Article copyThere's a lot of effervescence within the ranks of the Axis of Weasels' foot soldiers.
Sphincters are slackening and knickers bottoms are sullying. Jubilation and prepubescent excitation are reaching high grounds.
Just think about it: nothing less than 41 American Nobel laureates signed a declaration last Monday opposing the unilateral attack of Iraq by the United States.
Consequently, and rather ironically, the very same prepubescent foot soldiers who would usually dedicate their life disgorging America through each and every sorry orifice they're endowed with, suddenly welcome the association of terms such as "Nobel», "American» and "opposing war» as if it was a messianic revelation, a new Epiphany or, to make a long story not so short, the incontrovertible evidence that not only God exists but he is also wearing a flowered shirt and he his on their side.
Unfortunately, in their opinionated efforts to avoid filling up the chronic emptiness of their thought, the Axis of Weasels' foot soldiers scrupulously restrain themselves from going beyond this simple association of terms that is eventually nothing more than a catchy opening sentence.
We call that "a title», to make it short.
Thus we observe once again, that the Axis of Weasels' prepubescent foot soldiers satisfies themselves with the big titles and then fall back in the contemplation of Big Brotherish TV shows, feeling comforted in the correctness of their political consciousness without perceiving its vacuousness.
Too bad for those who can't avoid to put up with them of course. As for the foot soldiers themselves, I guess it's fucked up already.
When the dissident frogman is confronted with such assocation of terms as "Nobel», "American» an "opposing war» he's tempted to have a look further.
For if the dissident frogman was to take the exact off balance of the Axis of Weasels' prepubescent foot soldiers, he should logically drop a rather simplistic: "Yeah well these Nobel guys are just a bunch of dickheads y'a know» (a perfect echo to the: "See? These are Nobel Laureates thus they hold the Very Truth in their Blessed Hands» as assumed by the AoW prepubescent foot soldiers) and fall back, for instance, in the contemplation of slightly dressed young women with a temperament far from being fierce and a particularly pleasant aesthetic appearance, feeling comforted likewise in the suitability of his own judgment but experiencing nevertheless a growing doubt as for the impending necessity of switching hands.
His life, indeed, would be simplified but unfortunately, the dissident frogman can't restrict himself to this.
What do you want...That's the way it is.
Therefore, he goes further. Beyond. The "new frontier» kind of attitude (no, I don't mean the French tour operator).
Eh. Nobel laureates. What's more, A-me-ri-cans. Impressive!
That is such a prestigious title. The opinion of a laureate, not only a Nobel one but also A-me-ri-can is something you don't want to miss right?
So, relishing the perspective of a confrontation between his ideas with those of people who belong to a most reputed intellectual community, the dissident frogman reads all the article (including the fine print) and he follows the links and he goes to the site hosting the aforementioned declaration (which secondarily offers the prepubescent foot soldiers the unique opportunity of signing the petition, hoisting them to the row of the A-me-ri-can Nobel laureates and allowing them to fight shoulder to shoulder the High Evil of War, particularly the liberation one) and there, once again, the dissident frogman reads all the page (including the fine print).
And then he think. With the head.
When he is finished thinking, the dissident frogman does not pretend he has answers. He does not pretend he detains the Truth. He does not pretend he saw God, would surely not pretend He is on his side and has, after all, only a vague idea about the decorative theme of His shirt.
A question that probably kept more theologians busy since God is God than the absolute number of excessively screwy shirt theme combinations.
A short digression: as far as he is concerned, the dissident frogman acknowledges God's inalienable right to exist.
God has the right to live, just like the rest of the world. ("the world" does not include Islamofascists and other assassins of Freedom and God's Children tho.)
That being said, the freedom of God and that of the wearing of flowered shirts stops exactly where the dissident frogman's freedom starts. End of the short digression.
He does not pretend anything like that, no.
He simply observes and formulate some conclusions that fortunately, are always subject to interpretation and debate.
