Front PagePage TwoRecent OfferingsWeekly MagazineHoroscopesSubscribe!Feedback


Planet Waves | August 7, 2005 - from Jude

I watched the History Channel into the wee smalls ... amazed, distressed, and thoughtful. The actual supressed footage of the Hiroshima aftermath was shown on Sundance, a channel I don't get here in the Pea Patch ... so the horrendous snips of children without skin, charred bodies and devastation that I saw last night wasn't the entire story, but ... good enough for an anti-war statement that Screams to Heaven.

Past midnight, there was an examination of the governance of Hirohito -- who was he, this man worshipped as a Diety and never tried for war crimes? Disconnected entirely from reality by the circumstance of his birth, protected on every level by his handlers and bombastic by either nature or position, this was a man who approved plans with a nod but never made any. The design for the war was in the hands of his cabinet and aggressive military. The murder of millions of Chinese in Japan's ruthless push for expansion was racist at heart. The public had been taught that the Chinese [said an elderly soldier of the Rising Sun] were "inferior things; less than pigs." The Japanese people, it's culture, were "superior."

When a proposition to bomb a U.S. Naval facility was proposed as "deterrent" to possible U.S. involvement in what would soon become a global war, the Emperor simply nodded; when his top military advisor resigned in protest, Hirohito selected [fanatical] Tojo to replace him because "he liked him." In the end, Hirohito was the man who stepped down from his throne and into the public eye only to encourage youngsters to fly off in Kamakazi attacks for Japan's "honor," to tell his people that suicide was more honorable than losing the war -- to remind them to "stay the course."

Japan's refusal to surrender after the first bomb was attributed to a failed attempt to secure Hirohito's continued Empirical rights -- evidently that first devastation wasn't a "deal breaker" for the government. A statement was issued to the Japanese people in the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima to "cowboy up." It was after all ... a war.

This morning I saw Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a fallen American soldier and anti-war advocate, interviewed on CNN. She has been camped outside Bush's compound in Crawford, asking to speak to him again. She'd had an earlier 2004 interview with him in which he gave her the company line -- her sons death was honorable, a necessary loss in the advancement of freedom. She said he was light-hearted in their conversation, indicating that her sacrifice would be vindicated when the war was won, when democracy was spread.

Bush sent some of his underlings out to speak to her yesterday -- they said the President feels her loss, but ... [read the above company line, redux.] It is, after all ... a war.

Honorable deaths, all -- or so say those who sacrifice nothing. History can show us how high-flying rhetoric sends us over the cliff, how words can baffle and bewilder. So let's not forget that words are, historically, cheap. If some wars are more "righteous than others," for instance ... why do we use the same exact words every time to sell them? And if one side is more "honorable" than another ... why do the leaders of each side successfully use the same exact argument to send their nations children into slaughter?

We might argue that WWII was a very clear cut situation, and that there were righteous reasons to become involved. I'd suggest that was certainly the reason that this nation's people fought it ... but perhaps not why the politicians supported it. War always shows us the dark underbelly of the human spirit, militarily as well as politically -- and examples of it's highest heroism, as well. It's murkier today, though. The "war on terror" we fight today isn't even a "real" war, is it? Is there a "place" where terrorism resides? Or is it a condition?

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich. ~ Sir Peter Ustinov

Ustinov's words are powerful, they're the kind that can turn the conversation -- but they're not the one's we hear. Today, words aren't just cheap, they're calculated to push your buttons and attach themselves to your bias's and fears ... we call this "framed." Below, an entertaining read by comic and political commentator Will Durst on this topic. Interesting, isn't it, how humor can cut right through the crap?

Peace ~

Jude

The Escargot Stratagem [Bush administration explores new depths of governance by euphemism] --Will Durst --08.04.05

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19438

Responding to the American public's mounting suspicion that the White House is either lying to us about the Iraqi War going according to plan, or the plan really really sucks... the Administration has decided the source of the problem is not their doomed policy but rather the slogan they are using to sell it. So "the war on terrorism," has officially been replaced with "the struggle against violent extremism." Which clears things up like a double hulled oil tanker spill in a 9-inch kiddie wading pool.

Like a floundering hurricane losing wind speed over a land mass, the war has been downgraded to a struggle. I don't know about you, but I feel much better already. Hey, is that the cool, refreshing breeze of a scheduled steady troop withdrawal? Alas, no, it's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld propelling himself across another verbal skating rink by igniting his own flatulence. Again. Does the term "band-aid on a sucking chest wound" have any meaning here?

This particular scheme is something I like to call the Escargot Stratagem. Imagine being a charter member of the Snail Wranglers Anti Defamation League back in the 50s. Tough gig, right? When most Americans would rather chew on pork lips and linoleum than consider sliding the paradigm of slime down their gullet. It wasn't until the slugs with shells were marketed as a delicacy under their French moniker that people worked up the nerve to stab them with a fork, much less dangle them within spitting distance of their mouths. Of course, if you ask me, the guy from the Garlic Butter Advisory Board is the real genius here. Throw in "squid" and "calamari" and "Rick Santorum" and "distinguished gentleman" and you see where I'm going with this.

It's all about reframing, such as the word "bribe" being replaced with "campaign contribution," when we all know the major difference between the two is five syllables. The Nixon Years were the Golden Era of reframing, most notably for first-ballot Reframing Hall of Famer Ron Ziegler, who informed the press that his previous statements on behalf of the Nixon White House were "inoperative." Which, to this day, remains the best euphemism for "lied like a thieving corn weasel."

The problem here is the word "war." Unfortunate term. Unduly contentious. Steeped with insinuations of antagonism. Indicative of an enterprise to be either won or lost. As we are currently exhibiting some of the signs normally associated with losing, ie, a whole bunch of dead soldiers, it's obviously time for a change. "Struggle" conveys more of the murky lifelong commitment that fighting terrorism, excuse me, violent extremism, will require. It's like a voluntary congenital condition. Nobody expects to win the war against genital herpes, you simply strive to co-exist. And eventually become a better person because of it. Blah blah blah.

If this were 20 years ago, I would expect the "war on poverty" to morph into the "tussle against insufficient funds," but that war ended: the poor lost. Or, more accurately, extremely rich politicians surrendered on their behalf. One thing you can be sure of, this nomenclatural de-evolution will be shoved down our throats as long as we continue to swallow it, right up to the point that they try to call the President "Beloved Leader." I'm not sure there's enough garlic butter in the world to facilitate that. ++

Like a lot of Americans, Political comic Will Durst prefers both squid and snails to Rick Santorum.



Jude, the editor of Political Waves, is standing in for Eric for a couple of days. You can subscribe to Political Waves (our all-politics news distribution list) for free at the link below. You'll receive between five and 10 news articles each day. You may write to Jude with your responses to her commentaries at moderator@planetwaves.net.

Political Waves list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political_waves/