11/20/06 LA Times
"Members of the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice welcomed the California Coastal Commission's decision last week to grant their request to run fishing line between lampposts and sign poles through several miles of prime beachfront, creating an unbroken symbolic border.
The eruv boundary, which also will stretch inland through parts of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, eases certain Sabbath restrictions by allowing Orthodox Jews to consider themselves to be "at home" within its broad outlines."
Personally, and this is just my opinion here, it's more than a little pathetic to live a life ruled by a lot of Bronze Age and medieval superstitions in the first place. This is the 21st fucking century here, and Los Fucking Angeles. Surely we should at this point be able to separate out the living, divinely-derived sap of a religion's spiritual message from from the dead wood of that religion's petty, human-created, arbitrary rituals by this point. And recognize that these sorts of dead wood commandments have as much validity as other bogus superstitions against not walking under ladders or letting black cats cross our paths.
But if some humans can't manage to make that leap then they should at least be consistent. If some decides to reap the psychic benefits of closely following some ancient tradition (a sense of righteousness a sense of community, a feeling of superiority over the less spiritual and disciplined) then they should be willing to pay the burdens of that decision.
According to Wikipedia, observant Orthodox Jews are not allowed to do any work on the Sabbath, which includes carrying or pushing items outside their home. Meaning that Orthodox Jews going to church wouldn't be able to push a baby carriage or even carry their keys with them.
This eruv loophole lets them do this by transforming the streets and sidewalks within this magical fishing wire fence to be considered indoors, or more accurately, inside a single enclosed courtyard. Basically, according to this thinking, the eruv is the top of the doorway and the light and utility poles are the sides of the door. Anything inside is the same as being in a shared living quarters, so carrying things is okey-dokey.
Well.
Which I suppose is all well and good. And I almost admire the ingenuity of the loophole that has been created. But I have a couple, nagging question:
If there is indeed a God, and he really does (for his own inscrutable reasons) not want anyone carrying keys to church on Saturday, is he really going to be fooled by a fishing line strung between lightposts?
Monday, November 20, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Progressives: Let's Drop the "War on Terror" Metaphor
Just got through reading George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" book, about a year after everyone on the blogs was talking about it. For those of you who haven't gotten to it yet, I'm sure you've heard the basic idea... that people understand the world through metaphors, and process new facts within basic conceptual "frames" based on these metaphors.
Further, Lakoff states, the Republicans have intuitively understood this for some time now and have gotten a head start refining how to pitch their ideas in words that fit into and reinforce the frames, then disseminating those words through their media apparati.
Basic examples of this process being the substitution of "pro-life" for "anti-abortion" and "death tax" for "estate tax."
One of the biggest successes that the Republicans have pulled off in the last five years is to create a nearly unanimous embrace of the "War on Terror" metaphor and phraseology. Not only have they hammered it home in countless speeches and papers, but they have gone out of their way to ridicule and lambast anyone who appears to endorse the alternative metaphor of "law enforcement."
According to these conservatives, anyone who seems to think that we will prevail against terrorists by gathering intelligence about them, arresting them and jailing them is weak and foolish and dangerous to national security. They are so bad, they are just like Bill Clinton, who as everyone knows, allowed 9/11 to happen.
Instead, the efforts to prevent terrorist attacks must take the form of a War. A "Global War." A "Long War." "A War of Civilizations." Yada, Yada, Yada.
Once we, as a nation, bought into this metaphor, we handed the terrorism issue over to the Republicans, who are PERCEIVED as being better at waging wars (a perception based more on tough talk than a historical war-winning record, btw).
Furthermore, we automatically acquiesced to some rather sweeping and drastic notions. Notions that may not be supported by facts or jibe with the norms and liberties the U.S. has grown accustomed to.
Consider:
1. A War implies that the struggle is for our very survival as a nation.
2. Because the War is for our very survival, it raises the stakes and gives our government greater leeway. In war, the government can ask greater sacrifices, spend more, curtail more rights and silence criticism in ways that they can't in peace.
