[eDebate] 'don't blame the player; blame the game'
Wed Oct 29 11:07:51 CDT 2008
as with almost every stroube post i read, i'm forced to highlight down those
selections that are relevant and dispense with the flak. in his defense, there
usually are a few remarkably salient sentences worth thinking over - today's
post, no exception.
for the record, i've never been able to bring myself to vote for any american
president, and i won't be voting for obama. my first impression is that he fits
snugly in the clinton-blair 'third way', and in the course of this campaign, i've
found nothing to alter this impression and much to confirm it. he's a centrist
(which, if you know me, isn't something i've ever been accused of) in a time
when (in my view) radical measures are necessary.
that said, one can't help but sympathize with his supporters. after watching
the bull in a china shop called the bush administration, americans appear to
long for a calm, moderate, competent, rational person to handle their public
relations. it's difficult to find fault with this post-traumatic reaction, though i
would argue (along with jack) that we need to maintain a cautious attitude:
if 'only nixon could go to china', if 'only clinton could end welfare as we know
it', what could only obama do? ...invade pakistan?
permit me one highlight,
"obama and the liberal version of the orwellian nightmare is more dangerous
than dubya because a more charismatic leader with more 'palatable' and
efficient means may resurrect the failed dubya coup having deluded a large
percentage of the 'resistance' into total confusion about the relevant critical
questions of our day."
to those who delight in comparative risk-analysis, this might appear as an
argument *for* dubya: electing a fuckup exposes more of the fundamental
fuckupedness, and provokes resistance. this could double as an argument
for pulling the mccain-palin lever, though i don't think we need to fall into
this trap, for a very simple reason: the choice of how to confront what jack
refers to as "the relevant critical questions of our day" is more important
than pulling a lever. the suffering wrought by this country, both here and
abroad, is real, but voting isn't a real way of confronting it - it's a pacifying
illusion of change. or to quote a moralist, "when offered a choice between
two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither." :
i for one won't fret to at long last have an enemy with speaking skills.
p.s., can't say i appreciate falsely attributing beliefs to me in order to put on
your puppet show, jack. moreover, i wasn't making any 'foucauldian defense
of obama', but was merely pointing out that despite your own foucauldian
inclinations, you were willing to rant on about the sanctity of constitutional
law if it meant also discrediting obama. it's quite the accomplished failure
to turn up an accusation so baseless it didn't even gain traction in the rabid
media spectacle we've been subjected to for almost a year, but it certainly
fails to live up to the task of 'finding critical inroads', the measure by which
you've judged me.
j : "my guess is that foucault would simply critique all candidates galvanizing
the 'image of change'..."
funny, that's what chomsky did,
When your life is on the go?take your life with you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman