THE UGLY TRUTH

I have to say that as an Austin resident, musician, and college graduate, I'm finding myself going completely against the grain of my friends and peers in my opinions of the current war stuff. As you may recall from a couple of Soapboxes I've written, I'm not as anti-war as most of my friends - in fact you could even say I've for it. I don't have the zealous hatred for Bush and everything about him that most folks around me seem to have -- in fact, I think he will and should be elected to a second term.

I realize that for a good portion of you, the hair just stood up on the back on of your neck. Now settle down. I can hear y'all: "B-B-But... but.... what about the... the... 'weapons of mass destruction', huh? And the prison scandal? And innocent lives lost? Huh? Huh? What about that? Huh?"

Yes, what about that. All very ugly stuff. The prison stuff was sickening, nobody found the big ol' warehouses full of missiles and warheads and big wooden crates with "Acme" printed on the side and big sticks of dynamite poking out the top, and it looks like a few days ago we lobbed a couple of bombs at a wedding/"terrorist safehouse". It's like a.. like a... war zone, or something. Remember, we are talking about our ever-efficient U.S. Government here -- if anybody expected things to go smoothly and as planned, they apparently don't pay taxes, buy gas, or stand in lines at airports while pimple-faced security guards pat down your grandmother.

I could go on for pages on the whole "war thing" (me? no way...), and probably will anyhow, but I'll try to stick to a few specific topics this time. In particular, the prison scandal, the overall mission, culpability for mistakes, and what direction we should be going. Steadfast liberals and Bush-hating "independents", go ahead and have a beer or a shot before you read on -- a little sugar helps the medicine go down.

Let me preface by saying that, like most Americans, I don't consider myself Republican or Democrat or liberal or conservative. I'm pro-choice. I'm semi-pro-death penalty. I'm for greater environmental regulation and hybrid cars (the ONLY way to get out of the Middle East), but I really could care less about the Barton Creek salamander. I'm for tighter borders and re-regulation. I like Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly. I think Ann Coulter is a nut-job, and Janeane Garofalo has apparently lost her mind as well. I've become less and less sympathetic to causes like the homeless and welfare and unions, causes where in years past I was much more liberal-minded. Being threatened from a picket line from guys with no more clue about why they're picketing than they have teeth will do that to you. Waiting in the waiting room at the local clinic while about 10 pregnant illegal immigrants with screaming kids on each hip argue in Spanish with the desk lady -- who speaks better Spanish than English -- will do that to you. Not being able to go to the freaking Chevron without having to run a 40-yard bum-hurdle of "street kids" from Westlake asking you for change -- and then telling you "that 10 would be nice" after you hand them a dollar -- will do that to you.

OK, enough of that, you get the idea. Let's start with the current hot topic, the Iraq prison scandal. I agree with everybody else, what a sick bunch of freaks. Anybody that participated in that, or gave orders to do it, or looked the other way without reporting it, or allowed a culture where that could happen, should be prosecuted to the full extent. Well, duh, we all know that already -- way to take a stand, huh? But here's a little perspective, if that's possible on this. The way the photos were shown on TV made them look like they were made for kicks -- the smiles, the thumbs-ups, the pointing, the fact that they took pictures, just the general seediness of it makes us jump to the conclusion that these were just a bunch of sickos, getting their sex-jollies playing naked-terrorist Jenga with defenseless prisoners. And maybe they were -- in fact, I think that's a distinct possibility. However, from what I've read and heard, it was done, and the photos were taken, for more strategic purposes, for interrogation purposes, more than just a bunch of pervs doing their pervy thing. The idea was to degrade them in the worst possible way -- sexually, which is total taboo to Muslims -- and show the photos to other prisoners to say, "See what we'll do to you if you don't tell us what we want to know?" I don't think they were even trying to torture or interrogate those specific prisoners who were in the photos at that time -- they were really just guinea pigs. Obviously, this makes none of it any better, it's still just as wrong and f***ed up. But, at least let's not jump right away to the "sicko" card, and act like this was just a few weirdos, doing this for no purpose. It was unfortunately much more widespread than that, and it was done for a reason -- and, although I hate to say it (but somebody's got to), I bet it worked.

