The Case for Rage and Retribution.
September 16, 2001 12:29 AM Subscribe
The Case for Rage and Retribution. An essay by Lance Morrow from the special all-attack issue of TIME. "What’s needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury — a ruthless indignation that doesn’t leak away in a week or two."
> The worst times, as we see, separate the civilized of the world from the uncivilized.
Not if he can help it.
posted by sylloge at 1:06 AM on September 16, 2001
Not if he can help it.
posted by sylloge at 1:06 AM on September 16, 2001
I'm not a Time reader - and this kind of silly poppycock isn't going to turn me into one, that's for sure.
posted by sixdifferentways at 1:22 AM on September 16, 2001
posted by sixdifferentways at 1:22 AM on September 16, 2001
The real question of course is whether unleashing America's rage on Afghanistan will solve anything.
Analysts say Bin Laden's organisation is very different from the groups that carried out bombings and hijackings in the past in that it is not a tightly knit group with a clear command structure but a loose coalition of groups operating across continents.
from "Who is Osama bin Laden?"
If this truly is the case, there's a good chance that bin Laden wasn't directly involved in the attacks. This was also the case with a series of car bombings in Saudi Arabia where again, bin Laden was the prime suspect. When Saudi authorities captured those responsible they admitted that bin Laden wasn't directly involved - in fact, they'd never met or spoken to him and he had not commanded them to carry out the attacks, but they were inspired by him.
If there is no command structure and, these groups are operating independently but with one common aim, there's a good chance that killing bin Laden will only incur a more devastating retaliation by his followers.
posted by dannyd at 1:27 AM on September 16, 2001
Analysts say Bin Laden's organisation is very different from the groups that carried out bombings and hijackings in the past in that it is not a tightly knit group with a clear command structure but a loose coalition of groups operating across continents.
from "Who is Osama bin Laden?"
If this truly is the case, there's a good chance that bin Laden wasn't directly involved in the attacks. This was also the case with a series of car bombings in Saudi Arabia where again, bin Laden was the prime suspect. When Saudi authorities captured those responsible they admitted that bin Laden wasn't directly involved - in fact, they'd never met or spoken to him and he had not commanded them to carry out the attacks, but they were inspired by him.
If there is no command structure and, these groups are operating independently but with one common aim, there's a good chance that killing bin Laden will only incur a more devastating retaliation by his followers.
posted by dannyd at 1:27 AM on September 16, 2001
Ah. I've been waiting for Hellraiser to write The Cenobite Manifesto...gather 'round, kids, Uncle Lance has a lesson he wants you to learn...
On a petty level, what really bugs me is how deliciously easy it is to write this kind of inflamed, single-note opera. Perhaps Lance can be called upon to provide weekly "how to" columns describing popular ways for backsliding Americans to sustain their hatred. Let's hope the media doesn't drop the ball on this one - we really should have more TV programs whose primary focus is to make sure we hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, and keep on hating.
It's good for us, dontcha know, cause Uncle Lance tells us so.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:34 AM on September 16, 2001
On a petty level, what really bugs me is how deliciously easy it is to write this kind of inflamed, single-note opera. Perhaps Lance can be called upon to provide weekly "how to" columns describing popular ways for backsliding Americans to sustain their hatred. Let's hope the media doesn't drop the ball on this one - we really should have more TV programs whose primary focus is to make sure we hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, and keep on hating.
It's good for us, dontcha know, cause Uncle Lance tells us so.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:34 AM on September 16, 2001
Mr. Morrow must be working for whoever did this. What an idiot. Rage and blind retribution will put us at war with the rest of the world and spark additional waves of terrorism, for at least two generations.
I do feel a certain rage right now -- anyone know Morrow's home address?
posted by mattpfeff at 1:40 AM on September 16, 2001
I do feel a certain rage right now -- anyone know Morrow's home address?
posted by mattpfeff at 1:40 AM on September 16, 2001
Why are our leaders and pundits assaulting us with this "Don't think; feel" rhetoric? In my puny third of a century I have acted while in rages a few times, and regretted it every time. It smacks of the beer muscles--if we don't attack now, we'll loose our nerve.
Quick, while we're still drunk!
posted by chino at 2:00 AM on September 16, 2001
Quick, while we're still drunk!
posted by chino at 2:00 AM on September 16, 2001
Terrible what he wrote, of course, but, you know, the columnist does have a point, doesn’t he, about our navel-gazing self-consciousness?
I'm torn. MetaFilter is - if I may be so bold - a forum for the new intelligentsia, and the dominant themes and sentiments I see throughout the various posts here are: (1) sorrow, (2) fear that our civil liberties will be curtailed, (3) fear that Bush - and America in general - will overreact, or react without thinking (fear of war), and (4) critical self-examination of U.S. foreign policy and the role it may have played in the bombings.
Rage, anger, a desire to retaliate, revenge, justice... these concepts are present, sprinkled lightly among the responses to the various posts, but they definitely come in behind fear and guilt in the mind of the average MeFi'er, or at least the average posting one these last few days. Folks, if you fit into that category, this article, like the Leonard Pitts article linked earlier, was written for you.
Bush called it a "quiet, unyielding anger". I think he was talking about the same thing as Lance.
The urge to lash out is strong, but of course skallas is right that we can't take action until we know who, where and why, and the best course is "letting intelligence and the military work this out with our support." But I disagree with skallas that the tongue-in-cheek quote in the article that is meant to exemplify "corruptly thoughtful relativism' is irrelevant. I see that kind of thinking everywhere on this site, and I think it is dangerous. And I disagree that we should "feel fine and demand justice." Demand justice, yes. Feel fine? Not for a long, long time. I, for one, don't want to feel fine right now - to do so would seem to me somehow to trivialize the deaths of several people I know, and thousands that I don't.
Evolution gave us this instinct toward anger when we experience pain, and I'm not sure it is good, appropriate or healthy to try and act as if we've "evolved beyond it." If our enemies - those who would murder innocent civilians in a terroristic attack - are feeding their murderous rage with adrenaline from their anger, we better be prepared to match it. The white hot energy generated by our anger, focused by our strong sense of justice and applied to targets selected by our intellect - that's what is needed now.
And no more cracks about the barbeque stains on my shirt, please.
posted by JParker at 2:17 AM on September 16, 2001
I'm torn. MetaFilter is - if I may be so bold - a forum for the new intelligentsia, and the dominant themes and sentiments I see throughout the various posts here are: (1) sorrow, (2) fear that our civil liberties will be curtailed, (3) fear that Bush - and America in general - will overreact, or react without thinking (fear of war), and (4) critical self-examination of U.S. foreign policy and the role it may have played in the bombings.
Rage, anger, a desire to retaliate, revenge, justice... these concepts are present, sprinkled lightly among the responses to the various posts, but they definitely come in behind fear and guilt in the mind of the average MeFi'er, or at least the average posting one these last few days. Folks, if you fit into that category, this article, like the Leonard Pitts article linked earlier, was written for you.
Bush called it a "quiet, unyielding anger". I think he was talking about the same thing as Lance.
The urge to lash out is strong, but of course skallas is right that we can't take action until we know who, where and why, and the best course is "letting intelligence and the military work this out with our support." But I disagree with skallas that the tongue-in-cheek quote in the article that is meant to exemplify "corruptly thoughtful relativism' is irrelevant. I see that kind of thinking everywhere on this site, and I think it is dangerous. And I disagree that we should "feel fine and demand justice." Demand justice, yes. Feel fine? Not for a long, long time. I, for one, don't want to feel fine right now - to do so would seem to me somehow to trivialize the deaths of several people I know, and thousands that I don't.
Evolution gave us this instinct toward anger when we experience pain, and I'm not sure it is good, appropriate or healthy to try and act as if we've "evolved beyond it." If our enemies - those who would murder innocent civilians in a terroristic attack - are feeding their murderous rage with adrenaline from their anger, we better be prepared to match it. The white hot energy generated by our anger, focused by our strong sense of justice and applied to targets selected by our intellect - that's what is needed now.
And no more cracks about the barbeque stains on my shirt, please.
posted by JParker at 2:17 AM on September 16, 2001
If what happened on Tuesday does not give Americans the political will needed to exterminate men like Osama bin Laden and those who conspire with them in evil mischief, then nothing ever will and we are in for a procession of black Tuesdays.
