This past week, with General Petraeus's appearances in Congress and George II's televised remarks, has been one shameless PR campaign to get us to trust the administration when it insists that what it is doing in Iraq is in the best interests of the American people as well as the Iraqis. Is there anyone around who still believes anything these con men say? How many times do they have to lie before we catch on to the game? They are contradicted by studies coming from various agencies and the administration itself. And the so-called drawdown could leave the troop level higher than the pre-surge level. At any rate, the troops have to be taken out regardless of what's going on Iraq, as explained here by Alex Koppelman at Salon.com.
These arrogant militarists think we're too stupid to notice. They assume the American people will hear the words "troop reduction" and figure everything is fine now.
When will we say a resounding "Enough" to these mis-leaders and public self-servants? Before they attack Iran, I hope.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"Do they really think we're morons?"
Yes.
But they think enough of us to consider us relevant still -- relevant enough to at least go through the motions.
I find that modestly encouraging.
The canary in the coalmine will have keeled over when they stop going through the motions. Should happen sometime in 2008.
Those are my happy thoughts for the day.
Sheldon, first let me say that your latest essay at FEE is among your finest. Jacob's latest over at FFF was equally inspiring. It amazes me how you two can continue to top yourselves after all these years. Your work is appreciated!
I would like to offer some constructive criticism in this blog post, however. I noted the following collectivist constructions: "We're," "us," "American people," "we," "we're," "American people," and "we."
This doesn't even account for the equally ambiguous "they" used throughout. There's also the mysterious "this administration." I feel it is extremely important and impossible to overemphasize INDIVIDUAL responsibility. As anarchists and students of Mises, you and I know that only individuals are capable of acting.
As an anarchist and individualist, I object to the ambiguous "we." It is simply logically inconsistent to use the word "we" without defining the membership. For example, although designated an American citizen, I DO NOT consider myself included in your "we." I am quite aware of the game and how it is played. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I do not intend to nitpick, but just the same, a writer relies on words for his/her living, and words are meaningless without precise definitions.
I have suggested to other writers, most prominently Steven Greenhut (who received my criticism well), to refrain from using the word "we" unless the members are clearly and explicitly defined AND with their expressed permission. I suggest substituting "you and I" for a far more honest rendering of the term.
Sheldon, my praise for your reasoning and expression could not be more heartfelt -- I am only trying to offer my humble point of view in making your message as synchronized with reality as possible.
Any chance for some links to the Sheldon and Bumper articles?
Einzige, the link for mine is in my post "Force Fetishists." Jacob's is here.
Silence sometimes speaks louder than words.
Sorry if I got preachy there. Who am I to talk?
Then again, in your essay "Do Americans Owe Service to the Nation?," did I notice a hat-tip to the notion of the illegitimacy of the ambiguous and collective "we," Sheldon?
James, I am sympathetic to your point, which I hope I apply intuitively. But on rereading this post, I don't see grounds for your critique. For example, I used "American people" only to characterize the Bush's position. He certainly talks in those terms. I think the uses of "we" are clear in context here.
Post a Comment