Thursday, July 24, 2008

Obama's speech in Germany.

I should start with what I like: The call to do something about Darfur, Zimbabwe, and/or Burma. Afghanistan was also a plea and there was a call to constructive action elsewhere, such as trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, supporting the rebuilding of Iraq and stopping the flow of drugs. Unfortunately, that meant that there wasn't really any unifying message, as there is always a long laundry list of ills in the world that we could address.

Then there was the talk of walls. "The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down." OK, so we need to undo the Tower of Babel. Is this really in the power of mankind to do? And what is the basis for doing it? Who is going to give up their language, race, nation or religion to make this work? How many squatters should the average German allow to live in their back yard? We can eliminate the walls between Christian, Muslim and Jew by seeking a lowest common denominator of godless immorality, which seems to be what American secularism is striving for - and succeeding with in the dysfunctional parts of our cities. Somehow that doesn't seem to be a path to anywhere desirable.

So where do we go from here? Barrack, got any ideas?

2 comments:

Eye Candy said...

~Greetings Looney~

~Fascinating~

The words>>>tear down>> are violent words destructive words. They are not building words.

>>>As the words encapsulate concepts of destruction is not this appeal to aggression and puissant prowess/battle? Was this then a declaration of animosity, aggression and war?

No other solution seems readily decipherable.

I have intercatenated my blog to yours for further exploration.

Looney said...

Welcome Eye Candy.

Yes, there is some violent imagery in the rhetoric, but this is common to humans. We frequently observe the harm caused among are fellow citizens of Earth due to violent behavior, attempt to restrain the wanton abuse, but in the end resort to violence in order to bring the violence to a halt. Usually the last restraining act is taken as a pretext for more violence. It is a very old pattern.