"Thus Belial with words cloaked in reason's garb
Counselled ignoble ease and peaceful sloth,"
- Paradise Lost, II, 226-227
John Kerry, the Democrat candidate for president of the United States, is a ‘pro choice’ Catholic. Can there be a more loathsome thing? Either he is a moral idiot, who has never understood one jot or tittle of the meaning behind the ritual, or he is a moral pygmy who would stifle any qualm that opposed his pursuit of power, or he is a moral coward, so paralysed by polls that he does not dare to vote his conscience, or he is a pure blackguard and devil worshipper, a perverted maniac prostrate before the altar of Moloch.
5 comments:
See, now I think you're just being silly to get some kind of response.
Of *course* he's a moral pygmy. He wants to be President of the United States, doesn't he?
You have found me out, I was getting kind of silly. ("Look at me! Look at me!") Though a President who can be both 'catholic' and 'pro-choice' is the sort of unpleasant historical milestone that makes me feel queasy, I don't particularly care who wins. I think things will change a lot less than the anti-Bush crowd supposes if Kerry gets in. I predict a temporary global dip in anti-americanism of 5 to 10%...though I'm not sure how to quantify that... and an invasion of Iran or Syria before the end of his first term. Using little boats.
Look, my main objections to Bush 'n' Co are of their highly unaccountable behaviour and their extremely dodgy business links, and not just with the Saudis (Cheney and Bush in particular, but I now appreciate that all of the main players have what I regard as severe conflicts of interest).
For all I know Kerry does too, but he does have an incredibly rich wife, so perhaps he doesn't need to have his snout quite so obviously in the trough.
This poorest of the four (President/Vice President/potential President/potential Vice President) actually turns out to be Dubya, which just shows what a bunch of cashed-up oligarchs the whole lot of them are...
Just realised that last comment of mine is not really relevant to yours. I guess my ranting so far has demonstrated that in any election I will always be chosing the 'lesser of two Evils', if not 'the snappier dresser of two nigh-indistinguishable Evils'. I have also seen in my limited life experience how deeply enmired in dodginess most people get on their way to becoming a Professor or Boggabilla Shire Councillor, so don't expect much from a mere President of the United States; I have to judge them on the pragmatic basis of what the probable effects of what they do will be, rather than their motives for doing it. In the penultimate really dodgy US presidential election, in 1960, the Illinois party machine delivered a fraudulent victory to JFK; I think this was providential, since I can easily imagine Nixon making a complete apocalyptic balls-up of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In a similar way, I suspect with Al Gore as president the Taliban would still be in power. (Now if he had been taken out by a plane into the White House, on the other hand, and Joe Lieberman was in charge, I think we would have seen some excellent and effective anti-terrorist cooperation between the Great Satan and the Little Satan...)
Much more importantly, though: almost everything I have written here so far demonstrates my extreme single-issue-voterness as far as abortion is concerned; this is why I supported Reagan in 1980 and would support Bush in 2004, if I was still living in the Old Country.
Post a Comment