We have met the enemy and they are us.

May 27, 2005 3:35 PM

Two-thirds agreement, friend or foe? Condoleezza Rice had an informal interview with an NPR reporter this week. During the talk the interviewer brought up U.S. pop culture. He stated that some of the reasons why Bin Laden attacked the U.S. was because of its (our) Pornographic culture, children being out of control, women having too much power. Condi seemed to only protest the complaint of women having too much power. What does she believe in? The way the question was responded to makes me unsettled more about this administration, as impossible as I thought this was possible. The portion is 3:35 minutes in.
posted by MrLint (17 comments total)

I'm unclear. You're saying that we don't have a pornographic culture, our children aren't out of control and our women aren't too powerful? Or that you're in favor of pornographic culture, out-of-control children and powerful women, and unsettled that anyone could oppose such things?
posted by jfuller at 3:45 PM on May 27, 2005

Seems to me that your point is that Condi didn't make clear her stance on Bin Laden's rationalization for 9/11. She did sort of play it off, but since she is a politican that's standard fare. Being that she is a part of this administration, her possible responses could have ranged from "he hates America" to "he hates democracy."

I don't think she is allowed by her colleagues to expound on her personal views, with good reason--it's fodder for her detractors.
posted by plexiwatt at 4:08 PM on May 27, 2005

Well firstly, I don' t know what a 'pornographic culture' is, in any case pornography is legal. Its part of what is free expression. The constitution protects freedom of expression, and porn is part of that. Why is this somehow better or worse than 'a culture of books' 'a culture of newspaper' 'a culture of poetry'. Moving on...

Powerful women: again this seems to be an irrelevancy, there is no moral issue of women or men being in positions of power or leadership. The constitution also gives us equal protection under the law. Non-discriminatory practices are the outcome.

'Children out of control', this is hyperbole. I dont know what it mean to have children 'in control', its not my buzzword, nor my definition. However, if we were to define it as children who have committed crimes, I expect that any real analysis of the data will show that "Children" as a group are not in fact 'out of control', merely some individuals are and those are a vanishingly small percentage.

Regardless of Rice's proclivities, are any of these enough justification to have attacked 2 office buildings, the Pentagon, and Possibly the white house. None of these places realistically meet any of the stated criteria.

It seems to me that Condi was so entranced by her own feelings on the topic that it never occurred that someone that hold such opinions has no right to force their will on others, and that seems to be much of what constitutes the road this administration walks on. Their self defined conservatism seeks to steamroll everything else
posted by MrLint at 4:18 PM on May 27, 2005

Plexiwatt:

What is not said can say more than ones utterances.
posted by MrLint at 4:20 PM on May 27, 2005

True enough. In her case, I'm quite sure she's been instructed to give out as little information regarding her personal views as possible.

Is your assertion that since she dodged the question on the exportation of American culture she holds views which are secretly pro-pornography (oh god the pain) or anti-control?

Or are you attacking Bin Laden's justification?

I didn't find anything revealing in that interview. She is media-savvy, and knows how to dodge a question and keep her beliefs private so as to keep up the impression of party solidarity.

Now, as for the question of her beliefs themselves...I'd like to know where and how she and Bush differ.
posted by plexiwatt at 4:39 PM on May 27, 2005

but since she is a politican that's standard fare

What? She's a politician now? I thought she was still an intern.
posted by wfrgms at 4:48 PM on May 27, 2005

Condoleezza Rice has no perception of reality. I didn't listen to the audio clip or anything, but I know this because of stuff I've heard her say in the past. I am completely baffled by her.
posted by elisabeth r at 5:55 PM on May 27, 2005

Those people are deluded. They attacked us for one reason only: they hate Israel more than anything else in the world and they associate us with Israel.
posted by mike3k at 7:36 PM on May 27, 2005

Right. If there's one thing Muslims hate, it's powerful women. That's why Pakistanis neve elected a female president.

Oh, wait.

