To Curry Favor, Favor Curry

I don't know if anyone is curious about this, but it's been a while since I mentioned it, so here it is: I hate thinking up names for my posts, so my standard operating procedure is to simply use the title of whatever song I happen to be listening to when I start the post. In this particular instance, it's a song by PDQ Bach (a.k.a. Prof. Peter Schickele) from the opera The Seasonings. If you have never heard anything by PDQ, and if you enjoy classical music even a tiny bit, I would recommend listening to some of the stuff. Hansel and Gretel and Ted and Alice (an opera in one unnatural act) is an good starting point, though maybe The Unbegun Symphony is a bit easier to digest at first. Anyway, go to it.

I got Kurosawa's Ran and Petersen's Das Boot (the director's cut version) from the library. I felt like watching some films in color, and I've heard good things about them. Again, reviews as viewing warrants.

As I was typing this, I suddenly had a strong desire to have Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie Ice Cream. It's time for a quick trip to Walmart.

You know, as nice as it is to be able to eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's on a whim and not worry about getting fat, I really do wish that I weren't so skinny. I'm not saying that I want to be body-builder buff or anything, I just wish I had a little something to show off every now and then. I suppose that that little bit really wouldn't take a whole lot of effort on my part, but I have neither the self-discipline nor the courage to actually start working out. Damn it all.

After thinking a bit more about Touch of Evil, I saw a connection between President Bush and Orson Welles's character. It is widely believed (and almost certainly true) that the President exaggerated the threat of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to muster the political support for an invasion. Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein deserved to be taken out of office (at least, I hope no one denies it), but our invasion was illegal by international law. Hank Quinlan (Welles's character) plants evidence in order to catch a Mexican who planted a car bomb and killed two people. It turns out that the Mexican was guilty after all, but bringing him in based on the false evidence was still illegal. Both Quinlan and President Bush are people who are so sure that they are right they they will fabricate facts and ignore law to make sure that their version of justice is carried out. In both cases, their version of justice is correct (both Hussein and the Mexican deserve to be deposed/imprisoned), but in both cases, the execution of that justice was flawed. And of course, Orson Welles (as fat and ugly as he was by that point) was far better in front of a camera than President Bush is.

When I talk about "their version of justice" in relation to President Bush, I'm referring solely to the deposing and capture of Saddam Hussein. I'm not referring to ancillary events stemming from the invasion of Iraq, such as the prisoner abuse scandals. Those are most definitely not right or correct. However, I disagree with people who try to pin the prisoner abuse scandals on President Bush. I don't remember the specific quote, but I saw something which said essentially that the abuse was occuring because the guards were frustrated with President Bush's policies and the invasion in general. It neatly pinned all the blame for everything that went wrong in the prisons on President Bush. That is bullshit. I'm by no means a Bush apologist, but come on people, that's absolutely ridiculous. The people who committed those atrocities, and their superiors who turned a blind eye are the ones to blame. I mean, it's true that it wouldn't have happened if we weren't in Iraq, and we most likely wouldn't be in Iraq if it weren't for Bush, but at that point you're just tracing blame, which is an exercise in futility. Why not blame the whole scandal on George H. W. Bush for not raising his son to have proper respect for international law? Probably because George W. Bush is a grown man, capable of making his own decisions and taking responsibility for them. But by that argument, so are the guards who committed the abuse. They were perfectly capable of not abusing the prisoners, and weren't under orders or duress. Or if they were, the orders were not from President Bush, but rather from their immediate superiors.

In similar news, some people in Kalamazoo were recently charged with some crime (it may have been involuntary manslaughter) for providing alcohol to a minor who imbibed the alcohol, then went driving and ended up killing someone. Unfortunately I don't remember the specifics because I was drunk when I read the article. But it's a similar thing. How the hell can you justify charging the people who provided the alcohol? It's just tracing blame again. That tracing should stop at the first person who is capable of making reasoned decisions. In this case, that would be the kid who drove drunk, not the kids who provided the alcohol.

Or maybe I'm way off base here. I know there are people who advocate societal responsibility over personal responsibility. I haven't thought that over enough to really have an opinion on that matter. But even so, it seems that the Kalamazoo case is still trying to pin the blame on individuals. Oh well, I'm done with that whole thing for now.

Actually, I think I'm done with this whole post.