22 Impolite Questions: a Response to Rhetoric Crimes
22 impolite questions
am i a Canadian, a real Canadian, or a good Canadian?
am i a Canadian first and a human being second, or a human first and a Canadian second, or even lower in relation to me being a husband, father, teacher or poet?
is patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel?
if i criticize Prime Sinister Harper, am i anti-Canada, anti-Canadian or against all ethnic groups that comprise Canada, thereby wishing upon us all a terrorist attack?
do i support Canadian troops if i call for their return from their imperial occupation of Afghanistan?
do i support Canadian troops if i call for them to not seek greater opportunity to take command of the Afghan occupation?
did the Canadian troops get together and work up a plan, and cost it out, and prepare for deaths and injuries and present it to Paul Martin and his government to convince him, it and the Canadian population that we should not declare war on the Taliban, yet invade and occupy Afghanistan, thereby meaning that if i don't support the mission, then i don't support the actual people in our military and their families?
is our military comprised of employees of the government, and by extension the citizenry, and committed to following the employer's orders?
am i supporting the troops if i call Prime Sinister Harper a rhetoric criminal by saying i don't support our troops if i don't agree with his imperial, American Idol designs?
do i support our troops if i wish them to come home from a country where we don't have sufficient personnel, money, equipment or civil will to continue fighting and defeating a fundamentalist Muslim Taliban in a failed state, in an alliance run by a de facto fundamentalist Christian theocracy comprised of corporate compradors with a penchant for stoking oil profits?
am i anti-Canadian, anti-troops, anti-America or anti-9/11 victims if i ask why there are fewer than 20,000 troops from NATO countries and friends of NATO countries trying to stop the Taliban, rebuild Afghanistan and find Emmanuel Goldstein, sorry, Osama bin Laden, while there are almost 7 times that number of just American troops keeping just enough anarchy in Iraq to foment a civil war?
am i cynical, anti-freedom, anti-democracy or a threat to our security and way of life if i even suggest that Osama bin Laden is our real-life version of Emmanuel Goldstein, a man better off at large than captured?
AM I THE ONLY NORTH AMERICAN WHO'S READ 1984?
am i anti-American if i criticize "President" Bush?
do the same questions about the rhetorical crime of supporting the troops apply equally well--or better--to the situation in the USA?
must i necessarily wish American soldiers to die if i don't support their "president", thereby not supporting the troops?
are Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis anti-American if they criticize their imperial government?
and what about Israel?
am i anti-Semitic if i disagree with the domestic or foreign policy decisions of the de facto fundamentalist Jewish theocracy in Israel?
do i wish all Jews in the world dead because i don't agree with any given decision of the Israeli government?
are Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis self-hating Jews if they oppose any given decision or set of decisions of the Israeli government or decisions of the US government that support Israeli policy they disagree with?
am i threatening national security by asking these questions?
are you?
Copyright 2006, Stephen Buckley
08.07.06 1137am
am i a Canadian, a real Canadian, or a good Canadian?
am i a Canadian first and a human being second, or a human first and a Canadian second, or even lower in relation to me being a husband, father, teacher or poet?
is patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel?
if i criticize Prime Sinister Harper, am i anti-Canada, anti-Canadian or against all ethnic groups that comprise Canada, thereby wishing upon us all a terrorist attack?
do i support Canadian troops if i call for their return from their imperial occupation of Afghanistan?
do i support Canadian troops if i call for them to not seek greater opportunity to take command of the Afghan occupation?
did the Canadian troops get together and work up a plan, and cost it out, and prepare for deaths and injuries and present it to Paul Martin and his government to convince him, it and the Canadian population that we should not declare war on the Taliban, yet invade and occupy Afghanistan, thereby meaning that if i don't support the mission, then i don't support the actual people in our military and their families?
is our military comprised of employees of the government, and by extension the citizenry, and committed to following the employer's orders?
am i supporting the troops if i call Prime Sinister Harper a rhetoric criminal by saying i don't support our troops if i don't agree with his imperial, American Idol designs?
do i support our troops if i wish them to come home from a country where we don't have sufficient personnel, money, equipment or civil will to continue fighting and defeating a fundamentalist Muslim Taliban in a failed state, in an alliance run by a de facto fundamentalist Christian theocracy comprised of corporate compradors with a penchant for stoking oil profits?
am i anti-Canadian, anti-troops, anti-America or anti-9/11 victims if i ask why there are fewer than 20,000 troops from NATO countries and friends of NATO countries trying to stop the Taliban, rebuild Afghanistan and find Emmanuel Goldstein, sorry, Osama bin Laden, while there are almost 7 times that number of just American troops keeping just enough anarchy in Iraq to foment a civil war?
am i cynical, anti-freedom, anti-democracy or a threat to our security and way of life if i even suggest that Osama bin Laden is our real-life version of Emmanuel Goldstein, a man better off at large than captured?
AM I THE ONLY NORTH AMERICAN WHO'S READ 1984?
am i anti-American if i criticize "President" Bush?
do the same questions about the rhetorical crime of supporting the troops apply equally well--or better--to the situation in the USA?
must i necessarily wish American soldiers to die if i don't support their "president", thereby not supporting the troops?
are Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis anti-American if they criticize their imperial government?
and what about Israel?
am i anti-Semitic if i disagree with the domestic or foreign policy decisions of the de facto fundamentalist Jewish theocracy in Israel?
do i wish all Jews in the world dead because i don't agree with any given decision of the Israeli government?
are Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis self-hating Jews if they oppose any given decision or set of decisions of the Israeli government or decisions of the US government that support Israeli policy they disagree with?
am i threatening national security by asking these questions?
are you?