3. When a nation is at War, those who disagree with that nation become supporters of the enemy and, consequently traitors.
4. In a War, captured enemies (who pose a threat to our survival, remember?) do not deserve or receive the same rights and considerations that accused criminals might receive.
We've seen all of these points made, ad infinitum, from W's lectern and the wingnut blogs to support this War metaphor. To me it falls apart at point one. As many times as I have it screeched at me, I just can't believe that a couple hundred Al Queda can destroy or conquer the United States of America.
However, this War metaphor been successful at cowing many Democrats into meekly following the Republican leads on many, many bad moves. So it's been a success in that sphere.
But in the sphere of actually reducing the number of terrorists and their capability and motivation to attack globally, the War approach has been a total flop, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate pointed out.
So in other words, this War metaphor only serves to make Republicans stronger and everyone in greater danger.
So let's stop buying into it. Let's stop using it. Let's correct others when they do use it.
The next time, you are in conversation with a wingnut and they use the phrase "War on Terror" say:
"Do you really think it's a War?"
Then follow up with questions that ridicule and destroy that notion:
"Wars are between nations. Which nation are we at War with? What does their uniform look like? Where is the battlefield? Who is in the chain of command? How do we win this war? When will we know? Who will sign the articles of surrender on the deck of a battleship?"
This will throw them. They'll begin searching their database of Rush Limbaugh talking points and come back at you with something along the lines of "so I guess you think this is a law enforcement issue." They might even throw in "like Clinton."
Now you crush their thinking as simplistic and antiquated and overwhelm them with how much more advanced your thinking is on this topic. You also slap them with one of their own code words, with the meaning twisted to suit your purpose.
"Your thinking is so pre-9/11. That there are only two ways to think about terrorism. This is the 21st century.
There are some aspects of a war to this, in some limited cases. If a state or nation is officially or unofficially providing support to terrorists, then it's appropriate to take action on the state or national level, like declaring a war.
And there are some law enforcement aspects to ending terrorism attacks. In fact, I'd say that the biggest successes in the last year have been the result of good, solid intelligence work in London, not our expensive, losing, bloody war in Iraq. And that it's a lot more efficient to work with foreign governments to round up and arrest terrorists than it is to destroy a country to fight them in the streets.
But if we really want to end terrorism, we've got to be more comprehensive than just War and Law Enforcement.
For instance, it's also a marketing campaign. The imans of these radical islamist mosques and madrassas are telling their side of the story to the impressionable Islamic youth. We've got to convincingly SHOW and TELL our side as well to PREVENT more young people from being converted into someone who wants to attack us.
It's an economic issue. Though the most visible terrorists are rich pricks like Bin Laden, they get their emotional support from the miserable poor who feel like they've got no future in this world and want to reverse course to some fabled Islamic past. Freeing up widespread economic opportunity thoughout the world will drain that swamp of the resentment they feel against the West and isolate the real radicals from their potential base of support.
It's a political issue. How many times do we have to hear Arabs of all stripes --- fundamentalist, radical, moderate and liberal --- say that they're angry about the Israeli/Palestine issue before we accept that it's a problem which keeps inflaming that part of the world? The U.S. needs to get tough and fair with both sides, and broker a peace shuts down that engine of hatred."
At this point, the Conservative is beginning to suffer a cognitive panic. He likes to have a single, cohesive, structural framework for his thoughts. You've buffetted his War frame and unless he is offered something similarly over-arching, he'll disregard everything he's heard so far and retreat back to it.
So you hold out an alternative frame.
Now, don't think that he's going to take it. He probably won't.
But what it might do, hopefully, is introduce the idea that there are other, logical, comprehensive ways to think about how to end terrorism. That serves to weaken his fervor for the War metaphor. Which is enough. Just like in elections, often you know you can't convert your opponent's voters to your side so you try to depress them and keep them home. In this case, you create one less person walking around parroting the Republican line to other people.
My favorite metaphor is the disease metaphor. It's simplistic, it's reductive, it's comprehensive.
