Tannishblog

My good friend, Rebekah shares few of my views. I love her anyway. She posted a lengthy comment to my “Bills’ bill” posting. Let me first say: Thank you, RK. I’ve been thinking for a while that you’ve given up on me, hands in the air in exasperation (this might do it, though).

To whomever else might stumble across this post, I say this: My opinions are just the vehicle with which I try to home my writing skills. As a whole, they’ve never been too popular, but I don’t mind. From the depths of my ignorance, to the limits of my meager education, I try - with good intention - to be thoughtful and -provoking. It’s not my fault that the thoughts I provoke are sometimes homicidal. Below, I respond to her comment, placed here mostly because it’s too big for the comment section, and partly because my other three readers might benefit from a clearer understanding of my muddled mind-set. Here goes:

“It’s likely that up to two-thirds of the land freed up by President Bush’s action will remain roadless,(opening ~39 million acres available for roads)” Dr. Burnett added. “The new rule simply promotes healthy forests (this is how the administration speaks of toadying up to logging interests), prevents catastrophic wildfires(deemed catastrophic because of all the rich folk’s homes nearby) and nurtures species enhancement(?), rather than tying the hands of professional forest managers with a top-down, one-size-fits-all, Washington-mandated, hands-off forest policy.”

Exactly how does building roads and the subsequent enviting in of forestry interests “nurture species enhancement?” There’s been a big deal lately about a certain woodpecker in the southeast that has thought to be extinct. Its miraculous comeback was noted on lands the feds have designated as “hands-off” for decades, lands which now are in danger of being reopened. I’m sure the fact the woodpecker has somehow survived is a direct result of its being left alone and having its habitat untouched for years.

Also, it is a well known fact that forest fires are good for the forests. Such is nature’s way of creating healthy woodlands and clearing the fround for regrowth. In many ways the detritus created by forest fires promotes life in ways applied forestry cannot. It makes me wonder at the outrageously ego-centric assumption that the earth cannot exist without mankind’s help. It had done well for most of its history without the destructive, self-absorbed machinations of the human race. Likely it will heal itself after we’ve died off.

Bottom line: I firmly believe there are too many humans on this planet, that we are careless and/or foolish in our habits, and that we all need to try any and all attempts to lighten our footprint on this, our only planet. If that means more government intervention, then fine! Unless and until people do the right things on their own, which is unlikely.

Shakespeare’s Sister calls him “Mr. Moustache.” To me he looks like a human-pit bull hybrid, some kind of early genetic engineering mishap. My daughter thinks he should dye his moustache.

Setting the snark aside, John Bolton looks mean. I’ve come to take great stock in how faces look in repose. The tendency over many years to frown, scowl, or to smile has an effect on facial musculature, sending a unique message about the emotional predisposition of the personality inside. In a relaxed state, the face holds the form of its predominant expressive posture.

Here we see him listening. He is not aware of his expression, therefore it reveals his spirit. Clearly this is a man with dark thoughts. As I look into his eyes, I see a man that is quick to anger, a man who spends a lot of time frowning. I see a stern, resolute personality that is not in the habit of flexibility.

Here is a poor, government-issue photo of him smiling. Even through the graininess of the photograph, his smile seems foreign to his features. Does his smile reach his eyes? One can’t tell from this shot, but I’m betting that he doesn’t do this a lot.

My point? Is this the kind of man you would assume has the capabilities to soothe arguments and calm people, to effectively find common ground between conflicting agendas and to bolster a sense of fairness and - dare I say - diplomacy? (NOTE: The above query is not rhetorical.) According to NNDB, these words are attributed to Mr. Moustache:

“If the UN Secretary Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. There’s no such thing as the United Nations.”

Kind of gives the term “credibility gap” new meaning. From the same site, there is a quote attributed to Jesse Helms:

“John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world.”

Am I alone in thinking that, as Good and Evil goes, American might, just might, be on the dark side? Strands of Warren Zevon’s “Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner” plays in my head as I write this.

The Washington Post has the score on the Senate non-debate of Bolton’s nomination to the non-existent United Nations. (I wonder how much he’ll make working for an imaginary organization. How can I find a job like that?) Kudos to George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) for exhibiting backbone:

Bolton “is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be,” Voinovich said in a blistering speech that surprised even Democrats with its ferocity. “I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton,” he said, adding that he thought Bolton’s behavior at the State Department would get him fired in the private sector.

In support, committee chairman, Richard G. Lugar (R-Indiana) says the following:

“Bolton’s actions were not always exemplary,” and “his blunt style alienated some colleagues,” Lugar said. “But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct.”

As endorsements go, this is fairly weak. How can a “blunt style” positively affect a diplomatic career? I’m a blunt person. I can tell you first-hand that this does little to promote harmony against differing factions or to promote confidence in tender negotiations. From my personal experience, this bluntness will adversely affect the role Mr. Bolton plays in the UN and undermine the already tenuous position in which the US finds itself.