Copyright 2006, Stephen Buckley
08.07.06 1137am
3 Comments:
Re bin Laden as Goldstein:
It would be fun to write a (fictional) dialogue between Osama bin Laden and his US Secret Service guardians as they share a drink in Kirkuk or some such place....
(Before I get dismissed as a crackpot, let me emphasise the word fictional, in case anyone missed it.)
or better yet, an exchange between osama goldstein and w.Caesar...already created by Greg Palast:
SO OSAMA WALKS INTO TO THIS BAR, SEE?
by Greg Palast
Monday August 14, 2006
So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says...
But wait a minute. I'd better shut my mouth. The sign here in the airport says, "Security is no joking matter." But if security's no joking matter, why does this guy dressed in a high-school marching band outfit tell me to dump my Frappuccino and take off my shoes? All I can say is, Thank the Lord the "shoe bomber" didn't carry Semtex in his underpants.
Today's a RED and ORANGE ALERT day. How odd. They just caught the British guys with the chemistry sets. But when these guys were about to blow up airliners, the USA was on YELLOW alert. That's a "lowered" threat notice.
According to the press office from the Department of Homeland Security, lowered-threat Yellow means that there were no special inspections of passengers or cargo. Isn't it nice of Mr. Bush to alert Osama when half our security forces are given the day off? Hmm. I asked an Israeli security expert why his nation doesn't use these pretty color codes.
He asked me if, when I woke up, I checked the day's terror color.
"I can't say I ever have. I mean, who would?"
He smiled. "The terrorists."
America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won't be monitored. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on George Bush's team.
There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.
1. God is on Osama's side.
2. George is on Osama's side.
3. Fear sells better than sex.
A gold star if you picked #3.
The Fear Factory
I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.
That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places." To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.
The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's.
Am I saying there's no danger, no threat? Sure there is: 46 million Americans don't have health insurance. IBM is legally stealing from its employees' pension plan and United Airlines has dumped its pensions altogether. Four-million three-hundred thousand Americans were injured, made sick or killed by their jobs last year. TXU Corporation is right now building four monster-sized power plants in Texas that will burn skuzzy gunk called "lignite." The filth it will pour into the sky will snuff a heck of a lot more Americans than some goofy group of fanatics with bottles of hydrogen peroxide.
But Americans don't ask for real protection from what's killing us. The War on Terror is the Weapon of Mass Distraction. Instead of demanding health insurance, we have 59 million of our fellow citizens pooping in their pants with fear of Al Qaeda, waddling to the polls, crying, "Georgie save us!"
And what does he give us? In my own small town, the federal government has paid for loading an SUV with .50 caliber machine guns to watch for an Al Qaeda attack at the dock of the ferry that takes tourists to the Indian casino in Connecticut. The casino dock is my town's officially designated "Critical Asset and Vulnerability Infrastructure Point (CAVIP)." (To find the most vulnerable points to attack in the USA, Al Qaeda can download a list from the Department of Homeland Security -- no kidding.)
But that's not all. Bush is protecting us from English hijackers with a fearsome anti-terrorist tool: the Virginia-class submarine. The V-boat was originally meant to hunt Soviet subs. But there are no more Soviet subs. So, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have "refitted" these Cold War dinosaurs with new torpedoes redesigned to carry counter-terror commandoes. That's right: when we find Osama's beach house, we can shoot our boys right up under his picnic table and take him out. These Marines-in-a-tube injector boats cost $2.5 billion each -- and our President's ordered half a dozen new ones.
Lynn Cheney, the Veep's wife, still takes in compensation from Lockheed as a former board member. I'm sure that has nothing to do with this multi-billion dollar "anti-terror" contract.
Fear sells better than sex. Fear is the sales pitch for many lucrative products: from billion-dollar sailor injectors to one very lucrative war in Mesopotamia (a third of a trillion dollars doled out, no audits, no questions asked).
Better than toothpaste that makes our teeth whiter than white, this stuff will make us safer than safe. It's political junk food, the cheap filling in the flashy tube. What we don't get is safety from the real dangers: a life-threatening health-care system, lung-murdering pollution production and a trade deficit with China that's reducing mid-America to coolie status. Protecting us from these true threats would take a slice of the profits of the Lockheeds, the Exxons and the rest of the owning class.
War on Terror is class war by other means -- to keep you from asking for real protection from true menace, the landlords of our nation give you fake protection from manufactured dangers. And they remind you to be afraid every time you fly to see Aunt Millie and have to give up your hemorrhoid ointment to the underpaid guy in the bell-hop suit with a security badge.
Oh, hey, you never got the punch line.
So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says, "Well, George, what are you serving today?" and Bush says, "Fear," and Osama shouts, "Fear for everybody!" and George pours it on for the crowd. Then the presidential bartender says, "Hey, who's buying?" and Osama points a thumb at the crowd sucking down their brew. "They are," he says. And the two of them share a quiet laugh.
Nice post. When I was in school we had to read 1984 - do they still do that in schools these days in Canada? How about in the USA?
There is still a lively debate going on in Canada at least. A friend's son who is in a Toronto high school read Noam Chomsky in class, which I thought was interesting, and heartening.
I hope we can moderate, if not hold back, the scary neo-con tide here.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home