I say:
"First off, ending terrorism in a globalized world is too complex and novel a situation to reduce to a simple metaphor. It is its own thing. Not a war. Not an anti-crime initiative. It is stopping the capability and destroying the incentive of people around the world to attack us. But if I had to pick an analogy, I would think of ending terrorism as fighting a disease. Like a virus. Or a cancer.
You absolutely do all you can to isolate and destroy the diseased cells. With caution but without mercy. This means using force selectively and precisely.
But you're also smart about it. Along with destroying those cells, you also do everything you can to strengthen your body to prevent the disease from getting a toehold in the first place. This means political and economic reform.
You also strengthen an immune system that will automatically fights the disease wherever it pops up. This means working with the governments around the world to find and catch terrorists that we don't even know about yet.
And most of all you don't ever, ever allow anyone to sell you on a cure doesn't work and actually makes you sicker. Surely I don't have to explain to you what that means."
Further, Lakoff states, the Republicans have intuitively understood this for some time now and have gotten a head start refining how to pitch their ideas in words that fit into and reinforce the frames, then disseminating those words through their media apparati.
Basic examples of this process being the substitution of "pro-life" for "anti-abortion" and "death tax" for "estate tax."
One of the biggest successes that the Republicans have pulled off in the last five years is to create a nearly unanimous embrace of the "War on Terror" metaphor and phraseology. Not only have they hammered it home in countless speeches and papers, but they have gone out of their way to ridicule and lambast anyone who appears to endorse the alternative metaphor of "law enforcement."
According to these conservatives, anyone who seems to think that we will prevail against terrorists by gathering intelligence about them, arresting them and jailing them is weak and foolish and dangerous to national security. They are so bad, they are just like Bill Clinton, who as everyone knows, allowed 9/11 to happen.
Instead, the efforts to prevent terrorist attacks must take the form of a War. A "Global War." A "Long War." "A War of Civilizations." Yada, Yada, Yada.
Once we, as a nation, bought into this metaphor, we handed the terrorism issue over to the Republicans, who are PERCEIVED as being better at waging wars (a perception based more on tough talk than a historical war-winning record, btw).
Furthermore, we automatically acquiesced to some rather sweeping and drastic notions. Notions that may not be supported by facts or jibe with the norms and liberties the U.S. has grown accustomed to.
Consider:
1. A War implies that the struggle is for our very survival as a nation.
2. Because the War is for our very survival, it raises the stakes and gives our government greater leeway. In war, the government can ask greater sacrifices, spend more, curtail more rights and silence criticism in ways that they can't in peace.
3. When a nation is at War, those who disagree with that nation become supporters of the enemy and, consequently traitors.
4. In a War, captured enemies (who pose a threat to our survival, remember?) do not deserve or receive the same rights and considerations that accused criminals might receive.
We've seen all of these points made, ad infinitum, from W's lectern and the wingnut blogs to support this War metaphor. To me it falls apart at point one. As many times as I have it screeched at me, I just can't believe that a couple hundred Al Queda can destroy or conquer the United States of America.
However, this War metaphor been successful at cowing many Democrats into meekly following the Republican leads on many, many bad moves. So it's been a success in that sphere.
But in the sphere of actually reducing the number of terrorists and their capability and motivation to attack globally, the War approach has been a total flop, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate pointed out.
So in other words, this War metaphor only serves to make Republicans stronger and everyone in greater danger.
So let's stop buying into it. Let's stop using it. Let's correct others when they do use it.
The next time, you are in conversation with a wingnut and they use the phrase "War on Terror" say:
"Do you really think it's a War?"
Then follow up with questions that ridicule and destroy that notion:
"Wars are between nations. Which nation are we at War with? What does their uniform look like? Where is the battlefield? Who is in the chain of command? How do we win this war? When will we know? Who will sign the articles of surrender on the deck of a battleship?"
This will throw them. They'll begin searching their database of Rush Limbaugh talking points and come back at you with something along the lines of "so I guess you think this is a law enforcement issue." They might even throw in "like Clinton."