And not messianic revelations.
For instance, the dissident frogman starts with reading the title. Nothing half-baked of course but this is not Barnum's is it?
So what does this title reads? It reads:
American Nobel Laureates' Position on a Unilateral, Preventive Attack on IraqIt is our duty to emphasize that English syntax and grammatical rules hides to the French reader the exact number of the aforementioned laureates. The title does not state that these laureates are representing American Nobel laureates as a whole or even the American branch of this institution as a morale entity. All we can tell is that there are more than one laureate. No matter what the theme of their shirts is.
As for the rest, it is simple, concise and, at first glance, without ambiguity even for the most retarded Axis of Weasels' prepubescent foot soldiers.
This, at least, is what we could reasonably think.
Unfortunately, it's not and the Axis of Weasels' foot soldiers receives one thing, and one thing only, from this simple (11 words, no verb) sentence: American Nobel laureates oppose a war in Iraq.
That is really too bad.
But let's pursue: what this title reveals principally is that some American Nobel laureates do have, like many people all over the world, a position when it comes to a unilateral and preventive attack on Iraq (I underlined the important words for the few Axis of Weasels' foot soldiers who may inadvertently fall on this modest diatribe while on their way to the TV set.)
"position» and "unilateral».
We shall never repeat it enough, especially to the Axis of Weasels' foot soldiers: in a sentence, one has to read all the words carefully.
We shall, however credit the foot soldiers with the fact that this short news, as it's reported on Yahoo! France! has! been!, somehow! amputated! (sorry, I just love doing this) of these two rather important terms. The Yahoo! France title reads "41 prix Nobel américains contre la guerre en Irak» (literally: "41 American Nobel laureates oppose war against Iraq»)
I would therefore recast my previous sentence and select essential instead of rather important.
However, we shall admonish the aforementioned foot soldiers, demonstrating with this example what we've been blaming them for, one moment ago: one has to read all the words of all the article and follow the links and read the original declaration before falling back to Big Brotherish TV shows and seeing God with a flowered shirt.
Never confine oneself on big titles only. Never. Especially when strangers translated them.
For what is really cool with a Nobel prize, put aside that it looks great on your business card and is therefore a huge plus for flirting, is that unlike the average foot soldier, one can reasonably expect from such laureate a certain sternness when operating vocabulary and syntax.
When a Nobel laureate write that he has a position on a unilateral preventive attack on Iraq and when forty of his buddies sign down the page it means nothing less than this: 41 Nobel laureates have a position on a unilateral preventive attack on Iraq..
The important word here being unilateral. (And also "position» but we'll see about that later).
It does not mean that they oppose war on Iraq per se.
Moreover we can directly deduce that they wouldn't oppose a multilateral preventive attack, resulting from a decision taken by several nations such as, for instance, the USA, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Turkey, Poland, Israel, The Czech Republic, Kuwait, Qatar, Hungary and all my apologies for those I'm not mentioning here but long lists can get darn boring darn fast don't you think?
Nevertheless, here again, the Axis of Weasels' prepubescent foot soldiers are not perceiving the difference.
As for the very nature of this declaration, its legitimacy and its pertinence, where and how does it stand?
To that purpose, let's check the declaration itself:
The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support.You mean broader than the boring list up there? Oh, OK... Never mind.
Anyway, "without broad international support.» is just another smart way to say "unilateral» while filling the page a bit more.
We clarified that question already: our Nobel laureates are not opposing war as far as everybody is doing it.
Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term.I have absolutely no doubt about that. Saddam is going to learn very quickly and for the second time what "having one's ass seriously kicked» means.
Curiously, it gets confused afterwards, in a rather surprising manner, coming from Nobel, not only laureates but also Americans :
But war is characterized by surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences.No kidding? Smart guys these Nobel laureates, really.
Passed the first surprise, confusion starts to reign here actually, because:
- Why and how would war loose these tragic characteristics if the broad international support our Nobel were implicitly defining as the sine qua non condition was to become effective?
