Posts
What else can you call it?
One more time, on the “bromance”
between Trump and Putin….
Moral Equivalence?
“You got a lot of killers,” Mr.
Trump told Bill O’Reilly of the slavishly pro-Trump Fox News. “What, you think
our country’s so innocent?”
The editors at the Times
take exception to this:
…rather than endorsing American
exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality…
I find nothing in Trump’s comments to suggest he “appreciates”
Putin’s brutality. Trump merely stated,
in the form of a question, an undeniable fact.
The editors of the Times
are very good at listing in some detail Putin’s transgressions – not all of
which have any factual basis (but facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of
these editors).
There is a Wikipedia
page dedicated to all US military
operations since 1775. I count 70 US
military operations since 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union. There is no such page for Russia; there are
two unique pages – one for Syria and one for Ukraine. That’s it.
Off of the top of my head, I would add Georgia.
The US military interventions span the globe; the Russian
military interventions are either directly on the borders of Russia or to a
close, long-time ally. The US military
interventions have killed, wounded or displaced countless millions of
people. The Russian interventions? I will guess in the tens or hundreds of
thousands at most.
Do the editors of the Times dare deal with reality? No. Not
on this topic.
Speaking of Martians
On to the next topic:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has
shown little support for America’s traditional roles as a champion of universal
values like freedom of the press and tolerance.
Martians value “freedom of the press and tolerance”? Are these really universal values? Returning to
this planet, are these valued in
so-called US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel?
The Times might
consider – these so-called universal values may not be universal and in any
case are not the business of the US government outside of the United States. Tolerance is not the business of the US
government within the United States,
either. The Constitution offers freedom
of the press; it says nothing of tolerance.
The Ends Justify the
Means
The Times, like
all apologists for the military empire that is the United States, accepts
immorality if the (advertised) ends are noble:
At least in recent decades,
American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to
promote freedom and democracy…
Ask the millions of dead, wounded and displaced if they
appreciate the “freedom and democracy” that they have achieved via US intervention. The ends justify the means only for those who
benefits from “the ends,” and not for those who suffer through “the means.”
Whatever one might say about Hussein in Iraq, Ghaddafi in
Libya, or Assad in Syria, the people in these countries weren’t dying by the
millions before the United States intervened on their behalf.
…sometimes with extraordinary
results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished
enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.
This isn’t “recent decades.”
This is more than seventy years ago.
And it would be more accurate to describe Germany and Japan as vassal
states, not “allies.”
A Stopped Clock…
The Times gets one
thing right:
…Mr. Trump has…laid the groundwork
for an aggressive campaign that could lead to conflict with Iran…
I wish Trump wouldn’t take actions that could lead to
conflict with Iran. One reason Trump won
the election is because many people in the United States are tired of war and are
tired of paying for war.
Do you want to see terrorism and the refugee crisis lose
steam? How about just stop bombing
people. The Times could endorse precisely
this policy – you know, the opposite of the policy endorsed by their preferred
candidate.
From Bogart:
ReplyDeleteNext thing the Times will do is to trot Krugman out to argue that mass war up through space based weapons is actually good for an economy. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.
Or maybe trot Krugman out to argue that war is a little to harsh, but massive defense buildups are good for an economy. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.
Or they will trot Krugman out and argue that the Police/Spying State is good for the economy. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.
Or maybe the Times believes that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Bosnia, etc are just a few years away from becoming beacons of freedom and enlightenment. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.
Excellent, Mr. M!
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeletehttp://veteransforpeaceindianapolis.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-us-exceptional.html?m=1
Actually, tolerance does have a place in the US Constitution, in the same amendment as freedom of the press, under the name "freedom of religion". Coming originally from Rhode Island, I grew up knowing the story of Roger Williams, and his nearly fatal problems with the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay colony. His example as well as others produced the tolerance for religious differences, and the unheard of hands-off approach with regard to a national religion found in the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe Peace of Westphalia resulted from general acceptance of the principle "quius regio, eius religio", but full religious tolerance was championed by Americans. What we have today is a splintering of morality, and the subsequent "culture wars", with each side attempting to make their personal view of morality the law of the land. We basically now function according to the principle "cuius regio, eius mores", as left and right capture the government. These wars will not end until, like religion, morality is left to the individual conscience. Is this not, in fact, exactly what the non-aggression principle would accomplish if widely adopted?
Dwight, your point is valid, yet I do not interpret the context in the same way.
DeleteNeither the Times nor current usage suggests "tolerance" to mean anything other than whatever lifestyle and culture they want to jam down our throat, we have to swallow - by law.
This isn't "tolerance"; it is intolerance of the most tyrannical sort.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Times article,
ReplyDelete"But no American president has done what Mr. Putin has done in silencing nearly all independent media, crushing dissent..."
J.F.K., Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Snowden, Bradley Manning, Lincoln during the War of Secession, etc, etc, etc.
The list goes on and, and on, and on, and...
The Martians value "freedom of the press" and "tolerance" to a much more extreme degree than we terrans do. I've expressed this view (as an interplanetary journalist) to members of the Sublime Council on more than one occasion; I have also represented my views to the High Znam. The only action has been a reaffirmation of both concepts, and the promise of further expansion.
ReplyDeleteMy strong suspicion is that thr wheels are coming off the global economy with a vengeance; and I also suspect that the "Atlantic" economy (North America and the Western Europe) is on the leading edge with a vengeanc. I think that we in Asia will be hurt, but not as badly as North America and Western Europe.
Articles like this Times piece explain why the Times doesn't need a comics section.
ReplyDeleteI am a non-American, and have always been puzzled at the US establishment claim of "exceptionalism" and "moral equivalence".
ReplyDeleteThese two things seem to be justification for a sociopathic foreign policy in which murders committed by the US government are always considered just and right, and those killings committed by foreign governments are always wrong, even in self defense.
Mitch McConnel came out the other day saying that the US has no "moral equivalence" to the Russian government. For once, I agree with that cuck. The US is FAR WORSE.
Down with the empire!