Forgetting
The Anchoress has an excellent post on why we must remember 9/11. If the event has gotten foggy in your own mind--go read her post and it will bring it flooding back with clarity and insight. Here is an excerpt:
On a smaller (but equally tragic) scale, her quote reminds me of a killing that happened around my hometown. A young boy, 11, was shot and killed by his best friend. Prior to the murder, the killer, another 11 year old, had been a troublemaker at best and a hellion at worst. He slashed people's tires, pulled knives on others and shot at them with his bb gun. The community ignored his horrible behavior until he figured he could get away with anything and killed his best friend. To make matters worse, this friend was a pitiful asthmatic whose family never got him treated and he suffered immensely. You can only imagine his last moments after being shot--he had lived a sad life which had now come to an abrupt end, all because a young thug had been able to get away with whatever he wanted with no restrictions. Yes, the killer was ultimately responsible--but the community and family that allowed the victim to be harmed should also look to itself in this young boy's death. But the truth is, the community has learned nothing and no one gave a damn about this poor young victim anyway. They have probably forgotten that he even existed. The community's forgetfulness has made them ripe for the next killing. Just like all of us.
Have you noticed, there is a lot of emphasis on "forgetting" acts of violence? There are those who "forget" the Holocaust, "forget" 9/11 or forget that a young thug can kill an innocent child. If we forget, it is easy to focus away from foreign issues to domestic ones which make us feel safer. After all, if we have the wherewithal to talk about Social Security, healthcare, and education, the world cannot be that scary a place, now can it? The media and liberals would have us believe that the crisis is over (except in the areas of Social Security, healthcare, and education); now they can pave the way for the next Democratic president who will lead us into a utopian world of good health, good schools and a great retirement. Except that, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, we will still be ripe for the next act of violence--and as for that utopian paradise we will be leading at the hand's of liberals? Well, hopefully we will be able to forget about that, too.
I remember that when the terrorists used commerical airliners as bombs, they rode to their deaths with little toddlers on board, who had no idea what was going on, and who must have been terribly frightened when some people on the plane were suddenly restrained, or killed, and whose last moments in their short lives were so confusing.
On a smaller (but equally tragic) scale, her quote reminds me of a killing that happened around my hometown. A young boy, 11, was shot and killed by his best friend. Prior to the murder, the killer, another 11 year old, had been a troublemaker at best and a hellion at worst. He slashed people's tires, pulled knives on others and shot at them with his bb gun. The community ignored his horrible behavior until he figured he could get away with anything and killed his best friend. To make matters worse, this friend was a pitiful asthmatic whose family never got him treated and he suffered immensely. You can only imagine his last moments after being shot--he had lived a sad life which had now come to an abrupt end, all because a young thug had been able to get away with whatever he wanted with no restrictions. Yes, the killer was ultimately responsible--but the community and family that allowed the victim to be harmed should also look to itself in this young boy's death. But the truth is, the community has learned nothing and no one gave a damn about this poor young victim anyway. They have probably forgotten that he even existed. The community's forgetfulness has made them ripe for the next killing. Just like all of us.
Have you noticed, there is a lot of emphasis on "forgetting" acts of violence? There are those who "forget" the Holocaust, "forget" 9/11 or forget that a young thug can kill an innocent child. If we forget, it is easy to focus away from foreign issues to domestic ones which make us feel safer. After all, if we have the wherewithal to talk about Social Security, healthcare, and education, the world cannot be that scary a place, now can it? The media and liberals would have us believe that the crisis is over (except in the areas of Social Security, healthcare, and education); now they can pave the way for the next Democratic president who will lead us into a utopian world of good health, good schools and a great retirement. Except that, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, we will still be ripe for the next act of violence--and as for that utopian paradise we will be leading at the hand's of liberals? Well, hopefully we will be able to forget about that, too.
posted by Helen at 9:07 AM
34 Comments:
Come on, Dr. Helen, don't succumb to this nanny-state and war on males nonsense. From what I've seen you seem brighter and more perceptive than that.
9/11 was a tragedy, there's no denying that.
But come on, linking terrorism with run of the mill male teenage crap (albeit some, in your account is criminal behavior) is nonsense.