Now you crush their thinking as simplistic and antiquated and overwhelm them with how much more advanced your thinking is on this topic. You also slap them with one of their own code words, with the meaning twisted to suit your purpose.
"Your thinking is so pre-9/11. That there are only two ways to think about terrorism. This is the 21st century.
There are some aspects of a war to this, in some limited cases. If a state or nation is officially or unofficially providing support to terrorists, then it's appropriate to take action on the state or national level, like declaring a war.
And there are some law enforcement aspects to ending terrorism attacks. In fact, I'd say that the biggest successes in the last year have been the result of good, solid intelligence work in London, not our expensive, losing, bloody war in Iraq. And that it's a lot more efficient to work with foreign governments to round up and arrest terrorists than it is to destroy a country to fight them in the streets.
But if we really want to end terrorism, we've got to be more comprehensive than just War and Law Enforcement.
For instance, it's also a marketing campaign. The imans of these radical islamist mosques and madrassas are telling their side of the story to the impressionable Islamic youth. We've got to convincingly SHOW and TELL our side as well to PREVENT more young people from being converted into someone who wants to attack us.
It's an economic issue. Though the most visible terrorists are rich pricks like Bin Laden, they get their emotional support from the miserable poor who feel like they've got no future in this world and want to reverse course to some fabled Islamic past. Freeing up widespread economic opportunity thoughout the world will drain that swamp of the resentment they feel against the West and isolate the real radicals from their potential base of support.
It's a political issue. How many times do we have to hear Arabs of all stripes --- fundamentalist, radical, moderate and liberal --- say that they're angry about the Israeli/Palestine issue before we accept that it's a problem which keeps inflaming that part of the world? The U.S. needs to get tough and fair with both sides, and broker a peace shuts down that engine of hatred."
At this point, the Conservative is beginning to suffer a cognitive panic. He likes to have a single, cohesive, structural framework for his thoughts. You've buffetted his War frame and unless he is offered something similarly over-arching, he'll disregard everything he's heard so far and retreat back to it.
So you hold out an alternative frame.
Now, don't think that he's going to take it. He probably won't.
But what it might do, hopefully, is introduce the idea that there are other, logical, comprehensive ways to think about how to end terrorism. That serves to weaken his fervor for the War metaphor. Which is enough. Just like in elections, often you know you can't convert your opponent's voters to your side so you try to depress them and keep them home. In this case, you create one less person walking around parroting the Republican line to other people.
My favorite metaphor is the disease metaphor. It's simplistic, it's reductive, it's comprehensive.
I say:
"First off, ending terrorism in a globalized world is too complex and novel a situation to reduce to a simple metaphor. It is its own thing. Not a war. Not an anti-crime initiative. It is stopping the capability and destroying the incentive of people around the world to attack us. But if I had to pick an analogy, I would think of ending terrorism as fighting a disease. Like a virus. Or a cancer.
You absolutely do all you can to isolate and destroy the diseased cells. With caution but without mercy. This means using force selectively and precisely.
But you're also smart about it. Along with destroying those cells, you also do everything you can to strengthen your body to prevent the disease from getting a toehold in the first place. This means political and economic reform.
You also strengthen an immune system that will automatically fights the disease wherever it pops up. This means working with the governments around the world to find and catch terrorists that we don't even know about yet.
And most of all you don't ever, ever allow anyone to sell you on a cure doesn't work and actually makes you sicker. Surely I don't have to explain to you what that means."
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Let's talk about Sex, Foley
Let's talk about sex, baby
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things
That may be
Let's talk about sex
- Salt-n-Pepa
You know, if I didn't know better I would start to think that the Democrats had learned some lessons from the pastings that Karl Rove and the Republican Slime Machine have been giving us for the last six years. In the last two weeks, two news cycles have been consumed with attacks aimed right at the conjoined, misshapen hearts of the Republican's supposed "strengths": National Security and Moral Values.
