Sunday, October 05, 2008

Evil Doers

I had a very pleasant brunch with Shooshoo, one of my good interpreter friends  from my previous freelancing life. We were talking about the US election and I started to criticize Obama.

"You'd rather have McCain?" she asked, utterly shocked. "No!, of course not!" "Then who? That's the only choice". "I'd rather have Hillary". "Yes, but..." "I know, I know." We ended agreeing that "they're all crooks".

Then, when I got home, I found this posting at Once Upon A Time, which I would like to quote below for your reading pleasure, since it expresses my position perfectly:

"Almost no one in national political life, and almost no writer of prominence, will acknowledge the full meaning of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq: because Iraq never constituted a serious threat to the U.S., and because that fact was readily apparent in the winter and spring of 2002-2003 (even to an honest citizen with no "expert" specialized knowledge), the U.S. invasion was a criminal act of aggression, identical in principle to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland. This foundational fact has many further implications, and one of them is critical in evaluating the two major presidential candidates: since the invasion was a criminal act of aggression, the U.S. occupation of Iraq is similarly an ongoing series of monstrous war crimes. To vote to fund the continuing occupation is to be an accomplice to genocide and to the destruction of an entire nation and its peoples, and thus to be a war criminal.


Most Americans who vote this November, and probably many of you reading this, will vote for one of these war criminals. I no longer care what rationalizations people use to justify such a detestable choice -- that one war criminal is not quite as bad as the other for some unspecified reason, that one of these bastards speechifies more prettily than the other and touches some inchoate, indefinable emotional chord in your stunted soul, that (as a friend of mine recently observed to me privately) we've had white assholes governing this country for so long that it's only "fair" to have a black asshole in charge for a change. I don't give a damn what reason you give yourself for your embrace of evil, for only one fact matters:

If you vote for McCain or Obama, you're voting for a war criminal.

If you still persist in your determination to vote for the "lesser evil" at this late date (and there isn't a "lesser evil" now), you should read this essay again or for the first time. See where that approach has led others. And if the horrors begin to mount in the next four years, I don't want to hear any of your pathetic whining. Without the support offered by you and many others who are similarly impaired morally and cognitively, those horrors would not be realized. And that is what you offer with your vote: support.

Given this background, the nature of many of the attacks on Sarah Palin continues to shock and astound me. Bad enough that much of the hatred for Palin proceeds directly from the loathing of women as such that is one of the pillars supporting Western "civilization" and thought. Bad enough that a great deal of the contempt directed at Palin stems from a thoroughly odious sense of class superiority: "She's awful, my dear. She's just not like us. And you know, she's really -- oh, dear, can I say this? But I must! -- she's just trash." (I see that Walsh is incapable of giving up this line of attack, and her writing about Palin should disgust any decent human being.) It is a measure of how deeply stupid our discourse is that so many people still fall back on the "experience" argument: poor stupid Sarah doesn't have enough of it, don't you know. Such people never identify exactly what the nature of such "experience" is, given our system of murderously violent militarist corporatism.


It is certainly true that Palin doesn't speak in the comfortable circumlocutions and deliberately evasive phrases so beloved by Washington pols, and by most writers and far too many bloggers. To me, that is an enormous plus: more than any of the other three major candidates, Palin still appears somewhat recognizable as an actual human being. But for a decadent, murderous Empire entering what is likely to be an especially violent phase (both abroad and at home) as the fabric of day-to-day life shreds and tears apart, actual human beings are a hindrance to be avoided. Now we depend on form without meaning, symbolism drained of all content, vacant gestures designed to assure us that our world is not descending into bloody insanity."

Go read the rest at http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/

2 comments:

kca said...

Mouais bon bref, c' est vraix ce qu' il dit, mais pas tres pro-actif comme discours.

Et a ce niveau la, blanc ou noir, c' est qu' une couche de peinture.
Mc Cain, je ne l' ai jamais senti, et qui plus est le debat d' hier conforte mon idee: le gars dit prendre sa retraite: ses connaissances conptemporaines ne suivent pas tout comme son physique.

Pour Obama, ma seule question est: l' Irak? Comment va t-il nettoyer toute cette merde? C' est quoi son calendrier sur les 12 prochains mois.

Et puis soyons tout de meme serieux: Obama est il tare? Etre president maintenant? C' est du masochisme.

Comment va t il faire realiser aux ricains que c' est le debut de la fin pour eux, que 2008 sera mieux que les 4 prochaines annees a venir; qu' ils ne peuvent plus vivre dans l' opulance, qu' il va falloir demander a la Chine son avis sur les questions... Que les rapports de force ont change et surtout qu' ils n' aurront pas d' autres choix que d' opter pour le socialisme.

Buddhist with an attitude said...

Socialisme, tu es fou? C'est anathème pour les Américains. Quand il postulait pour ce poste, Obama ne voyait que la gloire et le prestige. Il ne s'attendait pas à recevoir cette merde que Bush va lui laisser. Bien fait pour sa gueule, il va survivre de peine et de misère pendant 4 ans, ensuite Hillary, la seule adulte dans toute cette gang, va venir nettoyer les écuries d'Augias.