I'm in Austin, Texas, a place I called home for eight years. Last May we moved from Austin to Lone Tree, Colorado.
What is interesting to me -- and something I hadn't thought about before -- is that I am still more of a Texan than a Coloradoan. I am completely comfortable in Colorado and I love living there. But being back in Texas reminded me that I am still much more at home in Texas and have a much better sense of who Texans are and how they are shaped by their state.
I'll become a Coloradoan in time but I'm not there yet.
The other interesting item is something I wrote about on this blog shortly after we moved. That is that I love the strong sense of identity Texans have as Texans and Austinites have as Austinites. It is fun for me to be back in the middle of that bravado.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Defining your home
I had a conversation this afternoon with a woman from Crane, Texas. Crane is a West Texas town of about 3,500 people. This is how the woman described her home.
The 10 day forcast for Crane calls for sunny skies and high temps ranging from 70 to 84.
It is a place where, "it don't rain and if it does, it scares us!"
The 10 day forcast for Crane calls for sunny skies and high temps ranging from 70 to 84.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Iraq
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly told President Bush that if he invaded Iraq the "you break it, you buy it" theory would apply. This meant that once Bush invaded Iraq (broke it) it would be the responsibility of the United States to stabilize the country and restore order (buy it.)
But a funny thing happened. We went in and broke the country with remarkable speed and efficiency. Then, instead of working as hard as we could to put the pieces back together, we began making all kinds of excuses as to why we shouldn't be responsible for things over there.
These excuses and arguments continued for years. Our leaders claimed everything was fine and that we really shouldn't have to buy anything. Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney argued that the Iraqis needed to put their own country back together and that our claiming any responsibility was simply unnecessary coddling. In the meantime, while American troops died, the situation on the ground grew worse and worse. Iraq dissolved into civil war.
Now, the President is finally willing to admit that he broke Iraq. And he has asked for more troops to try to help end the civil war. But he waited too long and he no longer has the trust or support of the American people. To make a bad situation worse, the newly empowered Democrats, knowing a good political issue when they see one, are doing all they can to whip up opposition to the President and to our efforts in Iraq.
And to top it all off, the few allies President Bush had in his "coalition" have started announcing troop withdrawals from Iraq.
So while allies withdraw, Democrats rail and grandstand and an incompetent, befuddled President dithers, American troops die, Iraqis die and terrorists begin to win by creating anarchy in Iraq.
Iraq is broken and we broke it. And while we have paid a heavy price in both American lives and dollars, we have yet to complete the deal to buy it.
So what do we do now? I believe that in theory, John McCain and President Bush are right. We need to send more troops to Iraq to try to bring some stability to the country.
But here's the problem with that approach: This President and his advisors have absolutely no clue what to do with the troops once they get there. As a result, the new American troops will simply become additional targets for terrorist insurgents as they practice and hone their war-making skills.
The other option is to pull out. But if we leave, we provide the world with yet another example of failed imperialism, we increase instability in a part of the world that is already not at all stable, and we give the terrorists another place from which they may base their operations and train their followers.
Staying means we rely on the failed leadership of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Steven Hadley. And that is unacceptable. Leaving means even more chaos in the Middle East. And that is unacceptable.
My guess is we will stay. And Iraq will continue to get worse and worse until on a cold day in January, 2009, a new President will take over and be faced with an immediate decision as to what to do with Iraq.
Iraq has truly become one of the worst blunders of American foreign policy ever.
And in the end, my guess is that George W. Bush will be remembered in American history books as the President who failed in the war on terror because he refused to fight it, deciding instead to fight a war that had nothing to do with terror. In doing so, President Bush has simply increased anti-American fervor and in all likelihood handed the terrorists a victory over the United States. In Iraqi history books? Well, George W. Bush may just end up being more notorious and known as more destructive than the man he went to war against, Saddam Hussein.
But a funny thing happened. We went in and broke the country with remarkable speed and efficiency. Then, instead of working as hard as we could to put the pieces back together, we began making all kinds of excuses as to why we shouldn't be responsible for things over there.
These excuses and arguments continued for years. Our leaders claimed everything was fine and that we really shouldn't have to buy anything. Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney argued that the Iraqis needed to put their own country back together and that our claiming any responsibility was simply unnecessary coddling. In the meantime, while American troops died, the situation on the ground grew worse and worse. Iraq dissolved into civil war.
Now, the President is finally willing to admit that he broke Iraq. And he has asked for more troops to try to help end the civil war. But he waited too long and he no longer has the trust or support of the American people. To make a bad situation worse, the newly empowered Democrats, knowing a good political issue when they see one, are doing all they can to whip up opposition to the President and to our efforts in Iraq.
And to top it all off, the few allies President Bush had in his "coalition" have started announcing troop withdrawals from Iraq.
So while allies withdraw, Democrats rail and grandstand and an incompetent, befuddled President dithers, American troops die, Iraqis die and terrorists begin to win by creating anarchy in Iraq.
Iraq is broken and we broke it. And while we have paid a heavy price in both American lives and dollars, we have yet to complete the deal to buy it.
So what do we do now? I believe that in theory, John McCain and President Bush are right. We need to send more troops to Iraq to try to bring some stability to the country.
But here's the problem with that approach: This President and his advisors have absolutely no clue what to do with the troops once they get there. As a result, the new American troops will simply become additional targets for terrorist insurgents as they practice and hone their war-making skills.
The other option is to pull out. But if we leave, we provide the world with yet another example of failed imperialism, we increase instability in a part of the world that is already not at all stable, and we give the terrorists another place from which they may base their operations and train their followers.
Staying means we rely on the failed leadership of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Steven Hadley. And that is unacceptable. Leaving means even more chaos in the Middle East. And that is unacceptable.
My guess is we will stay. And Iraq will continue to get worse and worse until on a cold day in January, 2009, a new President will take over and be faced with an immediate decision as to what to do with Iraq.
Iraq has truly become one of the worst blunders of American foreign policy ever.
And in the end, my guess is that George W. Bush will be remembered in American history books as the President who failed in the war on terror because he refused to fight it, deciding instead to fight a war that had nothing to do with terror. In doing so, President Bush has simply increased anti-American fervor and in all likelihood handed the terrorists a victory over the United States. In Iraqi history books? Well, George W. Bush may just end up being more notorious and known as more destructive than the man he went to war against, Saddam Hussein.
Our misplaced media priorities
Iran is expanding it's nuclear program, Chlorine bombs are becoming the weapon of choice in Iraq and CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all are caught up in the judicial ruling regarding who gets Anna Nichole Smith's dead body.
At least the NYT, Washington Post and Dallas Morning News have their priorities straight.
At least the NYT, Washington Post and Dallas Morning News have their priorities straight.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Al Franken for US Senate
Al Franken announced today that he is running for the US Senate in Minnesota. His speech is about 9 minutes long and I think worth a listen. While I don't know if I'll be supporting Franken, I believe he makes an incredibly attractive candidate. Why? He knows how to tell a story and nothing is more persuasive than a good story.
Give the speech a listen. Then tell me what you think.
Give the speech a listen. Then tell me what you think.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Joke of the Day
Q. Have you seen the new movie, Constipated?
A. No.
Q. Oh, that's right, it hasn't come out yet.
For more great humor check out Garrison Keillor's annual Prairie Home Companion Joke Show.
A. No.
Q. Oh, that's right, it hasn't come out yet.
For more great humor check out Garrison Keillor's annual Prairie Home Companion Joke Show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
