mrsronweasley: (evil incarnate)
mrsronweasley ([personal profile] mrsronweasley) wrote2004-06-08 04:13 pm

Row that boat.

I really strongly dislike the summer, because I'm not very good with the whole 'heat and humidity' thing. I mean, I'm Russian. I won't lie and say I cope with the cold any better, but at least there you can bundle up. My ideal temperature is around 70, though probably less. Another reason? I hate summer clothes. Especially shorts. Shorts and I do not go well together. Unfortunately, we have to go together today, but we, neither of us, is liking it.

I just finished ironing. Yeah, for my mom. 'Cause it's really important, you understand, to iron underwear. Without that, it will not serve its purpose and hold things in place. Yes, I am scoffing. Because ironing underwear is right up there with drinking coffee to sleep. Let's not go into what we use starch on, now...

Anyway, I was watching "Highlander" (the TV show) while doing it, and I'm confused. I mean, I generally know very little about the show, but having seen Peter Wingfield twice now, I'm not opposed to finding out more. To put it mildly. So, I'm going to appeal to [livejournal.com profile] rochefort and [livejournal.com profile] miraminx and their expertise in the area. The episode I saw ended with Duncan killing Callus (right?) on top of the Eiffel Tower, and them all going off into the sunset, so did I see the finale of the series? If so, when does Methos first appear? I'm confuuuuuuuuuuuuuused... Help?

And now for something completely different:

I've been writing, and it feels really good. I'm running a good chance of finishing my Fuh-Q-Fest story today. Wheeeeeeeeeeeee... But if not, then soon. The bad part is, it's depressing as all shit, and I think it's causing me to feel depressed myself. I'm torn between feeling accomplished and feeling like drinking myself silly. That's wrong, isn't it?

I'm going to end this silly entry with a letter somebody sent into Time magazine in this week's issue, in response to an article on Bush and the war (I haven't read the article itself, I admit, but I'm guessing it was criticizing his actions):

"Where is a president like Harry Truman when we need him? Truman was willing to drop atom bombs to save the lives of American troops. In the face of enormous public disapproval, he fired General Douglas MacArthur. Truman showed courage and decisiveness when confronted with seemingly impossible situations. The whys and hows of the quagmire in Iraq would not faze him. He would either order the troops home or unleash the full might of the military on those who disrupt our efforts in Iraq. Moreover, he would take full responsibility for the decision."

...or just nuke 'em all. 'Cause, really, what are other people worth if they aren't with us? Like, you know, those Japanese citizens - we couldn't profit from them, they served no purpose, but it showed 'em just how serious we really were about winning.

I understand that war calls for casualties, from all sides. But if you're the sort of person who's willing to drop an A-bomb on millions of innocent people, I sincerely hope you are not in any position to do it. But that's just me.

[identity profile] mrsronweasley.livejournal.com 2004-06-08 03:27 pm (UTC)(link)
But I think the point is that a leader has to be smart, fearless, and unswayed by public opinion to the extent that s/he is willing to make the right decisions, which will benefit the greatest number of people, at the right times, without regard for the personal consequences s/he will face.

I agree with some of that, but I will never consider the dropping of the bombs on Japan to be a right choice. It's a personal thing, I'm afraid. It never struck me as a right decision, and it never will. Intellectually, I can understand your point, of course - it was swift, it was efficient, and it got the point across. But everything inside me rebels against it and I just can't consider it the right decision.

he should do whatever he thinks is best for THE COUNTRY, not what's best for GEORGE W. BUSH in election '04. That's the difference between a statesman and a politician--and Bush is clearly the latter, which is a damn shame.

Indeed. However, there is one thing that bothers me, but it can never be resolved, because there is too much to consider. If the president does not listen to his constituents and does as he sees fit, it may not be the best decision for his country, after all. This is one of those things that bothers me a lot, and one of the reasons I will never make a good politician. *g*