So, of course, the question is now, how far up the "ladder of blame" do we go? Obviously, we start with the guards in the photos, right? Nail those bastards to the wall, because they're first in line. Yes, probably. Right or wrong, world outrage will make that happen. Even though, in the military, you're taught to follow any and all orders, without question. And if soldiers start questioning the orders they don't agree with, we'll be in serious trouble. But, as with any military issue, there is a protocol to follow if a person has complaints about questionable practices, and to my knowledge none of those accused filed any sort of complaint about what they were being ordered to do, or requested transfer. OK, fine, there's those guys. Now who? I know -- let's go straight to Bush and Rumsfeld! Right?? Wrong. With what we know right now, those guys aren't to blame, at least not so much that it should outright cost them their jobs. I know, I know, they're at the top and are ultimately accountable for stuff that happens on their watch. But Bush, or even Rumsfeld, didn't give any direct orders for that, and probably didn't even directly influence a culture in their cabinets that would cause such a thing. But anybody below them? It's up for grabs. Who gave the orders, who knew it was going on, who allowed it to happen? The problem now, as well as at the time it happened, is that nobody knows exactly who's in charge. Military guys? Private contractors? Both? There is no distinct "family tree" for us to look at like Donald Trump and go, "OK... that guy, that guy, her, him, her, and... umm.... that guy over there. You're all fired." But it will get eventually sorted out, although it's going to take a while to get the information that we need, since we're going to have to get the information from -- the military! And, unfortunately, it will never be fast enough to placate all the people in the world that already hate us. So now, like Germany and Japan and Vietnam in the last 100 years, we're left with our own little Uncle Sam concentration camp for our new Iraqi "friends" to tell their grandkids about someday. Thanks, pervs. Nice job.

A quick aside for those of you screaming about "What about the WPM's??", and for those hilarious pranksters who feel the need to blurt out "I bet he's looking for the weapons of mass destruction! Yuk, yuk..." whenever Bush is looking for a pen or something on camera: By U.N. resolution, the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove that they did not have WPM's, not for inspectors to prove that they did have them. Hussein proved they had them by using them on his own people, there are many records showing they bought them since, and there are many defected witnesses saying they worked on them, although, granted, a couple of those witnesses have since been discredited. The reason we thought he had them is that he refused to prove that he didn't. Put it this way: Suppose you walk up on a guy you don't trust, who has both hands behind his back. You say, "What's behind your back?" He says,"Nothin'." You say, "Prove it." He says "No." Hands still behind his back, of course. What is the natural conclusion? The guy has something behind his back! Now, imagine 15 years of that, and they guy continually saying, "OK, next time I'll show you." Then you ask him again later what's behind his back and he still says "Nothin'." That's what's happened here. We never said we needed to find WMD'S -- he just had to prove that he destroyed them, and he never did that or even tried to. In fact, we were never, before or after we attacked them, looking for big ol' bombs and warheads or chemical facilities the size of a nuclear plant. What we were looking for was records of purchase, small and mobile chemical labs in moving trucks or on farms in the middle of nowhere. And because we waited as long as we did, trying to get international support (why does everybody seem to forget that Bush and Powell both made multiple speeches and pleas before the U.N. for help and approval before this started?), Saddam's regime had more than enough time to destroy, bury, or move to Syria any weapons, records, or any evidence of a plan for WMD'S. It may take years to comb the entire countryside of Iraq, including all the cities currently held by militiamen, to find any evidence of WMD's or programs involving them. So the argument about not finding WMD's is pretty much moot, at least for now. As usual, the impatience and know-it-all attitude that Americans are so famous for is doing us all a disservice.

