Obama Understands Something Fundamental About the Millennial American

We love inflicting death, as long as we can do it in a neat, sanitized way that we don’t have to look at or think about. What matters to us is not morality, but aesthetics.

Dems like to think of themselves as the party of peace lovers.  But in reality, which is to say, in practice, the Dems are simply a bit more gifted at sanitizing the images of death than the right (with its mobs of enthusiasts salivating over war films and torture porn like “24″) manage to be.

The Right Wing culture of Armchair Machismo, with its chickenhawks bravely cheering for brutal torture ordered by Cheney and carried out by helpless patsies who then take the fall for it, means that the Right has never shaken off the aesthetic stigma of neanderthal brutality and so has instead chosen to embrace it and try to make it sexy, ironic, hip, and postmodern:

But normal people remain somewhat creeped out by this.

The Dems, being more skilled with the manipulation of the image, love (not merely tolerate) abortion (which they labor to cover in euphemism and keep out of the public eye.  And when their guy gets into office and ups the slaughter abroad while arrogating to himself the power to secretly order the murder of anybody he likes, the Dems go into overdrive to muffle the conversation in silence.  Note, for instance, in the previous link, how the state-run media New York Times chooses to frame the issue: a “test” of Obama’s “principles”–a brow-furrowed concern piece about a fundamentally decent member of the Tribe of Lefties who is, sadly, driven to seize the power to murder and lie about it, but who needs our patience and fundamental sympathy as he works through this moral struggle with himself.  It never comes within the range of a thinkable thought that Obama’s seizure of the power to unilaterally murder is an *expression* of his “principles”.  Imagine, for one second, how this seizure of tyrannical power to secretly order the murder of citizens would be treated if it were Mitt Romney claiming that power.  Oh wait.  You don’t have to, because Gawker confronted a bunch of Dems with exactly that question and they all scattered like roaches ducking it.

And now, the Administration is laboring to automate the whole process of slaughtering whoever our God King decides to make dead on his secret and unilateral will alone so that no meatware is involved in the efficient work of murder abroad and therefore nobody on the homefront has to have unpleasant encounters with troubled humans who might say something untoward about our Just and Wise God King.

Dems: Why are you supporting this man? How can you sleep at night?

  • JB

    The T-shirt saying “I’d rather be waterboarding” prompts what ought to be the most disturbing question: “Rather than what?”

  • Richard Johnson

    There is a thought circulating among conservatives that we need to broaden the tax base so everyone is paying something. The believe is that if people have “some skin in the game” they will be more likely to support policies that reduce their taxes.

    I think it’s time to put bring back the draft. Every able-bodied person should be drafted to serve a 2 year hitch in the armed forces. If everyone had some (literal) skin in the game perhaps we’d cease getting ourselves involved in so many conflicts.

    • Michael

      Draft the politicians first. I would wager the legislative and executive branches would be full of peaceniks and doves if they had to even once go out on patrol in Afghanistan or whatever other corner of the world they have shown themselves so willing to send our youth.

    • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

      Public blowback against a draft would certainly be a good thing and might serve to reduce our military presence abroad but it would be in response to a grossly immoral means that should never have been enacted in the first place. Holding a gun to people’s heads and forcing them to fight the hellish wars of our ruling elites is not justifiable.

    • Insane Sanity

      I actually agree that every citizen should pay some minimum of income tax – it’s the price of citizenship, and I would also agree its affect would be that many more people will likely pay attention to spending and its subsequent result – increased taxation.

      I also agree with the draft proposal to ensure everyone has “skin in the game” for our country’s protection. Additionally, it may well serve to cause us all “pause” when entering a conflict.

      Any proposals from those Dems out there on exposing everyone to abortion?

      • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

        Not everyone has an income to tax – including some of the richest people in America who make most of their money in other ways – so it would be far from universal. Furthermore its a terrible form of taxation because you are taxing people based on the market value of their labor: that is to say that the more productive they are and the more their labor benefits society the more they are punished in the form of taxation.

        Instead, we should rely primarily on sales taxes (or “outgo” tax) and fund government based on what people consume not on what they produce. The more you consume the more you pay; this also acts as a more organic progressive tax with the rich (who, the cheapskates aside, spend more) paying more.

        Of course, for that to happen we first have to reign in our out-of-control spending.

        http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/OutgoTax.html

        http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/theincometax/

        • ChrisKABA

          No one is going to rein in spending unless the money supply is cut off. Taxes don’t need to change one way or the other at the moment, but the ability to simply counterfiet as much as our masters decide they want should be stopped.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I think it’s time to put bring back the draft. Every able-bodied person should be drafted to serve a 2 year hitch in the armed forces. If everyone had some (literal) skin in the game perhaps we’d cease getting ourselves involved in so many conflicts.

