I'm sorry for my apathy

As I try and build upon these inequities that
have followed me. Swallowed me. There is a building
amount of evidence against the system. That builds them.
Them haters and inflamers.

Chemicals are dimming my will power but I will not cower.
Social issues cloud our foreign policy as our country builds
upon its legacy. Of freedom. Freedom to muck around in
other country’s foreign policy. Freedom to help overthrow
this leader or that leader in order to support our leader.

The secret veil of power is being revealed. It writes poems and rhymes
nonsense so we won’t know what to believe in anymore. Conceive
in anymore. I still believe in America the free. The model of it. On
paper. As a blueprint to follow. We have many a historical
mistake we should apologize for. Be sorry for.

The sign of a great leader is the ability to admit when
he or she was wrong. When we were wrong. We could have done things
better. Been more clever. As domestically our two sides clash over
social issues that are non-issues on the international stage.
That just keep us fighting and smiting each other so we don’t think anymore.
Don’t think about how bombing a baby milk factory in Iraq affects us all domestically.
How it’s all tied together systematically.

I’m sorry my country killed a million of your civilians Iraq.
I’m sorry we went into a war that did not need to be fought.
I’m sorry we helped put Saddam Husein into power in the first place.
I’m sorry we took our eyes off the prize in Afghanistan.
I’m sorry we have not brought Osama bin Laden to justice.
I’m sorry our past foreign policy has grown terrorist cells that continue to cast their voodoo spells.
I’m sorry for our cowboy ways and cowboy days of not admitting when we were wrong.

But most of all, I’m sorry for my apathy.

Comments

  • You should probably stick to art. This is pathetic.

  • Logocentric

    morgan, seriously, if you have nothing constructive to say. . . well, i’m not your mother, so i’ll leave off.

    at the very least, back up your position with something. define “pathetic,” rather than let the word stand alone, as though everyone has the same definition of the term, as though we’re supposed to read your mind or be on board with the real people who have the valid opinions on art. and while you’re at it, define “art,” please. that’s something we take seriously. otherwise, don’t bother. seriously.

  • the question is not ‘what does morgan mean?’

    he obviously has some very personal antagonisms with some of the aims of this site.

    the question is ‘why does he keep reading?’

    if his intention were to help Globatron by steering him back toward a different form of art, we could argue that he would use a more convincing method, but because the comment is so personal we are left to conclude that the post threatens something that morgan holds onto as sacred. and there too, we must ask if he represents those sacred notions in a positive way by using personal insults to defend them. again this brings me to the deepest question, if this site agitates something that morgan does not like agitating, then why would he keep returning to the site of agitation, unless there is something in that agitation, an unconscious desire that drives it, a fascination with a way of thinking, perhaps, that was once seductive for him, that he has since cut himself off of due to some personal experiences, that then cause what is called cognitive dissonance, that attacks help to dissipate.

    as far as Globatron’s post, I too am sorry about all the systemic killing that is occurring and i’m sorry that human beings have not found a way to get along more peacefully, and I celebrate any attempt to deepen the remorse that might lead us into a connection and unity around peace above all dogmas.

    akbar

  • Logocentric

    i am in total agreement with you on this, Akbar, on all points. well said.

  • Thanks for your support fellow Globatronites. It was a ten minute poem. I’m not really a poet but sometimes I get a real itch to get something off my chest and it seems to work pretty well for that. Plus I felt it went pretty well with the topics at hand.

    Funny thing is I thought poetry was art.

    I’d definitely like Morgan to answer some of the questions you both brought up though. That would surely add a lot to the discussion.

  • jsb

    “I’m sorry my country killed a million of your civilians Iraq.”

    Except…we didn’t kill a million.

    “I’m sorry we helped put Saddam Husein into power in the first place.”

    Except…we didn’t.

    “I’m sorry we took our eyes off the prize in Afghanistan.
    I’m sorry we have not brought Osama bin Laden to justice.
    I’m sorry our past foreign policy has grown terrorist cells that continue to cast their voodoo spells.”

    Talking out of both sides of your mouth. So it’s ok to kill women and children in Afghanistan, and it’s only our PAST foreign policy that has grown terrorist cells? You’re naive.

  • Some estimates have the civilian deaths at a million but that number is highly debated. I agree. It’s well over 100,000. Some say up to a million. Some say 600,000 is more realistic.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html

    We did help put Saddam Hussein into power by supplying him with weapons in a ten year war with Iran. If we had not supplied him with weapons, Iran would have taken over Iraq. Did you forget that?
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

    It is not alright to kill any innocent women or children. I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion from my words. The prize as I meant would have been Osama bin Laden. Or the prize could have been rebuilding the civilization that we carpet bombed. Maybe giving them running water or schools? That would have been the prize we should have kept our eyes on. Not taking the war to Iraq.