First, Clinton laid out some devastating comparisons of his al-Queda fighting record compared to the Bush Administration's on Chris Wallace's show. Comparisons that were coincidentally backed up with the next weeks publication of Bob Woodward's new book, which stated that Condi Rice "brushed off" George Tenant's July 10th warnings of an imminent attack in the United States. Granted, to those of us who've been paying attention the last six years, this isn't new news to us. It's what Richard Clarke was saying in 2004, before he was drowned out by the Mighty Wurlizter. It is, however, a welcome piling on of testimony, dates, times and proof that Rice, Bush and Cheney were asleep at the wheel that summer (or worse).
I'm already planning on making that July 10th brush off a major talking point when I'm combatting the notion that the Republicans have kept us safer.
Then came the Foley page scandal: it's pure, unadulterated sickness of the acts themselves and the coldly calculated coverup when the House Republican leadership learned about it one (three? five? eleven?) years ago.
I know that as liberals and Democrats, we have an innate tendency to take the high road on matters of a sexual and personal nature.
We'd prefer for the American public to become outraged about the negation of Habeas Corpus, the legalization of torture, the record budget deficit, the slashed student loan funding, the dishonest way in which we were led to a losing, disastrous war, the incompetent waging of that war, and the cynical, vomitous invocation of 9/11 and terrorists to justify all of those acts.
But the broader American public is not going to become outraged about those things. They are going to be outraged by where someone puts their pee-pee. To them that's what constitutes a "scandal." It's a simple, reductive, narrow conception of what's truly disgusting. But it's theirs.
These are, after all, people that think Nascar is a sport and Mountain Dew is a tasty beverage.
So let's go with it.
I want to dig out every sordid, disgusting detail about Mark Foley and his page fetish anyone can come up with. If I had to read about Clinton and Monica's cigar games and blue dress stains, I expect the same sort of massive, invasive, retch-inducing detail about Mark Foley jerking off in his office right before a house vote. I want to know if he came in a kleenex or if he's got a page's athletic jock in his desk drawer he jizzes on, then sniffs.
He claims that he's never fucked any of the pages. Well, let's just see about that. I want this guy's personal life examined until I know WHO he's fucked, how old they were, and if they whimpered or squealed when they took it up the pooper. This is not a time for us to get squeamish about appearing homophobic or anti-gay. We're not. But the people we want to shake up are and we want to rub their noses in what their supposed "Morality" party does on their dime.
Just like the Republicans linked the words "Democrat" and "intern" and "blowjob" so tightly that Al Gore felt compelled to get closer to Joe Leiberman and further from Bill Clinton in preparation for the political fight of his life, I want for the words "Republican" "16-year-old boy" and "masturbate" to become inextricably linked together in the public's mind.
I want to force Republicans to openly defend and minimize the gay lifestyle on Mark Foley's behalf, just like I had to defend and minimize adultery on Clinton's behalf. Which irked me to no end, as I was hoping to put off defending adultery until I got married and began committing it myself.
Besides raising the gorge of the Values Crowd and forcing them defend what they hate the most, these ongoing, explicit sexual revelations are the sorts of details that will keep putting this story on the front pages over and over and over again during the coming weeks no matter what Rove tries to orchestrate to push it off.
If there's one thing I know about the American people it's this--- if forced to pay attention to a story about where the rich and powerful shoot their loads and anything short of a full scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we're going to follow the jism.
So, Dems, like W in Iraq, let's stay the course on this one... right into Mark Foley's humid, rancid, sticky underwear... until it brings us the victory we need to put this country back on the right track again.
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things
That may be
Let's talk about sex
- Salt-n-Pepa
You know, if I didn't know better I would start to think that the Democrats had learned some lessons from the pastings that Karl Rove and the Republican Slime Machine have been giving us for the last six years. In the last two weeks, two news cycles have been consumed with attacks aimed right at the conjoined, misshapen hearts of the Republican's supposed "strengths": National Security and Moral Values.
