Who did what they did, what
they say they said they did and
with what and with whose what
and where they did
with what they did
with whose what, they did.
O, yea, they did!
What significance? And why? Hell to pay? Who say?
If they mean that the Archduke’s demise was really the reason and not just the pretense, then okay. Either way, it’s just a pretense. Isn’t a pretense a false pretense? Seriously, what’s the diff?
I beg your pardon, but at least I know what question begging is. Does that make you more prone to trust me than if I ended potato with an e? I allude here to a notional preference: following the smart lemming brand… to whatever mixed metaphor is appropriate.
((And anyway, CNN could not employ the comparison if we weren’t still buying the original. So sayeth the eye in I.))
Would you believe me if I told you that everything that you thought you’d experienced between the disappearance of that Malaysian plane and the discovery of what happened to this one (to the extent that you think you know what happened to this one) was the passengers’ nightmare trying to rationalize what was happening to them? – an ostensible four months’ was lost, really just a collective holding of the breath as we go about the business of getting on with our lives, when in fact we’ve been under water the whole time?
What if I told you the responsible party was (a political party)? Then would you believe me? I saw it on their Facebook page, but they quickly deleted it.
Commemorating the 18th anniversary of TWA 800 by flying into an area where any and every actor imaginable has you within their reach is worse than ignoring a bad weather advisory. But we all take short cuts. The TWA flight was another story. Maybe navigators should be more superstitious.
You might recall that flight 800 was the one whereby multiple witnesses on the ground in News Jersey and York saw a light streaking upward just prior to its flaming into the Atlantic.
What is this talk of pooing in tins?
One thing for sure, neither Yank nor Russkie has ever shot down a tin full of civilians before. And, of course, neither nation has ever given weapons to anyone else who subsequently used them. And if they did, it was on the other leader’s watch, or he was being thwarted by the opposition.
Or we didn’t mean it. Maybe they didn’t mean it either. Does it matter whether or not we mean(t) it? It’s kind of like the difference between egg on our faces and blood on our hands.
Let’s call it blood on our faces.
More likely it will be called a mistake from which we’ll have to move on because not moving on would mean expanding the melee to include the unthinkable.
“Oh, no!” you say, there must be hell to pay, or “No, no, it’s not I, who’s saying there must be hell to pay, it’s they who’re saying that. No, not ‘them‘! The other ones!”
Surely intelligence will show us the way.
At the end of the day, only upon the destruction of the manufacturer – before the goods are bought and/or paid for – will we be beset with actual situational irony. As it is, the irony is all ours, that is, the other we.
As always, respective to who “we” is, returns may vary.
As an addendum to yesterday’s cryptic-ism (now updated), I bid you a brief farewell with this, my abridgment/mix/summary of Kate’s Leave it Open and dedicate it to the very real suffering with a meditation toward more than just a promise or prospect or probability-based planned proposal for peace.
This Distress You See and Feel
-… -.– .– .- -.– — ..-. -.- .- – . -… ..- … ….