Who’s in that mirror?

(4 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Greenwald suggests that the equation “Obama = Bush” is a “banal expression of indisputable fact.”  Why not attack Yemeni tyrants? Bahrain?  Indeed, the Saudis?  He rhetorically asks.

(Heh.  My cognitive indeedyeum is exhausted from absolute impregnation.  My imaginary shrink long ago recommended an Indeedy-otomy (to the Ottomanth power!).)

IOZ, on the other leg, clutches the problem in his barely-civilized dewclaws, pretty much ignoring the whole “war for oil” banalities of indisputable, polydactyl heft, and jack-knifes into the relatively virgin snow-drift of the current ice-cold season to pluck a perhaps more deeply, ever-burrowing, nutritive-and-crunchy-if-intestinally-waste-filled rodent of truth: that “the roots of our narcissism drink from a deep well of insecurity that requires we constantly blow shit up lest we admit to human limitations.”

In either case, we are blotted and defamed by the distances between what can be and what is.

We can’t decide whether the Hubble telescope is preferable to depleted uranium cyclops babies, because we fear not being able to afford the Hubble without tortured cyclops babies from Omelas.

In our dwindling, guttering humanity, there remain big hearts and minds amenable to reason and empathy, dignity approaching our capacities for reason and empathy.

Cheers to you.

5 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Edger on March 25, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    If none of this works they still have ten thousand or so nuclear tipped missiles, and you know they can create their own unimpeachable reality at the push of a button.

  1. Even the Tea Party and it’s ugly astro-turfed cousins are silent.  Meanwhile Bradley Manning remains the latest MK-Ultra mind control subject as we fire up the home geiger counters.

    Sheeple by the millions await Whoppie Goldberg’s statements on The View.

    The Berlin Bear died.

Comments have been disabled.