I would like to weigh in here...
I'm not exactly 100% on board the 'I agree" train on this one. But there are two separate issues presented here I want to address:
Mary MacElveen is to be congratulated for boldly expressing a view point which many, without a recognized voice (the American citizens NOT benefiting
from our current situation), concur. It is a good post, earning in my opinion a flag and a star. Thank you for finding and sharing it.
But she came to a conclusion that was more important than she points out. And by means not exactly 'pertinent' to that conclusion.
Mary MacElveen made a few comments that I found I have questions about.
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched emergency talks in France aimed at heading off a wider conflict.” Excuse me…Didn’t we vilify
France for trying to do that as we invaded Iraq and by them not wanting to take part in our illegal invasion of it?
Wasn't France's involvement in this conflict in the guise of European Union representation? Essentially, could any other leader have made the
While it is clear that France's diplomatic style has not been, from the American perspective, 'inviting', is not because
of that fact that
their mediation was not rejected by either party? Any other state would have been crippled by demonstrable bias in the matter?
That she meant to show the ironic fact that such an effort was unwelcome to what I will refer to as the Bush Regime. The fact that the Regime
vocally rejected this during the Iraq venture, (which I should
refer to as the "Chaney Oil War"), is not a question of moral distinction.
It's a question of purpose.
It seems more a form of denial to resist the notion that this was
an oil war. The reason that it has taken the current form is that it was
'branded' as an 'ideological' conflict. Historians have commented on this before. Couple the means and desire to increase wealth with the
ability to politically control the nation and this is what you get. Morals don't enter into it. It's the collective paradigm of the 'character'
of the regime. This is what they do, this is what they are all about, it is their purpose; which is to say, as far as they are concerned, they are
doing what they have determined, serves their interests best.
But, it is this message from Rice that had me seeing red, "The message is that Russia has perhaps not accepted that it is time to move on from
the Cold War and it is time to move to a new era in which relations between states are on the basis of equality, and sovereignty and economic
I almost choked when I heard these words myself. I will always remember that she evoked "a new era in which relations between states are on the
basis of equality, and sovereignty and economic integration
. I think it's a very telling phrase. It's a call for all the playing pieces on the
board to be turned into 'checkers' of equal standing. It makes me question who's playing?
But again, the morality is a non-issue. The ruling class, whatever that is, has applied itself to redefine the meaning of communities of human
beings. But only relevant to the framework of their control. We are separated from their context, how can we morally judge what they are doing?
...Israel is in violation of 71 UN resolutions. Why not sanction them or invade them? I guess some countries will always be treated unfairly by
this government while others are supported.
Again, I think we are confusing morals with purpose. The leadership caste of the Israeli are entwined in the overall sub-culture of global
leadership. Would any 'government' sue itself? Unlikely. It seems unlikely. Any body that could pursue such an action is duly influenced by
Israelis either directly or by proxy.
What follows are some dilemmas I accept as moral, one's which address the human condition. She then leads to the conclusion,
...that moral issues that are not truly relevant to our lives are thrust upon us as if they were.
I offer that an extension of this should have been part of the equation.
...responsibility for the behavior of the leadership is thrust upon us as if we had anything
to do with it.
There are many ignorant voices in the world, people who think that all of this nonsense is somehow 'American' and that "We the people" had any
control over it. Secret meetings, incontestable Executive Order, Israeli policy-makers appointed to 'lead' in our public institutions.
How is 'our' morality even figuring into this? The premise that the national resources expended in the international arena is affected by public
will is fallacious, it axiomatically accepts that the American people are somehow 'represented' by the Regime needs to be destroyed. The elite
have extensively spread this apparatus of control throughout the states, and we are institutionally ignored as a matter of principle.
I refuse to accept moral responsibility for the actions of a transnational corporate Regime, under which I am essentially repressed and
Now as for pluckynoons piece..., I loved it. Awesome example of censorship in action. Even the network talking head paused in a meaning way before
reported the 'lost' video feed.
While the shameless behavior of the media censors is both cruelly funny and glaringly belligerent; It clearly reaffirms that which I have been
fearing for a decade. They do control what we see, they are disincentives to exercise true journalism. Yet more proof we, as a nation, are morally
insulated from the sham.
America is not dead, the American spirit and the true nature of the American Character is buried under a cloak of ideology which represses its
expression and punishes (sometimes cruelly) acts highlighting that fact.
((OK, I am ready for flammage))