That's right, that's what he wonders, right here:
"According to this older worldview, Robert Bales, like all of us, is a mixture of virtue and depravity. His job is to struggle daily to strengthen the good and resist the evil, policing small transgressions to prevent larger ones. If he didn’t do that, and if he was swept up in a whirlwind, then even a formerly good man is capable of monstrous acts that shock the soul and sear the brain."
I wish Brooks would just come out and say, "I blame original sin," but he doesn't. The mind reels, trying to figure out what exactly he is saying. In sum, nothing. He fails to say what he thinks, and just maunders on about the age-old question: "Humans, good or evil?"
Pundits like him? I'll let you guess which of evil or good I'd class him in. He always slithers away from a conclusion, following another actor in the original original-sin myth.
The disturbing part of his nonsense is its function as smokescreen. Well, perhaps it was The Devil... Yes, el diablo himself, horns and all.
Geez, could you just shut your backward, Medieval, if not evil, thoughts off for a second and not throw out a defense not allowed in court for 500 years. Of course, back then, in those same good ol' days, that defense would get you hanged as a witch.
This is the conservatives' brightest bulb on the marquee? Or is he second, after Newt?
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can use bold, italics, and some other vanishing html tags.