Why We Fight.
April 10, 2002 7:22 AM Subscribe
Why We Fight. In case you'd forgotten, William Bennett is here to remind you.
so Jimmy Carter is anti american? i say we string him up!
posted by zoopraxiscope at 7:45 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by zoopraxiscope at 7:45 AM on April 10, 2002
We have forgotten why America is, in Lincoln's words, the last, best hope of earth.
Patriotism is not a virtue, and the union is not sacred. Bam! Of course, if you spend your entire life worshipping American historical mythology, you probably disagree with me.
I think Americans know what we are fighting against and that it is good to fight against terrorism. I am not sure they know what we're fighting for or why we are right to fight.
I don't know what we are fighting, or why. I used to consider myself fairly knowledgable about politics. Guess I was wrong.
What we are seeing — both with pacifism and relativism — is really, as Michael Kelly has pointed out, nothing more than anti-Americanism:
Anti-war is pro-America, thank you very much. And to label all anti-war sentiments as literally immoral(relativistic) is an unfair, dishonest cheap shot. Never expected him to do that. Yes, retaliatory military strikes are moral! Didn't you read your Bible kids, "do unto others", no that won't work. How about "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord," oh, I guess that won't work either. I wonder if Bennett has actually read the New Testament of his Bible, one would hope he has since he can claim with such certainty that America is the best, most moral hope for the world.
I think that if children know the truth about America and her noble history, they will be behind the war.
Now THAT's a lie. If they had read George Washington's Farewell Address (one of my favorites), he warns against permanent military alliances, and Thomas Jefferson does the same thing when he warned against the dangerous entangling alliances and colonial, imperial gamemanship Europe played. It didn't take our nation very long to forget those lessons, however.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:49 AM on April 10, 2002
Patriotism is not a virtue, and the union is not sacred. Bam! Of course, if you spend your entire life worshipping American historical mythology, you probably disagree with me.
I think Americans know what we are fighting against and that it is good to fight against terrorism. I am not sure they know what we're fighting for or why we are right to fight.
I don't know what we are fighting, or why. I used to consider myself fairly knowledgable about politics. Guess I was wrong.
What we are seeing — both with pacifism and relativism — is really, as Michael Kelly has pointed out, nothing more than anti-Americanism:
Anti-war is pro-America, thank you very much. And to label all anti-war sentiments as literally immoral(relativistic) is an unfair, dishonest cheap shot. Never expected him to do that. Yes, retaliatory military strikes are moral! Didn't you read your Bible kids, "do unto others", no that won't work. How about "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord," oh, I guess that won't work either. I wonder if Bennett has actually read the New Testament of his Bible, one would hope he has since he can claim with such certainty that America is the best, most moral hope for the world.
I think that if children know the truth about America and her noble history, they will be behind the war.
Now THAT's a lie. If they had read George Washington's Farewell Address (one of my favorites), he warns against permanent military alliances, and Thomas Jefferson does the same thing when he warned against the dangerous entangling alliances and colonial, imperial gamemanship Europe played. It didn't take our nation very long to forget those lessons, however.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:49 AM on April 10, 2002
All y'all haters can go to hell.
Ty Webb: And don't forget the prerequisite assertions of unpatriotism on the part of those who disagree with him:
"What we are seeing — both with pacifism and relativism — is really...nothing more than anti-Americanism: The objection is to using American force; the objection is to exporting American values."
Pacifism = America should get its nonviolent ass kicked until it dies from it = Anti-American, Anti-Civilization, Immoral.
Relativism = The poor little Islamists are frustrated and have a right to lash out this way, but we shouldn't really fight back. = Anti-American, Irresponsible, Irrational-Guilt Bullshit.
insomnyuk: I don't know what we are fighting, or why.
Militant Islamist radicals and the governments that support them. SIM-PLE. They will not live peacefully with us. They want to destroy us, so we are defending ourselves. (We = modern civilization.)
I used to consider myself fairly knowledgable about politics. Guess I was wrong.
I could've told you that.
Is it actually necessary to explain the difference between a war protester and a pacifist? A war protester protests a war. A pacifist protests all war. The former is A-OK, the latter is wack.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:32 AM on April 10, 2002
Ty Webb: And don't forget the prerequisite assertions of unpatriotism on the part of those who disagree with him:
"What we are seeing — both with pacifism and relativism — is really...nothing more than anti-Americanism: The objection is to using American force; the objection is to exporting American values."
Pacifism = America should get its nonviolent ass kicked until it dies from it = Anti-American, Anti-Civilization, Immoral.
