Sunday July 16th, 2006Previous Entry | Archive Index | Current Blog | Next Entry
Unbreakable Spirit of Citizens What's important to consider here is that this is about way more than 200 deaths. Nearby hospitals couldn't deal with all of the injured-- which means they had to turn away other people as well, people who would have need help even if there had not been an attack. The trains went down for a significant period of time, severely impacting commerce and the day-to-day lives if Bombay's citizens. And what tensions might have existed for any resident Muslims are now only acerbated by this.
Governments are too busy moving oil around to deal with terrorists. Business is too busy moving governments around to deal with terrorists. It's time for citizens, who are not subject to the political language of border treaties, everyday citizens, to join together and say in a loud voice and say "You can never kill all of us." It's time? Actually, I think it's being going on for a long time. Let's keep it up.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Not much, but there's bits and pieces. Like Ann Coulter, Savage lumps everyone who does not agree with him under the banner "liberal," and furthermore, anyone who agrees with one thing any given liberal might believe is, himself, a complete liberal. Are you prolife, pro death penalty, against taxing the rich, and feel maybe we should look into the Iraq war a little more closely? You’re a darn liberal, and you're insane. I love the way these self-described polemicists so easily contradict themselves. I love the way they toss around observations as if they are facts, and as if such facts actual make a cohesive argument. At the beginning of one chapter, Savage points says that if Muslims are not fanatics, how come none of them, not any, have gotten up to apologize on behalf of the ones who participated in every terrorist act of this century? Then he tries to undermine you're citing Timothy McVeigh, since McVeigh was a self-avowed agnostic, and not Christian. I don't see how this makes him Muslim, but Savage seems to thing this fits. Later in the same chapter, he quotes more than one prominent Muslim leader in their apologies for the misguided attacks by fanatics-- and says that these apologies are just not enough, in fact, they are so weak, they might as well be attacks themselves. Savage refers to himself in the book a few times as "Dr. Savage," and he does, in fact, have a PhD-- in biology. He makes homilies out of memories about growing up with Mama Savage-- even though his born name is Weiner. He likes to insult his listeners and readers, telling them to turn their ballcaps back around, switch off the sports entertainment, and pay attention. The best is when he tells them to switch off the news media as well, and listen only to his radio show, and his website. All told, this book has the same status, for me, as Ann Coulter's book. A clown talking to clowns. But, whereas I felt Ann would scare some conservatives over to the left, since she's basically a Nazi in Italian leather, I don't think this will happen as much with Savage, since there's not enough there to get freaked out by. I'm glad I read the book, because I know a little better what I'm up against when the blowhards get to hardblowing. Too bad I can't use the bulk of their own words against them, as you can't fight fog with fog.
You Can't Fight City Hall, So Sue It
Do you want to compare and contrast this situation with the whole NYT revealing our money-chasing scheme to catch terrorists? The New York Times reports on something a tenth grade world-politics student could have figured out, and neo-cons are demanding the editors be tried for treason. But they run this story, and all the neocons can say is: "Ridiculous." Bill O'Reilly himself called it "Ridiculous." Good ol' Bill, always one to make his arguments based on the merits of fact, and not a gut reaction. It doesn’t matter if the NYT was within their rights to report these things, or if what they reported was correct. The point is that these two stories have the same political structure-- reporting on things that came from special sources. The left complains about neither. The right complains about just one of them. That's the definition of hypocrisy. Is anyone complaining about both? I want to meet him. He might have an interesting perspective on other events as well.
How Am I Supposed to Foam at the Mouth If I Don't Know What's Going On?
Hezbollah So when you hear that that there's fighting in the Mid-East, Muslims may be involved. And when they tell you it's Muslims, it might be Shi'ites. And when they tell you Shi'ites, they may be Palestinians. And when they tell you Palestinians, it might be Hezbollah. The point is, as you move from the general to the specific, you are getting further and further away from the rhetoric that neocon pundits use, in this country, to vilify Muslims. So pay attention. Don't let a wishy-washy media give you vague language, and don't let commentators from either side use synecdoche as an excuse to mislead you.
Stay Tuned
|
This is the nature of terrorism-- it is war against civilians. This is key. And with increasing access to communication (i.e. the internet, but also enhanced telephone networks, cell phones, 24-hour news coverage), the job of a terrorist is that much easier. Am I suggesting we revert to a pre-WWII era? Of course not. I am suggesting we use these same methods of communication to terrorize the terrorists. We should counter every terrorist attack with facts and figures of productivity. Bombay's trains are running again, the hospitals are functioning again, and aside from the murder of 200 people, the terrorists final message is nothing more than "we will inconvenience you for our cause." We should compare the cost of terrorism with the production of survival. After all, terrorists are rarely able to exercise their war on a daily basis. But human life, and human perseverance, is an everyday occurrence.
It will be difficult for me to tell you much about Michael Savage's book, even though I finished it only a few days ago, since the guy didn't really say much. I had a friend once who said I had a gift for being able to say very little, and to do so for several pages at a time. Heck, maybe I should write a book, if this is all it takes. After wading through tens of thousands of words that don't seem to have much of a point, I hesitate to even call it mere "rhetoric." Rhetoric is a kind of style, and one can even enjoy the style while disagreeing with the message. There's not much to Michael Savage to disagree with.
Valeria Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson are bringing a civil suit against Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Lewis "Scapegoat" Libby, since special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is not going to pursue charges against any of them... except Libby (pictured, right), of course. For those who need to catch up-- Wilson went to Niger to see if Saddam was buying materials for WMDs there. He says he didn't find any evidence of that, and when Bush et al said he was wrong, he wrote an op-ed piece. Allegedly, Rove got revenge by outing Wilson's wife as a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. Sounds like the plot for a great movie starring Sandra Bullock and Bradley Whitford.
Laugh at me and my ignorance, but the world is my classroom and Wikipedia is my text book. Watched Syriana, a movie about Big Oil, and now I recognize the word Hezbollah when I hear it. Good timing, as Israel is still doing the heavy duty fighting in Gaza against Hezbollah guerillas. I don't think I would be very remiss in comparing Hezbollah to the IRA, or if you prefer, the Sinn Féin. Then again, by doing so, I bet I have made people from each very angry. Suffice it to say that the Hezbollah control parts of Lebanon, specifically in Beirut, and are considered a terrorist organization by some governments, and not considered so by others.