Some how I think this kind of rhetoric plays right into what the Bin Laden's of the world want. Like cockroaches, you kill one two take its place, etc.
posted by bjgeiger at 2:48 AM on September 16, 2001
Some how I think this kind of rhetoric plays right into what the Bin Laden's of the world want. Like cockroaches, you kill one two take its place, etc.
posted by bjgeiger at 2:48 AM on September 16, 2001
There are two scenarios in which it seems to me that the terrorists win. The first, as I have expressed before, is if we blindly attack in the heat of rage. I think those who post here expressing their opposition to that are doing a much needed service.
However, the other case in which "they" win is if we let our different opinions tear us apart. The people writing articles like this one are seeing to that side of pulling through this, and providing a service that is equally important. Mefi, as JParker has noted, falls strongly on the "cool down and get perspective" side of things, and as such, the tone of this Time piece seems discordant. However, I would not go so far as to say it is wrong or inappropriate.
There is a balance to be achieved between, for example: the author of this article and myself, in which decisive action is taken in an appropriate manner. Both extremes are important, and only if one becomes clearly dominant is there a problem.
posted by Nothing at 2:57 AM on September 16, 2001
However, the other case in which "they" win is if we let our different opinions tear us apart. The people writing articles like this one are seeing to that side of pulling through this, and providing a service that is equally important. Mefi, as JParker has noted, falls strongly on the "cool down and get perspective" side of things, and as such, the tone of this Time piece seems discordant. However, I would not go so far as to say it is wrong or inappropriate.
There is a balance to be achieved between, for example: the author of this article and myself, in which decisive action is taken in an appropriate manner. Both extremes are important, and only if one becomes clearly dominant is there a problem.
posted by Nothing at 2:57 AM on September 16, 2001
It seems to me that a lot of people are missing the point that OBL and his followers declared war on the USA, and Western ideals in general, a long time ago. He, and they, do not believe that we can stop their reign of terror. This has been going on for over a decade now. Isn't anyone tired of them yet?
We've all read by now how OBL calls the USA a "paper tiger." They blow up our embassies around the world, they plot to assassinate our leaders, and what do we do? Throw some bombs in their general direction and then go back to our lives. No wonder they laugh at us.
I have a hard time understanding the lack of rage on this site and others, especially in the wake of this week's tragedy, when the atrocity is so abundant it can not be ignored!
This isn't some tit for tat game that we can shut off by bowing out gracefully. Their cause is to kill every American, military and civilians. This is clearly stated in OBL's manifesto. If we do nothing, we only strengthen their belief that we are indeed weak, and their organization is the world's one true superpower.
I admire pacifism as a principle and acknowledge world peace as a goal, but I'm sorry, OUR WORLD ISN'T READY FOR PEACE. Too many crazies out there have too big of arsenals for all of us to simply lay down our guns and join hands. They will not do likewise, no matter how many candles we light.
These terrorists are killing us, and they will continue to do so until the extremists are rooted out and brought to justice. Only then can the civilized world truly make global peace an attainable prospect for peace loving nations.
posted by David Dark at 3:59 AM on September 16, 2001
We've all read by now how OBL calls the USA a "paper tiger." They blow up our embassies around the world, they plot to assassinate our leaders, and what do we do? Throw some bombs in their general direction and then go back to our lives. No wonder they laugh at us.
I have a hard time understanding the lack of rage on this site and others, especially in the wake of this week's tragedy, when the atrocity is so abundant it can not be ignored!
This isn't some tit for tat game that we can shut off by bowing out gracefully. Their cause is to kill every American, military and civilians. This is clearly stated in OBL's manifesto. If we do nothing, we only strengthen their belief that we are indeed weak, and their organization is the world's one true superpower.
I admire pacifism as a principle and acknowledge world peace as a goal, but I'm sorry, OUR WORLD ISN'T READY FOR PEACE. Too many crazies out there have too big of arsenals for all of us to simply lay down our guns and join hands. They will not do likewise, no matter how many candles we light.
These terrorists are killing us, and they will continue to do so until the extremists are rooted out and brought to justice. Only then can the civilized world truly make global peace an attainable prospect for peace loving nations.
posted by David Dark at 3:59 AM on September 16, 2001
There is a difference between having different opinions and letting the different opinions divide us. Yes, that division was part of the loss of Vietnam, in my opinion. Neither side was willing to see the validity of the other.
posted by Nothing at 5:32 AM on September 16, 2001
posted by Nothing at 5:32 AM on September 16, 2001
The article is good and it's interesting how its message has been twisted here. Feeling anger does not preclude thinking. Feeling anger does not require people to act blindly. Nowhere does the article say either thing. Sometimes anger is justified. Now is one of those times. This conflation of those advocating swift and punishing military action with knee-jerk, unthinking Neanderthals is everywhere on MeFi. Conversely, if you see an article described as "thoughtful," you can safely bet it will explain how the US had it coming and urge "restraint," if not outright pacifism.
posted by mw at 5:43 AM on September 16, 2001
posted by mw at 5:43 AM on September 16, 2001
And no more cracks about the barbeque stains on my shirt, please.
As I am the one who slung the sauce, I'll be the one to apologize and to assure you that your wardrobe is out of danger - from me at least...
...in large part because I've taken the time to read your post carefully, and because you've taken the time to explain your views carefully. I better understand you, and I can see that you've made an effort to understand me. Thus, neither of us has to worry about the fronts of our shirts turning blood-red...
(ok, ok - a weak and contrived metaphor...)
Heerza deal.
I despise the fact that the bogey man killed some of us. But I also despise the fact that many of us were unaware of how dark and hateful the bogey man really was, and that policy decisions with which most of us were blissfully uninvolved have contributed to that hatred, and that incompetent leadership and an irresponsible media have encouraged us to remain uninformed and uninvolved for the past 60 years.
Because...
The people of this country, through active and thoughtful involvement, and, admittedly, some hindsight, could have been trusted to make nearly impeccable policy decisions - I am convinced of that. At core, we are an incredibly sensitive and empathetic bunch of wild-assed do-gooders - we really are. But we have been encouraged to reduce everything to playground scuffles with binary solutions - a relic of the John Wayne fantasy era, when Americans were convinced by their leaders and their media that solutions were simple and God's country would always prevail.
Actually, in some cases, this contrived logic seemed astoundingly accurate. But it was never really true. The legacy of this sort of reductionism is a populace whose government has so often misguided them that they are genuinely surprised when they confront the possibility that America has made mistakes (some of which were darkly calculated), and that some of those "mistakes" might now be proving the law of unintended consequence.
To put it bluntly, We, America's true heart, should have known, and in knowing all along, I really believe this nightmare could have been prevented. There - I said it.
So, is this tragedy our fault? Of course not, you morons. Did we deserve it? Of course not, you morons. But I will be damned if yet another world-altering policy decision is going to float by me on a star-spangled chorus of jingoistic platitudes. Nor is it going to sneak by cloaked in a primitive atavistic bloodlust, as this article encourages.
You can't fool Darwin, you know. You can't tell everyone to start the long, slow, hyena scream and then tell them to stop when they get too worked up. You can't tell us all to become red-eyed, growling, night-stalking animals, except on Sundays and only until this little jungle ride is over. This insane article is fuckin' pleading with me to drag my fuckin' knuckles. It is an abomination.
The idea that sustained hatred can fuel long-term support for a bloody war is patently absurd. Christ, I'll not even dignify the notion with contrary examples.
You've noted a site-wide tendency to indulge in what you perceive to be '"corruptly thoughtful relativism"'. What I see, clearly, is a division based on one's tendency to personalize the enemy, the threat, and the circumstances of retribution.
Had my sister died in this horror, and bin Laden were proven responsible, and I were to find myself in a room with him and his gentle smirk, I would physically remove his head from his body - slowly. But that kind of personal, atavistic response has no bearing on what the country's response should be. This is not a time to trust our instincts - it is a time to overcome them.
Maybe the most effective response is a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy. Maybe it isn't. I'm gonna think on it a bit, for a change, if ya don't mind.
