A commentator on this John Scalzi thread reminded me of the most horrible Christmas Song ever: Christmas Shoes. I wrote about it last year:
Tom was absolutely, one hundred percent correct: Christmas Shoes is the most horrible, un-Christian Christmas song of all time. I just heard it today on LaunchCast, and was stunned by its sheer bloody awfulness. Not only is it ham-handedly manipulative, not only is it song by someone who never met a note they couldn’t kill, but it has the most appallingly amoral message of any Christmas song I have ever heard.
The premise is terribly shallow. A little kid wants to buy shoes for his dying Mommy so that she can look good for Jesus when she dies. The song starts out trying to tug at our heartstrings by advocating the notion that Jesus cares what you look like, as if the Jimmy Choos would sway St. Peter. It is not an auspicious start to a song supposedly about the meaning of Christmas. I might have been willing to overlook that if the rest of the song didn’t miss the point of Jesus’ ministry just as badly.
The end of the song was so stunning, so vacuous, so counter to everything that I have ever been taught about Christianity that I had to find the lyrics to make sure I had heard them correctly. I had. Unfortnately:
I knew I’d caught a glimpse of heaven’s love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about
The little boy in the lyrics is poor, his mother is about to die and he doesn’t have enough money to buy her new shoes. The singer-narrator thinks that God sent him the little boy so that he, the narrator, could be reminded about the true meaning of Christmas. Now, I am going to go out on a limb here a little and suggest that God’s plan does not include killing a young woman and leaving an orphan and widower behind so that some self-satisfied prick in a department store can feel a little bit of heaven’s love. How self-centered, how completely and totally disconnected from the spirit of the Gospels do you have to be to think that God would kill a person and crush a little boy’s heart so that you could learn a little lesson about the spirit of giving? This song couldn’t reek of privilege and clueless-ness any more if it had included a message from God to bet on the Vikings, because He favored them on Sunday. I seriously have to question whether or not this song writer would recognize a Bible if he saw one, because it certainly doesn’t seem as if he has actually read one.
God does not reward the faithful with SUVs, He does not punish the wicked with slum apartments, He does not care who wins a football game, and He doesn’t kill the mommies of little boys so that bored men in checkout lines can feel a little special Christmas glow.
If there is a Jesus, and He is coming back, I hope he does it soon. I think we have run out the string here.
December 7th, 2006
|
Holiday, Xmas Lyric of the Day |
25 comments
So the Wise men have come down form the mountain and they have handed us the One True Plan Forward on two stone tablets a 160 page booklet. If this is the best they can do, though, I think I will stick with the golden calf.
This thing is a sick joke. It says that the president’s plans have been complete failures — something that has been obvious for a long time — and yet it offers nothing in the ay of new thinking. I will get back to these in greater detail, but the basic recommendations boil down to “talk to Iran and Syria and train the Iraqi army better, using more troops to do so.” And then, once those particular ponies have been located, then maybe sometime in 2008 the level of troops in Iraq might be reduced a little bit. Halleluiah, we have been saved!
Or, you know, not. Because this wonderful plan from this Amazing Bipartisan Commission of Bipartisan-ness doesn’t talk seriously discuss Iraq’s place in the greater war on terrorism. And because it doesn’t, the consequences of the recommended actions on that war aren’t seriously discussed. Similarly, there is no serious discussion of the political players in Iraq itself, and thus no serious discussion of the fact that almost all of them represent constituencies that want the US gone right now. Consequently, there is no serious discussion of the ramifications of the approved upon plan for Iraqi politics and what those ramifications, in turn, will mean for the plan. The Iraqis, to be blunt, aren’t considered to have actually agency in this little document: they merely react to US actions. The thought that Iraqis might damn well have their own plans and desires and act on them is apparently foreign to the Great Bipartisan Wise Men.
The plan itself is just as sick a joke. Talking to Iran and Syria is probably a good idea at this point, but the plan mentions nothing about what the US should or should not be prepared to negotiate with (aside from a mention of the Golan Heights in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian mess). There is a lot of hand-waving and assurances that of course Syria and Iran want precisely the same thing that the United States. That, of course, is nonsense. But actually talking frankly about what dealing with Iran and Syria would entail would mean making hard choices and forcing Bush to confront them - -something that the ISG is loathe to do.
As mentioned already, there is no timetable, despite the fact that the report admits the current situation is a disaster and that American troops aren’t doing any good. There are also parts of the plan where they say they would support a temporary surge of troops to gain control of Baghdad. In other words, Bush can stay as long as he wants, and he can add as many troops as he wants for as long as he wants. Even the one other really concrete suggestion - -better training - -is just a continuation of current Administration policy. And it conveniently ignores the important question: train them to do what? Counter-insurgency? What can they possibly learn about counter-insurgency from the US Army, and institution that has avoided the subject like a prostitute at Christmas dinner since Vietnam? How to be a modern, effective field army? What good will that do, considering how much of the Iraqi Army holds allegiance to the various factions in the country and not the country itself? I hardly think a more efficiently deadly civil war in anyone’s best interest.
