Now, let’s talk about slogans. Ours is: Country First. Think about it. When you think of what should come first, what does? Us ourselves? No. That would be selfish. Our personal families? Selfish. God? God is good, I love Him, but, as our slogan suggests, no, sorry, God, You are not First. No, you don’t, Lord! How about: the common good of all mankind! Is that First? Don’t make me laugh with your weak blinking! No!
SHOUTS & MURMURS: My Gal: Humor: The New Yorker.
—
Ahem. Nicrely ranted.
Ninja cat never moves, it only appears.
There’s an ooooold saying about the tipping points in life.
This ones comes from deep in the desert, back in some of the first communities our species ever built.
The wiki says the story goes like this.
The idiom the straw that broke the camel’s back is from an Arab proverb about how a camel wearing shoes is loaded beyond its capacity to move[citation needed]. This is a reference to any process by which cataclysmic failure (a broken back) is achieved by a seemingly inconsequential addition (a single straw). This also gives rise to the phrase “the last/final straw”, used when something is deemed to be the last in a line of unacceptable occurrences. A variation of this idiom is “the straw that broke the donkey‘s back”.
One of the earliest published usages of this phrase was in Charles Dickens‘s Dombey and Son where he says “As the last straw breaks the laden camel’s back”, meaning that there is a limit to everyone’s endurance, or everyone has his breaking point. Dickens was writing in the nineteenth century and he may have received his inspiration from an earlier proverb, recorded by Thomas Fuller in his Gnomologia as ‘Tis the last feather that breaks the horse’s back.’
So it goes from the Desert to Dickens and back to Dicks in the Desert (of Wall Street). Or something.
Why I’m bringing this up is that, uh, I’m one of those straws, maybe even the proverbial one.
You see, in order to provide for my little media endeavor, and take some time to write and enjoy life, I’ve taken the step of cashing out a 401K I’d been bulding for the last few years. Silly, I know, but when one needs capital and one has been saving for that reason, it was an easy call.
The fact that I got my check on the exact same day that the shit hit the fan makes me wonder about the weight of my piece of straw.
We’ve been told that the camel was mighty and healthy and beyond danger. That It could withstand war and famine and plague and pestilence and keep walking through the desert undisturbed. That it could go faster, even, if we just whipped it harder.
Now we know better.
Just like they did thousands of years ago, halfway around the world.
[Charles Gibson] asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sarah Palin ponders the Bush Doctrine
Sensing his “gotcha” moment [1], Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube [2] that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11 [3], and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.
—
[1] It was the “moose in headlights look in her eyes.
[2] “I’m a victim” argument.
[3] [And, as you’ve said any number of times…everything changed…including what you called the “Bush Doctrine.” ]
Charles Krauthammer – Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe – washingtonpost.com.
—
So a bunch of right-wingers have been using this to defend Palin’s complete lack of knowledge regarding the fact that Bush and his neocon buddies (one of which is teaching her foreign policy) completely changed the foreign policy philosophy of the United States.
The lie is easily exposed quickly. Watch now, if you can ignore facts like this, you too, can be a hack.
KRAUTHAMMER: I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,”
—
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
So in his inredibly egotistical daydreams, Charles Krauthammer has forgotten 9/11.
You see, in between Krauthammer writing BS policy for PNAC and AEI in June 2001 and the U.S. invading Iraq in 2002, there was a rather large event.
Since Gibson specifically mentioned what he was talking about, and Krauthammer specifically omitted Gibson mentioning that, you can see who the liar is here.
Palin had no idea was any of them was, and offers a couple of complete non-answers. Some, like Krauthammer, have jumpted to Palin’s defense and said that the term is ambiguous. But given Gibson’s clarification, that Kruathammers somehow missed, and the fact that the official through colloquial understandings of the term all have nothing to do with how she answered (I think she thought it was the “War on Terror” which is even more ambiguous).
She didn’t know what it was. If you would like to, please read on.
Then, if McCain nominates you for Vice President (and it is possible) you can know better….he certainly did….
Robot Pirate Ninja 