As for turning this country into a huge, inward-looking eye, with half of us spying on the other half - all in the name of security - I'm gonna get very cranky when the surveillance starts and privacy starts evaporating, and I won't be one jot nor tittle less patriotic than the safe and happy fuckwit who mugs for the bathroom TV cameras.
posted by Opus Dark at 6:06 AM on September 16, 2001
As I am the one who slung the sauce, I'll be the one to apologize and to assure you that your wardrobe is out of danger - from me at least...
...in large part because I've taken the time to read your post carefully, and because you've taken the time to explain your views carefully. I better understand you, and I can see that you've made an effort to understand me. Thus, neither of us has to worry about the fronts of our shirts turning blood-red...
(ok, ok - a weak and contrived metaphor...)
Heerza deal.
I despise the fact that the bogey man killed some of us. But I also despise the fact that many of us were unaware of how dark and hateful the bogey man really was, and that policy decisions with which most of us were blissfully uninvolved have contributed to that hatred, and that incompetent leadership and an irresponsible media have encouraged us to remain uninformed and uninvolved for the past 60 years.
Because...
The people of this country, through active and thoughtful involvement, and, admittedly, some hindsight, could have been trusted to make nearly impeccable policy decisions - I am convinced of that. At core, we are an incredibly sensitive and empathetic bunch of wild-assed do-gooders - we really are. But we have been encouraged to reduce everything to playground scuffles with binary solutions - a relic of the John Wayne fantasy era, when Americans were convinced by their leaders and their media that solutions were simple and God's country would always prevail.
Actually, in some cases, this contrived logic seemed astoundingly accurate. But it was never really true. The legacy of this sort of reductionism is a populace whose government has so often misguided them that they are genuinely surprised when they confront the possibility that America has made mistakes (some of which were darkly calculated), and that some of those "mistakes" might now be proving the law of unintended consequence.
To put it bluntly, We, America's true heart, should have known, and in knowing all along, I really believe this nightmare could have been prevented. There - I said it.
So, is this tragedy our fault? Of course not, you morons. Did we deserve it? Of course not, you morons. But I will be damned if yet another world-altering policy decision is going to float by me on a star-spangled chorus of jingoistic platitudes. Nor is it going to sneak by cloaked in a primitive atavistic bloodlust, as this article encourages.
You can't fool Darwin, you know. You can't tell everyone to start the long, slow, hyena scream and then tell them to stop when they get too worked up. You can't tell us all to become red-eyed, growling, night-stalking animals, except on Sundays and only until this little jungle ride is over. This insane article is fuckin' pleading with me to drag my fuckin' knuckles. It is an abomination.
The idea that sustained hatred can fuel long-term support for a bloody war is patently absurd. Christ, I'll not even dignify the notion with contrary examples.
You've noted a site-wide tendency to indulge in what you perceive to be '"corruptly thoughtful relativism"'. What I see, clearly, is a division based on one's tendency to personalize the enemy, the threat, and the circumstances of retribution.
Had my sister died in this horror, and bin Laden were proven responsible, and I were to find myself in a room with him and his gentle smirk, I would physically remove his head from his body - slowly. But that kind of personal, atavistic response has no bearing on what the country's response should be. This is not a time to trust our instincts - it is a time to overcome them.
Maybe the most effective response is a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy. Maybe it isn't. I'm gonna think on it a bit, for a change, if ya don't mind.
As for turning this country into a huge, inward-looking eye, with half of us spying on the other half - all in the name of security - I'm gonna get very cranky when the surveillance starts and privacy starts evaporating, and I won't be one jot nor tittle less patriotic than the safe and happy fuckwit who mugs for the bathroom TV cameras.
posted by Opus Dark at 6:06 AM on September 16, 2001
Wow, one upside of the disaster is that they'll apparently publish any half-assed, lame essay. Neat.
posted by Doug at 6:22 AM on September 16, 2001
posted by Doug at 6:22 AM on September 16, 2001
When I read Lance Morrow's editorial, my first reaction was: I hope he volunteers to take the place of an 18-year-old. Other than that I agree with everything Opus Dark said.
posted by LAM at 7:10 AM on September 16, 2001
posted by LAM at 7:10 AM on September 16, 2001
Like cockroaches, you kill one two take its place, etc.
:::Doesn't want to go to bjgeiger's house for dinner...:::
posted by rushmc at 8:09 AM on September 16, 2001
:::Doesn't want to go to bjgeiger's house for dinner...:::
posted by rushmc at 8:09 AM on September 16, 2001
But I will be damned if yet another world-altering policy decision is going to float by me on a star-spangled chorus of jingoistic platitudes.
Well-said, Opus Dark!
posted by rushmc at 8:12 AM on September 16, 2001
Well-said, Opus Dark!
posted by rushmc at 8:12 AM on September 16, 2001
One thing that has upset me about the media is their seeming desire to work us into a frenzy. TV in particular-- they could show commentary giving us perspective and understanding into the situation and our enemy, or they could show the towers falling, people jumping and people crying over and over again-- not to mention rejoicing Arabs.
Commentary would give us cold-rage, imagery gives us hot-rage. Cold-rage allows to calculatedly plan our attack, to think through what happened and plan the most effective way to discovery the enemy, to destroy the enemy, and to rectify the situation that allowed this to happen. Hot-rage works us into a frenzy that then has nowhere to go-- we don't even know who did it, and we as a people can't get at them yet if we could. So all that rage has nowhere to go, which means it either turns to depression or gets released-- often in acts of racial violence. I'm worried.
posted by christina at 9:03 AM on September 16, 2001
Commentary would give us cold-rage, imagery gives us hot-rage. Cold-rage allows to calculatedly plan our attack, to think through what happened and plan the most effective way to discovery the enemy, to destroy the enemy, and to rectify the situation that allowed this to happen. Hot-rage works us into a frenzy that then has nowhere to go-- we don't even know who did it, and we as a people can't get at them yet if we could. So all that rage has nowhere to go, which means it either turns to depression or gets released-- often in acts of racial violence. I'm worried.
posted by christina at 9:03 AM on September 16, 2001
Opus Dark, I simply disagree that anger is "atavistic"; that the evolved mind is above rage. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think for a moment that MLK ever counselled that black Americans should lose their rage against the white majority that terrorized them: He knew how rage should be focused, and how it should be integrated in a complete mind. The fuel that kept many extraordinarily difficult campaigns in the Civil Rights movement going was often rage.
But our minds narrow in moments of crisis. If someone snatches your child and runs, you don't spend a lot of time compiling top-five music lists or wondering about the weather. You go after them. How to the collective mind correctly narrow? I don't know. Is it a dangerous process? Yes. But I've had it with the idea that our mistakes -- American policy mistakes -- make up the explicable roots of fundamentalist rage -- or that it matters now. We will narrow, in coming months and years, to tactical considerations only; not for better or worse, only worse. But there's no choice. The terrorist network that's against us has to be destroyed: physically, not by moral suasion, which is not available to us. Please make sure that all our minds are then around to clean up.
posted by argybarg at 10:27 AM on September 16, 2001
But our minds narrow in moments of crisis. If someone snatches your child and runs, you don't spend a lot of time compiling top-five music lists or wondering about the weather. You go after them. How to the collective mind correctly narrow? I don't know. Is it a dangerous process? Yes. But I've had it with the idea that our mistakes -- American policy mistakes -- make up the explicable roots of fundamentalist rage -- or that it matters now. We will narrow, in coming months and years, to tactical considerations only; not for better or worse, only worse. But there's no choice. The terrorist network that's against us has to be destroyed: physically, not by moral suasion, which is not available to us. Please make sure that all our minds are then around to clean up.
posted by argybarg at 10:27 AM on September 16, 2001
Opus Dark: While I do not agree with everything that you said, I very much admire your post. Food for thought, and one of the best-written posts I've ever seen on MeFi.
Thank you. /David
posted by davidmsc at 10:31 AM on September 16, 2001
Thank you. /David
posted by davidmsc at 10:31 AM on September 16, 2001
Just for the record, since my comment above may have been unclear, and since I usually agree with davidmsc, I strongly disagree with Opus Dark's post.
posted by mw at 11:21 AM on September 16, 2001
posted by mw at 11:21 AM on September 16, 2001
Opus Dark: Tour de force. Mind you, the boys who will shortly be flying into battle to defend the blanket of freedom under which you rise and sleep probably don't give two fucks about how cranky you get at the measures that are taken to try and ensure they get back to their wives and children in one piece.
posted by RichLyon at 2:34 PM on September 16, 2001
posted by RichLyon at 2:34 PM on September 16, 2001
One thing that has upset me about the media is their seeming desire to work us into a frenzy.
