A friend in Concordia Kansas sent an e-mail to this columnist that we interpreted to mean that she was training her Chihuahua dog to participate in a Kansas based Iditarod style race for the breed of dog that we thought would be considered "illegal alien" status in her area. Do dogs need green cards?
It might seem irresponsible and frivolous for a columnist to consider writing a column on the dog topic at a time when the tree huggers are concerned about "an atomic plume" arriving on America's West Coast and a new "It's not about the oil" war being added to the gripes of the unpatriots who are celebrating the start of the Afghanistan phase of the perpetual war on terrorism.
We noted a story on the Romensko Media News page at the Poynter website that stated that the Wire Service Guild has asked writers to withhold content and honor the strike against the Huffington Post website. Obviously, the Huffing and Puffing Aggregator website isn't going to cross post that story and so if we mention it in this column, there is a slight chance that some of our readers (the ones who don't check Romenesko daily) might not be aware of that development in the strike. [This just in: On Friday, March 18, 2011, Uncle Rushbo reported that the use of by-lines on AP stories is now a labor issue.]
The ego boost allure of crossing the picket line and giving Arianna permission to cross post something isn't the only dilemma facing bloggers today. Many bloggers will have to wrestle with their conscience and decide if they will recycle an old "It isn't about the oil" conservative augment from the Bush era and update it to sound relevant to the "no fly" zone military adventure in Libya or will they merely declare President Obama to be the black sheep of the Bush family and consider any effort to protect British Petroleum's interests in Libya to be a new item for the list of Bush family outrages? If Britain helped the US invade Iraq, doesn't the USA owe reciprocal military support for BP? Aren't they a major part of the petroleum industry in Libya?
The prudent thing to do would probably be to hold off on this column and listen to some liberal talk radio shows and take a measure of the depth of their commitment to everything President Obama does or says. Then, if they concur with the effort to send more troops to install democracy in Libya, add our voice to the choir of admiring sheep or should we just dummy up and join in the silence of the lambs?
If Randy Rhodes and the Daily Kos are very adamant in their support of a new Obama military venture, shouldn't this column disregard the old question about "if all your friends were jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge" and bang out a "one state, one people, one leader" column offering unquestioning commitment to a new war? If they balk at the opportunity to rubber stamp approval of all things Obama, won't they appear to be subscribing to some weird conspiracy theory cult belief if they don't "go along to get along"?
It certainly seems that a stance, that would condemn aggression and torture by Hitler and George W. Bush, but not if Obama does it, is a bit of a stellar example of using convoluted logic to rationalize your political views.
For those who are partisan critics of the George W. Bush wars of aggression, it would seem that they are now (metaphorically speaking) caught taking a long lead off first and will fall victim to a pick off throw. If you condemn Hitler and Bush, but make allowances for Obama to do the same thing, you are inconsistent and sound like a conspiracy theory nut.
If, however, you subscribe to the Henry Louis Mencken philosophy that the only way for a columnist to look at a politician is downwards, then it will be perfectly acceptable to ridicule Obama just as enthusiastically as one did George W. Bush during his stint as commander-in-chief.
The squad of Obama cheerleaders will be a bit uncomfortable this weekend, equivocating about how the Libya situation differs greatly from the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. If they look to Bush fans for a show of sympathy, they might get a bit of the old "you're on your own, pal" cold shoulder from the likes of Uncle Rushbo et al because no matter how much Obama tries to imitate George W. Bush, they will always hate Obama and never give him any credit or praise for his efforts to retroactively get the Democratic voters to approve of and support the Bush agenda.
Before this columnist plunges brashly ahead with a sarcastic column that asks what social services programs will have to be scrapped to pay for a new bit of jingoistic colonial empire deployment in the dark continent, we might postpone our efforts and go see the new movie, "Paul," and see if there might be a few laughs and a way to mix a movie review with some political commentary on it.
Maybe we should send an e-mail to our friend in Kansas and ask for more details about this intriguing but Google search illusive topic of an Iditarod style competition for Chihuahuas?
Maybe we should go buy a Geiger counter and walk around Berkeley CA and see just how accurate the "nothing to worry about" assessments really are? Nah! That makes us sound like a conspiracy theory nut.
If some Americans are going to stage anti-war rallies on Saturday, perhaps we could make an appeal for funds to hold a pro-Obama rally? Aren't their several really good automobile museums rather close to Nuremburg? If we could get some patriotic well funded organization to subsidize it, we could go over there and (perhaps) do the work necessary to have a picturesque pro-Obama rally of expats?
Hunter S. Thompson coined the folk advice: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Now the disk jockey will play "Over there," "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," and "Just before the battle, mother." We have to go check out the rumor that the teachers unions, which want smaller classes, are funding the drive to give children the freedom to choose factory work (and $ $ $) over school. Have a "Cathedral of Light" type week.
