| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? | Main | Friday Poem »

July 27, 2012

Drone Court Advantage

An incisive piece by Charles Davis in The New Inquiry:

DronesTritely declaring President Obama no different from George W. Bush, these nominally left-wing suppressors of the vote even adopt the same bigoted, “pro-life” language one would expect to find outside an abortion clinic in Kansas, proclaiming our commander-in-chief a “criminal” and “baby killer” all because he has killed a few regrettable babies as part of wars that much of the world considers criminal — a privilege, mind you, never denied any of his white predecessors. They even attack the president because he has had the temerity to protect the lives of American servicemen and women through the record-breaking use of drones, ensuring the greatest threat they face is carpal tunnel, not a bullet from an angry savage.

...Talking about innocent men, women, and children killed by our way of life isn’t going to bring them back, but it will undermine support among President Obama’s left-wing base. Indeed, while some pacifists confuse their personal beliefs with politically viable policy solutions — thinking, as blogger Adam Serwer puts it, that America should stick to “using banana creme pies or wifflebats in its defense” — President Obama is compelled to live in the real world. And there he must confront real threats, like a potential GOP takeover of the Senate, that require an active and politically unassailable foreign policy. Instead of dwelling on dead foreigners and arguing and bickering over which president killed which child, the left would do well to remember the huge advances in progressive rhetoric we’ve made these last four years. Instead of bashing the man who saved us from Sarah Palin, we ought to rededicating ourselves to addressing the most pressing problem the planet faces right now: defeating Mitt Romney.

After all, if you don’t like that Barack Obama possesses the unilateral ability to decide who lives or dies, imagine how insufferable that power would be in the hands of the former Massachusetts governor.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Zujaja Tauqeer at 07:00 AM | Permalink

Comments

I'll accept the point about Romney being a worse choice than Obama, but I think the whole dismissive thing about innocents being killed (because they aren't in the US) reveals a person who is not nearly as decent as he imagines himself to be.

Posted by: Andrew C | Jul 27, 2012 8:17:53 AM

So we shouldn't critique Obama because it might hurt his chances of re-election? Yes, he's the lesser of two evils, but let's at least try to keep him that way.

Also, the dismissive way the author refers to non-Americans in the piece ("some impoverished stay-at-home Buzkashi mom," "some willfully oppressed third-worlder in a burka") is really disgusting, as is the casual sexism of some of the pejoratives he chooses ("effeminate anti-Obama purists," "emo-left" -- i.e., don't be all gross and "emotional" like a "woman." Well, better that than a mindless Obama cheerleader who is blind to some of his very real flaws.)

Posted by: anon | Jul 27, 2012 9:47:45 AM

Whoa! I agree with anon. I think we can do without this bigoted language here. The thesis is of interest, but must you re-publish such garbage?

"a bullet from an angry savage"

Hardly an incisive piece. More like a neo-colonialist rant. Badly done.

Posted by: Ray Butlers | Jul 27, 2012 10:13:04 AM

My god folks , it's satire !! ( or at least I'm presuming it is)

Posted by: Ciaran | Jul 27, 2012 10:24:26 AM

As a self-proclaimed progressive who finds himself defending Obama against attacks from fellow leftist, this article made me cringe.

Also, I can't tell if the first three commenters are trolling or if the satire really went over their heads. Do they not teach A Modest Proposal anymore in high school English?

Posted by: SRM | Jul 27, 2012 12:13:18 PM

It's satire, folks! The idea is to take the usual moderate-left position of "how dare you complain about Obama? You want Romney to win!" line and exaggerate it. I find the piece unconvincing, overall, however: the satire is so subtle that it's easy to miss if you don't read the whole thing, and I don't think it makes the left-wing anti-Obama case very forcefully, devolving instead into a satire of the media's representation of wars in the Middle East.

Posted by: Robert Rushing | Jul 27, 2012 12:55:46 PM

This isn't satire. It's trash. There is absolutely nothing in this piece that would indicate to me that the author is trying to write satire. It seems to me that when someone accidentally reveals how ugly they are they fallback, like the cowards they are, on it all just being a joke. No, it isn't. It's not a joke. This is what the author really thinks. Turning around and saying, Hey, I was just joking, is chickenshit. Own up to your prejudices. Own up to your hatred of the other. Pick a fucking side and stay there.

Posted by: CV | Jul 27, 2012 1:47:25 PM

The lesser of two evils is still evil and one is only projected here.

Moreover, the Left-prog opposition to this evil is also diminished for fear of alienating minority votes.

In this regard a Romney victory could even be projected to unleash the left
and the progs on the streets.

The most important point to make however, is the Elite of both parties have been captured by the banksters, the m-i-complex and The Lobby.
It is foolish to believe either party is reformable.

We need a multiparty system and if it be objected this would throw the whole "system" into even more turmoil, ask the mass of Iraqis and Afghanis and Pakis and Yemenis if they care or would have cared.