First, Clinton laid out some devastating comparisons of his al-Queda fighting record compared to the Bush Administration's on Chris Wallace's show. Comparisons that were coincidentally backed up with the next weeks publication of Bob Woodward's new book, which stated that Condi Rice "brushed off" George Tenant's July 10th warnings of an imminent attack in the United States. Granted, to those of us who've been paying attention the last six years, this isn't new news to us. It's what Richard Clarke was saying in 2004, before he was drowned out by the Mighty Wurlizter. It is, however, a welcome piling on of testimony, dates, times and proof that Rice, Bush and Cheney were asleep at the wheel that summer (or worse).
I'm already planning on making that July 10th brush off a major talking point when I'm combatting the notion that the Republicans have kept us safer.
Then came the Foley page scandal: it's pure, unadulterated sickness of the acts themselves and the coldly calculated coverup when the House Republican leadership learned about it one (three? five? eleven?) years ago.
I know that as liberals and Democrats, we have an innate tendency to take the high road on matters of a sexual and personal nature.
We'd prefer for the American public to become outraged about the negation of Habeas Corpus, the legalization of torture, the record budget deficit, the slashed student loan funding, the dishonest way in which we were led to a losing, disastrous war, the incompetent waging of that war, and the cynical, vomitous invocation of 9/11 and terrorists to justify all of those acts.
But the broader American public is not going to become outraged about those things. They are going to be outraged by where someone puts their pee-pee. To them that's what constitutes a "scandal." It's a simple, reductive, narrow conception of what's truly disgusting. But it's theirs.
These are, after all, people that think Nascar is a sport and Mountain Dew is a tasty beverage.
So let's go with it.
I want to dig out every sordid, disgusting detail about Mark Foley and his page fetish anyone can come up with. If I had to read about Clinton and Monica's cigar games and blue dress stains, I expect the same sort of massive, invasive, retch-inducing detail about Mark Foley jerking off in his office right before a house vote. I want to know if he came in a kleenex or if he's got a page's athletic jock in his desk drawer he jizzes on, then sniffs.
He claims that he's never fucked any of the pages. Well, let's just see about that. I want this guy's personal life examined until I know WHO he's fucked, how old they were, and if they whimpered or squealed when they took it up the pooper. This is not a time for us to get squeamish about appearing homophobic or anti-gay. We're not. But the people we want to shake up are and we want to rub their noses in what their supposed "Morality" party does on their dime.
Just like the Republicans linked the words "Democrat" and "intern" and "blowjob" so tightly that Al Gore felt compelled to get closer to Joe Leiberman and further from Bill Clinton in preparation for the political fight of his life, I want for the words "Republican" "16-year-old boy" and "masturbate" to become inextricably linked together in the public's mind.
I want to force Republicans to openly defend and minimize the gay lifestyle on Mark Foley's behalf, just like I had to defend and minimize adultery on Clinton's behalf. Which irked me to no end, as I was hoping to put off defending adultery until I got married and began committing it myself.
Besides raising the gorge of the Values Crowd and forcing them defend what they hate the most, these ongoing, explicit sexual revelations are the sorts of details that will keep putting this story on the front pages over and over and over again during the coming weeks no matter what Rove tries to orchestrate to push it off.
If there's one thing I know about the American people it's this--- if forced to pay attention to a story about where the rich and powerful shoot their loads and anything short of a full scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we're going to follow the jism.
So, Dems, like W in Iraq, let's stay the course on this one... right into Mark Foley's humid, rancid, sticky underwear... until it brings us the victory we need to put this country back on the right track again.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Five Fucking Years Later.
Driving in to work this morning, I was scowling at the non-stop 9/11 memorializing and pontificating and sentimentalizing that I was listening to on NPR. I've been scowling a lot lately, and going out of my way NOT to read or listen to, much less watch, anything about that day.
So in the car I started thinking, scowling is rather an odd reaction for me to have. And wondering just what do I think about the event. Looking within, I'm deeply conflicted about 9/11, and what it means to me. Also, very reluctant to honestly express what I really feel, since it goes against the template of emotions that I've been instructed, or rather assumed, to feel by society as verbalized by the media and the various political figures (mostly on the right, but on the left too) trying to manipulate me into supporting their agenda.