Relativism = The poor little Islamists are frustrated and have a right to lash out this way, but we shouldn't really fight back. = Anti-American, Irresponsible, Irrational-Guilt Bullshit.
insomnyuk: I don't know what we are fighting, or why.
Militant Islamist radicals and the governments that support them. SIM-PLE. They will not live peacefully with us. They want to destroy us, so we are defending ourselves. (We = modern civilization.)
I used to consider myself fairly knowledgable about politics. Guess I was wrong.
I could've told you that.
Is it actually necessary to explain the difference between a war protester and a pacifist? A war protester protests a war. A pacifist protests all war. The former is A-OK, the latter is wack.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:32 AM on April 10, 2002
relativism is bad. unless we're relativizing the "thou shalt not kill" precept.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 8:42 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by zoopraxiscope at 8:42 AM on April 10, 2002
I can't believe the lengths to which mainstream Republicans are painting pacifism or any other form of dissent as treason.
Bennett: "What we are seeing -- both with pacifism and relativism -- is really, as Michael Kelly has pointed out, nothing more than anti-Americanism."
Ashcroft: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
Ari Fleischer, in response to a comment by Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect: "It’s a terrible thing to say, and it’s unfortunate. These are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
It's as if these people never spent a minute of their lives studying how patriotism is used by despotic leaders to squelch dissent and increase their control. (Or the opposite: They studied it thoroughly and took good notes.)
posted by rcade at 8:46 AM on April 10, 2002
Bennett: "What we are seeing -- both with pacifism and relativism -- is really, as Michael Kelly has pointed out, nothing more than anti-Americanism."
Ashcroft: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
Ari Fleischer, in response to a comment by Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect: "It’s a terrible thing to say, and it’s unfortunate. These are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
It's as if these people never spent a minute of their lives studying how patriotism is used by despotic leaders to squelch dissent and increase their control. (Or the opposite: They studied it thoroughly and took good notes.)
posted by rcade at 8:46 AM on April 10, 2002
Technollogic, Harry Browne said it better than I ever could have:
"The fact that bin Laden uses bad means to achieve his ends doesn't excuse our own government's mistakes – nor does it justify our government doing the same things he does." -Oct. 5, 2001
oh, and
"When will we learn that violence only begets violence?" -Sept. 11, 2001
Is it actually necessary to explain the difference between a war protester and a pacifist? A war protester protests a war. A pacifist protests all war. -technollogic
Yes, it is necessary to explain it to Bill Bennett, who apparently lumps all anti-war sentiment into the realm of pacifism (an ideal not held by most Americans).
posted by insomnyuk at 8:55 AM on April 10, 2002
"The fact that bin Laden uses bad means to achieve his ends doesn't excuse our own government's mistakes – nor does it justify our government doing the same things he does." -Oct. 5, 2001
oh, and
"When will we learn that violence only begets violence?" -Sept. 11, 2001
Is it actually necessary to explain the difference between a war protester and a pacifist? A war protester protests a war. A pacifist protests all war. -technollogic
Yes, it is necessary to explain it to Bill Bennett, who apparently lumps all anti-war sentiment into the realm of pacifism (an ideal not held by most Americans).
posted by insomnyuk at 8:55 AM on April 10, 2002
A war protester protests a war. A pacifist protests all war. The former is A-OK, the latter is wack.
On the second point, I'll presume you mean "wack" to mean "pacifism would be nice, but unworkable unless everyone is a pacifist." Much like neo-conservative visions of Libertopia, or, for example, the nationalist, American-supremacist viewpoint that leads to the bandying about of the term "anti-American" in the first place.
And on the first, chalk me up as a war protester then. I'd be a pacifist but I'm a realist first - we must take measures to ensure our civilian population is not attacked on our soil. However, there's a measurable distance between prudent and reasonable military means to assure our internal security, and the external projection of military force used to fulfill some national revenge fantasy, and to further a questionably moral foreign policy. Let's face it, we wouldn't give a flip about the Middle East, and the Middle East wouldn't be full of the money that's used to fund terrorist action on American soil, if our economy wasn't so enamored with oil-based energy.
To say that September 11 gives us the right to storm across the Middle East at "war", installing pro-American governments in the name of ending terrorism, and to say that anyone who thinks differently is at best "anti-American" and at worst a "traitor", strikes me as rather, shall we say, SIM-PLE.
posted by Vetinari at 9:20 AM on April 10, 2002
On the second point, I'll presume you mean "wack" to mean "pacifism would be nice, but unworkable unless everyone is a pacifist." Much like neo-conservative visions of Libertopia, or, for example, the nationalist, American-supremacist viewpoint that leads to the bandying about of the term "anti-American" in the first place.
