Thursday, February 17, 2005

Slamming Ward

On the same subject, I read with interest the governor of Colorado, who wrote a letter on Churchill.

"All decent people, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of Ward Churchill."

That certainly sets the tone. If you dare to agree, even in part, with Ward Churchill, you are not "decent". I noted the use of the word "denounce".

Has America become a place where we must publicly denounce the "indecent"?

"The thousands of innocent people - and innocent they were - who were murdered on September 11 were murdered by evil cowards."

Did Owens read Churchill's piece? It doesn't seem so. Perhaps he just heard O'Reilly piss on about it. If he had, he might understand that the crimes Churchill believes the technocrats guilty of are not answered by saying that they are "innocent" simply because they had done no direct harm to anyone. As Churchill points out, possibly immoderately in his original piece, but with much greater force subsequently, the principle that we enforced with Eichmann was that those who support evil are doing evil too. Churchill was not, of course, calling the technocrats Nazis. He was suggesting that they were participants in evil in the same way as Eichmann. He is right, of course, but it's too subtle a point for Repugnicunt pollies and way too much for O'Reilly.

It should be pointed out to these idiots, also, that Churchill is decrying the dehumanisation of our victims. Calling them "evil cowards" is exactly the means to justify hurting them that he is pointing the finger at. I wonder how Owens can make the moral calculus work that says the 9/11 bombers are "evil" but American pilots who kill just as many civilians are "good". Churchill is describing a notion of morality that extends beyond "my people do no wrong, yours do no right". Again, far too hard for Repugnicunts to grasp.

And cowards! What the fuck is that? These dimwits blather on about fighting for democracy from the safety of TV studios but the 9/11 bombers actually did fight for what they believed in. However misguided you think those beliefs are, you can hardly think their conduct was cowardly (unless in a deeper sense that one might feel that they ducked out of the hard work of creating a world they could comfortably live in and took an easier option of trying to build it through a dramatic spectacle but let's face it, Owens is not looking for that level of meaning).

"No one wants to infringe on Mr. Churchill's right to express himself. "

You can almost feel the "but". Silencing dissent is exactly what Mr Owens is about. The Repugnicunts don't want the hard questions to be asked. They want to discredit anyone who asks them.

And "Did we deserve it? Do they hate us with reason?" is a question that does need asking.

"But we are not compelled to accept his pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy nor under the banner of the University of Colorado."

Ahem. So actually...

"They are at odds with simple decency, and antagonistic to the beliefs and conduct of civilized people around the world."

Who should be let alone to get on with bombing and murdering the third world as they see fit. A hundred thousand died in Iraq. Still, at least we used civilised means such as tanks, planes, bombs, Tomahawks and good old-fashioned guns. God bless us.


Post a Comment

<< Home