..out of the dark

..I thought I was numb enough to not get angry with the whorehoppers by now. *sigh*

It's not that they're dismissing international law that's maddening. That's not exactly unusual - they argue some rule doesn't apply, we disagree, politics happen. Sanctions take place, thousands die from malnourisment, and we all feel superior about it.

But that's not what's going on here. The entire point is to avoid determining the question about extraordinary rendition and indefinite imprisonment - the regime put in place in Afghanistan and Iraq - in the US. And this time it's not: "hey, Senators - American law doesn't apply outside the borders (and did I just made that one up? Ask me about it, I'll be really honest) - or do you want to grant Osama bin Laden a trial, which would embolden Our Enemies, and prove that you hate America once and for all to all the voters?". Oh, no. Now it's "we have a UN mandate to do whatever the hell we want, so you can't touch us until the mandate expires, *blblblblthth*".

And no one reacts. Apparently the whorehoppers buy it. The Pentagon just declared that they're making up their own law under the UN mandate that includes torture and indefinite imprisonment without charge. And it's not news.

What is news, is Obama's granduncle swearing in church some time in the sixties. And last week, I learned more than any healthy person is able to take about Clinton's choice of clothing, mode of speech, and maternal instincts - viewed from the perspective of her skill in uniting the American Family for a quiet time over the dinner- table.

I.. no.

(Yes. But why isn't anyone catching on? Why is there no push to top it? That's what gets to me. It's the same as it was before Iraq - the problem is that a large majority simply don't see a problem with what's going on. Most are only critical of the way it's been handled - and that it failed so abysmally in public.

More on the "domestic campaign" here:
http://thismodernworld.com/4270 )

..and, well, I suppose I prefer the Obama- version that exists, partially, but cannot win in a US election. I.e., the one that doesn't care about narratives and official stories (in spite of himself - I mean, seriously, they are all career politicians. They're already enamoured with their own sense of purpose, and their future legacy).

I'm pretty sure that the democrats won't dare to position themselves with Hillary as the "Old guard" and pit that against Obama, who will be the "new spirit", and so on, though - because they're idiots who think not being Bush should be more than enough (which is of course correct, and will enable them to make tiny and non- existent changes to their politics when it comes to funding certain politically unsound operations outside the country). Neither will they manage to really touch on any of the real issues, beyond white noise about healthcare, global warming and Iraq.

So in other words, depending on who is caught burping on TV, the nomination could still go either way. Clinton has powerful backers, after all. Obama only has support from a bunch of citizens and people with extra ten- dollar bills. But he also has very skilled "handlers" - and it's rarely the case that Obama the citizen is allowed to speak. No, that should be saved for after the election, you see, when he can grace the working class with some encouragement and gifts. (Seriously. This is the way the wonks speak about him: that he's Bush, but with a different agenda. That he knows how to play the game, to say the right things when he has to, while enabling special interest to work unimpeded - but that he's going to make the US soft by caring inwardly about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. While the truth is, of course, that they've done and said nothing in his campaign to suggest they will do anything but tiny course- corrections in practice. Obama and Clinton's weakness when it comes to torture, indefinite detention and secret justice is one example. Their non- existent views on China and Russia is another - they simply don't have the knowledge beyond what they've picked up on the history- channel, nor the interest to engage seriously beyond the set parameters, such as that the US won't give an inch.

Or in Clinton's case, she has the experience she picked up when petting poor starved children on the head during photo- ops when she ran the "think- tank" about "human rights".

But not having that know- how doesn't matter as far as being elected. Which is why we know next to nothing about Hillary or Obama, but all about their priests and their families. Because that is what can be used to challenge their narratives effectively. It's the exact same thing with McCain and the democrats. Challenging their "record" amounts to pointing out that they don't know the difference between shia and sunni. But challenge their views on expansive military power in public? Oh, no, can't do that. Because you see, that's just election- talk. Everyone has to say stuff like that. "Bomb Iran! China is the new Soviet!". And again, as before, the foreign policy will be an extension of the domestic policies. Where domestic concerns control directly what's done outside the border.

"Only Nixon could go to China!" - sure. But why was that? It was because only he was non- communist enough not to be axed in public at home for doing it.)