I'll start with the big, ugly, most unspeakable feeling first.
I'm over 9/11. It happened. It was terrible. Let's not forget about it. Or the good people we lost that day. Let's definitely stop it from ever happening again (more on this later). But for fuck's sake let's get on with being America again. It didn't change my life forever. It didn't change the world forever. It didn't end an era for me and radically change how I think about the world. I already knew that there were people out there that wanted to hurt America. They got lucky one day, that's all.
Lest I sound callous, let me give a little bit of background. I was living in New York City, Upper East Side, that day and have done my share of cursing and crying, thinking about the poor souls so desperate to escape the inferno within the building they jumped out of the city's tallest building. In fact, just writing that previous sentence made my eyes burn and water.
But I don't think anyone in that building that day would have wanted America to drop everything else on our plate and focus on The War On Terror, 24/7, to the exclusion of all else, since. They were busy people, capable of multi-tasking and would have expected us to do the same.
Second, I'm and angry and disgusted by what has happened since that day. And, yeah, I'm going to get political here. This administration took the justifiable anger and desire for justice 9/11 created and perverted it to justify a completely unrelated, optional war they had been wanting to wage for over a decade.
To me that's the lowest, most shameful sort of manipulation there is. As a matter of fact, I'm more angry at our own government than I am at Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin is a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist who had sworn to attack us. Being angry at him would be like being angry at a scorpion for trying to sting you. Like a scorpion, I want to stop him. I want to kill him. I want to punish him. But there's no sense of violated trust.
With Bush and Cheney, it's different. After 9/11, I set aside my misgivings about the government and supported my President in our time of need. And in return, they have lost American lives, wasted American money and soiled American honor. I feel profoundly betrayed by the Republicans and what they've done.
Third, they've failed to address the most important piece of stopping this thing from happening again.
I believe that preventing another 9/11 has two parts: the first is making less possible to COMMIT another terrorist attack on the US. The second is to make it less common to WANT to.
The administration seems to be completely focused on the first part, and doing a passible job at it, in a completely inefficient, costly, bassackward fashion. Say what you will, turning Afghanistan & Iraq into bloody war zones does keep long-term, complex terrorist plans from being developed in those countries.
But as far as that second, more important, piece, making it less common for people to WANT to attack us... they are utter, counterproductive, disasters.
Maybe I'm one of those "Blame America First"-ers the Rightwingers keep nattering on about, but as I was walking back to my apartment in the crowd of people denied our usual subway ride home that day I was thinking that an event like this should make America examine just what it is we've done in the world that would make people hate us badly enough to do this to us. Call me crazy, but I believe that if I am attacked, I should at least take a moment to examine myself and my behavior.
I believe that it's very possible that I could have done something to offend or injure the other party. Personally, as a matter of my own personal ethics, I want to try to keep my behavior as ethically sound as I am capable. To keep my side of the street clean. I fail often, and when I do there are often consequences. I step on someone's toes and they push back. For a combination of moral and purely selfish reasons --- I don't want to live in a world where I keep getting pushed back --- I want to avoid stepping on people's toes, even accidentally.
And the US, to put it mildly, has a long history of a lot of toe-stepping, without a whole lot of push-backs.
But instead of deciding to step more gingerly going forward, and get our own legal, ethical and moral house in order our Administration decided to say, in essence, "not only will we continue to step on your toes if we want, we will kick you in the ass and stomp on your neck at will and anyone that doesn't like it can expect to get more of the same himself." Then proceeded to act out this threat in Afghanistan, Iraq and now threatens to do the same in Syria and Iran.
As a result, I feel LESS safe now than I did on September 12, 2001 and MORE hated around the world. Which is one hell of a way to mark five years later. Fuck.
