| GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option. GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: [do w]e have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government[?] PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target. GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area? PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table. |
Well, thee tell me, Mr. Bones: does, or does not, Governess Sarah consider that the militant extremist GOP has a right to make cross-border attacks without requesting permission from any Lesser Breeds Without?
The Wasilla Wunderkind does not obfuscate too badly, considering that she has had only a week of tuition from the Big Management Party agitprop whizkids. But obviously she does not obfuscate perfectly either. Should she ever attain the highest level of proficiency, her dupes and marks will not, like poor Mr. Gibson of ABC, be found noticing that they have been obfuscated at.
It may seem remarkable that the Governess plainly has no clue what the words "Bush Doctrine" mean to political grown-ups. The whizkid Pygmalions should probably lose a few points for not lettin’ their Galatea in on that little secret. Though to be scrupulously fair, O Bones, thee must remember that the Pakistan Addendumb to the Bush Doctrine only surfaced yesterday morning. Perhaps one may commend Mr. Gibson for being so au courant without reflecting adversely on the Pygmalionisation processes.
In any event, I find it more remarkable still that Princess Galatea seems unable to distinguish exercisin’ all her options from havin’ em out there on the table. Neocomrades K. Rove and H. Kissinger and their lessers will not, I suspect, have anticipated that their patient did not know that. Being only a scrap of common everyday knowledge, not particularly connected with either foreign and invasion policy or with the bamboozlement of the wicked MSM, the point was not likely to arise in the course of her Party’s emergency briefin’s.
Her Highness may have a track record of incomprehension in this semantic zone:
| Palin, in speaking to ABC, chose her words carefully, saying that "some of man's activities" could be "potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now." |
I suppose it must be a landmark for the Wombscholarship Movement to have produced a pupil who says ‘potentially’ when she means ‘actually.’ If that much Niederdümmung is possible -- nay, achieved already! -- why not a final solution to the traditional ‘black’-equals-‘white’ challenge within our lifetimes? Meanwhile, Princess Galatea’s two little boo-boos are at bottom the same, for what is "on the table" but a kiddie-talk synonym of ‘potential’? [1]
Was it nice, though, for Aunt Nitsy to sneer at an underinstructed young lady from the provinces who is only tryin’ to better herself in the world a little, after all? There was no call to rub Salt of Sarcasm into the Governess’s self-inflicted wound in the form of "chose her words CAREFULLY." Not to be catty, girls!
Mr. Gibson’s exasperated appreciation of what may prove to be the characteristic Galataean rhetoric is preferable as literary criticism to the New York Times Company product. "... [S]ome of ... could be ... potentially ... some of ..." has nothing to do with care, but it really is a bit blizzard-like, is it not? [2] At least four inches of snow job separate Her Highness of Wasilla from takin’ the pretended Global Warmin’ so seriously that eyebrows would be raised at Rio Limbaugh. [3] If Neocomrade K. Rove taught her how to do that stunt from scratch in the short time available for a crash program of Big Party briefin’s, he is even more gifted than I thought him.
But we were discussing the obfuscation angle. Mr. Gibson was reduced to putting the word YES into Princess Galatea’s well-lipsticked mouth: "Yes, Charlie, let there be no doubt about it! We militant extremist Republicans DO have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government." My guess is materially the same as good ol’ Charlie's guess, but I am more interested than Charlie is in why Her Highness should hesitate to be frank and verbally unblinkin’ about it. The Big Management Party’s substantive position on invasionism and Preëmptive Retaliation as such hasnot been news for years, and even if it were, one would scarcely go to the Governess of Alaska in quest of a detailed account. Why on Gore’s green earth didn’t she simply say "Yes, of course" and move on to the next question?