So, now that leads us to what's next -- the election! Hoo-freakin'-ray. I'll go ahead and say it -- I probably won't vote -- again. Why? Because I live in Texas, and with Bush running, my vote doesn't count. Thanks, electoral college! Bush will without a doubt win Texas, so there's no point in voting if you are a fence-rider in Texas. I know, it's my civic duty and all, and if my vote counted this time, I would vote. But as of today, I think I'll stay home and watch TV on election day -- the only real vote that I have in America that is worth anything anyway is what I watch on TV, and where I spend my money. And I'm only talking presidential elections here -- local elections are much more important. So who would I vote for? Bush? Kerry? Nader? Please. Anybody that votes for Nader is nuts -- not because of his ideas and ideals, but because he is unelectable. If the Green Party of any other reform party wants to have any real chance, they have stop throwing people like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader at us. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, especially with an election that's as close as this one may be. But, I think as things stand today, I would likely vote for Bush. Now, let me stand back while y'all scream, punch your monitor, and throw my records out your windows.

Here's why: 1) Changing leadership that drastically in a time when the world, and our own safety, is in such precarious balance would be a very bad idea. Ever had a brand new boss come in at work? Or been around when they've tried to install a new computer system? Everything screws up, things get lost or forgotten, priorities change, directives change, people try to jockey for new power positions, and in the end nothing is really better than when you started. And if that's true when all that's at stake is your break time and how hard it is to get new pens, do we want to take any chances when what's at stake is you and your family's lives? 2) Bush isn't that great, in fact, may be an overall bad president, but he's done one extremely important thing right -- there hasn't been one single terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. And there have been many thwarted attempts, so don't think they're not trying to attack us again. Or that they will ever stop, at least as long as well-funded terrorist networks exist. Obviously, as David Cross says so eloquently, "There's never going to be a day when we say, "Yep, we got 'em all! Everybody loves us again!" As long as we're the most powerful nation on the planet, there will be people that hate us and want to destroy us. We can't control that. But what we can control is how difficult it is for them to organize, get funding, and carry out their missions. And, in spite of (and because of) the awful Patriot Act and all the freedoms it's taken away from us (by the way, have you been affected by it yet? Just curious...) Bush and his ragtag band of misfits have done a pretty good job of keeping our asses in one piece and our buildings vertical. 3) John Kerry isn't the man for the job. Again, I'm not even talking about ideals and policies here -- since he is a "politician", he is by definition a liar, and none of his policies or promises can be trusted. I'm talking a little more generally this time. First and foremost, Kerry is a lifetime Washington politician. If he was a governor, I would be more inclined toward him, but anybody that's been in Washington as long as he has can't possibly be trusted. Unless you're John McCain, that is, and he's even a little too "D.C." for me. Kerry has also run for the nomination before -- he's always one of those guys "in the running", like Gephardt -- and lost, which doesn't bode well for his chances. He hasn't presented any clear platform or direction that's vastly different from Bush. In fact, neither Bush nor Kerry has said they will pull troops out of Iraq or pull back on the war on terror. Neither has vastly different political agendas, and both are similar on social and domestic issues, with the exception of following party lines on issues like abortion and taxation. Here's a few wise words from some fellers on political parties:

"[Political parties are] the worst enemy.... potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will subvert the power of the people." -- George Washington

"If I could go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." -- Thomas Jefferson

In reality, a president's most important job is that of a figurehead, a face of the U.S., and I just can't see Kerry in that role. Think about it -- in the 80's, the Reagan years, with ultra-conservatives in power, the culture of America was that of "How much money can I make, and who can I screw to get it." Yuppies happened, cocaine (the most expensive drug) happened, and the S & L scandals happened because of greedy businessmen. The 80's were all about money, putting a happy face on all our problems, and making fake money that drove our national debt to unprecedented heights. Reagan was the perfect face for all that. Then came the 90's - the Clinton years -- and our culture was more about "Work hard, play hard, and not necessarily in that order". We had some of the best real (as opposed to the fake 80's growth) economic growth in decades, but at the same time our president was shagging skanks in the oval office. Our litigious nature reared its ugly head -- illustrated nicely by the old "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is." idea. Lawyers thrived, conservative zealots like Rush and Newt gained huge power off the fears of the biased and ill-informed. But with Clinton, a chomp of the old cigar (remember the cigar craze in the 90's?) and good ol' Southern boy golly-shucks chuckle made us all go, "Awww, I reckon he's all right. And, hey, I'm rich.com, so who cares if he's getting hummers at work?" Clinton was the perfect face for the 90's, the poster boy for what America was at the time.

