Friday, March 11, 2016

That will do

    One reads with moral disbelief
    this evening, that Mrs Clinton
    advised Americans today that 
    Nancy and Ronald Reagan "start-
    ed a national conversation" on
    HIV/AIDS during his Presidency.

    Her remarks were broadcast by
    MSNBC in a brief interview ear-
    lier today. That's strange; we
    didn't see Barack Obama on the
    steps of the Lincoln Memorial,
    praising Antonin Scalia for
    raising awareness of Al Gore.

    Today is not an occasion for ig-
    noring the maxim, Nil nisi bo-
    num. But it is an occasion, and
    this is the only reason she took
    it, and the only reason it was
    offered to her, for evaluating
    the candidacy of Mrs Clinton for
    any office in this nation.

    The extreme falseness of her com-
    ment on this history is not a mat-
    ter upon which "reasonable minds
    may differ." Its boundless insult
    to the mentality of her genera-
    tion's survival of that era is
    not the first; it makes sense
    only as the predicate for rein-
    scriptions of her White House
    years. Yet, this is routine.

    What matters is her compulsion
    to falsify. It flourishes under
    chronic temptation, spontaneous-
    ly to redefine ethics in any way 
    expedient to striking an excul-
    pating or self-aggrandizing pose.
    Yes, she's been shot at on that
    tarmac in Croatia more than once.
    Of all the social climbing qual-
    ities this candidacy embodies,
    its grotesque groveling for in-
    timacy with power or danger has
    to be weighed, against how many
    times we have seen it before.

    How does this differ from what
    Tacitus saw: Plunder, slaughter,
    dispossession: these they mis-
    name government; they create a
    wilderness and call it peace.

    What could be more charming,
    than false compliments from
    the late-coming Mrs Clinton,
    on that effortless toleration 
    of global suffering, propagated 
    by the silence she admires for
    raising awarenesses? She basks
    in praising death, to call it,

Thomas Tallis
If ye love me
San Francisco Chanticleer


  1. Disbelief, moral or otherwise? Methinks the only doubt is what she will say next to get more of what she wants?

    1. Given that this person may be our last bulwark against a tide which could submerge fact even more comprehensively, if therefore not so offensively, we always have to weigh how much candour it is wise to exercise in such discussions. I have refrained from this line of inquiry because various partisans have lent it such discredit; but the prospect of an intractable disability in this candidate cannot be ignored. I do not pretend to know what else to call it. It seems harmless enough, given how widely it is perceived. Franklin Roosevelt couldn't walk without help. This candidate has that difficulty with talk. We can all learn to adjust, up to a point.

  2. Wise words, for this may be a case of voting with one hand's fingers while suspending one's olfactory system with the fingers of the other hand.

    1. Oh I didn't mean to squander any nasal gymnastics over this problem. We could emulate the Bloomberg solution, and amend the governing law to suspend elections until the President's 2nd daughter finishes school, or the Parties come to their senses, whichever comes last.