Take my situation. I spent my teenage years in a petty, arrogant, vicious, pretentious little semi-affluent town and neighborhood. My friends and I - like all but the most milquetoast and mama's boyish teenage males - engaged in a lot of pranks and mischief. We had switchblade combs and I even had a legally purchased switchblade replica - dull and the blade did not lock - as harmless as a butter knife.
It would be very easy for the pasty, frumpy, ignorant, vicious, and catty soccer moms (and their pliant husbands) in my old neighborhood and town to cast myself or some of the kids I hung out with as public enemy #1, and it would be totally and completely untrue. (This, while all the while they are raising catty, dishonest, swindling, prissy little sociopaths just like themselves.)
I bet the same types would be infuriated to know I later went on to earn several professional degrees, as it would have shattered their ignorant prejudices and expectations for me. And I bet if they could have they would have attempted to sabotage and destroy me every step of the way. I bet they still would like to.
Anonymous,
Well, part of the problem with your town is that they don't know the difference between a prank and a problem. This particular boy I am talking about was not playing pranks on people--he was doing damage such as slashing other people's tires if he got angry--that is called vandalism, shooting people in the head with a bb gun--again, assault, not a prank and threatening to kill others.
I understand that you feel that this kid's murder does not rise to the level of terrorism--although this child in my post was a murderer, not a prankster. My analogy is that we must not forget the victims of 911 nor those of murders where people die because we turn away from some details--not the small detail of a boy having fun or harrassing innocent passengers for carrying nail scissors on a plane--but from serious trouble such as a kid who hurts others time and time again without restriction or the Intelligence community being unable or unwilling to delve more into trying to connect the dots with the 911 hijackers, it is important to stop ourselves from ignoring important information. I understand that hindsight is 20/20 but the oppostite extreme of forgetting or ignoring information can be just as bad or worse.
"war on males..."
Huh?
I guess I read a different post...
[I'll give you that's a different world today as far as acceptable behavior - heck I remember in high school speech class (1980) a kid choosing for his instructional speech - are you ready - cleaning a 44 magnum revolver! The teacher simply asked if his parents knew he had the gun. Turns out it was his dad's idea; seems the kid couldn't come up with an idea for a topic...]
But what that's got to do with Helen's post (and/or price of tea in China...)
As far as Helen's post (at least the one I read) - amen.
John C
In their Utopian stupor, the left has forgotten or is ignoring the most important thing of all, human nature, red in tooth and claw.
sissy,
The point of human nature is a good one. Even my young daughter laughs at the utopia that some liberals want. She always says, "wow, that sounds good in theory --I would go along with it if it all worked. But it doesn't. People just don't work that way." My kid is ten.
Dr. Helen:
Thanks for posting the Anchoress article. I had forgotten the video of folks in the Middle East *cheering* at the deaths of innocent people.
That is the lesson for the relativists in this country: folks here protest when Israel bombs what they (and I) call a terrorist camp.
The pro-Arabists on 9/11 were not protesting that terrorism was not the answer. They were cheering in the streets.
Oh, sure, there are some posters who will inform me in a snobbish tone that one leader or another in the Middle East spoke deploringly about the Twin Towers. But the cheering crowds were real.
We apparently need reminders of this fact.
Just my two cents, as usual.
ronin1516,
Somewhere in-between. He was given time until 18 in a locked youth facility. Wonder how he'll be in 7 years?
Note - I'm the first anonymous from 11:06AM.
Dr. Helen-
The problem here is there are three classes of action being lumped in together:
(1) Normal teenage crap, including some vandalism.
(2) Regular crime, which has nothing to do with terrorism.
(3) Actual terrorism.
There's no reason to mix them up and lump them together. They are different things. Unless you have an agenda, of course.
As far as "kids that hurt others time and time again" - that describes a lot of the kids and adults in my old town. And its not mainly the kids that are "troublemakers" - its the teachers, and the soccer mom's kids. They're vicious, sadistic, and nearly sociopathic, but they're popular too. You can victimize people repeatedly - as long as they're unpopular or you've demonized them.
anonymous 12:44PM-
Some people that don't like the US were cheering when 9/11 happened.
