Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Arvin Hill
Published Letters: 85 Editor's Choice: 2
Just when I was thinking Atwood's book sounded painfully obvious and pedantic, Louis Bayard reminds me of the peril of that argument.
Louis, of the atrocities which have been, and are being, - perpetrated against the people of other nations by the government you and your ancestors have presumably funded with tax dollars, how many of them do you suppose The United States has sought, or will seek, forgiveness for?
As a nation, despite our pathological recidivism, we don't ask to be forgiven for anything. Occasionally - very occasionally - an official statement alludes to an episode of violence and misery we have willfully inflicted without just cause. When such vague acknowledgments occur, you can be sure they are political calculations of a last resort. Describing them as boilerplate apologies would be both generous and pathetically inaccurate.
I am not aware of a single instance in which my government has asked for forgiveness. Or maybe I'm just not aware of it. Rarely do I make it to Page 18A of the Saturday newspaper.
Addressing reader comments, you write:
As a spiritual practice, forgiveness CAN be unilateral; sometimes, that's the only way it can happen. But from a practical perspective, forgiving Al Qaeda would have done nothing to alter the dynamic of that relationship, other than to make us feel (possibly) better about ourselves.
How many of the victims in Iraq and Afghanistan do you estimate are Al Qaida operatives?
Your review of Ms. Atwood's book reflects a disturbing (and disturbingly common) belief that humility is weakness, and hubris, strength. The inverse is true, but it's a truth we are unlikely to discover anytime soon.
The unwillingness to distinguish narcissism from critical self-examination is the primary obstacle to saving our dying planet. Unfortunately, we simply will not do it.
Oh, and about those atrocities committed by your government in your name - atrocities for which the word forgiveness is unlikely to ever find itself attached: When the human beings we call collateral damage return the favor, perhaps you can take some comfort in the knowledge that our attackers may well have forgiven us spiritually.
You have succumbed to fear and dressed your capitulation in the perpetually stylish threads of pragmatism. It's a damn cheap suit, my friend.
Next time, try a little courage.
When Obama's bombs are raining down on the heads of men, women and children in Afghanistan, Pakistan or some other -stan, Lieberman's narcissism and bellicosity will be of considerable value to Barack, Joe and Rahm.
In no time at all, Lieberman will be on any "news" program that will have him, droning moral imperatives - and questioning the wisdom, sanity and patriotism of radicals who oppose murdering foreigners and stealing their resources as a matter of policy.
Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?
Lieberman is the perfect front man for rationalizing collective punishment, post-Constitutional excesses of The Surveillance State, and whatever other imperial atrocities are sure to come.
When Obama's bombs, missiles and bullets are raining down on the heads of collateral damage prospects in neighborhoods throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lieberman will be making the rounds in one TV studio after another, soberly explaining the moral imperative behind murdering men, women and children with our tax dollars. Get ready for your ritual verbal beat-down, Democrats, because you'll be getting one every Sunday courtesy of Joe Lieberman and your Democratic victors.
Obama doesn't work for you. He works for telecom companies. He works for The Pentagon. He works for Wall Street. In fact, he works for everyone except you.
P.S. To the letter writers here: Can we dispense with the spineless characterizations? Democratic officeholders spitting in the faces of Democratic voters is not spinelessness. Tolerating it is.
Does Obama really think Rahm Emmanuel can make republicans nice just by sneering at them?
Try looking through the other end of the telescope:
Replace the word republicans with the Democratic base; nice with shut up and sneering at with marginalizing.
Then answer with Absolutely.
As bad as this situation is - and it is bad when war profiteering propagandists are presented as independent analysts - my suspicion is that it pales in comparison to the profiteering that's been carried out, and is being carried out today, by the war pigs in The House of Representatives, The Senate, The Administration (outgoing and incoming) and The Federal Judiciary.
I'd like to know just how much wealth our political overlords have generated for themselves and each other by creating, implementing and upholding the horrific policies which, by design, result in the death, carnage and displacement of millions of human beings, including more than a few Americans.
Something tells me an answer will not be forthcoming.
Tom Gjelten's hair-splitting between rendition and so-called enhanced interrogation techniques exemplifies the lengths to which most establishment reporters will go to protect America's torture advocates. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest, as Gjelten does repeatedly, that proponents of rendition are not necessarily supportive of enhanced interrogation techniques, a term which millions of informed citizens recognize as Dick Cheney's favorite euphemism for torture.
Further, Gjelten's insistence on repeatedly mischaracterizing the objections of "liberal bloggers" to Brennan's prospective nomination reflects an agenda which exists as something quite distinct from professional journalism. The distortion was not the result of, as Tom conveniently described it, short-hand. No, this is something else entirely: Deliberately inaccurate reporting which plainly crosses the line separating slop from propaganda.
No doubt, Tom Gjelton's "reporting" of this story meets with the approval of the functionaries toiling at the Department of Homeland Security, which, much to my amazement, happens to be a sponsor of National Public Radio.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
