Fiatlux Redux

2005-10-24

Editorial

Bernard J. Fine

Floating Values and a Sinking Feeling

This strange title is apropos an article I recently read. The article, entitled “Iraqi War: An American Tragedy” appeared on the editorial page of a local newspaper under the by-line of George Packer, a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine and the author of “The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq.”

The article raises some important points that I find disturbing.

Packer raises the question “Was the Iraq War worth it?” and concludes that it wasn’t. I couldn’t agree more with him. However, he continues: “I came down on the pro-war side, by a whisker,” he writes. “I understood the risks and costs; I didn’t understand how large they would be – how much larger than necessary because of the arrogance and incompetence of U.S. leaders.” Apparently a cheaper war run by more competent people would have been all right.

He states that: “I thought then, and think now, that the war’s merits could not be known in advance.” In other words, first you go to war (hopefully a cheap one, run by competent people) and then, when the war is over, you determine whether or not it was worth it.

“The argument that the war was ‘illegal,’ and therefore damned at birth, wasn’t persuasive; the intervention in Kosovo was justified without the blessing of the United Nations. Iraq was a war of choice, in the sense that we went off to fight even though we had not been physically attacked, which raised the threshold for the American public’s and the world’s support. But this didn’t make the war immoral by definition; other than World War II, every American war has arguably been a war of choice. In my view, the decision to overthrow Saddam would have to be judged by its consequences.” In other words, the fact that the war is illegal doesn’t matter to Packer. Apparently, an illegal war is permissible as long as after it is over it is determined that it was worth it. And, besides, according to Packer’s reasoning, Iraq was “a war of choice” as have been all of the U.S. wars except WWII; therefore, according to Packer if we or everyone else do wars of choice, it’s O.K. as long as they turn out all right. In short, everyone does it, so it’s justified.

Now that many people who were in favor of the Iraq war have started turning against the war in the manner of Packer, it is important to ask, how many of these folks share Packer’s views? That is, how many people believe that there are “wars of choice,” that they are neither illegal nor immoral, and/or that they are justified because every American war other than World War II has “arguably” been a war of choice? How many believe that even if these wars of choice are illegal or immoral, it doesn’t matter? How many believe that what matters is that the wars be cheap, be run by competent people and turn out favorably, “favorably” presumably meaning favorable to those who carried them out?

It is important to ask those questions because if a large number of the people who have turned against Bush share Packer’s extraordinarily loose and floating values and morality, very little has been learned from the Iraq escapade and what we now have is a large group of people with dubious values waiting for a tyrant with better leadership qualities to lead the country in more wars of choice to see if they can be run more effectively and cheaper, “effectively” meaning that, after the fact, the doers determine that they are satisfied with the outcome . . . i.e., that the end justified the means.

Packer’s abysmally shallow Rumsfeldian floating values structure gives me a sinking feeling. I sense that the sinking feeling may be due to my perception that the country is full of Packers who, barren of functioning moral systems, simply pass off the Iraq debacle as a bungled misadventure and look forward to such self-professed “tough leaders” as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry or John McCain who have expressed that they would have, and by implication, could have, done our latest “war of choice” in Iraq more effectively.

Peace at best is difficult to achieve. One gets an insight into why that is so when one considers the extent of the moral vacuum in this country. That vacuum is evident now and has been evident since well before the morally depraved George W. Bush administration. In the rush of those in power to screw those not in power, basic moral considerations have been continually either ignored or blind-sided. The poor, the lame, the halt and the blind, so to speak, have been trickled down to, stomped on, beaten, robbed, and cheated, all in the interests of power and wealth.

“Lead us not into temptation; deliver us from evil?” Rubbish! Rather, we have had evil leaders over the past few administrations who, themselves, have succumbed to temptation and, in doing so, have changed the moral tenor of the country. Despite all the prayers, all the professed morality of religion and their own self-serving protestations that they are attempting to do the right thing for the country, leaders in government and the business world and, yes, in the union world and in the healthcare world and the sports world and the religious world as well have pushed the moral envelope until it has culminated in a grotesque Bushian crusade masquerading as Christianity. In this charade, Presidents rape other nations and their own country, priests rape children, and business men rape the pubic and their own employees. Almost every aspect of society has succumbed to some extent by submitting to temptation while visiting misery on the “ordinary” people . . . the “little” guys and gals who pick the grapes, run the lathes, collect the garbage, dig the ditches, fight the battles of war and crime, empty the bedpans; those weary folks who go to work, hard work, every day and do it well and get crap for their efforts. And it’s not just the upper echelons of power that participate in this genocide of Democracy. At every level there’s a boss, a “superior” person who, more often than not, exerts unwarranted power on underlings. There are little Hitler’s in every organization’s hierarchy, little Libby’s scooting around and big Karl’s roving about spreading the disease of immorality; morally deprived beings, apparently without feeling or conscience, who thrive on suppressing those segments of humanity that either disagree with them or have no idea of what is being done to them.

We can do better.

We must do better.

The charade has to end.

Sooner rather than later.

The country is in a severe decline.

It’s time for change.

A huge change.

A change in which leaders are aware of and sensitive to the qualities of being human.

A change in which leaders are aware of the wants and needs of the citizens,

And do something about them.

No more wars of choice.

No more boasts of we can do war better than you can.

No more killing our young and wrecking our environment.

No more inducing suffering among the minorities, the poor and the less intelligent of our assemblage of humans.

No more trickling down, pissing on US.

We are drowning.

We have had enough.

You Must Work to get the message across:

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

Tell it to everyone you meet.

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

Repeat it over and over in true Karl Rovian fashion

So that EVERYONE gets the message.

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

DO THAT AND TOGETHER WE WILL WIN.

It is that simple.

