[Futurework] Re: A child with no legs (was Tigris Zone)

[Karen Watters Cole]

Keith, I have seen no evidence or know of any protocol that a condemned death row prisoner would ever be in the actual presence of a governor asking for clemency, so that a woman prisoner falling on her knees begging for her life must be allegorical not literal.     I believe the case to which you are referring that Bush mocked afterwards was Karla Faye (Tucker?), a woman who became a ‘jailhouse Christian’ and reportedly tried to influence other women prisoners in a positive way, whose cause was taken up by religious leaders because she had asked for forgiveness of her sins, and this was naturally an issue they found compelling.  She was executed nevertheless.  The law trumps forgiveness and redemption in Texas any day of the week, even Sundays.  Is the law accountable in Texas is the question.    I am in no way defending Gov. Bush’s immaturity and lack of gray matter, meaning that the man sees things very much in black and white: if the Texas judicial system said this convict was guilty and deserved to die under the laws of the state, Gov. Bush had no compulsion to investigate further or question, nor even appear to take a position of careful deliberation.  To do so would acknowledge complaints about the system itself and admit institutional and personal weakness.  His personality is to show strength, decisiveness and dedication and let the chips fall as they may.  As history and both secular and religious literature teach us, these qualities are easily diverted from good purposes to bad when there is little or no independent tendency to question or be curious.     My gut instinct is that this is a man who worships not the redeeming power of his faith but the conquering power of the transformation.  As illustration, if any of you read the Newsweek cover story I posted (Bush and God), Fineman described Bush’s bible study group as a substitution for AA group therapy, and the class focus on the conversion of Saul of Tarses to Paul the Apostle is very instructive, because  Paul became one of the most proactive, judgmental and influential apostles, using his previous sinners life and his newfound transformation in ways that the original 13 could not.   In response to your speculation that the American public will rise up and reject this transformation of their leadership, I have no idea, but it is certainly why many of us are having more difficulty sleeping at night.  I agree with comments I have heard from historians and retired officials who say out loud that it seems that this administration and its agenda, specifically the war agenda but also the economic/social agenda, are creating a rift in this country similar to the great divide before, during and after the Civil War.  This should make any red blooded American citizen tremble.    The risks and consequences in this national transformation are great, which we have discussed here before and I won’t go into now. But I heard a few moments of a speech (Friday?) on CSpan book show by Katherine McNamara, publisher/editor of Archipelago, who repeated a comment by a Canadian politician on CBC.  He answered the interviewer’s question, should Canada take a more public stand opposing the US war against Iraq by saying that America is changing itself right now and perhaps Canada should wait and see.  Her remarks on the whole were closer to my darkest fears, that we are sitting through a silent coup d’etat of the greatest American creation and export, democratic ideals, and seeing a triumphant installation of military supremacy as a political philosophy, instead.  The term American Empire is being said more without being challenged or mocked.  No, I am not referring to my neighbors, whom may be watching CNN war coverage now but flipping back to ESPN when the talk is too cerebral.  I’m talking about the expert class, the professionals, the historians and the punditry.   Word coming from France via Friedman today, that perhaps their leadership overreacted to the political crises in the UN, that Europeans who oppose US hegemony in principle have not fully realized how America has changed since 9/11.  For once I am doubtful of Friedman.  My personal feeling on this is that superficially there has been a great deal of change; however, if a mighty military victory succeeds in restoring what I’ll call a collective state of post traumatic stress syndrome and the public seems to regain its sense of purpose and security, then a lasting transformation has not taken place (as many grieve has happened in Israel-Palestine under much worse and longer lasting terror; they have lost their vision of themselves).  After all, for the vast majority, life is still safe and there has been precious little sacrifice in daily life.  It is the suggestion of vulnerability and the apprehension about of a lifetime and generations of national uniqueness and invincibility that have been exposed.  Our worldview is under reconstruction, and that may have been inevitable given we are coming of age as a nation.  Which leads to the old question (yes, I am going to say it) in other hands, what would the response to 9/11 be?  Does Man make history or history make men?     As long as the drums of war are beating, and the crescendo is making it difficult to hear anything else at the moment, there is little chance that moderation and restraint will have much influence.  Talking about the surging polls supporting the president in the war, I heard it said that at any one time under normal (peace) times, 25% of the American population opposes war of any kind anywhere.  This was used as a justification to ignore, I think, the protestors in the streets.  I’ve noted before that Republicans in particular have a tendency to abuse percentages in economic and political debate, because 25% of the population is vague and has a softer impact than a real head count.   As far as the transformation goes, it is a serious and legitimate concern.  This is much different that the greed of the 80s, the Me Decade, or the division after the fact in Vietnam, as many of us personally recall.  I am sickened that as of this moment the “contract with America”, an image and reputation built, marketed and sold globally for more than a century, is broken.  My hope is that this will be a temporary condition (and I refrain from describing it in mental health terms).  To those who decry my pessimism, please be assured that I struggle daily to look at the glass half full not half empty, but experience and prudence tell me it is better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.  On the face of it, it seems that we have returned to a Cold War, dividing the world into competing camps and philosophies, where mistrust and mutually assured destruction permeate the air once again.    Who or what gets the blame for it, regardless of the success or failure of a lopsided military crusade, is still to be determined.     Karen