And on the first, chalk me up as a war protester then. I'd be a pacifist but I'm a realist first - we must take measures to ensure our civilian population is not attacked on our soil. However, there's a measurable distance between prudent and reasonable military means to assure our internal security, and the external projection of military force used to fulfill some national revenge fantasy, and to further a questionably moral foreign policy. Let's face it, we wouldn't give a flip about the Middle East, and the Middle East wouldn't be full of the money that's used to fund terrorist action on American soil, if our economy wasn't so enamored with oil-based energy.
To say that September 11 gives us the right to storm across the Middle East at "war", installing pro-American governments in the name of ending terrorism, and to say that anyone who thinks differently is at best "anti-American" and at worst a "traitor", strikes me as rather, shall we say, SIM-PLE.
posted by Vetinari at 9:20 AM on April 10, 2002
Bennett really holds his own against such probing inquiries as "Is there some kind of mantra we can teach schoolchildren?" (mine was "Shari likes Jaaa-cob!" which makes up in lyricism what it lacks in jingoism) and "How's President Bush's moral clarity?"
Moral clarity? I hope that's his dog.
posted by Skot at 9:35 AM on April 10, 2002
Moral clarity? I hope that's his dog.
posted by Skot at 9:35 AM on April 10, 2002
It would seem to me that the most important part of all these equations is the accuracy of our governments representation of itself.
Out government has quite a spotty history of being truthfull in these matters.
That is what makes me cringe when anyone says "We," as in We have the right to fight or We ought to fight. "We" have a Tyler Durden alter ego. Our government kills and oppresses people far and wide, unknown to us and unanswerable to us.
Our government and its supporters are now also trying to marginalize the need to not kill people who don't deserve it by calling it unamerican (== morally wrong) and relativistic (== evil evil evil.)
Well, you know what? I do not think that the USA has made the world a better place. What it has done is contributed to the nationalistic, warlike world that we now see. "We" came here, killed most of the Native Americans, bought enslaved Africans, enslaved poor whites, violently surpressed hundreds of popular revolutions, assisted in union breaking... etc. "We" a plutocracy that selects a lot of people with borderline personality disorder to run the country which dominates the world. We have a shitty healthcare system, we are destroying the ecology of one of the most beatiful areas of the planet post-haste, we don't take care of the elderly, etc. Yet we bully every other nation on the planet. And when one of our buildings get bombed we start a permanent war-machine going and start talking about how to get all these dissenters in line. This is the awful repugnant beginning of the end for a Nation that is only great if you define great as dangerous.
posted by n9 at 9:54 AM on April 10, 2002
Out government has quite a spotty history of being truthfull in these matters.
That is what makes me cringe when anyone says "We," as in We have the right to fight or We ought to fight. "We" have a Tyler Durden alter ego. Our government kills and oppresses people far and wide, unknown to us and unanswerable to us.
Our government and its supporters are now also trying to marginalize the need to not kill people who don't deserve it by calling it unamerican (== morally wrong) and relativistic (== evil evil evil.)
Well, you know what? I do not think that the USA has made the world a better place. What it has done is contributed to the nationalistic, warlike world that we now see. "We" came here, killed most of the Native Americans, bought enslaved Africans, enslaved poor whites, violently surpressed hundreds of popular revolutions, assisted in union breaking... etc. "We" a plutocracy that selects a lot of people with borderline personality disorder to run the country which dominates the world. We have a shitty healthcare system, we are destroying the ecology of one of the most beatiful areas of the planet post-haste, we don't take care of the elderly, etc. Yet we bully every other nation on the planet. And when one of our buildings get bombed we start a permanent war-machine going and start talking about how to get all these dissenters in line. This is the awful repugnant beginning of the end for a Nation that is only great if you define great as dangerous.
posted by n9 at 9:54 AM on April 10, 2002
(phew) sorry. That article just got me all fired up. What a maroon.
posted by n9 at 9:58 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by n9 at 9:58 AM on April 10, 2002
We have a shitty healthcare system, we are destroying the ecology of one of the most beatiful areas of the planet post-haste, we don't take care of the elderly, etc.
Name a better health care system than ours, even with all of its flaws and the number of people who have no coverage. Personally, as much as I'd like to see universal health care, if it means turning a trip to the doctor into an experience comparable to a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles, I'll pass.
posted by rcade at 10:16 AM on April 10, 2002
Name a better health care system than ours, even with all of its flaws and the number of people who have no coverage. Personally, as much as I'd like to see universal health care, if it means turning a trip to the doctor into an experience comparable to a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles, I'll pass.
posted by rcade at 10:16 AM on April 10, 2002
Um, rcade... if you don't have health benefits for your job a majority of the Western countries have far better systems. I recently suffered a healthcare 'lapse' because of a paperwork problem and in NYC I couldn't find coverage for me and my wife for less than $338/mo. Most companies _don't_ offer single pay coverage in NYC.