The media has a long tradition of sensational reporting geared toward drumming up support for war. See Hearst and Pulitzer's work re: the Spanish American War.
posted by rushmc at 4:32 PM on September 16, 2001
The media has a long tradition of sensational reporting geared toward drumming up support for war. See Hearst and Pulitzer's work re: the Spanish American War.
posted by rushmc at 4:32 PM on September 16, 2001
Opus Dark,
Re the barbeque sauce, all is forgiven. (I thought it was pretty funny.)
We’re in agreement on most major points, even though we’re approaching the discussion from two opposite directions. We seem to agree that the actions of these terrorists were unconscionable, it isn’t “our fault” and we didn’t “deserve it”, that we as a citizenry have an unacceptable level of ignorance about our own country’s policies, that some of those policies have been misguided, some have been wrong, some have had unintended consequences, and that the appropriate reaction to this terrorist attack may be a military response. OK, so far….
But beyond that, I think you’ve actually made my case more eloquently than I could. In your post, you devote four sentences to outrage over the senseless murder of thousands of your fellow citizens, and ten paragraphs to outrage against American foreign policy mistakes, fear of a knee-jerk military response motivated by anger, fear of a “protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy”, and the concluding paragraph expressing your fear of curtailment of your civil rights.
Note these are exactly the characteristics I noted as most common to the MeFi posts. So it’s hardly surprising that you received so many kudos on your missive. You were, in effect, preaching to the choir.
A few specific points where we disagree:
1. …incompetent leadership and an irresponsible media have encouraged us to remain uninformed and uninvolved… Bad news, Opus Dark, it’s your own damn fault. The information has always been there, you just haven’t been interested. How convenient to shift the blame to politicians and “the media”, faceless institutions that we all agree embody elements of darkness. But that issue, you own. News flash: Citizenship is work.
2. The people of this country … could have been trusted to make nearly impeccable policy decisions … Know the definition of a camel? I dare say the average international policy decision is so complex, so interwoven with social, economic, religious and political issues in wildly disparate cultural environments that the average person in this country would be paralyzed with indecision. That’s why we have representative government – in theory, we elect our best and brightest to pay attention to this stuff full time. Sure, theory doesn’t always work out right in practice. And sure, judging these complex issues in retrospect is easy (Hey, it blew up! We should have cut the blue wire…). And you know what? As bad as it is, and as often as we screw up, it’s still the best, most fair, most open and generous system in the world.
3. You can't tell us all to become red-eyed, growling, night-stalking animals, except on Sundays and only until this little jungle ride is over. Now who’s being reductionist? You seem to want to do the same thing you’ve accused the media of, to reduce this article, this thought, to a digital yes or no. We are either overwhelmed with anger to the point where we can no longer think rationally, or we’re not angry. I call bullshit. If that’s true for you, then by all means, don’t get angry. Most of the rest of us can manage to retain control of our mental faculties even when rage consumes us. It makes the revenge so much more …effective.
4. Re: “…a site-wide tendency to indulge in what you perceive to be '"corruptly thoughtful relativism"'. What I see, clearly, is a division based on one's tendency to personalize the enemy…” Yes and no. Yes, because I am personalizing it, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Do the terrorists have to kill your sister before you personalize it, Opus Dark? What does it take? I knew people who died in that bombing. I’ve been in the WTC at least 10 times in the past year, and I live in San Francisco. Fuck those assholes!!! But… no, because I disagree with your conclusion. The division isn’t between those who personalize it and those who don’t. I could name names, but reread some of the initial posts and you’ll see the pattern. There are many people who feel this as a deeply personal loss, but who want us to stop and contemplate the root causes of terrorism, and who fear the losses we may incur in military action. I stick by my observation that the majority of MeFi’ers do indeed engage in “corruptly thoughtful relativism”. I don’t think it is within my power to change that, but I can certainly call attention to it. MeFi’ers in general are pretty smart.
It may come as a surprise to you, but I agree with all your observations about our foreign policy, all your fears about war and all your concerns over our personal liberties. The difference is one of priorities.
When I look at this situation, it all boils down to this:
We have been attacked. Innocent people were killed for no reason. We need to do something about it. When your house is on fire, you get out of the house and call the fire department to put out the fire. Making lists of flammable materials in the garage or appliances that might have been left on comes later. If you stop to analyze the situation for too long, your opportunity to put out the fire is gone. Your house burns down. There is a time for measured discussion and debate, and there is a time for action. Now is the time for action.
Now… on one level, this bothers me too. But I can clearly see that there is no outcome, no decision, no argument, and no result of any analysis or debate that I might conduct that would make me change my fundamental conviction that this was evil and needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Therefore, any time that I spend on analyzing the “issues” right now is detracting from my focus on figuring out how to strike back with maximum effectiveness. The navel-gazing can happen later. Right now, we have a job to do.
“Maybe the most effective response is a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy. Maybe it isn't. I'm gonna think on it a bit, for a change, if ya don't mind.”
I certainly don't mind. Just don’t think too long…
posted by JParker at 7:11 PM on September 16, 2001
Re the barbeque sauce, all is forgiven. (I thought it was pretty funny.)
We’re in agreement on most major points, even though we’re approaching the discussion from two opposite directions. We seem to agree that the actions of these terrorists were unconscionable, it isn’t “our fault” and we didn’t “deserve it”, that we as a citizenry have an unacceptable level of ignorance about our own country’s policies, that some of those policies have been misguided, some have been wrong, some have had unintended consequences, and that the appropriate reaction to this terrorist attack may be a military response. OK, so far….
But beyond that, I think you’ve actually made my case more eloquently than I could. In your post, you devote four sentences to outrage over the senseless murder of thousands of your fellow citizens, and ten paragraphs to outrage against American foreign policy mistakes, fear of a knee-jerk military response motivated by anger, fear of a “protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy”, and the concluding paragraph expressing your fear of curtailment of your civil rights.
Note these are exactly the characteristics I noted as most common to the MeFi posts. So it’s hardly surprising that you received so many kudos on your missive. You were, in effect, preaching to the choir.
A few specific points where we disagree:
1. …incompetent leadership and an irresponsible media have encouraged us to remain uninformed and uninvolved… Bad news, Opus Dark, it’s your own damn fault. The information has always been there, you just haven’t been interested. How convenient to shift the blame to politicians and “the media”, faceless institutions that we all agree embody elements of darkness. But that issue, you own. News flash: Citizenship is work.
2. The people of this country … could have been trusted to make nearly impeccable policy decisions … Know the definition of a camel? I dare say the average international policy decision is so complex, so interwoven with social, economic, religious and political issues in wildly disparate cultural environments that the average person in this country would be paralyzed with indecision. That’s why we have representative government – in theory, we elect our best and brightest to pay attention to this stuff full time. Sure, theory doesn’t always work out right in practice. And sure, judging these complex issues in retrospect is easy (Hey, it blew up! We should have cut the blue wire…). And you know what? As bad as it is, and as often as we screw up, it’s still the best, most fair, most open and generous system in the world.
3. You can't tell us all to become red-eyed, growling, night-stalking animals, except on Sundays and only until this little jungle ride is over. Now who’s being reductionist? You seem to want to do the same thing you’ve accused the media of, to reduce this article, this thought, to a digital yes or no. We are either overwhelmed with anger to the point where we can no longer think rationally, or we’re not angry. I call bullshit. If that’s true for you, then by all means, don’t get angry. Most of the rest of us can manage to retain control of our mental faculties even when rage consumes us. It makes the revenge so much more …effective.
4. Re: “…a site-wide tendency to indulge in what you perceive to be '"corruptly thoughtful relativism"'. What I see, clearly, is a division based on one's tendency to personalize the enemy…” Yes and no. Yes, because I am personalizing it, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Do the terrorists have to kill your sister before you personalize it, Opus Dark? What does it take? I knew people who died in that bombing. I’ve been in the WTC at least 10 times in the past year, and I live in San Francisco. Fuck those assholes!!! But… no, because I disagree with your conclusion. The division isn’t between those who personalize it and those who don’t. I could name names, but reread some of the initial posts and you’ll see the pattern. There are many people who feel this as a deeply personal loss, but who want us to stop and contemplate the root causes of terrorism, and who fear the losses we may incur in military action. I stick by my observation that the majority of MeFi’ers do indeed engage in “corruptly thoughtful relativism”. I don’t think it is within my power to change that, but I can certainly call attention to it. MeFi’ers in general are pretty smart.
