Replies; three different ones

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Quail,
I know you were mad at me and told me not to respond to any more of your
posts, but I already had this one half written, so I'm compelled to finish
it despite you.  Sorry again.
I get the feeling from you (you being representative of a whole lot of other
people I notice around) that you see the world in black and white.  I know
it's tough.  We've all been so well trained to think that way.  It's what
Pynchon means when he says we're 'sold' on  'comforts.' It's easier on us
that way.  It's peace of mind, ease of thought.  "It's okay, folks, go back
about your business; they're just 'evil' terroists; we'll get 'em for you
(it was really  'evil' I was thinking of in relation to 'infidel').  We're
being sold on the idea that it's kill or be killed.  You seem to be sold,
Quail.  You prefer to call it your 'opinion' but it's the same old tired
shit (shit as in 'caught up in the same fields of shit.')  "There's no other
solution!"  Do you realize how much you sound like Pokler?  Pokler thought
he had only two choices too.  Either squeeze the life out of Weissmann's
skinny little neck or obey his every command.  But those weren't his only
choices remember.  He could have run away with his wife and daughter once
and he could have run away with Bianca once or twice.  Our choices are never
really so black and white.  Al Qieda or us; good or evil; for or against;
with us or against us; us or them; either/or. black or white. What
unimaginative dichotomous crap!  Listen to our President, our Press! Selling
us tired old brands of corporate and political thought (colonialism
reincarnate) dressed up in flags and Tommy Hilfiger to look like Freedom!
Oboy! are we're selling ourselves a load of crap.

Quail, you keep harping on me about solutions.  I'm sorry, I have nothing to
give you except regurgitated Noam Chomsky and pom-poms to Doug.  And you've
already expressed your distaste for them.   I'm sorry.  I'm not a political
theorist or a linguist or an on-line journalist.  I haven't even read very
much Pynchon.
I'm just your average thinking-reading-feeling citizen who knows full well
fucking well the human race is creative and intelligent enough to come up
with more than two solutions to a problem.  Between all us billions, that's
the best we can do?  Us or them?  There're plenty of ideas circulating
around, across this list and across the world.  And I'm sure there are
plenty more yet to be thought out.  I'm sorry they don't appeal to your
sense of national pride the way rocket bombs do, but hey, something's gotta
give.  Better it be pride than the death of a half million more innocents.

Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: The Great Quail <quail at libyrinth.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 6:01 PM
Subject: Replies; three different ones

> Well, ok. Suggestions?
>
> See, I have yet to hear any solutions to this problem that don't
> sound like appeasement, inaction, or wishful thinking. If you could
> tell me who we can force the Taliban and al-Qaeda from power, and
> fairly soon, without causing loss of innocents, I would be most happy
> to hear it. But so much opposition on this List cries out against
> what we are doing, but offers no serious solutions.
>
> I for one believe that we must act,
> swiftly and decisively. Which we have been doing.
>

> >Now there's an argument!
>
> Well, it's easy to make an argument on the basis of a different
> ethical viewpoint. I wish Chaim would have provided more concrete
> solutions to oppose mine. It would be more convincing than ,
> "Starving people is bad and there should be another way."
>
> Yes, they should.

> Probably nothing. But that is not me, nor is it anyone else on this
> List I have read about. There is a difference between not caring and
> still making a decision to support a policy that results in
> casualties. I care about all the Germans we killed in WWII, also. But
> that doesn't mean we should have allowed Hitler to remain in power.
> Of course, this is not as immediate, but I am currently tying this
> only a mile and a half from a mass tomb, the result of THEIR attack
> on US.
>
> > But again, what happens when that distinction is thrust upon you? Do
> you curl up into a ball, hand them flowers, or just turn the other
> cheek? Do you, as a government, say to your citizens, who have just
> been attacked, and are being attacked, and have heard from the
> "enemy" that they will attack and attack again; do you say to them,
> "Well, the fact is, they are hiding in a poor country with starving
> people, so we have to sacrifice our own security until they change
> their ways."
>
> And to answer you before you bring it up, I am not naive enough to
> think the US does no wrong. But the Jihad has certainly thrust a
> situation into our face, one that we must respond to. I have not yet
> heard a single solution from you. I appreciate that you want to keep
> your hands clean, but...?
>
> Um, ok, thanks. It is a good point, but unlike you, I do not view the
> Pynchon of GR as a direct hotline to God. He may be a critic of the
> system, and perhaps the entire human condition, but his work
> certainly draws distinctions as well, despite his own agony at the
> very act. There was no Union; there is no Return.

> Then I assume the Taliban dead are also as indefensible? From your
> statement above, ultimate pacifism could be the only conclusion -- a
> pure Christian sort of inaction that refuses at all cost to take a
> life. Is that what you are saying? Or do you only mean "innocent"
> lives? I am honestly "just curious."
>
> --Q
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
> http://www.TheModernWord.com
>
> Better hope deferred than none. Up to a point. Till the heart starts to
sicken.
> Company too up to a point. Better a sick heart than none. Till it
> starts to break.
> So speaking of himself he concludes for the time being,
> For the time being leave it at that.
>       --Samuel Beckett, "Company"
>