There is some good in this report. It is a clear read and contains quite a bit of unvarnished - -even surprising - -information about the reality in Iraq today. Its section on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and how it infects all other issues in the region is also worthwhile. But on the important matter, finding a way forward out of this disaster, the plan is a complete failure. It put bipartisanship over results and politics over reality. Having done so, the report is broad enough, bland enough, and vapid enough to support anything that Bush wants to do in Iraq.
But, hey, it was Bi-partisan and clearly proves that the Washington Elite Consensus was not, in anyway whatsoever wrong in its assessment of the war, the President, its reporting, or anything at all up to and including what was for dinner. After all, the ISG report clearly says that Something Can Be Done to Achieve a Glorious Victory, and that proves that the Washington Elite Consensus, and not those dirty hippie sin the rest of the country, was right.
David Broder tells me so, it must be true.
UPDATE: Publius is not being cynical enough. He writes:
Maybe this is all too clever by half, but let me run this interpretation by you. The Report calls for scaling back combat troops, but leaving substantial numbers of support troops. But, the continuing support is contingent upon the Iraqis meeting a set of milestones that they can’t possibly reach. And when they don’t reach them (indeed, many dates are fast approaching), the US can say as early as 2007, “hey, the Iraqis didn’t make the milestones, so we’re leaving.”
To be truly cynical, the point of these recommendations may not be to “solve” Iraq, but to give elected officials political cover for withdrawing or redeploying most of the troops out of the country. At the least, it opens that door for those willing to take it.
And yes, there’s still reason to worry about the disclaimer above. But, that disclaimer is scary only because of how it’s been used in the past by the administration. If you looked at it from a blank slate, you would likely agree that of course withdrawals must be contingent upon something crazy not happening on the ground.
Given (1) that the Baker Report is very critical of the war and (2) there are other reasons to think it’s laying the groundwork for a quick withdrawal, I’m not sure this clause deserves the emphasis it’s getting. Yes, it gives Iraq supporters cover to stay in Iraq forever. But it also gives political cover to do just the opposite, for those so inclined.
He is wrong. the dynamic here is completely controlled by Bush. The Democrats aren’t inclined to cut off funding, at least right now. Even if they were, it’s extremely doubtful that they could do so with veto-proof majorities. Only when the US has become blood-sick over Iraq will those majorities materialize, and as long as there are politicians and their sycophants in the press running around talking about “one more push”, I find it hard to see those majorities crystallizing before 2008. That leaves Bush, and Bush has no intention of ever leaving. To him, leaving Iraq is the same as losing. No matter the consequences in the real war — the one with Al Qaeda, the one the stupid little git shows no signs of actually remembering — Bush Will Not Cut And Run. He is the Decider, dammit, not the Loser and the radicals around him whisper constantly in his ear that leaving Iraq before re-making in their image would be losing.
As I have mentioned before, the report is ambiguous enough to be read by people as supporting Bush’s stay the course “plan”. to adults, of course, the report is a warning that things are collapsing and something has to change. To the radicals and their petulant boy-President, it is cover for their existing plans. And since they are the one sin control, and since they are the only ones with any measure of control over this issue for the foreseeable future, it doesn’t matter what a responsible politician could do with the report. We don’t have a responsible politician — we have Bush.
And Bush will never, ever leave Iraq, not matter what the cost to US soldiers, to iraqi civilians, to peace in the region, to the war on Al Qaeda. he’s the Decider, dammit, not the Loser, and leaving means losing. Bush will never, ever leave Iraq.
UPDATE [tgirsch]: I also think Glenn Greenwald makes some excellent points about the absurdity of who was asked to write the report in the first place.
December 7th, 2006
|
Iran |
9 comments
Christmas at Ground Zero, because, frankly, nothing sums up the 80s quite like this song. And it is a member of the genre I love most: songs that combine happy, bouncy, or energetic music with really, really fscked up lyrics.
It’s christmas at ground zero
There’s music in the air
The sleigh bells are ringing and the carolers are singing
While the air raid sirens blare
It’s christmas at ground zero
The button has been pressed
The radio just let us know
That this is not a test
Everywhere the atom bombs are dropping
It’s the end of all humanity
No more time for last-minute shopping
It’s time to face your final destiny
It’s christmas at ground zero
There’s panic in the crowd
We can dodge debris while we trim the tree
Underneath the mushroom cloud
You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop
Or jack frost on your windowsill
But if someone’s climbing down your chimney
You better load your gun and shoot to kill
It’s christmas at ground zero
And if the radiation level’s okay
I’ll go out with you and see all the new
Mutations on new year’s day
It’s christmas at ground zero
Just seconds left to go
I’ll duck and cover with my yuletide lover
Underneath the mistletoe
It’s christmas at ground zero
Now the missiles are on their way
What a crazy fluke, we’re gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday
December 7th, 2006
|
Holiday, Xmas Lyric of the Day |
one comment