It is easy to understand why Galatea should blink about the pretended Global Warmin’: J. Sidney Pygmalion disagrees with his own critter about that matter, and JSM remains, after all, technically the Head of the Big Management Party ticket. But when it comes to the dogma of Preëmptive Retaliation, there are no reasons I know of to assume that the monster disagrees with Dr. Frankenstein, or that the two of them together disagree with George XLIII. Bein’ as he’s a dumb and vainglorious mugwump, Dr. Frankenstein, taken individually and without the Galatea critter, may vaguely resent that Preëmptive Retaliation should be referred to as the "Bush Doctrine," and equally vaguely hope that there will shortly be a "McCain Doctrine" to accelerate the pulses of the Powe®Point community. I guess there probably will be, but I am unable to guess that Preëmptive Retaliation will be significantly modified, let alone repudiated. The Big Managers all believe that self-baloney nowadays, and a great many of them have believed it in some form or another ever since Hiroshima Day or shortly afterwards. [4]
Did Princess Galatea blink and blizzard about Preëmptive Retaliation because she suspects that Televisionland and the electorate do not support that particular Big Managerial dogma with zeal and vigour? It would be pleasant to think so, but it would also almost certainly be mistaken, wishful thinking. Main Street does not in fact support Preëmptive Retaliation as rabidly as Weekly Standardisers and Wall Street Jingos do. Even Main Street in beautiful downtown Rio Limbaugh is not yet 100% gleichschaltet. Perhaps the Party base and vile do not dare avow such subversive sentiments as "Live and let live" out loud, but the jihád careerists certainly do not have everythin’ their way either. (They certainly whine and moan about popular and even Party neglect of the Islamophalangitarian Menace often enough!)
But the central truth of the matter emerges, as I conjecture, from Mr. Gibson’s exasperation. Galatea was wastin’ a lot of precious ABC air time with her blinkin’ and her blizzardin’. ‘Charlie’ understood that most of his corporation’s customers do not much care to hear exotic questions like that one either asked or answered or deliberately not-answered à la Governess Sarah. My guess about the critter itself is that its pygmalionisation had not yet taught it how to handle questions that nobody much cares about -- nobody in the social strata that she is expected to rally to the banners of Big Management. Princess Galatea did not realize that it would be wiser to say almost anythin’ at random as long as she cut it very short than to waffle protractedly. Perhaps Her Highness was tryin’ to figure out what to say as she waffled, what she ought to say so as to benefit Big Management best. But that was to misconceive the situation, since nothin’ she could have said about Pakistan and international law and all that can of worms would have been specially advantageous. The correct answer was to move on as rapidly as possible, not to emit this or that formula of words. "Just say YES" was the obvious plan, so obvious that Mr. Gibson of ABC charitably suggested it to her, unfair and unbalanced though that act was.
Oh, well, no doubt she’ll learn. ¡Crescat eundo!
___
[1] Any metaphysician respectfully unwilling to suppose Her Highness could be guilty of a vulgar linguistic boo-boo could easily get tied up in knots working out the deeper implications of a "potential cause."
[2] That curious microblizzard of potentialisation in particular leads to some additional Philosophy Department fun. Fancy Princess Galatea -- or, indeed, why not let’s fancy Empress Galatea, J. Sidney Pygmalion havin’ suffered a stroke or somethin’? -- seated at the negotiatin’ table with all the options spread out on the table in front of Her Highness to play solitaire with. Could some of the options potentially be that some of the options are not actually there, or otherwise not actually what they seem to be? Might not Galatea really be a butterfly at home in bed only dreamin’ that she is (Actin’) Führerin der freien Welt about to give us the Munich to end all Munichs?
[3] And what does J. Sidney Pygmalion think of his Galatea’s position on the pretended GW? Frankly, Mr. Bones, I doubt he gives a damn what the little woman thinks. (Though of course God knows best!)
[4] Before 6 August 1945, Big Management believed in Preëmptive Retaliation mostly only as applied to their James Monroe Co-Prosperity Sphere south of the border. Their abstract or theoretical attitude of Wingnut City to the Rechtfrage involved has perhaps not changed significantly since the Big Managers first decided they needed a Party at all, sometime in the 1830's. However, considered as a Machtfrage, the dogma of Preëmptive Retaliation can be of scant practical importance where Macht is radically lackin’.
No comments:
Post a Comment