying (or misleading) about justifications for war. I don't necessarily agree that impeachment is the right approach; I would have preferred if Democrats had raised these questions before the war began. But this is not "a mirror image of what Republicans did under Clinton."

Besides, the Democrats won't be able to pull off this impeachment campaign. Although there was evidence prior to the war that suggested there were no WMDs, Bush has covered his bases fairly well with the "we went with the intelligence we had" defense.

sleipner

Contrary to Clinton, an Impeach Bush campaign actually started within the first year of his presidency. In my opinion, Bush has done quite a few impeachable (or at least immoral, moronic, greedy, and cruel) things, but misleading the country into war is probably the only one that has a chance to kick him out of office.

The way I look at it, the only way any impeachment move beyond conjecture is if there's a huge shift in power in both houses in 2006, which is entirely possible, but not tremendously likely in the Senate where fewer seats are up for grabs.

I personally laud the attempt to finally hold the Bush regime responsible for his mistakes. For far too long he's been steamrolling blindly ahead across the corpses of the American poor and the environment, and this is one of the only means the minority Democrats have of limiting the damage that continuing his pigheaded and catastrophic policies would do if unchecked for three more years.

As I've said before I think Iraq is pretty much doomed anyway, since we do not and will never have sufficient troops or support there to adequately deal with the situation, and since we cannot afford to bankroll this quagmire indefinitely. I expect shortly after we pull out, whether it be 2006 or 2015, the three factions in Iraq will end up in a civil war. The Sunnis will never accept being demoted from overlord to pauper, and given the geographical oil distribution their only alternative is war.

Outside of Iraq, Bush has already sacrificed any shred of dignity or respect he once had from the world community, so the "Bush Lied" campaign could hardly do anything to damage his reputation further.

So in conclusion, I think the only effect of this campaign is to limit the potential damage that this already lame duck president can do, and possibly set him up for impeachment if voter disapproval in 2006 is where I think it is, and if we can prevent the Republicans from tampering with the voting machines again.

A minor confession - I've been reading leftie blogs (and a few rightie blogs) for a couple months now and it's shifting me further to the left than I was before, if you couldn't tell ;)

karen

I wish we could do it all over again... i wish W didn't have the balls for war- since the Dems don't have the stomach. No Homeland Security, no new dude in CIA- or FBI- no Wilson getting a free trip to Africa for intelligence on yellowcake- issued by... who was it that issued that trip? No orange, yellow green or red alerts- how much joking W gets for that invbention. He's critisized for never using it right, anyway. No nothing but waiting for another boot up the butt anywhere in the US.

All in the name of protection of a country that gives people the right of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; as well as running our gums. Totally relative, BTW.

i'm getting sour. Good, you say. How much $$$$ do all of these kids make- representing us?

I heard Al Franken was joking about shooting Bush for treason. That's the penalty for the crime. Joking on Letterman about shooting the US president. He's a theiving, lying horse's ass, Franken is- and not even funny.

if the Dems voted w/the same info as the RepuGs- then they should shut up. My six yr old whines less (the 14 yr old- well, that'd be a close call).

sleipner

Hah...Bush uses his terror alerts perfectly...to draw national attention away from whatever it is he's trying to cover up at the moment.

I don't believe Bush should be shot for treason, but I do believe he and Cheney should be put in jail for it for the rest of their lives.

And the Dems did NOT have the same info as the Repubs - they were deceived just like we were.

Adam

And the Dems did NOT have the same info as the Repubs - they were deceived just like we were.

If the Dems were deceived, then likely was Bush. I doubt that he would have invaded if he expected to come away empty-handed. And what does this say about the Democrats: either they were too weak to buck public opinion or they were too stupid to realize they were being deceived. It doesn't speak well of them, in either case. I think it's reasonable to think that everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, and that Bush's major failure was to invade too precipitiously--he should have racheted up the pressure on Saddam if he wasn't cooperating with inspectors. But given Saddam's temperament, we might have invaded anyway. But at least it would have shown that the US really, truly invaded when it is the last option.