It may come as a surprise to you, but I agree with all your observations about our foreign policy, all your fears about war and all your concerns over our personal liberties. The difference is one of priorities.
When I look at this situation, it all boils down to this:
We have been attacked. Innocent people were killed for no reason. We need to do something about it. When your house is on fire, you get out of the house and call the fire department to put out the fire. Making lists of flammable materials in the garage or appliances that might have been left on comes later. If you stop to analyze the situation for too long, your opportunity to put out the fire is gone. Your house burns down. There is a time for measured discussion and debate, and there is a time for action. Now is the time for action.
Now… on one level, this bothers me too. But I can clearly see that there is no outcome, no decision, no argument, and no result of any analysis or debate that I might conduct that would make me change my fundamental conviction that this was evil and needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Therefore, any time that I spend on analyzing the “issues” right now is detracting from my focus on figuring out how to strike back with maximum effectiveness. The navel-gazing can happen later. Right now, we have a job to do.
“Maybe the most effective response is a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy. Maybe it isn't. I'm gonna think on it a bit, for a change, if ya don't mind.”
I certainly don't mind. Just don’t think too long…
posted by JParker at 7:11 PM on September 16, 2001
I dare say the average international policy decision is so complex, so interwoven with social, economic, religious and political issues in wildly disparate cultural environments that the average person in this country would be paralyzed with indecision. That’s why we have representative government...
Heh.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 PM on September 16, 2001
Heh.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 PM on September 16, 2001
Well, I'm OK if you want to go with the majority rule, too. Last I checked, 85% of Americans say the U.S. should take military action, 67% support military retaliation even if that means innocents die, and almost as many support military action even if that means going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible, or the loss of lives of "many thousands" of innocent civilians. An "impeccable policy decision" if ever I saw one.
posted by JParker at 8:43 PM on September 16, 2001
posted by JParker at 8:43 PM on September 16, 2001
JParker: It would be nice if there was a fire department here, but we've never allowed the UN to grow into that role, so we have to form our own bucket brigade. All well and good, but are we bringing water to this fire, or gasoline? Let's figure that out before we rush into action. If bin Laden is not the director, but simply the teacher and inspiration, then killing him will solve nothing, but instead arouse reaction that will make this last week seem like small potatoes.
How do you know what "maximum effectiveness" is before you analyze the issues? We have a policy in this country of treating other countries, especially those of non-European culture, as tools for us to use and abuse to suit our purposes of the moment. Examples are the Mexican war in the 1840s and the Philippine insurrection of a hundred years ago, and of course the cold war. We prop up the Saudi government not because it is democratic or good for its people, but because they sell us their oil. This is the direct cause of bin Laden's hatred. (And his money, which makes his hatred effective.)
We USians have not one but several jobs to do. First is to catch and punish the criminals who supported this attack, including perhaps bin Laden and his immediate entourage, but probably not limited to them. Second, defend ourselves against similar attacks while still maintaining our freedoms. Third, bring our foreign policy in line with our ideals and treat other countries and peoples with respect and dignity, and keep the hatred from spreading further than it already has.
Note what is missing from this list: fighting "a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy." The Americans of 1861 were also dealing with a split between their ideals and their reality, and were also gung-ho for war. They found it was much easier to start a war than to stop it. Maybe we can take a lesson from them and not have to suffer it all again.
posted by anewc2 at 9:33 PM on September 16, 2001
How do you know what "maximum effectiveness" is before you analyze the issues? We have a policy in this country of treating other countries, especially those of non-European culture, as tools for us to use and abuse to suit our purposes of the moment. Examples are the Mexican war in the 1840s and the Philippine insurrection of a hundred years ago, and of course the cold war. We prop up the Saudi government not because it is democratic or good for its people, but because they sell us their oil. This is the direct cause of bin Laden's hatred. (And his money, which makes his hatred effective.)
We USians have not one but several jobs to do. First is to catch and punish the criminals who supported this attack, including perhaps bin Laden and his immediate entourage, but probably not limited to them. Second, defend ourselves against similar attacks while still maintaining our freedoms. Third, bring our foreign policy in line with our ideals and treat other countries and peoples with respect and dignity, and keep the hatred from spreading further than it already has.
Note what is missing from this list: fighting "a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy." The Americans of 1861 were also dealing with a split between their ideals and their reality, and were also gung-ho for war. They found it was much easier to start a war than to stop it. Maybe we can take a lesson from them and not have to suffer it all again.
posted by anewc2 at 9:33 PM on September 16, 2001
jparker said: "Yes, because I am personalizing it, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Do the terrorists have to kill your sister before you personalize it, Opus Dark? What does it take?"
This is the difference between being one of the mindless masses, and being someone with power. We are talking about international relations, not your sister. What we need now are people like Henry Kissenger, Robert Kaplan, and Niccolo Machavelli.
Both the pacifists and the warmongers on this site illustrate how isolated the US public really is from world affairs. The world is not a nice place, and what you 'feel' is not relevent.
posted by sigsegv at 9:35 PM on September 16, 2001
This is the difference between being one of the mindless masses, and being someone with power. We are talking about international relations, not your sister. What we need now are people like Henry Kissenger, Robert Kaplan, and Niccolo Machavelli.
Both the pacifists and the warmongers on this site illustrate how isolated the US public really is from world affairs. The world is not a nice place, and what you 'feel' is not relevent.
posted by sigsegv at 9:35 PM on September 16, 2001
almost as many support military action even if that means ... the loss of lives of "many thousands" of innocent civilians.
So it's OK for us to do it to them, but not for them to do it to us. No wonder there's so many people pissed off at the US.
posted by anewc2 at 9:39 PM on September 16, 2001
So it's OK for us to do it to them, but not for them to do it to us. No wonder there's so many people pissed off at the US.
posted by anewc2 at 9:39 PM on September 16, 2001
anewc2,
How do you know what "maximum effectiveness" is before you analyze the issues?
I didn't say we shouldn't analyze the issues, I said we should prioritize. The issues that need to be analyzed now are the ones pertinent to stopping further terrorist attacks. The debates about our own culpability by virtue of international policy blunders, whether or not such a strike would be a long term solution to the problem of terrorism, and encroachment by the federales on our civil liberties are distracting, dilute our focus, and frankly, can wait.
We have a policy in this country of treating other countries ... as tools for us to use and abuse
Like I said... later.
Note what is missing from this list: fighting "a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy."
That needs to be part of the equation in deciding whether or not to strike back, who to strike, etc. Is there a way to do this surgically? I don't know, and I bet you don't either. Is there a way to get official support from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq? If so, then we're at war with OBL, not another nation. That changes the equation. I'm not ignoring it, but I think the automatic assumption that any military action is going to result in a "protracted and bloody war" reveals your own agenda.
sigsegv,
It was Opus Dark that brought his sister into this discussion, not me. And he admitted that would get him enraged, but implied that anything short of that enabled him to emotionally distance himself from the horror. Which I find disgusting.
anewc2,
In your second follow up post, I have a suggestion. Think before you post.
(1) the US citizens in those airplanes weren't terrorists, and weren't harboring terrorists. I hope that if any "innocent civilians" get killed in military action initiated by this country, they fall into one of those two categories. I am positive that our intent is not to slaughter innocent civilians. That's what makes us good guys, and them bad guys.
(2) the attacks against New York and DC were not officially declared wartime actions designed to prevent unprovoked violence. We've given OBL and Afghanistan plenty of notice, and we've been very clear on what needs to happen. We were extended no such warnings.
posted by JParker at 1:13 AM on September 17, 2001
How do you know what "maximum effectiveness" is before you analyze the issues?
I didn't say we shouldn't analyze the issues, I said we should prioritize. The issues that need to be analyzed now are the ones pertinent to stopping further terrorist attacks. The debates about our own culpability by virtue of international policy blunders, whether or not such a strike would be a long term solution to the problem of terrorism, and encroachment by the federales on our civil liberties are distracting, dilute our focus, and frankly, can wait.
