[lit-ideas] Re: Blind Leading the Not-so Blind
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:23:34 -0500
Well, Gosh yourself. We do what they do. They're bad; we're good. Not gosh.
Duh.
Gosh got you out of answering what a win in Vietnam would look like. It also
got you out of answering why we're bankrupting ourselves and enfeebling
ourselves over a few terrorists. *Someone* on this list is so used to being
fed American supremacist hogwash that no amount of evidence about reality will
change their minds. If we're supreme, Jose, it's in our massive monstrous
debts and in getting thrashed. Explain that one. While you're at it, I'd
appreciate an explanation as to how our supreme selves so misunderstood the
enemy for 40 years? Adjust, Lawrence. Americans are humans. Humans are
stupid. Americans have done nothing to make a dent in that syllogism.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/21/2006 3:58:21 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Blind Leading the Not-so Blind
Eric, Perhaps this is a good place to say I finally got around (at your
urging) to reading Harold Pinter?s Nobel Prize speech
(http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html ). It
is indeed appalling. Perhaps we should sic some of the Lit-Ideas logic police
on him. I suppose though his speech needn?t be logical. He begins with an
artistic discussion of his plays so I suppose his harangue against the US can
be considered artistic invective.
I notice that he sees the US as a monolithic coherent entity. From the abuse
of the poor Sandinistas during the Reagan administration to the unjustified
invasion of Iraq during the present Bush administration the US has been an
unwavering resolute single-minded entity. Only someone living far away,
perhaps reclusively could think something like that. The nature of
Liberal-Democracy, especially our Liberal-Democracy, is that it is wavering,
irresolute, mixed-minded and inchoate.
We fought Communism during the Cold War in an extremely haphazard fashion.
Some administrations were enthusiastic and others not so. After we won it much
to our amazement, historians began searching for the reason. Chace has offered
his analysis which I favor, but someone may come up with a better one. If we
won the Cold War we didn?t consciously do so ? at least not consciously in the
Pinter sense of the single-mindedly pursuing of a clever program throughout the
Cold-War period.
Pinter voices the same assertions we have grown used to from the Left, namely
that we have gone into the Middle East for predatory reasons. Meanwhile back
here in the real US no president could be elected on such a program. He would
need to show that he is protecting American lives and interests in order to
gain support for this war. This support was granted Bush by congress. We
aren?t engaged in predatory domination. Such an assertion is pejorative and
has no foundation in reality.
We are opposing a predatory ideology called Islamism which is engaged in
actions Pinter accuses us of. Someone I don?t know how to reply to on
Lit-Ideas claimed we are no better than the USSR was because we are forcing
democracy upon the Iraqis whether they want it or not. Gosh (although as the
logic police point out, ?Gosh? is not a logical argument) . . . well, just Gosh!
Lawrence
Other related posts:
