You are on page 1of 5

Brian Reager November 5, 2012 The Nature of Evil Michael Mulcahy

Churchill’s On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

It is not hard to pick up on the unforgiving nature of Churchill in his piece, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. For one, referring to Madeline Albright as “squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she’d imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq” hardly seems like a merciful understanding of the psychology behind the people’s actions he brings up in his article (Churchill, 4). The article itself deals with—to put it in laymen terms— the saying “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” While his points touched upon in the article are both brutally honest and pertinent, his self-indulgent, one ended and often-times infantile post-scripts seem to rob his article of any philosophical merit it may have. For instance, in the very beginning of the article Churchill speaks of the “surgical” bombing of Iraq’s water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other “infrastructural” targets upon which Iraq’s population depended on it’s very survival. According to Churchill, the children born during this devastation in Iraq eventually died out around September of 2001, right before 9/11 occurred. Indeed, the American population did not seem to greet the revelations with much attention,

to those involved in the attack the United States initiated on Iraq: “As to those in the World Trade Center . Churchill seems to overestimate the amount of knowledge that the American people possessed on the circumstance involving Iraq at that time and in turn. Well. He seems to condemn rather than question the actions of the American people. Let's get a grip here. . 2).however Churchill seems to be unforgiving to media bias as he describes in a very tongue-in-cheek observation of the American way of life: “There were. . It seems almost duplicitous to argue one side of the spectrum and not the other. But innocent? Gimme a . really. And. for instance. Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game. there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for "our kids.absorbing point of political focus (Churchill. or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" and "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. they were civilians of a sort. to be sure.” Although it may be true that American’s were more preoccupied with issues that existed in their own backyard. as he seemed to earlier in his article when he questioned the German population’s lack of defiance against Hitler. far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Secondly. Churchill argues quite banally that America was not doing anything tangible to stop the attack. after all. shall we? True enough. seems to make an almost cheap satirical break in his philosophical argument. In addition to this. when you are philosophical dissecting the nature of humans. Churchill questions the innocence of those involved in the 9/11 attacks." no less – as an all.

and quite likely wrong about a number of things (Churchill. The article merely reflects on the hypocrisy enacted by the Unites States. only . 3). 9). so why then is he condemning one end of the spectrum without doing so to the other? Is it truly a philosophical article on the justice of Roosting Chickens (or rather mankind). “ Churchill makes a fine point in honing in on the notion that all humans are flawed. the phrasing used above insinuated otherwise. One could argue that those affected in Iraq were not all entirely innocent either. but Churchill’s need to weigh down these points with aspersions.” So in the remorseless style of Churchill himself: Why did he write it in the first place? The points being made were insightful to say the least. Instead of condemning the United States for its’ actions—which are for the most part unjustifiable as brought up by Churchill—why not reflect on the reason as to why its’ population is so desensitized. His argument also fails to play devil’s advocate as well. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly (Churchill. or is it more about the justice of Roosting Americans? While Churchill’s arguments are valid in mankind’s desensitization towards injustices in the world.break. however inadvertently arguing that the massacre was justified due to this flaw. Although he later deflects by claiming to not thinking it is justifiable.S. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U. Even Churchill admits at the very end of the article that he has been “far less than thorough. there are more to factors than claiming America selfrighteous. Nobody is all entirely innocent.

. is far less insightful than if he were to argue the reasoning behind why American’s are in fact so desensitized towards the indignities we place on other countries.condemning one side of the spectrum.

Print. On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. Ward. Oakland.Works Cited Churchill.S. . 2003. CA: AK.