And to answer your question the way you meant it: Finland, Sweeden, France, Canada. And, on top of that -- when is the last time you went to an ER? It is exactly like a DMV visit. I went bleeding profusely and sat for 11 hours.
But I don't want to derail the thread because you disagreed with one of many things wrong with the US.
posted by n9 at 10:52 AM on April 10, 2002
And to answer your question the way you meant it: Finland, Sweeden, France, Canada. And, on top of that -- when is the last time you went to an ER? It is exactly like a DMV visit. I went bleeding profusely and sat for 11 hours.
But I don't want to derail the thread because you disagreed with one of many things wrong with the US.
posted by n9 at 10:52 AM on April 10, 2002
I'm self-employed and paying out the gills for healthcare coverage and I spent several years in "can't afford to get sick" mode -- I understand the flaws. However, based on what I've heard of Canadian health care, if the U.S. ever switches to a system like that, on the day before it begins I am throwing my fully-covered self in front of a bus.
posted by rcade at 11:00 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by rcade at 11:00 AM on April 10, 2002
Like Bush, Bennett comes across as pretty reasonable in general but, also like Bush, is actually quite out of touch with reality. He's chair of the group Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT):
Our committee will model itself on organizations such as the former Committee on the Present Danger and the Committee for a Free World. AVOT will:
educate the public about the nature and threat of terrorist organizations and states;
educate the public about the nature and threat of radical Islamism;
help articulate American ideals in schools and on campuses;
support democratic patriotism when it is questioned; and
take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing.
It all sounds good on paper, but they wouldn't exactly come out and say that they are going to form a lynch mob and go house to house searching for "terrorist sympathizers" who want to undermine democracy by daring to be critical of the current administration.
posted by euphorb at 11:17 AM on April 10, 2002
Our committee will model itself on organizations such as the former Committee on the Present Danger and the Committee for a Free World. AVOT will:
It all sounds good on paper, but they wouldn't exactly come out and say that they are going to form a lynch mob and go house to house searching for "terrorist sympathizers" who want to undermine democracy by daring to be critical of the current administration.
posted by euphorb at 11:17 AM on April 10, 2002
"Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask me why I fight."
posted by euphorb at 11:27 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by euphorb at 11:27 AM on April 10, 2002
euhporb, are you saying america should wage war endlessly regardless of the ends (or regardless of whether there are any ends at all) or are you trying to typify some sort of stereotypical conservative attitude of shut up and shoot?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:46 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by mcsweetie at 11:46 AM on April 10, 2002
Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do
I think this guy should stop watching Robin Williams movies and have a look around inner city Detroit some time. Or the lovely suburbs of Houston. Or maybe he could tell that to the two million people in prison in the U.S. Or to the people who bowl alone.
posted by dydecker at 11:52 AM on April 10, 2002
I think this guy should stop watching Robin Williams movies and have a look around inner city Detroit some time. Or the lovely suburbs of Houston. Or maybe he could tell that to the two million people in prison in the U.S. Or to the people who bowl alone.
posted by dydecker at 11:52 AM on April 10, 2002
...or the people who's houses got blown up by bombs made in or by the US. I say houses, cuz all the people who are dead because of the influence and action of the US are hard to ask anything of.
posted by n9 at 12:15 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by n9 at 12:15 PM on April 10, 2002
me, i'm a relativistic pacifist. I believe that it's fine for everyone else to fight as long as I don't have to. ; )
posted by boltman at 12:47 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by boltman at 12:47 PM on April 10, 2002
oh, and i can't resist pointing out that according to the World Health Organization there are 36 countries in the world with better health care systems than the United States. We are ranked slightly below Costa Rica.
posted by boltman at 12:53 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by boltman at 12:53 PM on April 10, 2002
zoopraxiscope: relativism is bad. unless we're relativizing the "thou shalt not kill" precept.