(Also, out of control children? Why the hell would OBL or anyone care how controlled our children were?)
posted by delmoi at 8:11 PM on May 27, 2005

They attacked us for one reason only: they hate Israel more than anything else in the world and they associate us with Israel.

Um, except Bin Laden's original fatwa/rambling-list-of-complaints about the US--videotaped and diseminated in 1998, I believe?--didn't say a thing about Israel. It did, however, complain quite a bit about how infidel Americans, including immodest women, were on Muslim holy ground--i.e. the US military were stationed in Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca and Medina, to prevent them from being invaded by Iraq.
posted by Asparagirl at 9:47 PM on May 27, 2005

Sort of an interesting disconnect from the Rapturists:

OBL wants us to elect John K. (*)
.: We should elect George B. to piss him off.

OBL attacked us because he was morally offended by our pornographic culture, out-of-control kids, and uppity women (ie: the same things that "coincidentally" offend the Rapurists).
.: We need to outlaw pr0n, beat discipline into our kids and roll back women's right.

Seems to me if those hypocrites REALLY want to be consistent, we should be wallow in porn, drop the drinking age to 12 and elect a woman president -- just to piss off OBL.


(*)DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know OBL didn't really prefer John K., but the Right wanted us to believe it.)
posted by RavinDave at 11:59 PM on May 27, 2005

Actually, I'm pretty sure that there are members of the right that would actually agree with most of OBL's major complaints about American pop culture. This is a 'war' between two sets of absolutists, two sets of fanatics, theirs and ours, and anything else is just spin.
posted by eclectist at 1:26 AM on May 28, 2005

The constitution protects freedom of expression, and porn is part of that. Why is this somehow better or worse than 'a culture of books' 'a culture of newspaper' 'a culture of poetry'.

True enough, though I expect the founding fathers when they penned the first amendment had Thomas Paine in mind rather than Larry Flynt. Why is Larry worse? Because in his trade, lives are ruined and humans are degraded, and with absolutely no possibility for spiritual or cultural uplift.

Besides, it leads to tripe acts like Britney Spears.

Sorry for the derail. Please carry on.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:38 AM on May 28, 2005

with absolutely no possibility for spiritual or cultural uplift

I wasn't aware that that requirement needed to be met before the protection of the first amendment kicked in.

/the more you know
posted by haqspan at 12:45 PM on May 28, 2005

I wasn't aware that that requirement needed to be met before the protection of the first amendment kicked in.

Who said it did? I was merely telling Mr Lint why pornography was worse than 'a culture of books' 'a culture of newspaper' 'a culture of poetry'.

Defending the first amendment does not require one to celebrate its uglier consequences.

/The more carefully you read
posted by IndigoJones at 5:36 PM on May 28, 2005

Because in his trade, lives are ruined and humans are degraded, and with absolutely no possibility for spiritual or cultural uplift.

You misconstrued, none of my examples are solicitations for moralistic analysis. My statement was predicated by "The constitution protects freedom of expression..." as a form of protected speech, all are on an even field.

Ok now that is out of the way, you claim that porn is bad because of you list of reasons. Please consider instances in which other forms of speech have ruined lives and humans degraded. I am not going to iterate these examples because, you did not, and well I would point you that which claims to be opposite of pornography.

As for your spiritual or cultural uplifting, well thats not a requirement for speech. Protected or otherwise.
posted by MrLint at 8:08 PM on May 28, 2005

I seem to be unable to get a very narrow and simple point across.

MrLint's question was, or seemed to be:

"Why is this [pornography(?)] somehow better or worse than 'a culture of books' 'a culture of newspaper' 'a culture of poetry'"

Sounds like a solicitation for moralistic analysis to me.

I did not suggest pornography isn't or shouldn't be protected by the first amendment.
I did not suggest pornography is alone in ruining lives and degrading people.
I did not suggest all speech must be or even should be spirtually or culturally uplifting, or even non-destructive.

I simply said that pornography has far greater cost than any claimed benefit. It is a point I shall be happy to argue at any time. But let's leave the constitution out of it, hm?
posted by IndigoJones at 9:10 AM on May 30, 2005