Bush's term, however, has been defined by 9/11 and this war, and we've all been so preoccupied with it that we really haven't defined ourselves as an "era" yet. What we have now is the "bad-ass" president, the John Wayne mentality that permeates most conservatives and all Bushes. I don't know that that's necessarily good for the country, but I do know this: judging from our choices in art and entertainment (which is usually a good judge of a culture), as well as the "Disneyization" and white-breading of places like Las Vegas and New York City, we are quickly becoming a nation of WUSSIES. The fact that one million people actually bought Clay Aiken (that American Idol weenie) records the first week it was out is all the proof we really need. If that's not enough, look at our kids -- when we were kids, we had a smart-ass rabbit, a psychotic and obsessive coyote, and a sarcastic singing stuffed frog teaching us how to deal with life. Today's kids have the creepy, life-is-happy, sodium-pentathol-tinged Barney, The Teletubbies, and the most disturbing of them all, The Wiggles. Watch any of those for 5 minutes, and see if you don't need a shot and a shower just to get the chills of your spine and those brain-washing songs out of your head. Sports teams for kids are no longer allowed to be competitive, for fear that someone may get their feelings hurt. Our schools are far more interested in "self esteem" than discipline. More and more kids are being home-schooled for fear of their children having to deal with "ugly things" like bullies and violence and drugs and racism, even though they will be faced with all those things the moment they move out of their parents' house, and will have no tools to deal with them. And having a liberal president like John Kerry as the figure-head of America will only lead us more in that direction, where any time we see anything "ugly" our first instinct is to run from it, or get rid of it.

Since I first started writing this thing, I've had some interesting discussions with some folks -- highly intelligent, open-minded, socially-conscious, well-informed folks, as a rule -- on the whole subject of this war and Bush and the election. It's been fascinating to watch them try and restrain themselves when I tell them my position, since their first impulse when they hear of anyone who is "pro-war" or "pro-Bush" is immediate disdain. They've all been very polite, intelligently asserting their positions as I assert mine. All have been fine socio-political discussions. But I have seen a tendency for them to not want to talk about it, or not opine with the fervor that they would with someone on the same side as them, I assume mostly because my friends don't want to hate me the way they hate all war-supporters, and think all Bush-voters are idiots.

I want to be clear on this: If anyone thinks I'm "pro-Bush", they are mistaken. As I said, he may truly be a terrible president. I'm just not "pro-Kerry", nor am I "pro-grass-is-greener". I have noticed something lately, listening to my friends and TV and radio and print and my Yahoo home-page headlines. You know who all the anti-Bush zealots sound EXACTLY like right now? The anti-Clinton zealots in the 1990s.

Everything Bush does is wrong. Everything Bush says is stupid. Anything bad written about him is to be believed, and anything good written about him is biased and blind to the truth. Anyone who doesn't hate him is stupid, and anybody for this war is an asshole and a murder-lover. It used to infuriate me when Rush Limbaugh would quote Clinton and put on this thick, fake Arkansas accent that made Clinton sound like a redneck buffoon straight out of Deliverance. Now, when Al Franken (or anybody I know) quotes Bush, they put on this thick, fake Texas accent that makes Bush sound like a redneck moron straight out of King Of The Hill. What's the difference? Today's liberals will tell you, "The difference is.... is.... we're right and they were wrong!" Maybe. Maybe not.