			2005-10-24 Editorial Bernard J. Fine Floating Values and a Sinking Feeling This strange title is apropos an article I recently read. The article, entitled “Iraqi War: An American Tragedy” appeared on the editorial page of a local newspaper under the by-line of George Packer, a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine and the author of “The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq.” The article raises some important points that I find disturbing. Packer raises the question “Was the Iraq War worth it?” and concludes that it wasn’t. I couldn’t agree more with him. However, he continues: “I came down on the pro-war side, by a whisker,” he writes. “I understood the risks and costs; I didn’t understand how large they would be – how much larger than necessary because of the arrogance and incompetence of U.S. leaders.” Apparently a cheaper war run by more competent people would have been all right. He states that: “I thought then, and think now, that the war’s merits could not be known in advance.” In other words, first you go to war (hopefully a cheap one, run by competent people) and then, when the war is over, you determine whether or not it was worth it. “The argument that the war was ‘illegal,’ and therefore damned at birth, wasn’t persuasive; the intervention in Kosovo was justified without the blessing of the United Nations. Iraq was a war of choice, in the sense that we went off to fight even though we had not been physically attacked, which raised the threshold for the American public’s and the world’s support. But this didn’t make the war immoral by definition; other than World War II, every American war has arguably been a war of choice. In my view, the decision to overthrow Saddam would have to be judged by its consequences.” In other words, the fact that the war is illegal doesn’t matter to Packer. Apparently, an illegal war is permissible as long as after it is over it is determined that it was worth it. And, besides, according to Packer’s reasoning, Iraq was “a war of choice” as have been all of the U.S. wars except WWII; therefore, according to Packer if we or everyone else do wars of choice, it’s O.K. as long as they turn out all right. In short, everyone does it, so it’s justified. Now that many people who were in favor of the Iraq war have started turning against the war in the manner of Packer, it is important to ask, how many of these folks share Packer’s views? That is, how many people believe that there are “wars of choice,” that they are neither illegal nor immoral, and/or that they are justified because every American war other than World War II has “arguably” been a war of choice? How many believe that even if these wars of choice are illegal or immoral, it doesn’t matter? How many believe that what matters is that the wars be cheap, be run by competent people and turn out favorably, “favorably” presumably meaning favorable to those who carried them out? It is important to ask those questions because if a large number of the people who have turned against Bush share Packer’s extraordinarily loose and floating values and morality, very little has been learned from the Iraq escapade and what we now have is a large group of people with dubious values waiting for a tyrant with better leadership qualities to lead the country in more wars of choice to see if they can be run more effectively and cheaper, “effectively” meaning that, after the fact, the doers determine that they are satisfied with the outcome . . . i.e., that the end justified the means. Packer’s abysmally shallow Rumsfeldian floating values structure gives me a sinking feeling. I sense that the sinking feeling may be due to my perception that the country is full of Packers who, barren of functioning moral systems, simply pass off the Iraq debacle as a bungled misadventure and look forward to such self-professed “tough leaders” as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry or John McCain who have expressed that they would have, and by implication, could have, done our latest “war of choice” in Iraq more effectively. Peace at best is difficult to achieve. One gets an insight into why that is so when one considers the extent of the moral vacuum in this country. That vacuum is evident now and has been evident since well before the morally depraved George W. Bush administration. In the rush of those in power to screw those not in power, basic moral considerations have been continually either ignored or blind-sided. The poor, the lame, the halt and the blind, so to speak, have been trickled down to, stomped on, beaten, robbed, and cheated, all in the interests of power and wealth. “Lead us not into temptation; deliver us from evil?” Rubbish! Rather, we have had evil leaders over the past few administrations who, themselves, have succumbed to temptation and, in doing so, have changed the moral tenor of the country. Despite all the prayers, all the professed morality of religion and their own self-serving protestations that they are attempting to do the right thing for the country, leaders in government and the business world and, yes, in the union world and in the healthcare world and the sports world and the religious world as well have pushed the moral envelope until it has culminated in a grotesque Bushian crusade masquerading as Christianity. In this charade, Presidents rape other nations and their own country, priests rape children, and business men rape the pubic and their own employees. Almost every aspect of society has succumbed to some extent by submitting to temptation while visiting misery on the “ordinary” people . . . the “little” guys and gals who pick the grapes, run the lathes, collect the garbage, dig the ditches, fight the battles of war and crime, empty the bedpans; those weary folks who go to work, hard work, every day and do it well and get crap for their efforts. And it’s not just the upper echelons of power that participate in this genocide of Democracy. At every level there’s a boss, a “superior” person who, more often than not, exerts unwarranted power on underlings. There are little Hitler’s in every organization’s hierarchy, little Libby’s scooting around and big Karl’s roving about spreading the disease of immorality; morally deprived beings, apparently without feeling or conscience, who thrive on suppressing those segments of humanity that either disagree with them or have no idea of what is being done to them. We can do better. We must do better. The charade has to end. Sooner rather than later. The country is in a severe decline. It’s time for change. A huge change. A change in which leaders are aware of and sensitive to the qualities of being human. A change in which leaders are aware of the wants and needs of the citizens, And do something about them. No more wars of choice. No more boasts of we can do war better than you can. No more killing our young and wrecking our environment. No more inducing suffering among the minorities, the poor and the less intelligent of our assemblage of humans. No more trickling down, pissing on US. We are drowning. We have had enough. We have had enough. You Must Work to get the message across: WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH! WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH! Tell it to everyone you meet. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH! Repeat it over and over in true Karl Rovian fashion So that EVERYONE gets the message. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH! DO THAT AND TOGETHER WE WILL WIN. It is that simple.
		Home About Us Fair Use Past Issues Reality Show Archives Links Contact Us © Fiat Lux 2004 - 2005