Kelley writes:
> I'm not attacking you, but here's the thing: If that's not what he was doing, 'splain me this: Why didn't the twit make a fuss, say, before we starting blowing up things in Iraq?
I agree. I was unclear. He is trying to flog his book. As both public office holder and book promoter, he followed the dictates of the culture of enjoyment. As a public office holder, he went along with the party line, enjoying the prestige and perks of his position.
Now, having left office, he continues to seek enjoyment, by publishing a contrarian/insider tome on how it REALLY was. Who is going to want to read a book saying that everything was exactly as it appeared? The public ENJOYS reading about the other reality. In fact they expect it.
So when Clarke's book comes out, it plays true to form: here is the real story. Americans, hip to this pattern after living for decades in the culture of enjoyment, pay it no never mind and Bush's polls go up.
> I'd heart Clarke had he blown the whistle when it _really_ mattered.
But that would threaten his status/enjoyment. The concept of sacrifice for the greater good is as dead as a doornail in this country.
Curtiss writes:
> Strange how victimhood has become the exclusive property of the right...or maybe not, since libs ran from the charge and succesfully separated themselves from the disadvantaged. Maybe the political arena needs victims of injustice to feed the wrath of the believers.
Heck, queers are playing "victim" to get the right to marry. It seems to be the most effective strategy. The NY Times had yet another article today, this one with a chart showing what rights/benefits/privileges queers lose out on not being able to marry.
Now, I am not saying that queers are not losing rights under the present system (when my lover was dying of AIDS in an intensive care unit, I was stopped by a security guard from entering the hospital after hours since I was not "family"). What is interesting about same-sex marriage is that claims of victimhood, despite being well-documented, may not carry the day this time. While it is great that the victimhood strategy gets shown up, it is sad that it comes at the expense of queers and their families.
> As motive is accept to them, certainly--but his means (writing a book critical of the current administration) is not.
I do not think they see it as "critical." For them I bet is more of a variation on VH1's Behind the Music. Call it "Under the Bush." As I said above: what REALLY went on.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister