(no subject)

Two political links:

NYT Magazine article about the 'faith-based presidency' and speculations as to why GWB not only dislikes but doesn't even comprehend the basis of critiques about his policies. It brings to mind my own observations of his core debate message WRT foreign policy, that an American leader who has ever questioned American actions or policies is by definition weak and untrustworthy. According to the view put forth in this story, this isn't just campaign rhetoric, but a reflection of GWB's actual beliefs, held in the same style as his unwavering religious faith. (Use bugmenot to get a permanent NYT site reg if you don't have one.)

And William Gibson is blogging again, and all about the current American political climate; a little disorienting, since his last blog (which he hung up last year to spend more time on his next novel) was almost entirely about his books and the writing process.

I found this passage in particular to resonate with my own personal then-and-nows:

In the days after 9-11 I often took comfort in thinking of this man and the ideas he represented. When asked what I thought the United States would or could do in response to the attacks, I surprised friends by saying that I believed the US military's intelligentsia already understood the true nature of the conflict better than the enemy did.

And I still imagine that I was right in that. But the creative intelligence of my friend from the DoD, and so many others like him, prevailed not at all -- in the face of ideology, cupidity, stupidity, and a certain tragically crass cunning with regard to the mass pyschology of the American people.

That actually was me; I was full of optimistic (in the actual sense of the word, thanks) posts on a local social mailing list about the coming surgical strikes to take out OBL and his gang, and how disappointed our foes would be in our failure to go global-apeshit as a result of the attacks. You remember when it looked like this was true, don't you?