Just five hours to go.

[edg]

First: if you have comments you want to make about my previous post, this is the place to make them.

I can't believe I spent $30 on gas today. (Of course, that was for nearly 15 gallons - if the gas tank in my car is the factory spec size, I was within half a gallon of being completely empty. And I had racked up 350 miles on that tank - I usually refill at around 275.)

I wonder if I'm more irritable than usual today; I keep getting annoyed at very small things.

Comments

[solaas.livejournal.com]

Not really a comment, but a question: What pledge? *confused & clueless*

[edg.livejournal.com]

If you don't know, don't worry about it.

[solaas.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay! ^^ *hug*

[undauntra.livejournal.com]

Regarding previous post: That was an edit, right? Or am I hallucinating?

[edg.livejournal.com]

Yes, I removed the original post in a fit of pique.

[angelofwinter.livejournal.com]

Okay I am about to go delete happy on my LJ so I will say here what I said there-- that I feel bad that you feel bad that a lot of people disagreed so strongly with you and that I feel the same way you do but I just didn't post any response because I am kind of exhausted of the whole politic thing right now.

[canaa.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't see why I should be expected to act like I approve of Bush now that he's won - however he managed it. I still do not approve of him, and the odds of my supporting the things he'll do in the next four years are slim. He has shown, over and over, to hate the things I stand for, and stand for things I hate.

I will not roll over and present my belly. I am not a dog, and while he may have won the office, he has not won my mind.

[edg.livejournal.com]

That is not what the pledge was about. The first paragraph I quoted was there only for context.

The pledge was about being civil. It was about acknowledging that ad hominem attacks and jumping to conclusions don't help anybody. It was about saying "If I disagree with the President or his decisions, I will do so rationally, I will do so respectfully, and I will hope that either I am wrong or he realizes that he is." There was nothing in there about backing him unilaterally. There was nothing in there about even backing anything he does or says.

What makes me even more upset than the fact that nearly everybody who commented on that post didn't read past the first quoted paragraph is that I was truly hoping that the pledge was unnecessary.

[cherrypep.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long answer to this about half an hour ago and did not post it, because I realised that it was a) pointless, b) better off in my own livejournal, and c) essentially myself bemoaning America's rush to unmake the Enlightenment.

So all I will say here is: A spade is a spade. A turd is a turd. And a war-crazed religious maniac operating in defiance of international law is President of the United States.

Noble of you, to want to fight fair! And patriotic! Civility, politeness and the rule of law!

He will not realise that he is wrong. Rationality does not play a big part in America's decision-making processes. The rule of logic in America belonged to a long byegone age, if it ever happened at all. Your gentlemanly behaviour will not change that, though is kind of you to hope for the best.

My disgust was mainly based around "I will hope that either I am wrong or he realizes that he is". There is objective fact available in this situation, and it tells you amongst other things that the Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations place limitations on the authority of an occupying power, including attempts at wide-ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures, alterations in the status of public officials or judges, changes to penal laws and imposition of major structural and economic reforms. The Iraq war was legal only when limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of UN resolution 678; Iraqi disarmament. We are now way beyond that point. The Geneva Convention also has things to say about the treatment of soldiers, that the US sidesteps by calling them 'non-military combatants'. But there's also the Declaration of Human Rights...

There's been a lot of death recently, a lot of fucking around with peoples' lives, a lot of counterproductive bullshit.

"I hope that I am wrong"...

Maybe what you meant is "I hope that the media made up all this Iraq stuff and there never was a war at all", or "I hope that everything I've seen in the last few years is a fabrication of the Matrix, and I'm just lying in a tank somewhere". But to me it sounded like "I hope that all this killin' we're doing is totally justifable, that it's true about the WMDs, and that those people drinking the kool-ade are doing the right thing". In which case... quit hoping. Death on a grand scale on a fraudulent pretext is generally indefensible, and it is not something about which to be polite. The Marquis of Queensbury rules are here inappropriate.