That's unpleasant and offensive, but so what? Are we supposed to bankrupt this country and waste the blood of our youth killing everyone that doesn't like us? You know that would be impossible to accomplish because we would create more people that don't like us in the effort, don't you? That we would just wind up spending precious lives and resources on something that is impossible to accomplish?
Better to just do some good, old-fashioned police and intelligence work and patiently hunt down those responsible for the attack and hold them responsible while complying with international law and holding the moral high ground. But that's the opposite of what we did.
ronin1516-
What you mean is that you think we as a society need to get a lot more serious with abusing kids you don't like or that bother or challenge you.
The serial killer phenomena is so rare that it is close to impossible to tell who will become a serial killer. Think about it - at most several hundred people out of 300 million in the US. What will happen is that some pathologically controlling and opportunistic types will use such pointless efforts to make money and attack people or issues they don't like.
Think of Dennis Rader, the BTK killer. He was every neighborhood busybodies', teachers', and conservative radio hosts' wet dream: Family guy, low profile, noncontroversial, avid churchgoer, held some kind of position in his church, etc, etc, etc. But if efforts to root out "future serial killers" started to take place, who do you think they would go after? The kids who wear black, talk back to buffoonish teachers, party, the kid who rejected your daughter who you didn't like anyway, etc, etc, etc.....
Basically, just a dressed up and jargon-filled 21st century witch hunt. Just some people trying to express their hate and insecurity while clothing it in "for the common good" and "for the children" nonsense.
The Anonymous 3:43 poster wrote:
"Some people that don't like the US were cheering when 9/11 happened.
That's unpleasant and offensive, but so what? Are we supposed to bankrupt this country and waste the blood of our youth killing everyone that doesn't like us? You know that would be impossible to accomplish because we would create more people that don't like us in the effort, don't you? That we would just wind up spending precious lives and resources on something that is impossible to accomplish?
Better to just do some good, old-fashioned police and intelligence work and patiently hunt down those responsible for the attack and hold them responsible while complying with international law and holding the moral high ground. But that's the opposite of what we did."
Now it is my turn. Wow. Let's take that several steps at a time. But before I do, I want to say "wow" again.
1. You believe that the folks calling for jihad and talking about killing thousands of Americans don't "like" us? Have you been reading the news the last few years? These nutbags want to kill as many of us as possible. They talk blithely of killing many thousands of Americans. Why?
Because they feel we have interfered with their independence, country, whatever.
The response was what? Endless, decade long fights at the UN? Fundraising trips? Lecture tours? No, it was a well orchestrated, planned in advance attack upon INNOCENT Americans on our own soil.
So the crowds cheering 9-11 were "unpleasant and offensive"? It is quite clear from the context of your own post that you dislike your own government more than these hateful people who took joy in the death of innocent people. And the Q'uran is pretty darned specific that the killing of innocents is unacceptable...so don't wave a religion flag about that.
Foremost, your argument is one sided. If you call for us to be all "peace and light" in response to terror, why are you not calling for the same to them, to give up a morally reprehensible position (provided you feel it is morally reprehensible)? Gandhi did good work without violence.
I am continually surprised by the weird double standard that allows commentators to call the US "in violation of international law", "torturers," and so forth...yet never using those terms against people who fly jetliners into civilian buildings and cut the heads off of helpless prisoners.
Oh right. We made that happen. The terrorists bear no responsibility for their own actions, at all. To my mind, it is weird form of Leftist racism: those Middle Easterners just shouldn't be held to the same standards of our tofu eating sensitive New Age American Left.
I don't mind your standards. I just want you to be high and mighty about BOTH sides, not just the American one. Condemn ALL violence, and I am with you. Condemn American actions...particular with how silent the Left was with Clinton's interesting foreign policy and widespread wiretapping...and I would argue that you are talking national politics, not international relations.
The argument that *we* made this happen is specious; I could argue that the Islamist morons who did this are responsible for every American ill you cite. When was the last time a foreign power or group of foreigners struck on American soil?
So why do we hold ourselves to a higher standard in these kinds of discussions? Again, I suspect a twisted form of racism, coupled with self-loathing.