What precept is that? I've not seen it before.
posted by dwivian at 1:01 PM on April 10, 2002
What precept is that? I've not seen it before.
posted by dwivian at 1:01 PM on April 10, 2002
boltman: you should have resisted. The article goes on to explain why WHO weighs several factors higher than the actual health care portion (such as "fairness", which is an unfair measure [hah!] and finacial accessability).
posted by dwivian at 1:04 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by dwivian at 1:04 PM on April 10, 2002
um, dwivian, don't worry: If we were looking at health care quality by demographic group worldwide, I'm sure that Rich Americans would win the race.
posted by n9 at 1:19 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by n9 at 1:19 PM on April 10, 2002
euhporb, are you saying america should wage war endlessly regardless of the ends...
I just liked the quote and thought I'd share. You are welcome to read into it any thing you want whether it's a critique of social darwinism, or an endorsement of Magic: The Gathering. But your ideas of an endless war intrigue me.
posted by euphorb at 1:25 PM on April 10, 2002
I just liked the quote and thought I'd share. You are welcome to read into it any thing you want whether it's a critique of social darwinism, or an endorsement of Magic: The Gathering. But your ideas of an endless war intrigue me.
posted by euphorb at 1:25 PM on April 10, 2002
Patriotism is not a virtue, and the union is not sacred. Bam! Of course, if you spend your entire life worshipping American historical mythology, you probably disagree with me.
I disagree, it depends on how one defines patriotism. I have never been ashamed of my country; I have often been ashamed of my government. Many often fail to make this distinction. It pisses me off to no end hearing a professional blowhard like Bennett equating dissent with anti-Americanism, but i understand why he does it: his arguments don't stand on the merits, so he has to attack the motives of those who disagree with him. This tactic is certainly known and used by other political persuasions, but it seems to be the peculiar habit of the right to attack their opponents' patriotism.
Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do
dydecker: I think this guy should stop watching Robin Williams movies and have a look around inner city Detroit some time. Or the lovely suburbs of Houston.
The preceding quote was from Moynihan, you knew that right? And I completely agree with it. The suburbs of Houston? What, you're complaining because all they have are chain stores? Jesus, how about the suburbs of Manila, or Calcutta? Get a grip.
While I don't think the U.S. has any right to impose its will with impunity around the world, i do think that our model of representative government, rule of law, etc. is the great hope of civilization. True, the U.S. may often not live up to its own creed, but that doesn't discredit that creed.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:29 PM on April 10, 2002
I disagree, it depends on how one defines patriotism. I have never been ashamed of my country; I have often been ashamed of my government. Many often fail to make this distinction. It pisses me off to no end hearing a professional blowhard like Bennett equating dissent with anti-Americanism, but i understand why he does it: his arguments don't stand on the merits, so he has to attack the motives of those who disagree with him. This tactic is certainly known and used by other political persuasions, but it seems to be the peculiar habit of the right to attack their opponents' patriotism.
Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do
dydecker: I think this guy should stop watching Robin Williams movies and have a look around inner city Detroit some time. Or the lovely suburbs of Houston.
The preceding quote was from Moynihan, you knew that right? And I completely agree with it. The suburbs of Houston? What, you're complaining because all they have are chain stores? Jesus, how about the suburbs of Manila, or Calcutta? Get a grip.
While I don't think the U.S. has any right to impose its will with impunity around the world, i do think that our model of representative government, rule of law, etc. is the great hope of civilization. True, the U.S. may often not live up to its own creed, but that doesn't discredit that creed.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:29 PM on April 10, 2002
...weighs several factors higher than the actual health care portion
that's exactly why it's less biased. if the system is only good if you have lots of money, then in an objective sense, its not very good, is it?
posted by boltman at 1:34 PM on April 10, 2002
that's exactly why it's less biased. if the system is only good if you have lots of money, then in an objective sense, its not very good, is it?
posted by boltman at 1:34 PM on April 10, 2002
boltman: According to the WHO study, the U.S. ranks first in "a nation's respect for the dignity of individuals, the confidentiality of health records, prompt attention in emergencies and choice of provider" and we have a life expectancy that would probably be in the top 5 if we weren't the world's most obese nation. The whole reason the WHO ranked the U.S. so low is because we don't have universal access to health care.
posted by rcade at 1:37 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by rcade at 1:37 PM on April 10, 2002
A country can have 'the best road network in the world' in terms of surfacing and maintenance, but if it prevents a substantial segment of the population from drivingon it, or charges heavy tolls, or restricts access to certain drivers because their car isn't shiny enough, it's failing in its purpose. In fact, the US health care system is the 'best in the world' just as a Michelin three-star restaurant is among the best in the world, but that doesn't mean much to someone who's starving.
posted by riviera at 2:11 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by riviera at 2:11 PM on April 10, 2002
we have a life expectancy that would probably be in the top 5 if we weren't the world's most obese nation.