    It’s sad that so many don’t think it’s okay to apologize for Iraq. It’s a travesty. It was begun under admittedly false pretenses. It had been planned way before 911. The plan to go to war in Iraq was being discussed the day after 911. Coincidence? Watch Bush’s War on PBS and think your comment over a bit and see if you don’t feel apologetic for such a foolish endeavor as Operation Iraqi Freedom. After watching it if you feel the same, then we don’t have much more to discuss. Sticks and stones my friend.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

    Funny thing is in 2002, enlisted in the Army I begged to change my MOS to infantry so I could go to war. Thank goodness that wasn’t allowed. I most likely would have been physically or mentally crippled by now if not dead.

    I’m not sorry that I feel sorry. I won’t apologize for that and I definitely don’t feel naive.

  • Logocentric

    while we’re doing the name calling thing, i’d like to call jsb a shallow-thinking dunder head. if that’s all right. sure, a million is a bit high for an estimate of civilian deaths in iraq, but globatron was writing poetry, not a history thesis. do you actually read the comments or just shoot from the hip, as they say? you miss the point when you overlook the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths that are not really in dispute. it might as well be a million. if it’s a hundred or ten or even one, it might as well be a million, in my opinion. what if it were your child or spouse or parents? would it then make a difference to you how many more were dead? go ahead and call me “naive” on this point, i dare you.

    and globatron is exactly right about the other points on which he corrected you. i could go on and on about shallowness, but i’ll end it here with an admonition to really THINK about the PAST, and what it means to people when you say it. i assume also that your limited view of PAST foreign policy is divided into Bush foreign policy and Obama foreign policy or some such myopic, crude approximation. globatron’s poem refers to a broader view of foreign policy, in reference, if i may say, to my comments (on another post) about the trajectory of foreign policy during the whole of the 20th century.

    below is my favorite part of globatron’s poem, because it brings into relief the fallacy and the irony that you fall into when you go calling someone ‘naive’ simply because they’ve had the courage to think about topics in a different and more expansive way than you:

    “As domestically our two sides clash over
    social issues that are non-issues on the international stage.
    That just keep us fighting and smiting each other so we don’t think anymore.
    Don’t think about how bombing a baby milk factory in Iraq affects us all domestically.
    How it’s all tied together systematically.”

  • Logocentric

    okay, sorry to be so pugilistic. i reflected on Akbar’s most recent comment again, and i didn’t exactly heed its message in my previous comment. so i’m guilty of reading too hastily and being confrontational too. but the name-calling thing really pisses me off. why? because it turns us into bomb-wielding non-humans. and clearly i’m no more immune to the impulse than anyone else. and i don’t want to be an animal or a robot. and when you attack someone’s art and try to back up your attack with raw data, rather than share an insight related to the art, you dehumanize the process of communicating. simple as that.

  • I dare say I might be coming off too intellectual and elite by backing up a poem with facts. I hope that it doesn’t come off that way. I truly want folks who disagree with me to back it up with facts though not just opinion and emition. Having an opinion is fine but where we form those opinions is another thing. That’s who we are and if we can back up our opinions with maybe not fact but at least our beliefs we’d be off to the races.

    Example:

    The poem seems pathetic because……

    The poem seemed naive because……

    Logocentric as much as I appreciate you coming to my defense and how much I enjoyed your creative collage of words, shallow-thinking dunder head, I think you have a very valid point in your last comment of refraining from name calling in retaliation.

    I’m excited to be quoted (as I think that’s the first time ever) and I’m glad the poem struck a chord with you as mostly your comments were its inspiration. This is the most that has ever been said on this site about a poem so I feel very honored. Thank you all. Even the haters.

  • Good points jsb! I read the post and found it SO “factually challenged” that my initial response was “bovine squeeze” or something like that.:-)

    I like Reagan’s take when he said,”Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    To Globatron. I’m sorry for appearing to be rude at your site. My fault. I think you probably have talent, why waste it on lies? Try defying Reagan’s stereotype.

  • Morgan,

    I’d like to know how backing up the poem with facts makes it factually challenged and how it has any lies in it whatsoever?

    The fact is both you and JSB have nothing behind your arguments but opinions.

    I factually explained my poem. And Logocentric had a point it’s a poem not a history paper. I’m sure Logocentric could explain the historical reference further if you’d like him to as I owe one of his comments to the inspiration.

    Also Akbar had some great points as to why on Earth are you on this site? What brings you here? If you aren’t here to debate intelligently your viewpoint then you are in the wrong place.

    Show me the facts then Morgan. Please negate the facts behind this poem. I’d love to read your evidence.

    See how I did that. I respectfully replied to your rude comment. I expect the same from you, from now on so consider yourself warned if you would like to continue the dialogue on this site.

  • mp

    fuck apathy go see transformers believe in the robotic future

Leave a Comment