So as I crank up what's left of my brain for a new workday, I see in the news that Bush is hailing "victory" in Iraq and how five years ago a tyrant was removed and millions liberated from unspeakable horrors.
What fucking planet is he on?
I supported the war and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. With what I knew back then, and what I thought they knew back then, it made sense to me. In subsequent years, it has made more sense to me to get serious about it now and then (the recent so-called "surge" being one of the few examples I can think of) than to abandon the place to whoever rises above the blood that will flow after we leave. Even yet I can't see why people who want our withdrawal are so eager to witness a foreign bloodbath. However, I admit I cannot easily assert that this long painful bleed-out is any better. (I mean, I could write a justification, but it would have enough holes in it, so never mind.)
I just don't know. But I do know that whatever Bush says about it is unworthy of my attention. The horrors are far more unspeakable today than they were under Hussein.
Part Two
I didn't hear Obama's speech the other night, haven't read a transcript, know nothing about it except what I read in two relatively conservative opinion pieces. Both of those pieces chose to express some slight indignation over Mr. Obama making reference to his white grandmother's occasional lapses into racism, as if those lapses somehow balanced Rev. Wright's deeply divisive and very deliberate theological racism. They objected to Obama's attempt at relativism in this matter, and his "use" of family.
Well, but, so what? First off, if I had a grandchild running for President and he or she wanted to use me to make a point, any point, I'd be all for it. Use me, child, I'm here for you. Second, I understand that Mr. Obama did not distance himself completely from his association with Wright's church, but instead chose to acknowledge publicly that America still has many faces, and that he cannot disavow one in order to please another. (Of course, I am paraphrasing from a very great distance.) I admit to some reluctance here, because I still possess an impulse to be dismissive, but the fact I must admit to is that I respect the decision to take that path, and if Mr. Obama risked his campaign to speak truth to racial politics in this country, he might actually be more than just the opportunistic lightweight I generally take him for.
Section C
Speaking of race, two weird little things that so far as I know only my weird little brain has thought of.
One, I don't blame Obama's grandmother for her anger, if any. Her daughter was seduced while in Hawaii by a handsome and charismatic African who was running off with other women before their child was a year old. Oftentimes when we are angry with someone, it seems natural and even helpful to have racial or religious or other irrelevant qualities to heap onto our invective. So if she referred to that damn n_____ once in awhile, I at least will excuse her humanness. Too bad she wasn't smart enough to keep it away from her grandchild, but maybe it taught him something about understanding those we love.
Two, I've not asked anyone who is African-American about this, but I am curious if Obama as potential President really means something significant, or if there are further steps to take. Well, of course there are further steps to take. It will be best when a black President attracts no notice for being black. But there is another factor. Obama, like Gen. Powell, is not a descendant of slaves. His ascendancy to the Oval Office therefore will not entirely close the wound. It will prove something good about this country, but it will not prove quite as remarkable as when a descendant of slaves rises to that level of power. I'm just curious if that detail will mean anything, or am I just weird. Or both, sure.
Segment Delta
Nah. I guess three things is enough, time to work now.
6 comments:
I give Obama credit for risking a speech, in the middle of a difficult campaign, that did not consist of sound bytes. He made a speech that you have to take in context, and the media (and us) have been forced to actually discuss what he said instead of throw quips out.
Good eye Roy. Archer, your a scream.
:-)
Good one, Archer!
I'm refusing to be angry with Obama for anything, even the stuff that makes me angry, because I know that's what She wants.
One thing that seems to have eluded the mouth-farting pundits on the networks is that Obama led from the front when I he gave that speech. He stood up in front of all of us and did what he has been asking all of us to do: change the course, change the nature of things in this country. He displayed the kind of leadership that none of the other candidates have at all. Certainly, George Bush has NEVER come close to this kind of thing.
It almost doesn't matter to me what the issue is, he's showing us what he's made of. He's far, far more than an opportunistic lightweight. Hillary comes far closer to that description for me. In fact, I don't think she's a democrat at all. She's a democrat now in name only because that's the best way to get into power. Go to this link to find out why I think that:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich
1. You keep saying bloodbath bloodbath bloodbath as though a/ there wasn't one already going on and b/ you weren't shedding a large amount of the blood and c/ your presence wasn't provoking the conflict in the first place.
2. Perception is everything. You're just about able to recognise that Obama didn't take the easy way out, but hey, you're still not voting Obama. Plenty of people who would have done now won't. The fear that he shares Wright's views will prevent them.
3. Yeah, it's fine to call someone a nigger. Perfectly understandable when some uppity coon fucks your daughter. Dude, this is the last post of yours I read until you email me to let me know you reconsidered that shit and realise why it's wrong.
Hint: black men were hanged by mobs for sleeping with white women. You suck.
Well, there's an opportunity to rid your blog of an eyesore if ever I saw one.
"he might actually be more than just the opportunistic lightweight I generally take him for."
I'd say that description fits the other two contenders a lot better than Obama. Nader would love to be opportunistic if he ever got within a parsec of an opportunity.
As for the war, I often see the assertion that things will get worse if we leave, but nothing to back that up. It's stated as a forgone conclusion. Just like Saddam's WMDs were a forgone conclusion. I saw in the news today that our heroes may have wiped out some of our allies. AGAIN. Yeah, I'm sure we're really helping.
If some asshole decides you've got contraband in your house and decides for himself to tear out the walls and floors looking for it, do you really want that guy to help you fix it when he discovers he's wrong?
You may want him to PAY for it on his way to prison, but you aren't going to put a hammer in his hand.
Post a Comment