More Chaos, More Questions
Just got online and found out the news about the most recent set of explosions (/attempted explosions) in London. Wth is wrong with people? I suppose that's a ridiculous question to ask regarding terrorism; it's not really about being sensible.
I am glad that it seems that there have been no deaths, though I heard that there has been an injury. It's hard to understand how this could have happened to some degree. However, in the wake of chaos, it does seem like such things would be possible. People are already agitated and not sure where to look, so much the easier to slip through the cracks.
I have to say I feel rather badly for the government after this attack (odd to leap to them instead of the people, I know.) but it seems to me that there's no better way to have the government look inept than to have had another attack after a state of heightened alert. Though this is supposedly all about Iraq, I don't get the sense that Iraq is what people start thinking about after such an act.
In terms of reactions from other places... Michael Howard was a bit creepy (no offence to any Aussies who like the man... I know little of him really.) in his reaction. I suppose some of his stance is necessary as they've also got troops in Iraq. He just had a very beady-eyed and cold, snake-like feel in how he looked at the audience. Maybe that's what worried me more than his words, which isn't a fair assessment at all. In any case, he couldn't help sounding more intelligent than my own chief exec.
Bush managed to run the words "they don't understand" together such that my president said "they dun-unnerstand.. what they dun-unnerstand is..." Ok, so it's unfair to say he's a dumb as box of rocks (which only offends boxes of rocks ;> and ok... so he's not *that* mindless... hard for me to say that tho) but he certainly doesn't present a great image either. :/ The pres states something to the effect that "the best way to fight an ideology of hate is with an ideology of hope" and thus made the connection that the ideology of hope is that of democracy and making governments accountable to their peoples... Theoretically I don't have so many issues with that, but I don't call invading a nation an ideology of hope exactly. Besides, if you want people to come to democracy, you'd think you want them to come to it of their own volition, not an outside foreign power. Part of the reason that people are so invested here is the myth that we had to fight to break away for our own brand of accountable power. You cannot foist faith upon people, and that includes faith in forms of government. I suppose I'm suggesting that we inform people and take the more insidious backroad, which I don't like either. However, it soemhoe just makes more sense to me that we leave such things to intelligence and also open agencies like USAID or the peace corps. In safer places the peace corps and USAID can be ambassadors for the government and program managers... In places not so friendly... well, that's why we have intelligence agencies. I'd like to think we don't do all sorts of rather nasty things, but, well, we do, as does everyone else. So, since we have the people, seems like it makes more sense to me that we deal with things that way rather than outting thousands of lives at risk. Not good logic anyway... and it's just what I'm thinking at the moment... I'll probably think betetr of it in a while.
Oh, on a very unconnected note: Last night at dinner Pat turns to me and says, "Meg, I think you should be a lobbyist."
I am glad that it seems that there have been no deaths, though I heard that there has been an injury. It's hard to understand how this could have happened to some degree. However, in the wake of chaos, it does seem like such things would be possible. People are already agitated and not sure where to look, so much the easier to slip through the cracks.
I have to say I feel rather badly for the government after this attack (odd to leap to them instead of the people, I know.) but it seems to me that there's no better way to have the government look inept than to have had another attack after a state of heightened alert. Though this is supposedly all about Iraq, I don't get the sense that Iraq is what people start thinking about after such an act.
In terms of reactions from other places... Michael Howard was a bit creepy (no offence to any Aussies who like the man... I know little of him really.) in his reaction. I suppose some of his stance is necessary as they've also got troops in Iraq. He just had a very beady-eyed and cold, snake-like feel in how he looked at the audience. Maybe that's what worried me more than his words, which isn't a fair assessment at all. In any case, he couldn't help sounding more intelligent than my own chief exec.
Bush managed to run the words "they don't understand" together such that my president said "they dun-unnerstand.. what they dun-unnerstand is..." Ok, so it's unfair to say he's a dumb as box of rocks (which only offends boxes of rocks ;> and ok... so he's not *that* mindless... hard for me to say that tho) but he certainly doesn't present a great image either. :/ The pres states something to the effect that "the best way to fight an ideology of hate is with an ideology of hope" and thus made the connection that the ideology of hope is that of democracy and making governments accountable to their peoples... Theoretically I don't have so many issues with that, but I don't call invading a nation an ideology of hope exactly. Besides, if you want people to come to democracy, you'd think you want them to come to it of their own volition, not an outside foreign power. Part of the reason that people are so invested here is the myth that we had to fight to break away for our own brand of accountable power. You cannot foist faith upon people, and that includes faith in forms of government. I suppose I'm suggesting that we inform people and take the more insidious backroad, which I don't like either. However, it soemhoe just makes more sense to me that we leave such things to intelligence and also open agencies like USAID or the peace corps. In safer places the peace corps and USAID can be ambassadors for the government and program managers... In places not so friendly... well, that's why we have intelligence agencies. I'd like to think we don't do all sorts of rather nasty things, but, well, we do, as does everyone else. So, since we have the people, seems like it makes more sense to me that we deal with things that way rather than outting thousands of lives at risk. Not good logic anyway... and it's just what I'm thinking at the moment... I'll probably think betetr of it in a while.
Oh, on a very unconnected note: Last night at dinner Pat turns to me and says, "Meg, I think you should be a lobbyist."