We have a policy in this country of treating other countries ... as tools for us to use and abuse
Like I said... later.
Note what is missing from this list: fighting "a protracted and bloody war with an invisible enemy."
That needs to be part of the equation in deciding whether or not to strike back, who to strike, etc. Is there a way to do this surgically? I don't know, and I bet you don't either. Is there a way to get official support from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq? If so, then we're at war with OBL, not another nation. That changes the equation. I'm not ignoring it, but I think the automatic assumption that any military action is going to result in a "protracted and bloody war" reveals your own agenda.
sigsegv,
It was Opus Dark that brought his sister into this discussion, not me. And he admitted that would get him enraged, but implied that anything short of that enabled him to emotionally distance himself from the horror. Which I find disgusting.
anewc2,
In your second follow up post, I have a suggestion. Think before you post.
(1) the US citizens in those airplanes weren't terrorists, and weren't harboring terrorists. I hope that if any "innocent civilians" get killed in military action initiated by this country, they fall into one of those two categories. I am positive that our intent is not to slaughter innocent civilians. That's what makes us good guys, and them bad guys.
(2) the attacks against New York and DC were not officially declared wartime actions designed to prevent unprovoked violence. We've given OBL and Afghanistan plenty of notice, and we've been very clear on what needs to happen. We were extended no such warnings.
posted by JParker at 1:13 AM on September 17, 2001
The good news for MeFi'ers who advocate caution, delay and debate is that you now officially have France in your corner. Wait... that's not good news... didn't we already have airspace overflight issues with them in the last round of attacks against terrorists? Yeah... hey France!
posted by JParker at 2:02 AM on September 17, 2001
posted by JParker at 2:02 AM on September 17, 2001
JParker:
Way too tired to continue this...just back from a bike trip...there will be no orderly quote-and-counter...
I am painfully aware of the paternal nature of our representative system, and I am painfully aware of the inclination of "the average American" to remain as detached and uninformed as possible. While I criticize and look for causes and solutions, you merely endorse these weaknesses by reiterating them in the form of patronizing civics lessons.
You blame the student, while I blame the student and the sanitized, obfuscated, and simplified curriculum. Not out of "convenience", not out of blame-shifting, but out of the fragile hope that this horror might provide enough jolt to fundamentally change the way Americans assess and maintain their government.
"The information has always been there". Indeed. What a load of crap. Half of the information I would like to see is probably classified, and the other half is being ferreted by scholars all over the world. And the third fuckin' half has been spun out of control by the agenda du jour and the fourth half has been tacitly or actively hidden from us for years by dissembling politicians and a pandering press. I have been searching nooks and crannies for days and hours, and still can find precious little focused information. If you've got the Book of Knowledge laying around your rec room, scan it and publish it so all of us bad citizens can enjoy it. If you don't have the Book, then maybe you ought to re-evaluate what you consider to be adequate and easily obtainable information.
You have pointed out what you perceive to be a crucial imbalance in my outrage ratio. Try to get this straight. Try hard. I am sick and tired of the absurd presumption that every post about this subject must include x number of words devoted to establishing that the poster is suffering adequate outrage - outrage is a given, it is understood, it is presumed, it can be assumed, it is presupposed, it clearly exists, and every post need not ratify it over and over again to achieve acceptable credential. And any effort to quantify it, or to compare personal outrage quotients, is very nearly despicable and most assuredly insulting.
on the anger thing
If you want to nurture your anger, if you believe you must encourage a collective anger in order to sustain your own, go right ahead. Personally, I find the "call to anger" theme ludicrous - a desperate, regressive, and manipulative plea from a demented pep squad. But that's just me.
"Most of the rest of us can manage to retain control of our mental faculties even when rage consumes us."
Yes, of course - what was I thinking?
on the relativist thing
So, any judgement in this situation should not be distracted by the event and the individuals involved with the event. There is a little book somewhere titled "Responses for Dummies" which has an appropriate entry for "Terrorist Attack on the United States", and we should yield to the recommended response. Please. Anger monger Morrow is not really decrying a relativist approach as much as he is simply attempting to recast this event into an already extant mold - Pearl Harbor - and it really doesn't fit.
There is nothing wrong with analyzing this event in context.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with "Don't get mad - get even".
"Now is the time for action."
Define "action". Now, define "reaction". Now consider how carefully one should engineer the catalyst so as to be able to adequately control the consequence of its application.
"But I can clearly see that there is no outcome, no decision, no argument, and no result of any analysis or debate that I might conduct that would make me change my fundamental conviction that this was evil and needs to be stopped as soon as possible."
Well, OK, fine. So what are we blathering on about? BTW, I too would like to stop evil, and preferably ASAP.
"Therefore, any time that I spend on analyzing the "issues" right now is detracting from my focus on figuring out how to strike back with maximum effectiveness. The navel-gazing can happen later."
And there you go again - looking for a Boolean solution to a complex equation. Not just looking - instead, you are actually willing to conjure a momentarily satisfying solution without consulting the situation. If we make any regrettable errors, we'll just clean them up later. I mean, it's easy for America to clean up later, isn't it?
Since you can't be bothered with further discussion, rest assured you'll get none from me. You might note that I have gone out of my way to afford to you a measure of intellectual respect. I have not patronized you with phrases like "News flash: Citizenship is work.", nor have I questioned the depth of your anguish with questions like "Do the terrorists have to kill your sister before you personalize it, Opus Dark?", but perhaps, most importantly, I have been careful to never use the word "fear" in any of my remarks. You seem fond of injecting that word into your paraphrasings, and I mildly resent it. Where I'm from, that word is a cautiously used red flag. I think the extent to which I am free of that particular emotion would astonish you.
In reading posts subsequent to your reply to me, I detect a radio-show insensibility and an unearned arrogance. Lose those, and maybe we'll talk again sometime.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:45 AM on September 17, 2001
Way too tired to continue this...just back from a bike trip...there will be no orderly quote-and-counter...
I am painfully aware of the paternal nature of our representative system, and I am painfully aware of the inclination of "the average American" to remain as detached and uninformed as possible. While I criticize and look for causes and solutions, you merely endorse these weaknesses by reiterating them in the form of patronizing civics lessons.
You blame the student, while I blame the student and the sanitized, obfuscated, and simplified curriculum. Not out of "convenience", not out of blame-shifting, but out of the fragile hope that this horror might provide enough jolt to fundamentally change the way Americans assess and maintain their government.
"The information has always been there". Indeed. What a load of crap. Half of the information I would like to see is probably classified, and the other half is being ferreted by scholars all over the world. And the third fuckin' half has been spun out of control by the agenda du jour and the fourth half has been tacitly or actively hidden from us for years by dissembling politicians and a pandering press. I have been searching nooks and crannies for days and hours, and still can find precious little focused information. If you've got the Book of Knowledge laying around your rec room, scan it and publish it so all of us bad citizens can enjoy it. If you don't have the Book, then maybe you ought to re-evaluate what you consider to be adequate and easily obtainable information.
You have pointed out what you perceive to be a crucial imbalance in my outrage ratio. Try to get this straight. Try hard. I am sick and tired of the absurd presumption that every post about this subject must include x number of words devoted to establishing that the poster is suffering adequate outrage - outrage is a given, it is understood, it is presumed, it can be assumed, it is presupposed, it clearly exists, and every post need not ratify it over and over again to achieve acceptable credential. And any effort to quantify it, or to compare personal outrage quotients, is very nearly despicable and most assuredly insulting.
on the anger thing
If you want to nurture your anger, if you believe you must encourage a collective anger in order to sustain your own, go right ahead. Personally, I find the "call to anger" theme ludicrous - a desperate, regressive, and manipulative plea from a demented pep squad. But that's just me.
"Most of the rest of us can manage to retain control of our mental faculties even when rage consumes us."
Yes, of course - what was I thinking?
on the relativist thing
So, any judgement in this situation should not be distracted by the event and the individuals involved with the event. There is a little book somewhere titled "Responses for Dummies" which has an appropriate entry for "Terrorist Attack on the United States", and we should yield to the recommended response. Please. Anger monger Morrow is not really decrying a relativist approach as much as he is simply attempting to recast this event into an already extant mold - Pearl Harbor - and it really doesn't fit.