actually, health status (and thus, life expectancy) correlates very closely with whether or not you have insurance. also, we massively underfund our public health infrastructure, which doesn't help much either.
so, to sum up: as a nation, we are in lousy health, our public health infrastructure is a joke, we have 40 million without insurance, another 40 million or so that are underinsured, we have a shorter average life expectency than 23 other countries, and we spend about twice as much per capita on health care than any other country. On the plus side, you can choose your doctor, get prompt attention in the ER, and keep your medical records private. Boy, it doesn't get any better than that!
btw, what was this thread about again?
posted by boltman at 2:29 PM on April 10, 2002
actually, health status (and thus, life expectancy) correlates very closely with whether or not you have insurance. also, we massively underfund our public health infrastructure, which doesn't help much either.
so, to sum up: as a nation, we are in lousy health, our public health infrastructure is a joke, we have 40 million without insurance, another 40 million or so that are underinsured, we have a shorter average life expectency than 23 other countries, and we spend about twice as much per capita on health care than any other country. On the plus side, you can choose your doctor, get prompt attention in the ER, and keep your medical records private. Boy, it doesn't get any better than that!
btw, what was this thread about again?
posted by boltman at 2:29 PM on April 10, 2002
I'm no fan of Bennett. But those who decry America's willingness to wage war on terrorists should be first to suggest realistic, pragmatic, workable alternatives. So?
In a similar vein, those who decry America's [insert aspect here] should do the same. And it can be done! Improvements are made all the time, better ways of doing things implemented every day. It does, however, require more effort than typically expended during, say, a few hours of bong-hit philosophy and coffee-house ass-scratching.
I'm not saying America is perfect, has never done anything wrong, has never acted cavalierly on the world stage, or has never caused harm. But so far, we are by and large the most successful, most free, and most just society this planet has ever seen. America is the baseline by which all other societies judge themselves and each other.
America-bashing for its own sake may be fun and get you a lot of hot-headed replies, but most of what I've seen has little or no alternatives/solutions to the purported problems outside of some rather juvenile self-flagellation. Until those who are quick to criticise are similar quick to propose alternatives that can reasonably be argued as superior to the current course, they should not be surprised to be taken less than seriously.
back to the link: Bennett is wrong. We fight because we have been attacked, and the premier justification for the existence of government and for their extraction of taxes is the defense of the body politic and the people it represents. The various terrorist organizations have overtly declared their antagonism for the US, have attacked it and have killed it's citizens. Government is obligated to respond in such a way as to maximize the safety and security of America and its citizens regardless of the result on other countries. The safety and security of the American people and territories is the primary job of national government; otherwise, they cannot legitmately call themselves a national government.
Politically, all other considerations are secondary.
posted by UncleFes at 2:37 PM on April 10, 2002
In a similar vein, those who decry America's [insert aspect here] should do the same. And it can be done! Improvements are made all the time, better ways of doing things implemented every day. It does, however, require more effort than typically expended during, say, a few hours of bong-hit philosophy and coffee-house ass-scratching.
I'm not saying America is perfect, has never done anything wrong, has never acted cavalierly on the world stage, or has never caused harm. But so far, we are by and large the most successful, most free, and most just society this planet has ever seen. America is the baseline by which all other societies judge themselves and each other.
America-bashing for its own sake may be fun and get you a lot of hot-headed replies, but most of what I've seen has little or no alternatives/solutions to the purported problems outside of some rather juvenile self-flagellation. Until those who are quick to criticise are similar quick to propose alternatives that can reasonably be argued as superior to the current course, they should not be surprised to be taken less than seriously.
back to the link: Bennett is wrong. We fight because we have been attacked, and the premier justification for the existence of government and for their extraction of taxes is the defense of the body politic and the people it represents. The various terrorist organizations have overtly declared their antagonism for the US, have attacked it and have killed it's citizens. Government is obligated to respond in such a way as to maximize the safety and security of America and its citizens regardless of the result on other countries. The safety and security of the American people and territories is the primary job of national government; otherwise, they cannot legitmately call themselves a national government.
Politically, all other considerations are secondary.
posted by UncleFes at 2:37 PM on April 10, 2002
But those who decry America's willingness to wage war on terrorists should be first to suggest realistic, pragmatic, workable alternatives. So?
In a similar vein, those who decry America's [insert aspect here] should do the same.
It is those people who are critical that are the best at effecting change. Optimists and those at the top of the pyramid are often unable to see the weaknesses and failures of the system or are satisfied with the way things are. Being critical is just the first step.
Those who have been screwed over or have witnessed injustice are the ones that are making this world a better place for everyone. You have to see and understand the defects and have an incentive to fix them before you can make improvements. It's a version of McDonough's paradox.
posted by euphorb at 3:00 PM on April 10, 2002
In a similar vein, those who decry America's [insert aspect here] should do the same.
It is those people who are critical that are the best at effecting change. Optimists and those at the top of the pyramid are often unable to see the weaknesses and failures of the system or are satisfied with the way things are. Being critical is just the first step.
Those who have been screwed over or have witnessed injustice are the ones that are making this world a better place for everyone. You have to see and understand the defects and have an incentive to fix them before you can make improvements. It's a version of McDonough's paradox.
posted by euphorb at 3:00 PM on April 10, 2002
But so far, we are by and large the most successful, most free, and most just society this planet has ever seen. America is the baseline by which all other societies judge themselves and each other.
Could someone qualify this please?
Are we talking human rights, size, power, culture, wealth?
posted by fullerine at 3:34 PM on April 10, 2002
Could someone qualify this please?
Are we talking human rights, size, power, culture, wealth?
posted by fullerine at 3:34 PM on April 10, 2002
btw, what was this thread about again?
The decision of our nation's leading moral scold to begin administering loyalty oaths.
I've already acknowledged that universal health care is a worthy goal, but you don't help your argument by overstating the flaws in the present system. Eighty five percent of all Americans have health insurance. Forty million Americans in poverty receive Medicaid. All Americans and undocumented immigrants have the right to emergency medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.
If you or one of your loved ones needed care, even if you didn't have insurance, I have serious doubts you would take them to an American hospital and be unhappy you're not living in Costa Rica or Cuba (another country with a health system that's better than the U.S., according to the WHO).
posted by rcade at 3:40 PM on April 10, 2002
The decision of our nation's leading moral scold to begin administering loyalty oaths.
I've already acknowledged that universal health care is a worthy goal, but you don't help your argument by overstating the flaws in the present system. Eighty five percent of all Americans have health insurance. Forty million Americans in poverty receive Medicaid. All Americans and undocumented immigrants have the right to emergency medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.
If you or one of your loved ones needed care, even if you didn't have insurance, I have serious doubts you would take them to an American hospital and be unhappy you're not living in Costa Rica or Cuba (another country with a health system that's better than the U.S., according to the WHO).
posted by rcade at 3:40 PM on April 10, 2002
boltman: You can choose your doctor? Depends on your health plan, doesn't it? It's more a case of, "You can usually choose you own doctor, at least within a health plan's network."
posted by raysmj at 3:58 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by raysmj at 3:58 PM on April 10, 2002
UncleFes: good point on providing a suitable alternative. Harry Browne, in a few articles I mentioned previously, has an entire series on alternative solutions.
posted by insomnyuk at 4:34 PM on April 10, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 4:34 PM on April 10, 2002
um, i never brought up healthcare as a single point. I was thrashing the history of the US and mentioned it in passing. What gives with the thread derailment?
UncleFes -- I do what I can. I donte money to charities and speak out about social justice. I want to volunteer more, but this is beside the point when it comes to US foriegn policy. I write letters to my elected representatives and I vote. I doubt that I could ever get elected to political office. These ideologies are the corporate/spectacular ideologies (as in Guy Debord's _Society of the Spectacle) and the whole point is that we have come to an *end.* The people are powerless with regard to these macro decisions.
And as far as alternative replies? How about focusing on changing our foriegn policy rather than dropping bombs? If you or anyone thinks that we can put an end to anti-American terrorism by dropping bombs and declaring an axis of evil I ask you to think again. Dissent does not respond to death threats! You martyr your enemies when you kill them. Terrorist cells still exit. No one has done much to solve the problem even with all that has happened. If you ask me for an alternative to dropping a lot of bombs but not solving the real problem I'll *start* with skipping the bombs.
We are no safer now than we were on Sept 10th. As a matter of fact I feel that we are far less safe as a result of our response to the events of the 11th. I live in NYC and deal with my fear of another attack daily. But safety and securty, Fes, are things that cannot be quantified and we are responding to the issues at hand the same way we always have and I feel that we are going to repeat our mistakes. You say Bennett is wrong -- how far off from the leadership of the US is he? I hear him saying what I'm afraid our leaders are thinking.
posted by n9 at 4:39 PM on April 10, 2002
UncleFes -- I do what I can. I donte money to charities and speak out about social justice. I want to volunteer more, but this is beside the point when it comes to US foriegn policy. I write letters to my elected representatives and I vote. I doubt that I could ever get elected to political office. These ideologies are the corporate/spectacular ideologies (as in Guy Debord's _Society of the Spectacle) and the whole point is that we have come to an *end.* The people are powerless with regard to these macro decisions.
And as far as alternative replies? How about focusing on changing our foriegn policy rather than dropping bombs? If you or anyone thinks that we can put an end to anti-American terrorism by dropping bombs and declaring an axis of evil I ask you to think again. Dissent does not respond to death threats! You martyr your enemies when you kill them. Terrorist cells still exit. No one has done much to solve the problem even with all that has happened. If you ask me for an alternative to dropping a lot of bombs but not solving the real problem I'll *start* with skipping the bombs.
We are no safer now than we were on Sept 10th. As a matter of fact I feel that we are far less safe as a result of our response to the events of the 11th. I live in NYC and deal with my fear of another attack daily. But safety and securty, Fes, are things that cannot be quantified and we are responding to the issues at hand the same way we always have and I feel that we are going to repeat our mistakes. You say Bennett is wrong -- how far off from the leadership of the US is he? I hear him saying what I'm afraid our leaders are thinking.
posted by n9 at 4:39 PM on April 10, 2002
I think this is just too powerful a message to leave on the other side of a link... insomnyuk linked to a page with this on it:
"It’s a lot easier to avoid stepping into an abyss than to climb out of it. It’s a lot easier to avoid making enemies than to defend yourself when they want to kill you.
"Let me put it another way. Suppose I warn you that if you smoke, you may get cancer. You go ahead and smoke; and sure enough, you get cancer. Then you come to me and say, 'Okay, you’re so smart — what’s the cure for cancer?' I can only answer: 'I have no idea. If I knew of a cure, I wouldn’t have had to warn you, would I? I’d have told you to go ahead and smoke, since if you got cancer I could cure you.'"
posted by n9 at 4:41 PM on April 10, 2002
"It’s a lot easier to avoid stepping into an abyss than to climb out of it. It’s a lot easier to avoid making enemies than to defend yourself when they want to kill you.
"Let me put it another way. Suppose I warn you that if you smoke, you may get cancer. You go ahead and smoke; and sure enough, you get cancer. Then you come to me and say, 'Okay, you’re so smart — what’s the cure for cancer?' I can only answer: 'I have no idea. If I knew of a cure, I wouldn’t have had to warn you, would I? I’d have told you to go ahead and smoke, since if you got cancer I could cure you.'"
posted by n9 at 4:41 PM on April 10, 2002
raysmj: You can choose your doctor? Depends on your health plan, doesn't it? It's more a case of, "You can usually choose you own doctor, at least within a health plan's network."
That's the point, actually. You can always choose your own doctor, but you may have to pay him out of your own pocket. We do -- our pediatrician is not in our plan, but I don't like those that are, so I spend the money for quality. And, I'm not "the Evil Rich", so this is a bite on my budget, but I'd rather pay for the best health care available than to let my little girls go without.
People always seem to forget -- you can go anywhere, if you are willing to pay. In several countries this is not allowed.
posted by dwivian at 8:46 AM on April 11, 2002
That's the point, actually. You can always choose your own doctor, but you may have to pay him out of your own pocket. We do -- our pediatrician is not in our plan, but I don't like those that are, so I spend the money for quality. And, I'm not "the Evil Rich", so this is a bite on my budget, but I'd rather pay for the best health care available than to let my little girls go without.
People always seem to forget -- you can go anywhere, if you are willing to pay. In several countries this is not allowed.
posted by dwivian at 8:46 AM on April 11, 2002
It is not allowed to anyone who doesn't make enough money to afford health care, is my point. I would rather have the same care available to everyone universally than have people have none. That is all.
posted by n9 at 10:47 AM on April 30, 2002
posted by n9 at 10:47 AM on April 30, 2002
« Older today is the day of silence, | The Standardized Should I Stalk William... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Lopez: What is it that needs to be drilled into Americans so they can be behind this war effort for the long-term? Is there some kind of mantra we can teach schoolchildren?
Bennett: I am not for brainwashing; I am not for uncritical histories of America.
Oh good, he's not for brainwashing. Of course, being William Bennett, he is right to reassure us of that.
And don't forget the prerequisite assertions of unpatriotism on the part of those who disagree with him:
What we are seeing — both with pacifism and relativism — is really...nothing more than anti-Americanism: The objection is to using American force; the objection is to exporting American values.
This always makes me laugh: a neo-conservative railing against relativism. The neo-conservative ideology, which asserts that extreme violence is justifiable if in the interest of the U.S., is morally relativistic by definition.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:38 AM on April 10, 2002