      Sounds great until you realize that the richest in the country don’t have kids anyway.

  • Ted Seeber

    The other brilliant thing Obama has realized about the Millenial Generation is the foundational aspect of the worship of sexual orgasm. Without parenthood.

    Huge amounts of his energy seems to be devoted to reducing the supply of fertile females to a very low number, in such a way that the male of the species does not notice.

    • Michael

      Females have been taking care of that all by themselves long before Obama came along. He is just offering to help.

      • Kristen inDallas

        Males and females, Michael. Haven’t you ever heard of a frat-boy? Stop instigating gender wars, please. :) And Ted, just as many boomers as millenials…

        • Ted Seeber

          Who do you think taught the Millenials that marriage doesn’t matter?

  • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

    “If the modern world will not
    insist on having some sharp and definite moral law, capable of resisting
    the counter-attractions of art and humour, the modern world will simply
    be given over as a spoil to anybody who can manage to do a nasty thing
    in a nice way. Every murderer who can murder entertainingly will be
    allowed to murder. Every burglar who burgles in really humorous
    attitudes will burgle as much as he likes.” G.K. Chesterton

    • eln

      Fantastic quote.

      • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

        Sure Obama has a secret kill list but he’s just so cool! And he uses drones which are new and exciting and modern. Don’t be medieval about this: its progress!

  • RFlaum

    I always wonder whether politicians are at least honest with themselves about these things, or whether they’re in a mental state similar to that of their followers, telling themselves that they’re only being realistic.

    • Mark Shea

      I think they lie to themselves if they make lies a habit of being. Sin makes you stupid.

  • Crisler

    “its chickenhawks bravely cheering for brutality ordered by Cheney and carried out by helpless patsies”

    This is both the stupidest and most insulting thing you’ve ever said.

    And as a vet who put my ass on the line to defend your liberties, I resent it.

    You know, sometimes a person or a nation has to fight. The Church recognizes this. Because a soldier has bad leadership, civilian or otherwise, doesn’t make him a patsy. And in any case, whethert he leadership is bad is a matter of judgment.

    Mind you, I’m not talking about torture here, but the chickenhawk slight. The chickenhawk nonsense needs to stop. Not everyone is cut out for the military (or police or to fight fires or anything else that involves putting one’s physical well-being in danger), but it doesn’t mean they lack courage and it says nothing at all about whether tackling a problem is wise or stupid.

    Calling people chickenhawks is just as stupid as calling people chickendoves. Or chickencatholics.

    If you have to sink ot the level of discourse, you’ve already lost.

    • Mark Shea

      The torture of prisoners ordered by Bush/Cheney and cheered by the Rubber Hose Right was a war crime. And Bush/Cheney made certain that the people who carried it out took the fall. Said tortures achieved nothing but harm for the United States, to our intel efforts, our reputation, and our character. There was no excuse for them.

    • Ted Seeber

      If we were still under Augustinian standards- then the United States has not had a just war since the 1800s. Modern Just War standards includes defense of allies- but even then, the United States hasn’t had a just war since 1992.

      Chickenhawks are politicians who send soldiers like you to wars they wouldn’t bother to die in themselves. I think it’s a very apt description of the behavior.

      To me, the only war worth fighting is in your own home against an invading enemy. And only then if you can’t convert them first.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Pearl Harbor doesn’t count? Our military base was attacked; we weren’t merely defending our allies in WWII. Even in WWI we didn’t join until German subs started sinking U.S. merchant ships and tried to convince Mexico to fight against us, promising them Texas, Arizona and New Mexico in return.

    • ChrisKABA

      As a soldier, you wouldn’t be considered a “Chickenhawk”.

      The neckbones who sent you to the other side of the planet to pretend to try to destroy an American Made Monster (TM) and haven’t spent a day in harms way, or the armchair Rambos who think 24 is “Reality TV” would be the “chickenhawks.”

      Not that military service gives one a valid excuse for supporting and cheering on evil actions like torture of opponents…

  • Richard Johnson

    “Mind you, I’m not talking about torture here, but the chickenhawk slight. The chickenhawk nonsense needs to stop. Not everyone is cut out for the military (or police or to fight fires or anything else that involves putting one’s physical well-being in danger), but it doesn’t mean they lack courage and it says nothing at all about whether tackling a problem is wise or stupid.”

    No, but when they appeal to their fathers to help them avoid combat (George W. Bush), play the deferment game repeatedly to avoid reporting for the draft (Dick Cheney) or claim to have an anal cyst to get a medical deferment (Rush Limbaugh), and then later in life lead the cheering section for sending someone else into conflict, the term chickenhawk has meaning.

    And we won’t even begin to discuss the proven false allegations of WMDs that were used to get us into the Iraq conflict (and the dupes who bought into that trope). That isn’t being a chickenhawk…that’s just being to blind.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X