I titled something two years ago that is apt for a revisit today: Beneviolence.
There's this quote from Bo Rama this week, goes "We tortured some folks." Like the press who summarized & circulated it, I've no doubt clipped it here, and not just in-that there'd've normally been a coupla "uh"s in it.
Poor Bo Rama. As president he is unexceptional in every way. Viewed in isolation, his encouraging Americans to have-eat their cake by theoretically taking responsibility for something - something for which he'd long ago decided as chief executive no-one would be held accountable - does seem pretty flagrant and you might think it would make him outstandingly two-faced. Historically placed, however, he surely does not outdo any other president's being full of deceit on behalf of Our Values, Inc.
Sadly, too, he still toils behind the master of crafty duplicitous presidential-ness, the guy who also happens to have beat him by four terms to the title of First Black President. I guess he's still the first of his generation, though.
In fairness to the Rama, let's review the remarks that curried the quotation via polit-speak, give credit where it's due, and admit he's doing a, uh, bang-up job if only the proverbially glorified yeoman's work:
"I was very clear" obscures the "Look, I said stuff!" (but have done nothing) aspect of such clarity.
"Contrary to our values" puts a mask upon "it's against the law", which constitutional scholars know plenty about. Just as the Rama's face is the hip mask on the present values-challenging state of affairs.
"We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks." compares the "whole lot", which is good (no examples required), to the "but...some", which is, well, just "but some". It also puts a down-home spin on a pretty harsh word that he'll get credit for boldly using, which is why every major media outlet has copied & pasted that clipped version and shot it around the world in bold lettering at the tops of their pages.
Also, humanizing past victims linguistically trumps their victimization. For the most current victims, for example, he wouldn't say "We are now killing folks." There, he uses "taking out" and "bad people" to maintain the folksy style he's cultivated à la Bubba Dubya the 3rd.
"We crossed the line and that needs to be understood and accepted" means "Let's feel good about ourselves by looking somber and talking serious for a moment and then move on."
Ready? Okay...
"I have full confidence in John Brennan." ultimately implies "and so should you." Not that that really matters. He'll probably have full confidence in the next guy, as will the next the next, and so on.
Although taken from the other side of the river, this site is a repeat of 2yrs ago to the day of the week.
Coincidence? Neither likely nor unlikely. It either is-is or is-ain't, for, as far as I know, probability is a no-go proposition with a view toward the past. Like, it either was torture or it wasn't. You shouldn't blame the guy for fudging facts back then anymore than you should blame the guy for likewise hedging with the secrecy of our legalities regarding the here and now.
Frankness is for the future. And even that is muddled by the ostensible frankness of the moment, rendering every single lesson never learned. And that's the positive version.
So I believe this is a first pair of pics in the series to feature the same piece of architecture, with or without the new perspective of the new perspective and vice-versa. Speakin' o' hedging, just look how those trees grow. You think they need a trim?
Below is a repeat shot with a new twist (a different rollover/hover thingy):
Both images have a barge in them. Same barge?
There's this quote from Bo Rama this week, goes "We tortured some folks." Like the press who summarized & circulated it, I've no doubt clipped it here, and not just in-that there'd've normally been a coupla "uh"s in it.
Poor Bo Rama. As president he is unexceptional in every way. Viewed in isolation, his encouraging Americans to have-eat their cake by theoretically taking responsibility for something - something for which he'd long ago decided as chief executive no-one would be held accountable - does seem pretty flagrant and you might think it would make him outstandingly two-faced. Historically placed, however, he surely does not outdo any other president's being full of deceit on behalf of Our Values, Inc.
Sadly, too, he still toils behind the master of crafty duplicitous presidential-ness, the guy who also happens to have beat him by four terms to the title of First Black President. I guess he's still the first of his generation, though.
In fairness to the Rama, let's review the remarks that curried the quotation via polit-speak, give credit where it's due, and admit he's doing a, uh, bang-up job if only the proverbially glorified yeoman's work:
"I was very clear" obscures the "Look, I said stuff!" (but have done nothing) aspect of such clarity.
"Contrary to our values" puts a mask upon "it's against the law", which constitutional scholars know plenty about. Just as the Rama's face is the hip mask on the present values-challenging state of affairs.
"We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks." compares the "whole lot", which is good (no examples required), to the "but...some", which is, well, just "but some". It also puts a down-home spin on a pretty harsh word that he'll get credit for boldly using, which is why every major media outlet has copied & pasted that clipped version and shot it around the world in bold lettering at the tops of their pages.
Also, humanizing past victims linguistically trumps their victimization. For the most current victims, for example, he wouldn't say "We are now killing folks." There, he uses "taking out" and "bad people" to maintain the folksy style he's cultivated à la Bubba Dubya the 3rd.
"We crossed the line and that needs to be understood and accepted" means "Let's feel good about ourselves by looking somber and talking serious for a moment and then move on."
Ready? Okay...
"I have full confidence in John Brennan." ultimately implies "and so should you." Not that that really matters. He'll probably have full confidence in the next guy, as will the next the next, and so on.
__
Straulauer Kirche, Berlin-Friedrichshain - 1938
Although taken from the other side of the river, this site is a repeat of 2yrs ago to the day of the week.
Coincidence? Neither likely nor unlikely. It either is-is or is-ain't, for, as far as I know, probability is a no-go proposition with a view toward the past. Like, it either was torture or it wasn't. You shouldn't blame the guy for fudging facts back then anymore than you should blame the guy for likewise hedging with the secrecy of our legalities regarding the here and now.
Frankness is for the future. And even that is muddled by the ostensible frankness of the moment, rendering every single lesson never learned. And that's the positive version.
So I believe this is a first pair of pics in the series to feature the same piece of architecture, with or without the new perspective of the new perspective and vice-versa. Speakin' o' hedging, just look how those trees grow. You think they need a trim?
Below is a repeat shot with a new twist (a different rollover/hover thingy):
Surfermix 2014
Both images have a barge in them. Same barge?
