|
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 04:13 PM by necso
them to actually have been, simply, blunders."
There is truth to this; but there is also grounds for a misunderstanding.
For while a person of common human-mentality (sanity, intelligence) might be expected to get some things right (by simple chance if nothing else) -- and perhaps even recognize his mistakes (especially once he has essentially repeated the same behavior many times and gotten the same unsatisfying, unexpected results) and try to correct for them -- neocon "minds" work differently (stupidly, insanely).
For example, when confronted by some unpleasantness (that is, when he finally recognizes it), a neocon (typically; definitionally) does one of a few things: he ignores it; he rationalizes it "away"; or he strikes out at it (that is, he immediately uses thuggery (a later, or even last, resort for others), frequently of the vilest sort).
(Put another way, neocons are delusional (self, group delusional), out-of-touch, arrogant, disrespectful (of anything beyond themselves and their money-men, power-brokers, etc), and militarist (taken broadly: to mean believing in, quickly using, and relying on the use of forceful, aggressive, unconstrained-by-normal-societal-mores means and methods -- in a wide variety of life situations, although typically not including those situations where the neocon is actually at any significant, personal, physical risk).)
That is, we can expect the neocons to react badly when things go badly. So is it any wonder that with them in charge, things go from bad to worse?
No indeed, it's neocon nature to make (have) things happen this way -- to have this be the case.
Let me illustrate with a little story -- and an extrapolation (something which, admittedly, one must be careful about making, and even more careful about putting much confidence in -- much less committing oneself to, while excluding other possibilities.)
I was helping a friend one time by putting in a post (putting it into the ground; a large post). There was a fairly-precisely set place where it had to be, and so I started to dig there. (I typically set ("permanent") posts very firmly: making a large, deep hole, "belling" it at the bottom, using a lot of concrete; typically, posts I set ("permanently") aren't going anywhere.)
I had only dug to a small depth, say a foot, when the hole started to fill with water (it was nice day in the middle of a recently-wet rainy/snowy season). And when I looked at what was happening, I saw that I had (essentially) tapped into a little stream of ground-water (again, I had to sink the post pretty-much right there).
Now, I'm a person who doesn't like to give-up. But I'm also a person who reevaluates things; and when I decide that the previously-charted course is an inutile one (in this case, because of bad timing), then I'll drop it (more or less quickly, graciously, etc) -- and chart a new one.
In any event, water was flowing (not seeping) into the hole I was digging (and was going to try to set concrete in), and this wasn't part of the concept, so I quickly abandoned the old plan, scooped out the water (with the shovel, a cup), and filled the hole back-in with the slightly-wet (but not muddy) dirt I had taken out. (Later, when things dried out in spring or summer, there would be no such flow.)
And that was that, things went back (more or less) to the way they were; no water poured out of the hole; you could hardly tell I had done anything; work was both lost and saved -- but the plan had to be immediately abandoned (delayed until the circumstances changed to allow it to play-out as intended).
Of course, I don't know if the little flow I uncovered was all there was to it, or if it was just the top edge of a much larger flow. But in either case, it was enough to wreck my plans. And had it been part of a larger flow -- and had I persisted -- then things could have gotten much worse, leaving me wishing that I had stopped at the very first -- or at any point up to the time I finally did stop (if only because I had run out of resources).
Now, to illustrate how the neocons operate, let's assume that this flow was part of a larger one -- and that some neocon had set-out to dig the hole.
A neocon, encountering that first little flow, typically wouldn't give it much (or any) thought. He wouldn't notice it; he would ignore it; or he would get irritated by it and redouble his efforts. (Admittedly, it's hard to imagine any prominent neocon digging a hole for any reason other than show and/or tell; but imagine some rank-and-file neocon doing it).
And as he dug deeper-and-deeper, more-and-more water would flow faster-and-faster into the hole. And soon what he dug out of the hole would no longer be dirt, but rather a mixture of water and mud (eventually becoming "soup").
Moreover, as he flings this water and mud mixture out of the hole, it mixes with the dirt he has already dug (and other, undisturbed dirt), wetting it and turning it into mud -- and eventually into a slippery, boggy slop that defies shoveling -- and grades into the undisturbed earth.
And as he tries to dig deeper, the sides of the hole erode and collapse, so he must broaden the hole, shoveling again what he has previously shoveled-out (as this becomes less-and-less shovelable), spreading his mess further and further.
But throughout, water continues to pour into the hole (the shoveling has not only opened up a new flow-path, but it has disrupted the exit-portion of the previous one), rising up until it starts to flow out of the hole (the path of least resistance is now up and out).
Then the water starts to flood about, turning slop into soup, eroding away both slop and soup, cutting into the firmament.
So the neocon has painted himself into a tight corner: digging deeper will only worsen the problem (he can't keep up with the spread of the problem as it is, much less make progress); filling the hole back up with what he has dug out is impossible (where this isn't already soup, it'll quickly turn into it, if he throws it into the pit of water -- and flowing streamlet); if he digs fresh earth to fill the hole, it too might turn into soup and flow away, plus these are just more holes for water to flow into -- or out of; and if he just quits, the water will have its way until it comes to some new (rough) equilibrium, causing such (possibly significant) harm as is difficult to foretell.
But, of course, the last way is the only one that can be reasonably taken: let things take their course, and deal with the problem (the newly caused problems, the old problem) when the circumstances are more suitable and promising for doing so.
But, of course, we cannot expect the neocon to see this -- and to deliberately stop making things worse; nor, in the case of a die-hard neocon, to just give-up. (This is where the analogy breaks down: in some losing endeavor that involves him physically, a neocon would eventually give up; his persona is based on hubris, insanity and stupidity, not real strength; and besides, eventually he'll run out of resources.)
...
Some things are best left undisturbed -- or, if disturbed, quickly returned to something like their original state (as best one can). And sometimes, it's your very efforts which undermine your "cause" ("plans", "intentions", course, etc).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