Posted by: K. Hoop | Jul 27, 2012 2:02:20 PM

If you don't want people talking about all of his war crimes get him to stop committing them. Have to call BS on the race thing as I was calling out his white predecessor on his murdering habits as well.

Posted by: James Decker | Jul 27, 2012 3:54:37 PM

Democrats are more bloody-minded than Republicans when it comes to warring in distant lands:


…all five Republic Presidents of the postwar period had a détente policy and that all but Reagan in his first term reduced military spending. All four Democratic Presidents prior to Bill Clinton raised military spending, each quite substantially, and all had serious confrontations with the Soviet Union.
…The Republican Party found it politically useful to balance its pro-détente policy with hard-line rhetoric toward the Soviet Union and defense, while the Democratic rhetoric emphasized arms control and global cooperation. The difference between rhetoric and real policy in both parties was a stabilizing factor in foreign policy, but the reunification of Germany left both parties with rhetoric alone.

Also, a book on the Savage Mules.

Posted by: slr | Jul 27, 2012 5:18:45 PM

"There is absolutely nothing in this piece that would indicate to me that the author is trying to write satire."

Instead of dwelling on dead foreigners and arguing and bickering over which president killed which child, the left would do well to remember the huge advances in progressive rhetoric we’ve made these last four years.

"I find the piece unconvincing, overall, however: the satire is so subtle that it's easy to miss if you don't read the whole thing"

Lilly’s father then told a story that has stuck with me ever since. As she lay dying in a pool of her own blood and vomit, the overpoweringly putrid scent of death wafting in the air as her father cupped the intestines spilling out her mangled abdomen, the littlest Ledbetter faintly breathed her final words. And like the laudable columnist Ezra Klein, she was on message. “It’s so cruel,” she said, whimpering as tears fell from her bloodshot eyes to her blood-smeared cheek, “what Mitt Romney did to that dog.”

Posted by: PWirth | Jul 27, 2012 6:31:48 PM

Link should have led here.

Posted by: PWirth | Jul 27, 2012 6:38:18 PM

Wow, how can you not understand this essay?
Some of the comments on this piece are clearly written by people either A: Too lazy to read the whole essay, but comment on it anyway (immoral)
B: Incredibly stupid, but comment on the essay anyway (troubling, especially at 3QD)
C: Perhaps don't read English as a first (or second, or third) language?

Reread the last paragraph of the essay and have the decency to apologize if you are in Category A. Category B. . .I am sorry for you. Category C: ask for help with your reading comprehension from a native speaker.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jul 27, 2012 6:41:36 PM

Seriously. . .if you guys are trolls, well then bravo. Otherwise you are either insane, lazy, or unintelligent. How could anybody take this seriously?

Reread the last paragraph!

I'll admit it starts a little slow, had me fooled for a paragraph or maybe two before I realized what I was reading. Someone called the author chickenshit? Are you nuts?! I think what he wrote was pretty ballsy. . .calling out all of Obama's so called liberal supporters etc. by making them seem utterly ridiculous. Have the decency to realize you f'd up.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jul 27, 2012 6:47:26 PM

HAHAHAHA!!! I can't stop laughing at this thread. . .Some of these comments are the funniest shit on the internet. I gotta get a screen grab before it gets taken down.

CV wins the gold for self righteous, presumptuous, and hypersensitive idiot, followed closely by anon and maybe Ray? I can't wait to see if any of you have the integrity to admit you are a dumbass and take the long trek down from that high horse. Even my beloved 3QD gets infected with 'internet commenter obtunded mentation' from time to time I suppose. Somebody back me up here! These comments are awesomely hilarious. OK. . I'll stop picking on you guys. I have had my laugh. *Wipes tears from eyes*

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jul 27, 2012 7:07:51 PM

Oh, just some thoughts converted to electrons . . . to be required to read through all of this so as to arrive at the last paragraph in order to "get" something hugely relevant — or why would we read it to begin with? 'Cause we have lots of time to waste on drivel? — seems a lot to ask.
Stylistically aberrant, but not in a GOOD way, I offer. But it certainly has generated pungent comments!

Posted by: Chris Gudmann | Jul 28, 2012 12:26:38 AM

OK, first comment, fair enough I was mistaken. The people who pointed out the error and then capered like little boys with their dix out can get fkked well and truly.

Posted by: Andrew C | Jul 28, 2012 1:58:31 AM

It happens man we skim though too much stuff on the net. Im actually a subscriber to the new enquiry and the first time I saw the essay it took me a confusing few minutes before I copped it . I really think its very effective though

Posted by: Ciaran | Jul 29, 2012 5:33:01 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Thursday Poem

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Jim Sanders on the hudson review

Ian Kaplan on Stephen Wolfram: Dropping In on Gottfried Leibniz

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

sjg on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

billy on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

Raza Husain on How do Finnish kids excel without rote learning and standardized testing?

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed