Atomized junior

Dedicated to the smallest particles of meaning on the web
Atomized Links:



theUsual Suspects:




Terrifying face of the Other
(a bloglist)
Radio Radio
WMUC 88.1fm College Park, MD.
Streams:
high, low
WZBC 90.3 FM Newton,MA.
Stream
WFMU-FM
91.1 Jersey City, NJ; 90.1 Hudson Valley, NY
MP3 Stream (32k),
Stereo Broadband 128k MP3 Stream


Subscribe to "Atomized junior" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Tuesday, 14 June, 2005
 
So what

One thing about writing a web log with few readers is that I'll often get to the end of a post aware of the incompleteness or weakness of various points. "So what", I'll think, "who's going to call me on it."

So what. This is Cheney's reply; in the Post: Guantanamo Bay to Stay Open, Cheney Says, and in The Globe and Mail: Guantanamo critics haven't hurt U.S. image, Cheney says, to our little peccadillos and the unease they engender.

"the track record there is on the whole pretty good. Now, does this hurt us from the standpoint of international opinion?" he asked. "I frankly don't think so. And my own personal view of it is that those who are most urgently advocating that we shut down Guantanamo probably don't agree with our policies anyway."

Sec. Rumsfeld has been delivering a similar speech. The subtext is found in the last line of Cheney's quote. The message is for the Presedent, who may be dangerously looking at the bigger picture - - if you're not with us, you're with Al Queda, they're saying. Krauthammer, in his column from two Fridays ago made similar points. They weren't passing out bibles at the Hanoi Hilton. If you disagree with our view you are the enemy as well. Notwithstanding the unassailable nature of his position Krauthammer would prefer it if we dropped the subject, now.

So we do what we believe we must, to preserve our way of life. Our way sanctifies us. What difference does it make between terrorists, suspected terrorists and when, if, or how we determine which. Why should I expect anyone in this administration to care what French proto-progressives from one hundred years ago think. These are people who consider John Dewey among their greatest enemies HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries (seen on EotS_WotM). Understanding why we ought not debase our enemies - make them weaker lesser men, more desperate, more craven, more fearful than they were - is to ask what is it that puts us among the justified, the civilized, those who have the right to survive? It doesn't matter if your better if you're still bad and it's only a matter of degree. The distinction doesn't lie there.

Prickly City in Tuesday's (I gotta stop looking at this strip whatever the first panel may indicate, the final panal is just going to be pat empty right-wing rationalizations) strip Stantis compares Mark Felt with Linda Tripp. By implication Richard Nixon with Bill Clinton. The problem with that is that Mark Felt did what he felt he had to do. Neccessary, requiring a deeply personal sense of honor, offering no rewards. Not a confirming tribal one. A decision he made in confidence with his own conscience, then kept this confidence. Never trumpeting it or attempting to profit from it until his family stepped in and made that decision for him. Tripp made her decision in concert with operatives from the opposing political party and never stopped trying to profit from it. Richard Nixon was a foul mouthed paranoid, who stewed in the sewage of his fears, his personal enemies list, yoking the IRS and FBI to persecute them. He had his off-the-books plumbers unit carry out such activities as burglarizing the offices of the Democratatic National committee. Beyond this he enthusiastically participated in a criminal conspiracy to cover all this up. Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants up. His offense was his weasly dodge of what he was set up to try to dodge under oath. For Richard Nixon calumny was just another day at the office.

The comparison is in their dreams. Elements of the right tout themselves as the party of morality, but they have no better acquantince with it than anyone else. They hold no demonstrated greater ability or proclivity to turn aside the consolations of power, the takings of triumph. Ethics is a matter of actions, opinions and the distinctions one makes, all interacting with each other. Their inability to comprehend or even see some distinctions belies their claim on any automatic morality. Too often as soon as they run the gamut of their own prejudices and animal needs, they declare this the absolute definition of morality and truth. They then abandon for life any further introspection or understanding.


11:52:41 PM    comment [];trackback [];


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
2005 Paul Bushmiller.
Last update: 7/01/05; 02:10:22.
June 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
May   Jul


Prolegemma to any future FAQ.

Who are you again?
paul bushmiller
what is it exactly that you do?
at the least, this.
What is this?
it's a weblog.
How long have you been doing it?
3 or 4 years. I used to run it by hand; Radio Userland is more convenient.
Ever been overseas?
yes
Know any foreign languages?
no
Favorite song?
victoria - the kinks
RockandRoll? Favorite American song then
Omaha - Moby Grape
Favorite Movie
Billy in the Lowlands
favorite book?
any book I can read in a clean well lighted place
Is this one of those websites with lots of contentious, dogmatic and brittle opinions?
no
What do you expect to accomplish with this?
something

Site Meter