2. Patiently hunt down those responsible? Number one, yes, that is what we have been doing...and also choking off their sources of assistance. But even if you are right, you go right ahead and tell the folks who lost loved ones in 9-11 to be patient and that we aren't focusing on state sponsored terrorism, just individuals.
Okay, I'm angry, and I shouldn't be. The other poster has a right to her or his opinion. But I will stick resolutely to my original point: since the Left wants to assign American style rights to terrorists, I think we should assign American style responsibilty to the nations that harbor and support terrorists.
It is wrong-headed to call US actions "in violation of international law," "criminal," and so forth WITHOUT in the same breath condemning the terrorists. I don't hear a lot of that. Instead, I hear a lot of tripe about how WE made THEM do these bestial acts, like decapitating prisoners.
Makes putting a dog collar on a prisoner look a little different, doesn't it? Yet the press carries on as if the two acts are somehow equivalent.
Oh, and were any terrorists disciplined or even investigated by their own organization for how they treat prisoners?
Nope.
They are laughing at us, and I cannot blame them. We look weak to them, because of how everything becomes a matter of presidential politics, instead of national interest. Or even, God help us, the safety of our own citizens.
You want one set of world rules and ethics, I am with you. But apply them to everyone, not just a government that allows you to criticize it. Consider what happens to people who publically criticize Castro in Cuba, or God help you that lunatic in Tehran.
Sorry for the rant, folks. I am just sorry to hear America ALWAYS blamed for the actions of others, no matter how horrific. Just once, I would like to hear a condemnation from the Left of an Islamist that isn't followed by a "...but we are responsible."
Again, the poster has a right to her or his opinion. But consistency would be nice.
Helen:
Wow. Congratulations for wiping out any natural idealism in your ten year-old daughter. And at 10, she already knows "how people work"?!
I'm sorry. It breaks my heart.
anonymous 9:02,
Save your tears. The school system and previous daycare taught my kid at an early age that there are some good kids out there and others that take your toys and bite you--at least she was smart enough to figure out it did not work to appease and be kind to the ones who hurt her. Unfortunately, many adults have not figured this lesson out at 30, 40 or older. They are still trying to "make nice" and appease those who are violent. Sorry if you have never learned this lesson yourself. Maybe one day you will reach the emotional maturity of my ten year old.
I see that it only took one week to go from this:
Please do not call people names for posting anonymously — this hurts the purpose of my blog — it also takes away from the discussion at hand and focuses instead on personal attacks on others.
To this:
Maybe one day you will reach the emotional maturity of my ten year old.
Either you want anonymous comments or you want to avoid personal attacks. You can't have it both ways.
But I agree that we should remember 9/11.
"If we forget, it is easy to focus away from foreign issues to domestic ones which make us feel safer."
If we forget . . . we're in deep doo-doo. Who was it who said, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"? (I'm supposed to know that!)
Dr. Helen:
Please don't pay attention to Greg Kuperberg. On the subject of personal attacks---anonymous or not---he has no "overwhelming moral authority."
Dear JW:
To be sure, 3,000 people isn't much of loss.
Unless it is someone you know and/or love.
At the same time, I realize that you are trying to put that barbaric act into perspective with other horrific losses of life. Fair enough.
If we hadn't responded, do you think that that those three jetliners would have been the end of it on US soil?
I sure don't.
It's very easy to criticize Bush and company with what they "should have" done after the fact. I wonder how the critics would have handled things, and how much worse of a mess we would be in now as a result.
Or worse, imagine that vote-hound Gore as President on 9-11. Nowadays, he rails at the "police state" (which allows him to make such speeches, unlike REAL police states), even though wiretapping was far more widespread under Clinton, and domestic to boot.
Sigh. It's all about partisan politics.
Anyway, JW, I understand what you were trying to say, I think. But I remain appalled at the loss of 3,000 on 9-11...and continue to be irritated by those who forget, or claim to be "philosophical" about barbarism.
anonymous 9:02,
Hi Greg--is that you posting anonymously again?
LOL! You read me mind, Dr. Helen!
Helen: I had a feeling that that sort of comment would show up.