One of my biggest gripes about these political arguments/discussions I've been having with folks is when people start quoting "facts", or polls, or numbers and percentages, but have no idea where they heard them, or they were heard from a liberal source like Air America or NPR or The New York Times. Want a fact? Here's one: The old adage "you can't believe everything you read" is now obsolete. Now it's "you can't believe anything you read". There is no such thing as a reliable source of news, because virtually all sources have biases and agendas and egos to match. Fox News is almost 100% conservative. So is talk radio. CNN and MSNBC are fairly center if not right-leaning, but seem to lean on whatever is sensational, and lately that's been things that are anti-war, like the prison scandal and civilian casualties in Iraq. The New York Times is distinctly liberal, as are many other major-market newspapers. The music, TV, and movie industries, which unfortunately have major influence on public opinion, are almost 100% liberal. So what do you believe? Nothing. You can't believe any of them completely. You could work out a preponderance of evidence, and just decide what you think based on the sheer amount of evidence you see from both sides. But even that is dependant on "evidence" you get from news sources. And there is no way to believe any national facts and figures regarding the economy, public opinion, or the war, because there is virtually no longer such a thing as unbiased information. And it disturbs me to see so many people, including my friends, people who I think would look at things more objectively, basing such fervent opinions on biased "information", whether it comes from the left or the right.

What you can believe is what you hear yourself or see with your own two eyes -- speeches, debates, interviews, voting records, and observing or participating in conversations with intelligent people. You can believe what you know goes on around you, or what doesn't go on -- like terrorist attacks, in particular. Or zealotry, from either side of the equation.

We proud Americans are some of the most selfish and short-sighted people in the world. We want results, and we want them right f***ing NOW. If you don't perform well enough and improve in any activity, you will be replaced. If an NBA coach or NASCAR driver isn't winning championships within two seasons, the front office will find someone else younger, faster, or cooler. If you don't sell a million records on your debut CD, you will be shelved for years. And if people are dying in a war, and the final objective is not met within a year or two, then the president is an evil war-monger and must be replaced.

Both Bush and Kerry, and almost all Americans, believe we need to get troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. But we have to realize that any real change in Iraq will take several years, possibly a decade, and it will take generations to gain any permanence. And since the U.N. has rendered itself impotent after 15 years of inaction, and no one except the U.K. wants to help us, it is unfortunately up to America to make sure that Iraq is stable enough to govern itself. We are supposed to "hand over power" to the Iraqis on June 30 (a good idea in theory, a bad idea in practice -- too soon), which is a nice step forward, but more of a gesture than anything. The fact is that Iraq has no real police, no real army, and thousands of violent extremists that want to rule the country themselves. If we leave now, or any time in the next year or so, Iraq will fall into the hands of someone even worse than Saddam Hussein, someone who will undoubtedly actively seek revenge on America. Iraq will become a religious extremist state, worse than Afghanistan, and much like Iran in the '70's. As soon as the Iraqi people truly believe that Saddam is gone, the extremists are powerless, and they can trust their government to respect basic human rights and freedoms like voting, expression, and commerce, then no outside presence will be needed. By then we will have moved on to places like Syria (if there were any Iraqi WMD's, that's where they were taken) and Iran, who are the other large supporters of terrorism. North Korea is an issue as well, but they don't "actively" hate America like the Arab terrorists; their interests are more financial than moral. Basically, as soon as they have no one to sell those nukes to, then a nuclear program will be more trouble than it's worth. I know Bush-haters don't want to believe that there is any plan or strategy to this war, or that there is a "war on terror" at all. I know it's ugly, and we Americans hate anything ugly, but there is a real, live -- and winnable if we'll all just settle down-- war going on.

Hopefully, as a nation, we have learned that "different" does not by definition mean "better". And especially in the case of our upcoming election, when there is so little difference in the candidates' overall objectives and potential for success in those objectives, the possibility of a tangible, marked improvement is even less. When things are balanced as precariously as they are in the world, with as much as there is at stake here in our own country with our own friends and family, this is no time for indecision, and especially not imbalance. The reasons for going to war, or how we went about it, are obviously debatable. But right or wrong, we are in this war, and now we have to win it. What is winning it? For me, even if it means the temporary loss of some (mostly theoretical) rights, even if it means some loss of life, both guilty and innocent, even if it means the world hates us for a while, winning this war means keeping our buildings intact and our people alive. It's an ugly truth, but it's really the only one we have.