There is nothing wrong with analyzing this event in context.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with "Don't get mad - get even".
"Now is the time for action."
Define "action". Now, define "reaction". Now consider how carefully one should engineer the catalyst so as to be able to adequately control the consequence of its application.
"But I can clearly see that there is no outcome, no decision, no argument, and no result of any analysis or debate that I might conduct that would make me change my fundamental conviction that this was evil and needs to be stopped as soon as possible."
Well, OK, fine. So what are we blathering on about? BTW, I too would like to stop evil, and preferably ASAP.
"Therefore, any time that I spend on analyzing the "issues" right now is detracting from my focus on figuring out how to strike back with maximum effectiveness. The navel-gazing can happen later."
And there you go again - looking for a Boolean solution to a complex equation. Not just looking - instead, you are actually willing to conjure a momentarily satisfying solution without consulting the situation. If we make any regrettable errors, we'll just clean them up later. I mean, it's easy for America to clean up later, isn't it?
Since you can't be bothered with further discussion, rest assured you'll get none from me. You might note that I have gone out of my way to afford to you a measure of intellectual respect. I have not patronized you with phrases like "News flash: Citizenship is work.", nor have I questioned the depth of your anguish with questions like "Do the terrorists have to kill your sister before you personalize it, Opus Dark?", but perhaps, most importantly, I have been careful to never use the word "fear" in any of my remarks. You seem fond of injecting that word into your paraphrasings, and I mildly resent it. Where I'm from, that word is a cautiously used red flag. I think the extent to which I am free of that particular emotion would astonish you.
In reading posts subsequent to your reply to me, I detect a radio-show insensibility and an unearned arrogance. Lose those, and maybe we'll talk again sometime.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:45 AM on September 17, 2001
I am so sorry to use this to illustrate why "When your house is on fire, you get out of the house and call the fire department to put out the fire. " is such a specious and dangerous analogy to justify an intemperate response. I hope you understand. But the reason why so many New York firemen lost their lives last week was because the situation was much, much worse than all their experience, gut feel, instinctive reactions and training had led them to believe.
Those guys were experts, and got it badly wrong. We are chatroom philosophers. Tuesday's geopolitical shift doesn't represent a difference in degree. It's a difference in kind. Your assumptions may simply no longer be valid. "no argument...would make me change my fundamental conviction etc.". Absorb, analyse and opine like mad - but never discount the possibility that this may require more than all your experience leads you to believe is now the right response.
posted by RichLyon at 3:22 AM on September 17, 2001
Those guys were experts, and got it badly wrong. We are chatroom philosophers. Tuesday's geopolitical shift doesn't represent a difference in degree. It's a difference in kind. Your assumptions may simply no longer be valid. "no argument...would make me change my fundamental conviction etc.". Absorb, analyse and opine like mad - but never discount the possibility that this may require more than all your experience leads you to believe is now the right response.
posted by RichLyon at 3:22 AM on September 17, 2001
Opus Dark,
You're right about the insensibility creeping into my posts on this thread - I was noticing the same thing myself. I think it's reflective of my patience wearing thin. I appreciate your efforts to keep the tone civil, will try to reciprocate.
My comment "News flash: citizenship is work" was not meant to be insulting to you or your intellect, but it was an indictment against your facile placement of the blame on "government" and "media". That is simply not specific enough to be useful. If you had told, perhaps, of the letters you've written to Congressmen petitioning for release of information that has been withheld from you, or the hours spent lobbying for passage of bills providing public access to information, then perhaps the argument would hold water. As you point out, however, most Americans are too ...not lazy, but - perhaps - unconcerned - with the minutiae of international diplomatic agendas to make any effort larger than googling a few keywords (and even that, probably, only for information junkies like MeFi readers). I certainly fit into that category. The difference is that I do so deliberately - I don't have time to study international diplomacy - and therefore I am loath to levy generalized criticizms on our government because I haven't earned the right. Convince me that you have earned it, or else your arguments are likely to be classified as back seat driving -- easy potshots using historical retrospective, taken at people who do a very difficult job every single day.
"Responses for Dummies"? Where did that civil tone go?
Action vs. Reaction. I used the word "action" quite deliberately. It is critically important that any military strike or other action aimed at the terrorists and their support networks have a specific, defined, desired outcome. We cannot afford to react, a characterization which implies that the terrorists are in the drivers seat. We need to take the initiative. In order to do so, we need to carefully evaluate all our options, both military and non-military, and the full range of possible repercussions (reactions) by the terrorists.
When I suggest that we not waste time debating issues that don't pertain to ameliorating the terrorist threat, I'm not rendering it Boolean in nature. Actually, I think it makes it more complex, by adding another dimension to the problem -- time. By splitting the problem into two parts (which are to some extent interrelated, yes), "now" and "later", we are more likely to find a workable solution to the now problem now. Is that problematic? Yes. But the risk in NOT doing it that way is that we delay taking action, we risk paralyzing ourselves in eternal debate, and every second we delay increases the risks to our fellow citizens.
And Opus, you brought up your sister, not me. Why don't we just leave her - and the barbeque - out of it from here on?
It's painfully clear to me that my arguments aren't having any impact on your position. I don't disagree with any of the points you're trying to drive home, I just disagree with the wisdom and the necessity of hashing it all out right now. I hope you succeed in your mission to "fundamentally change the way Americans assess and maintain their government." That's a noble goal and as soon as the immediate crisis is over and we're found and delivered the best response possible, I'll join you in your quest.
posted by JParker at 3:40 AM on September 17, 2001
You're right about the insensibility creeping into my posts on this thread - I was noticing the same thing myself. I think it's reflective of my patience wearing thin. I appreciate your efforts to keep the tone civil, will try to reciprocate.
My comment "News flash: citizenship is work" was not meant to be insulting to you or your intellect, but it was an indictment against your facile placement of the blame on "government" and "media". That is simply not specific enough to be useful. If you had told, perhaps, of the letters you've written to Congressmen petitioning for release of information that has been withheld from you, or the hours spent lobbying for passage of bills providing public access to information, then perhaps the argument would hold water. As you point out, however, most Americans are too ...not lazy, but - perhaps - unconcerned - with the minutiae of international diplomatic agendas to make any effort larger than googling a few keywords (and even that, probably, only for information junkies like MeFi readers). I certainly fit into that category. The difference is that I do so deliberately - I don't have time to study international diplomacy - and therefore I am loath to levy generalized criticizms on our government because I haven't earned the right. Convince me that you have earned it, or else your arguments are likely to be classified as back seat driving -- easy potshots using historical retrospective, taken at people who do a very difficult job every single day.
"Responses for Dummies"? Where did that civil tone go?
Action vs. Reaction. I used the word "action" quite deliberately. It is critically important that any military strike or other action aimed at the terrorists and their support networks have a specific, defined, desired outcome. We cannot afford to react, a characterization which implies that the terrorists are in the drivers seat. We need to take the initiative. In order to do so, we need to carefully evaluate all our options, both military and non-military, and the full range of possible repercussions (reactions) by the terrorists.
When I suggest that we not waste time debating issues that don't pertain to ameliorating the terrorist threat, I'm not rendering it Boolean in nature. Actually, I think it makes it more complex, by adding another dimension to the problem -- time. By splitting the problem into two parts (which are to some extent interrelated, yes), "now" and "later", we are more likely to find a workable solution to the now problem now. Is that problematic? Yes. But the risk in NOT doing it that way is that we delay taking action, we risk paralyzing ourselves in eternal debate, and every second we delay increases the risks to our fellow citizens.
And Opus, you brought up your sister, not me. Why don't we just leave her - and the barbeque - out of it from here on?