I haven't been posting anonymously at all.
Saying ,
"Maybe one day you will reach the emotional maturity of my ten year old."
is like saying,
" Maybe someday my 52 year old brother will operate a computer as well as my 12 year old niece can"
it is not an insult, it is stating a fact.
Anon 7:36PM-
It goes without saying that 9/11 and the other attacks are atrocities. I feel no need to constantly invoke emotionalism in my posts. As far as holding "BOTH" parties up to US standards, that is going to be impossible. There are always going to be vicious, cowardly, pathological, dishonest people out there. Should we have stooped to Axis methods during WWII? The answer is no. And it shouldn't change for an enemy that is less of a threat - a couple thousand religious fanatics.
That's why I said we have to hunt down those responsible, wherever that leads. (And I do mean that - there are many unanswered questions about 9/11.)
Attacking and torturing people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is a tremendous waste of lives and resources. And its also distracting from the main missions - hunting down those responsible for 9/11.
And notice I said "hunting" down those responsible - it isn't "weakness" and it isn't "appeasement" to make sure you are going after the right people. Its simple competence.
ronin1516-
The way it is most often gone about does mean going after the kids you don't like in a witch hunt. Violent kids I agree with, as long as you get them all. But in my experience the teachers only went after the violent kids they didn't like, and enabled the ones they did like. A teacher even encouraged an older kid to assault me because I disagreed with his opinion.
Take Columbine - from what I understand the kids responsible and a group of athletes got into one or more organized gang fights. Guess what - the athletes were "violent" and "problem" kids too. They were also a contributing factor to the incident. And I'll bet they got a slap on the wrist, if anything.
As far as "rebellious" kids go, you seem like you want to medicate or beat the rebelliousness out of them. In my opinion this is a mistake. Not all "authority" is legitimate simply because a person or group is in a position of authority. Often, authority is ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, criminal, pathological, racist, etc. and deserves to be rebelled against. In that case being "rebellious" is the right and honorable thing to do.
You sound like a teacher, you have that aura of thinking you are infallible because you can push around and impose your will on a group of young captives every day. It also sounds like you are frustrated because you'd like to push around the rest of society, and can only (for now) push around your unfortunate "students".
You miss the point, my friend. I'll put it another way.
Could you please say the following:
The Islamist terrorists are evil people for kidnapping, beheading, and bombing innocent people. The crowds cheering the deaths of thousands of US civilians on 9-11 were heartless and evil people who wish nothing good for this nation, and are in concert with extremists who wish to kill us. There is nothing noble or admirable in their activities.
I'll doubt you can say that.
And even if you can, can you say it without this foolish relativism that equates what we do with what they do? I hope so, but I fear the reverse.
The bit about torture I added was illustrative of this self loathing many Leftists feel: a free pass for terrorists who bomb, kidnap, and behead...but outrage and equivalence to embarrassing captured insurgents. Remember, the military investigated and punished soldiers for infractions. Maybe that isn't enough for you, but where is the Islamic's world's outrage over what the terrorists do? Nowhere.
You use flexible standards, and they are illogical.
As for what is "really" behind 9-11, please take your implied conspiracy theories elsewhere. They are an insult to the dead and wounded. You know perfectly well that men of free will chose to kill innocent people, and my bet is you simply refuse to accept this, and must blame that nasty old Amerikka.
The non-laterally thinking Greg Kuperberg wrote:
"Either you want anonymous comments or you want to avoid personal attacks. You can't have it both ways."
But Greg attacked people personally while NOT posting anonymously. I suspect he means that he only attacked (called cowardly, in fact) anonymous posters, so it is okay.
Interesting manner of thought, in any event.
Another cowardly anonymous poster....
anonymous 1:22PM-
No, I'm not going to parrot your propaganda back to you. I don't have to prove my patriotism or love for my country to you or anyone else, you blowhard.
And I'm not a "leftist", I find that insulting.
The investigation into the torture allegations was a whitewash, a farce, and the offering up of a few token sacrificial lambs.