So in the car I started thinking, scowling is rather an odd reaction for me to have. And wondering just what do I think about the event. Looking within, I'm deeply conflicted about 9/11, and what it means to me. Also, very reluctant to honestly express what I really feel, since it goes against the template of emotions that I've been instructed, or rather assumed, to feel by society as verbalized by the media and the various political figures (mostly on the right, but on the left too) trying to manipulate me into supporting their agenda.
I'll start with the big, ugly, most unspeakable feeling first.
I'm over 9/11. It happened. It was terrible. Let's not forget about it. Or the good people we lost that day. Let's definitely stop it from ever happening again (more on this later). But for fuck's sake let's get on with being America again. It didn't change my life forever. It didn't change the world forever. It didn't end an era for me and radically change how I think about the world. I already knew that there were people out there that wanted to hurt America. They got lucky one day, that's all.
Lest I sound callous, let me give a little bit of background. I was living in New York City, Upper East Side, that day and have done my share of cursing and crying, thinking about the poor souls so desperate to escape the inferno within the building they jumped out of the city's tallest building. In fact, just writing that previous sentence made my eyes burn and water.
But I don't think anyone in that building that day would have wanted America to drop everything else on our plate and focus on The War On Terror, 24/7, to the exclusion of all else, since. They were busy people, capable of multi-tasking and would have expected us to do the same.
Second, I'm and angry and disgusted by what has happened since that day. And, yeah, I'm going to get political here. This administration took the justifiable anger and desire for justice 9/11 created and perverted it to justify a completely unrelated, optional war they had been wanting to wage for over a decade.
To me that's the lowest, most shameful sort of manipulation there is. As a matter of fact, I'm more angry at our own government than I am at Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin is a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist who had sworn to attack us. Being angry at him would be like being angry at a scorpion for trying to sting you. Like a scorpion, I want to stop him. I want to kill him. I want to punish him. But there's no sense of violated trust.
With Bush and Cheney, it's different. After 9/11, I set aside my misgivings about the government and supported my President in our time of need. And in return, they have lost American lives, wasted American money and soiled American honor. I feel profoundly betrayed by the Republicans and what they've done.
Third, they've failed to address the most important piece of stopping this thing from happening again.
I believe that preventing another 9/11 has two parts: the first is making less possible to COMMIT another terrorist attack on the US. The second is to make it less common to WANT to.
The administration seems to be completely focused on the first part, and doing a passible job at it, in a completely inefficient, costly, bassackward fashion. Say what you will, turning Afghanistan & Iraq into bloody war zones does keep long-term, complex terrorist plans from being developed in those countries.
But as far as that second, more important, piece, making it less common for people to WANT to attack us... they are utter, counterproductive, disasters.
Maybe I'm one of those "Blame America First"-ers the Rightwingers keep nattering on about, but as I was walking back to my apartment in the crowd of people denied our usual subway ride home that day I was thinking that an event like this should make America examine just what it is we've done in the world that would make people hate us badly enough to do this to us. Call me crazy, but I believe that if I am attacked, I should at least take a moment to examine myself and my behavior.
I believe that it's very possible that I could have done something to offend or injure the other party. Personally, as a matter of my own personal ethics, I want to try to keep my behavior as ethically sound as I am capable. To keep my side of the street clean. I fail often, and when I do there are often consequences. I step on someone's toes and they push back. For a combination of moral and purely selfish reasons --- I don't want to live in a world where I keep getting pushed back --- I want to avoid stepping on people's toes, even accidentally.
And the US, to put it mildly, has a long history of a lot of toe-stepping, without a whole lot of push-backs.
But instead of deciding to step more gingerly going forward, and get our own legal, ethical and moral house in order our Administration decided to say, in essence, "not only will we continue to step on your toes if we want, we will kick you in the ass and stomp on your neck at will and anyone that doesn't like it can expect to get more of the same himself." Then proceeded to act out this threat in Afghanistan, Iraq and now threatens to do the same in Syria and Iran.
As a result, I feel LESS safe now than I did on September 12, 2001 and MORE hated around the world. Which is one hell of a way to mark five years later. Fuck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)