It's painfully clear to me that my arguments aren't having any impact on your position. I don't disagree with any of the points you're trying to drive home, I just disagree with the wisdom and the necessity of hashing it all out right now. I hope you succeed in your mission to "fundamentally change the way Americans assess and maintain their government." That's a noble goal and as soon as the immediate crisis is over and we're found and delivered the best response possible, I'll join you in your quest.
posted by JParker at 3:40 AM on September 17, 2001
(bites at last) That's a relief - (s)he was using "safe and happy fuckwit " in its "earned arrogance" mode. I always get the two mixed up.
posted by RichLyon at 3:45 AM on September 17, 2001
posted by RichLyon at 3:45 AM on September 17, 2001
Rich, you're right, the house on fire was a bad example. My point was simply that there is a need for immediate action. Not "intemperate" action, but swift action. I am very concerned by reports such as "Between 30 and 50 Islamic Zealots Believed Standing by to Strike US Strategic Targets." If we delay our response by a week, does that become 100? Does a month make it 500? Not making a choice is, in itself, a choice, and as much as I am in agreement with you that I don't know the best course of action, I am 100% confident that sitting on our hands and waiting for the next set of planes to go down is the worst possible choice.
posted by JParker at 3:48 AM on September 17, 2001
posted by JParker at 3:48 AM on September 17, 2001
The debates about our own culpability by virtue of international policy blunders, whether or not such a strike would be a long term solution to the problem of terrorism, and encroachment by the federales on our civil liberties are distracting, dilute our focus, and frankly, can wait.
Wait for how long? I and others were raising these same questions thirty years ago during the Vietnam War. You may be sincere that we will get to them later, but I'm telling you from bitter experience that later is never going to come. We can and should take emergency measures to deal with the immediate threat. But the long term starts today. We are not even clear yet on who, and nobody in the government even seems to care about why. But if we don't know why then how can we prevent it from happening again? The longer we wait to figure out why, the more people will die.
I think the automatic assumption that any military action is going to result in a "protracted and bloody war" reveals your own agenda.
I would say it reveals my experience and observation, but if you are curious about my agenda, here it is: I want to break the cycle of violence, not continue it.
Think before you post.
Good advice for both of us. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can be a terrorist and an innocent civilian at the same time?
The harboring of terrorists is a more delicate matter. Were the people of Montana harboring a terrorist when the Unabomber lived there? If bin Laden moves into town, does that strip the hapless residents of their innocence? So we give them notice. We only kill the very old, the very young, the infirm, who cannot move. The healthy, mobile ones we turn out into the cold mountain winter. This is not a recipe for eliminating terrorists. This is a recipe for creating more of them. We will long for the days when we only lost 5000 at a time.
I am positive that our intent is not to slaughter innocent civilians.
Be happy in your certainty, but I cannot share it. What I hear from my fellow citizens is blood lust. "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out." I've heard it before. It was ugly then, and it is ugly now. At the beginning of a war it is easy to talk about good guys and bad guys. At the end, there are no good guys.
posted by anewc2 at 4:32 AM on September 17, 2001
RichLyon
Well of course that was "earned arrogance" mode RichLyon. Geez, do I have to label everything? :) :)
Anyway, I meant arrogance as it is applied to fellow Mefiers. Off-worlders may be trashed at random.
posted by Opus Dark at 4:45 AM on September 17, 2001
Well of course that was "earned arrogance" mode RichLyon. Geez, do I have to label everything? :) :)
Anyway, I meant arrogance as it is applied to fellow Mefiers. Off-worlders may be trashed at random.
posted by Opus Dark at 4:45 AM on September 17, 2001
Peace, JParker
You know, throughout MetaFilter, there really isn't much substantive debate going on. Really, most of it is just a clash of attitude, of approach, of the timing and degree of introspection. Basically all I've said is "Pay attention, ride herd, let history inform any decision, and do better in the future", and all you've said is "Yeah, Ok, but not right now".
Hardly a jaw-breaking exchange.
If I'm lucky, I can get 4 hours - if I go in at 11:00 - I'm gone.
May we have received the last ever postcard from hell.
posted by Opus Dark at 4:47 AM on September 17, 2001
You know, throughout MetaFilter, there really isn't much substantive debate going on. Really, most of it is just a clash of attitude, of approach, of the timing and degree of introspection. Basically all I've said is "Pay attention, ride herd, let history inform any decision, and do better in the future", and all you've said is "Yeah, Ok, but not right now".
Hardly a jaw-breaking exchange.
If I'm lucky, I can get 4 hours - if I go in at 11:00 - I'm gone.
May we have received the last ever postcard from hell.
posted by Opus Dark at 4:47 AM on September 17, 2001
I don't understand how private citizens (I presume), discussing larger issues, interfere with the immediate effort to root out any remaining terrorist cells. As citizens of a free country it is our right and our duty to thrash these issues out in our own heads, and advise our leaders what we think and what we will support. What else is democracy for?
I don't think we should hold off on fighting terrorism on our own soil. I think we should hold off on rash action against an ill-defined enemy, that will make all of Islam our enemy.
posted by anewc2 at 4:56 AM on September 17, 2001
I don't think we should hold off on fighting terrorism on our own soil. I think we should hold off on rash action against an ill-defined enemy, that will make all of Islam our enemy.
posted by anewc2 at 4:56 AM on September 17, 2001
And peace to you Opus Dark!
Sorry to keep you up so late :)
But I am pleased that you and others care enough to devote your precious sleep time to debating issues.
To you and anewc2, don't fall prey to the idea that what we say here doesn't matter. My opinions are shaped in part through intelligent discourse and reasoned debate, and I am sure that what is said here influences others in some fashion. And most of these people, myself included, vote.
anewc2, there is no inherent harm is discussing larger issues, and that's not the objection. The objection is against calls to hold off on taking action until we get those issues resolved. And there is a risk, namely that worries and concerns -- by the general public, which get picked up by the media, and by our nation's leaders - about the resolution of those larger issues will muddy the waters, weaken our resolve, delay any action. And that could, and probably will, cost lives.
posted by JParker at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2001
Sorry to keep you up so late :)
But I am pleased that you and others care enough to devote your precious sleep time to debating issues.
To you and anewc2, don't fall prey to the idea that what we say here doesn't matter. My opinions are shaped in part through intelligent discourse and reasoned debate, and I am sure that what is said here influences others in some fashion. And most of these people, myself included, vote.
anewc2, there is no inherent harm is discussing larger issues, and that's not the objection. The objection is against calls to hold off on taking action until we get those issues resolved. And there is a risk, namely that worries and concerns -- by the general public, which get picked up by the media, and by our nation's leaders - about the resolution of those larger issues will muddy the waters, weaken our resolve, delay any action. And that could, and probably will, cost lives.
posted by JParker at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2001
Is anyone else here disturbed by the cowboy images? Bush has said we will "whip" 'em good, we will "smoke them out of their holes", and now, he is Wanted: "Dead or Alive".
Appropriate response or not, the good ol' boy mentality is abounding...
posted by adampsyche at 1:46 PM on September 17, 2001
Appropriate response or not, the good ol' boy mentality is abounding...
posted by adampsyche at 1:46 PM on September 17, 2001
Yes, adampsyche, I too am scared by that damned cowboy in the White House. Even more by his script writers. Their experience was with the Gulf War, a surgical war if ever there was one. There, we faced a force whose main concern was looting civilians, and hightailing their sorry asses out of there before the real soldiers showed up. That's not what we face now -- not the open desert terrain, not the quality of soldier.
JParker, I am not saying hold off on all action. Rooting out terrorist cells is one thing. Invading Afghanistan is something else again. One superpower tried that already, and where are they now?
We are supposed to communicate our worries and concerns to our leaders. That is what democracy is all about. It's more than just voting. It's thinking, too. And talking. If action in Vietnam had been indefinitely delayed, lives would have been saved, not lost. Dissent was not weakness. Our weakness was the simplistic cold war mentality that held our leaders in thrall. Dissent from that was our strength.
posted by anewc2 at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2001
JParker, I am not saying hold off on all action. Rooting out terrorist cells is one thing. Invading Afghanistan is something else again. One superpower tried that already, and where are they now?
We are supposed to communicate our worries and concerns to our leaders. That is what democracy is all about. It's more than just voting. It's thinking, too. And talking. If action in Vietnam had been indefinitely delayed, lives would have been saved, not lost. Dissent was not weakness. Our weakness was the simplistic cold war mentality that held our leaders in thrall. Dissent from that was our strength.
posted by anewc2 at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2001
don't fall prey to the idea that what we say here doesn't matter
If I thought it didn't matter, there would be no point to saying it.
posted by anewc2 at 3:08 PM on September 17, 2001
If I thought it didn't matter, there would be no point to saying it.
posted by anewc2 at 3:08 PM on September 17, 2001
« Older What Became of Tolerance in Islam? | Suspicious Trades? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pracowity at 12:40 AM on September 16, 2001