And no, questioning the official story of 9/11 is not engaging in "conspiracy theory" or insulting any Americans, living, dead, or wounded. Its called getting to the bottom of things and getting all the facts. There are many people that question various aspects of the official story on 9/11, including experts and family members of victims. Are you going to insult them too?
I never denigrated any specific person, even anyone anonymous, in ad hominem terms. All I did was make the general statement that anonymity on the Internet is sometimes noble, but more often cowardly. I would think that this is beyond dispute. After all, most anonymous material on the Internet is outright spam. A lot of what is left over is rude and ad hominem. (Anonymity doesn't "force people" to address issues — that's nonsense.) It also invites non-anonymous people to respond in kind, for example Helen herself in this thread.
What inspired me to say it was that there had already been a lot of ad hominem comments from anonymous posters. But I'm not even saying that anonymous comments should disallowed completely. They can be useful in a moderated forum — there has to be someone publicly accountable. "Open mike" anonymity can always degenerate into name-calling. But hey, if that's the kind of blog that you want, it's a free country.
Greg Kuperberg wrote, amazingly: "I never denigrated any specific person, even anyone anonymous, in ad hominem terms."
Kuperberg, I am the fellow you called "a coward."
You can imagine my reply, which I won't insult our hostess by writing here. I have spent almost twenty five years in academics around people like you. Don't wrap yourself up in your usual perfection; you made an asinine, offensive, and inaccurate statement, and you won't own up to it.
Fine. As you say, it is a free country.
But people like YOU are the reason that folks in academics who lack the lockstep allegiance to the Left stay anonymous. Your comments about how you and your colleagues don't care about the politics of job candidates is, quite simply, an offensive lie. And you know it.
So knock it off and move on to some other topic, okay? It's irritating to see you do this hypocritical "holier than thou" business here.
You call people like me "cowards"? Well then, my brave friend, I dare you openly to ask to make a public statement during the next faculty wide meeting at Davis. I dare you to make the following statement:
"I believe that even a religious fundamentalist and sexist has a right to a job at UC Davis. And I will defend with my job the right of any such candidate for a position here. The ONLY reason anyone should be offered a job at UC Davis should solely be based on professional competence; nothing personal or political should be taken into account."
Again, in a PUBLIC forum, in front of the other faculty, sir.
What? Not so brave, suddenly, are you? If you are that brave, I'll be reading about you soon in the Chronicle, I'm sure.
And if you are that brave, I and many others will apologize in any forum you wish. You will deserve it. As it is, you are just a big talker with job security who is bulletproof to the PC environment on campus.
l
Anonymous 1:46:
"Blowhard"?
Oh, my. That certainly convinced me of the superiority of your own arguments! That approach does tend to change people's minds, as well?
You spent time being high and mighty that 9-11 wasn't a big deal on the world stage (though more civilian Americans died that day due to terrorists than American soldiers in the current Iraq conflict, something you seemed very concerned with later). Then you implied a vast conspiracy involving the US in 9-11. When I point out that no one seemed to condemn terrorists for barbaric acts toward their prisoners, you claim the government investigation of our actions toward prisoners is a "whitewash."
Interesting world view that America is the problem, and barbaric terrorists get a free pass. And you might want to think about who else believes that 9-11 was a "coverup" or that the US was involved. Interesting company, that.
And *I'm* the "blowhard."
Fine. I should point out that I am not calling you names. Other than "Leftist,' which you claim you find to be an insult. Forgive me for putting you in a category with people who tend to agree with your world view, at least on that bizarre and hateful Daily Kos site.
You do have a right to your opinion, regardless of where would you place yourself, politically. But I must say that you don't seem to hold your own country in the same esteem you grant to other nations. Which is your right, of course.
anonymous 9:50PM-
Again, I don't have to prove my patriotism or my love of my country to you or anyone else.
Did you watch 60Minutes? Congressman Murtha expressed many of the same opinions I did on the situation, sometimes even in nearly the same words. Are you going to question his patriotism as well?
That's it on this thread for me, you may have the last word.
Sigh. I never attacked your patriotism, though I suspect if you suggested to Murtha that the US was directly involved in 9-11 and the deaths of thousands of Americans he might say a few salty things to you.