I really think it is dangerous to be so Manichean about this Sleipner. I really don't think it's proper to paint either Bush or his admistration in such conspiratorial/evil tones. And if you noticed, the Dems approval ratings are about the same as the Repubs--~25%. I think Obama is very right--that the radical left-wing is very much out of step with American values and that they won't sell well. What would sell well is tough, competent centrist Dems.

I have a question for you, Sleipner. In a utopia, would you prefer that all the reins of power be given in perpetuity to moderate dems, or to liberal dems?

I would hope the moderate dems, especially since, although you start out with Bush is Satan, you come to a moderate perspective upon further probing.

As regards your certainty that Iraq will fall apart no matter what, and thus you need not worry about whether Democratic actions will precipate this, this seems akin to pulling the plug on a patient who is desperately trying to hang on--except, of course, you're doing this to a whole nation.

Also, I think you're being very selective in your judgments. It seems reasonable to assume that the violence will continue until those committing the violence have acheived most of their political goals. That's why they're being violent, after all. However, every sign is that the Sunnis are getting more involved with the government, not less, and that the Shiites have some willingness to make concessions--especially when the Americans are knocking heads. It is pigheaded to think that the violence will decrease prior to a substantial political settlement--which does show some tentative signs of being reached. If that process of rapprochement decisively collapses, then I think it's time to start talking withdrawal. But before then, it seems cruel and selfish.

Some have commented that the anti-war movement comes from a very American and ego-centric perspective--a perspective that is totally oblivious to the fate and desires of an entire nation. And I tend to agree.

Whether or not Bush made it all up for oil, we have the fate of a nation at stake.

I seriously don't understand why you would want to put all your chips on the most dire and cynical outcome possible--especially when other doctors, even if they're the minority, see signs of hope--unless, of course, you're repressing this so that you can get as much anger out on Bush as possible.

Lieberman recently commented that all this focus on pre-war intelligence, while certainly an important question, has the effect of collapsing support for the war. And some Democrats don't seem to care.

Don't forget that it is possible to beat up on Bush and still be a responsible steward of foreign policy.

I really think the wings are bad places for people to be psychologically--there's so much anger, hatred, and warped and conspiratorial thinking. Go with the middle way of the Buddha, Sleipner.

And finally, if you're going to pull the plug, you had better be pretty damn sure that the patient is going to die. Otherwise, it's murder, plain and simple. Are you that sure?

sleipner

The reason I say that people were deceived is because it appears that any negative qualifications on the intelligence data were sanitized before it was presented to those with lesser security clearances.

In other words, Bush (well, his advisors) put the spin he wanted onto the data before it was presented to Congress and the American people, so that it would more convincingly support the actions he wanted to pursue.

I think Bush's temperament had far more with causing this war than Saddam's. Without him in charge, we would have never precipitously and stupidly invaded with only shaky evidence and lacking any significant world support.

I would also counter that the war itself comes from a very American and ego-centric perspective, we decided our viewpoints are more important than everyone else's, and therefore we choose, despite almost universal opposition, to do what we wanted.

Despite the way my rhetoric may sound, I do not think immediate withdrawal of all troops is a viable option. However, I do think it is absolutely necessary that we communicate at least a flexible timetable for their withdrawal, or the opposition will assume the Evil Empire means to stay there indefinitely as their Overlord and Master...thus garnering more support for resistance. I think 2006 should be a turning point, and believe we should have a majority of our troops home by the end of next year.

I do not believe that the left wing is as much out of step with American values as you seem to think. I think many people have been deluded by right wing propaganda into thinking that the lefties are some sort of drugged up porn pusher cult who want to let sex offenders rape their children and stick young girls into cages with horny bears...oops, my bad, that's the Right.

In reality, the left wing, though comprised of many elements with differing agendas, tends to be much more people-centric than the right. They tend to be concerned about the environment, the poor, workers rights, immigration rights, and various other issues that directly impact the common person.

