Google+ Followers

Tuesday, November 29, 2011


     joseph beuys, the end of the 20th century

I found a note today I'd written myself several days ago. It says: What's wrong with the morality of our politicians? Next question: which politicians? They're kind of like people in that they're individual and can't be categorized under one word. I like to think there is a difference between Senator William Fulbright and Newt Gingrich, between --- I draw a blank. I was trying to think of a politician who had some integrity about representing the people, the voters, the working people (not just the working class), the people that pay the taxes that pay their way and the the military that doesn't defend us any more. It's involved in preemptive strikes, attacking countries in poverty with nonwhite people: collateral damage, no problem. The Iraq propaganda started with the killing of Iraqis, the stated goal the capture of Saddam. They caught him and killed him before he had a chance to talk publicly and tell what they don't want told. The US forces went on killing Iraqi people. The war of "Iraqi Liberation" has become (from the start) the war on the Iraqi people. After our government reduced the people of Iraq to rubble, they continue to beat them down and beat them down. The Iraqi resistance is saying, Get out and leave us alone. Oh, but they're sitting on an awful lot of oil. The USA is going to have it if they have to kill the last Iraqi. American history has no problem with genocide.

The morality of the politicians would be the same as the morality of the American people. You say each one of us has our own standards of morality, not all the same. Like birds of a feather, we tend to the company of people whose moral standards are about the same as our own. We end up in clusters of the like-minded. Largely, our government's policy is to support dictators and keep them supplied with military equipment to keep their people down. It's a quandary, even for the Obama administration, what to do about the Arab Spring, people wanting democracy and rid of the dictators USA has supported all the way along. State Department wants to publicly embrace the democracy movement, because it sure looks good. Except they don't want us. They don't want American democracy. They know how fraudulent everything is that comes from America. They do, however, want the money. Uncle Sam money bags. Hey Uncle, how you doin? Since Reagan, Uncle Sam has turned into Scrooge McDuck and the Sheriff of Nottingham in one. It's like our government's role is to take from the working people and give to the corporations that don't pay taxes.

I can't think of morality as something to judge, but something to assess, like telling the tree by its fruits. Morality, like everything else in illusion, is relative according to circumstances and perception. I have an idea the politicians have a different moral standard from mine. For one thing, my moral standard wouldn't allow me to be a politician. Why? Have you ever heard a politician tell the truth about anything? They speak with forked tongue, consistently. It can be said of them all. Lying is a politician's truth. One of my favorite quotations from my friend, Jr Maxwell, If you can't lie, you can't be a politician. The Reagan Revolution cut loose greed and taking from the poor. Reagan is how the people kept in mental institutions by tax money were put out to find their way as the homeless in cardboard washing machine boxes. People unable to take care of themselves. They get picked up for peeing behind a bush, put in jail for indecency, no trial, no charges, no anything. They end up dying in prison of AIDS after several years, traumatized until they give out and die.

The part I have the worst problem with is that the so-called representatives represent only the rich. They represent money and money only. It used to be they pretended to represent us at least a little bit for show, but by now the pretense is gone and they're up front about it. Money is their only purpose. The republicans have absolutely no regard for the American people, especially the half of the population "of color." When all the "representatives" vote according to what they're being told by the strategists to do, vote no on everything, they do. And they have their state representatives doing the same thing. Virginia Foxx who "represents" my district of NW North Carolina, you can be sure does not represent me. I aint got no money, honey. The press throws democrats in with the republicans doing the irresponsible voting, but they're not. The press has been throughout my lifetime the organ of the political right wing. Our press, of course, is corporate. Therefore it is used for smokescreen to cover what we the people aren't supposed to know. We have become the enemy of our government. Since the assassination of Kennedy when the corporate world took our government by coup, the corporations and the government protect themselves from us the best they can.

One thing I have to say for the Occupy Wall Street throngs, is they are making it last. It is gradually sinking in as more and more people become aware of it, that we really are the 99%. It's as powerful an understanding as looking at Andy Warhol's soup cans until you see them. Of course, the 1% control the media, which will be used to set factions inside the 99% at odds with each other. They'll use the tool of the Reagan Revolution: Divide and conquer. They will infiltrate and divide, another strategy. Occupy Wall Street is powerless politically. But the longer it keeps going, the more they show their peace, they start catching the attention of more and more people. It's not like they want to convert anyone to their cause. They're standing up saying we the 99% are subject to the 1%. It's not so powerful the first time I hear or see 99%. The longer I think about it, the more every day I see that we do have the advantage and we have given our power to the 1%. All we have to do is take our power back. Everybody may have a different reason, but taking back your power is taking back your power.

I've wondered for a long time about a president who orders a given action, like sending several hundred soldiers into Beirut, almost 300 are killed, the rest come home. Oops. A president who orders a missile strike on a place in a city, and kills several people nearby, collateral damage. Does the misery created by the decision stay with the individual president's soul? Is "following orders" absolution from killing kids, pregnant women, old people? The people who have done that have had very difficult times forgiving themselves, even though they were following orders. They'll never follow orders blindly again. It really doesn't matter if a politician is absolved of mass murder by decision. Governors make decisions about death row murders. What about an executioner's soul? That's off into places that are not mine to know. I don't want to find out by doing it to see. What is the morality of giving the nod to the assassination of a president to step into his place? What is the morality of assassinating somebody's character, reputation and credibility to shut them up? I can't help but think a lot of it sticks to the soul. I want a simple life where I don't have to worry about whether it sticks or not.


No comments:

Post a Comment