Maybe not. We do have our share of conspiracy theorists in Congress, too. But based on his comments, I doubt he would find common ground with many of your statements. Again, I could be wrong.
You might ask yourself if YOU could be wrong. It is something that many posters apparently consider impossible. I don't, and I hope that you are open to that possibility as well.
For every Murtha, I can suggest other congresscritters and veterans who strongly disagree with the Murtha commentary. This sort of argument reminds me of that poor tool Cindy Sheehan, currently being cruelly used by the Left (and abandoned when her movement found little overall traction). Because she lost her son, she has the right to carry on and attack the current administration, often in vulgar terms (she had "total authority" according to one NY TIMES reporter). But there are many parents who also lost children to this Iraq war, yet who support the administration. Strangely, their opinions do not appear to have "total authority" in the press. Hmmm.
Once again, it is about partisanship, nothing more.
Anyway, you never really responded to the asymmetry of your judgement making, which was the point of all of my posts. It wasn't about your patriotism or anything else, really. You were not applying your judgements fairly, in my view---yet you certainly have the right to do so.
I am sorry you are angry, and I certainly feel that you have a right to your opinion. I seek consistency in my politics, and I'm sure you feel that you do the same. Perhaps we should both look closely at our views through the lens of partisanship, and putting the shoe on the other foot, metaphorically.
Hypocrisy is the an awful human failing, and it seems to go hand in glove with politics. And I do mean politics of every stripe and flavor, not just politics with which I disagree.
anonymous said:
"You might ask yourself if YOU could be wrong. It is something that many posters apparently consider impossible. I don't, and I hope that you are open to that possibility as well."
This is a criticism often leveled against greg kuperberg here as well.
Look, everyone thinks they're right. That's why they call it an opinion. And saying "I could be wrong" doesn't mean you've actually considered that as a real possibility. Nor does it prove that your opinion is well thought out.
It's a useless criticism. Let's move on.
Point well taken. And I agree that we should move on. But this absolutism in political discourse is not merely opinion. Opinion by definition is NOT certainty. Absolutism leads to comments that Bush is the same as Hitler, or that (fill in the blank Democrat) is working hand in hand with terrorists.
I understand that all this originates with the "slippery slope" model, where even a slight agreement with the Other Side means apocalypse. That meme leads folks to say that every American has a right to own machine guns with armor-piercing coatings on side, and partial-birth abortions on demand on the other.
But again, I am blabbing on. Sorry. I just dislike the poisonous political atmosphere in the world today...and I recognize that it has probably always been that way.
the one that does annoy me about the 9/11 is they never mention the pentagon crash, my cousin lost friends in there. i live in the UK and i saw it live online, and everyone was stunned.
yes the towers were bad, i nearly came to blows because one person found it to be great and that it was the only way they could say it. my friends friend lost her partner in the towers.
it seems to be that people blame or forget or even think its somehow appropriate that the pentagon was hit too.
anonymous @ 5:43 pm said: "You call people like me "cowards"? Well then, my brave friend, I dare you openly to ask to make a public statement during the next faculty wide meeting at Davis. I dare you to make the following statement: 'I believe that even a religious fundamentalist and sexist has a right to a job at UC Davis. And I will defend with my job the right of any such candidate for a position here. The ONLY reason anyone should be offered a job at UC Davis should solely be based on professional competence; nothing personal or political should be taken into account.'"
Are you sure you support this? Think about some of the radical leftist professors you've heard about who hate America. Would you allow them to teach as long as they are qualified for the subject? But I agree with you that it is probably easy for Greg K. to feign bravery.
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
影片土豆網影片終極三國影片小魔女免費影片UT視訊美女交友a片免費下載守護甜心影片楓之谷影片sex999免費影片youtube影片下載色情影片一葉晴貼影片區性感影片aaa片免費看影片5278影片網免費成人影片sex影片視訊分享區自拍密錄館sex888咆哮小老鼠影片分享區小弟弟貼影片成人遊戲影片分享一葉情貼圖片區0204movie免費影片飯島愛免費影片笑話影片小弟弟貼影片區成人dvd-av博物館85cc免費影片觀看情人輔助品
Post a Comment
<< Home