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.