Though occasionally some extreme lefties take unsupportable positions, such as "thou shalt never cut down any trees" or "we should mandate vegetarianism", those are usually the radical outliers, and (imo) are a far smaller part of the left than the "Jesus-Amen" brotherhood on the right - who walk in lockstep with their paleolithic anti-gay and anti-abortion monologue. There's nothing so unifying as a simple message to delude the "wackos" (as Delay's former aide calls them) into supporting your issues, even if your issues have little to do with that message.

The other section of the Right is the "Free Market Is God" segment who believes government exists only to make rich people and companies richer. They are the ones that use the aforementioned wackos, throwing them the occasional DOMA bone while screwing the (mostly poor) Amen-Jesus types out of their social security, medicare, medicaid, workers rights, and various other safety nets, and preventing minimum wage increases.

Another reason there is so much negativity against the Left at this point is due to the demonization of gays that has been occurring over the past decade, due in part to the prevalence of gay rights and gay marriage issues in the media. I think once the gay marriage issues are no longer on the ballots the balance at the polls will once again shift leftwards, reflecting the true nature of our population.

Of course it's always difficult for one who swings to the left or right to see the inconsistencies and flaws in their own viewpoints, but from my perspective, I'd rather live in a world run by the Left than the Right, because it at least attempt to be more fair to all people, rather than just a privileged few.

Adam

The reason I say that people were deceived is because it appears that any negative qualifications on the intelligence data were sanitized before it was presented to those with lesser security clearances.

I've read otherwise, particularly on centerfield, by a very energetic poster, Tully. There's so much stuff from every side these days, I'm not sure who's lying. Probably both are. Bush is minimizing his responsibility, and Dems theirs.

I would also counter that the war itself comes from a very American and ego-centric perspective, we decided our viewpoints are more important than everyone else's, and therefore we choose, despite almost universal opposition, to do what we wanted.

That applies to going to war, not to our current strategy.

However, I do think it is absolutely necessary that we communicate at least a flexible timetable for their withdrawal, or the opposition will assume the Evil Empire means to stay there indefinitely as their Overlord and Master...thus garnering more support for resistance.

Oh please, the Iraqi government is trying to get us to stay. The insurgents are hopelessly deluded if they think Americans would support a long term stay. Americans are barely tolerating our being there as it is. I think instead the exact opposite method should be sent--that we will stay as long as the Iraqis request it (within reason). If we cut-and-run, we may very well embolden the terrorists. It's not a clear call, which is why I have more faith in the Iraqi government's opinion than I do in the antiwar left's, which has domestic political goals more in mind than the Iraqi nation.

I do not believe that the left wing is as much out of step with American values as you seem to think.

They may be in step with moderate Dem values, but certainly not with left liberal MoveOn style values. I'm sticking with Obama's opinion on this.

I'd rather live in a world run by the Left than the Right, because it at least attempt to be more fair to all people, rather than just a privileged few.

That wasn't my question. My question was liberal dem rule vs mod dem rule in perpetuity.


sleipner

Of course the insurgents are hopelessly deluded...that's the very nature of extremism and fundamentalism. Try convincing a fanatic about something he doesn't want to believe.

I get MoveOn's newsletter, and for the most part I agree with what they say. In fact, some of the time I'm not really sure why they're picked on as the poster child of left-wing extremism, they certainly don't go anywhere NEAR as far into outer space as the right wingnuts, like Coulter, Limbaugh and Robertson.

At this point, I'd probably vote for liberal dem rule, because the moderate dems seem determined to dress themselves up in Republican clothes and desert most of the principles of the Democratic party, since they are buying the lie that America is more Republican than it used to be.

The truth is that the Republicans took power due by unifying their party's message and spin machine, by manipulating the Religious Right wackos into voting for them en masse, by sleazy fundraising and gerrymandering techniques, and by election fraud.

The pendulum has swung as far right as it could possibly go in a semi-sane culture, and it's about to swing vigorously back towards something I can live with.

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

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004