- How do they apprehend the fact that peace and stasis also characterize themselves by "surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences»?
For instance, I'm thinking about a particular day of September where surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences took, all of a sudden a certain preponderance in the everyday life of a peaceful country.
- And anyway, isn't life itself characterized by "surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences»? (and secondarily, flowered shirts?)
I was really hoping a bit more, from Nobel, and furthermore Americans, laureates than some general statements on such a grave issue.
What a disappointment. They really give Nobels away to anybody these days.
Take Arafat for instance. (And keep him. Keep him tied real good).
But let's not be too solicitous and let's bet our Nobel friends, in proportion to their intense cerebral activity, can sometimes experience a benign intellectual fatigue.
Let's grant them the benefit of the doubt and let's pursue:
Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political, and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world
This concludes the declaration. With the signatories' names following.
I'm not sure everybody in the audience noticed (no, no, I don't mean you, I was talking about the others of course) but this is precisely where we are supposed to see God and his flowered shirt.
Did you saw Him? No? Look again. Look carefully.
Read all the words again and underline the important ones: "Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic... STOP IT!»
You saw it now didn't you?
And God has a flowered shirt.
Our Nobel friends' declaration end up with the affirmation of their unshakable Faith in the disastrous aftermath of a diplomatic, geopolitical and geostrategic action in such incredibly vast and diverse fields as medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political, and legal ones, not mentioning the world's greatest power worldwide security and standing.
All of that without arguments, no comparative data, no references and without the slightest explanation for their Faith's foundation.
They believe. They are Nobel laureates. Hence, we should, you shall believe.
Adding to this that most of these Nobel signatories are physiology/medicine, physics and chemistry prizes (34 over 41) and taking into consideration the fact that America hosts, according to the Yahoo! article, 168 Nobel laureates of which 120 are still alive, what do we have here?
We have a minority of Docs and Math wizards who, even though I could never doubt their competence within their own fields of expertise, acknowledged by Nobel prizes (although if you would take Arafat - and keep him - you would be totally justified to seriously challenge the competences which deserved him, as recalled, a Nobel Peace prize) are stating a personal opinion, validating it with nothing more than the faith of their intimate and subjective conviction, wrapping it up into the prestige and seriousness granted by a world famous distinction in order to bestow an extra credit upon it (despite Arafat).
Sure. It looks great on your business card and it is a huge advantage for flirting.
Granted, when I'm talking about a minority of Docs and Math wizards, I'm being a bit provocative.
Willingly of course.
That being said:
Picasso was a pictorial genius, which did not prevented him from being a complete political schmuck and the perfect example of the Useful Idiot within the most Stalinist Communist Party in Western Europe (yes, that means the French one).
Aragon, at least, had the excuse of being a shitty poet and Sartre a really freaky looking guy.
Moreover and as a conclusion, I'd like to propose you the following sentences abstracted from the first chapter of Jean-François Revel's " La connaissance inutile (the useless knowledge) »:
A great savant can fashion his own political and ethics opinion with the same arbitrariness and based on considerations as unreasonable as men deprived of any scientific reasoning experience. There isn't, in himself, any osmosis between the activity where his discipline restrain him from making assertions without evidence and his position on everyday issues and common affairs, where he follows the same clout as any other man. He can, just like anybody else and in the same unpredictable way, lean to good sense or extravagance, and slink in front of blatancy when it would impede his beliefs, his preferences or his sympathies.Yep, that includes Nobel laureates, American or not.
Which makes me believe that even the summit of a multi-millennial wisdom can, sometimes, succumb to the illusion and imagine that the act of wearing a flowered shirt will prevent, for instance, the Communist Chinese from plundering, raping, killing and deporting his people.
By the way, it could be necessary to change the title of this declaration.
Unless the Dalaï Lama choose to apply for the American citizenship of course.