Barry says: But that's not war. And we won't see special 'Target: right-wing domestic terrorists with cynanide' logos and theme music on CNN and Fox News.
Okay. So when Patrick says: The "war on terror" stopped being a war in your defense a long time ago. You'll die when it's convenient for them that you die.
...he's talking about CNN, FOX, pundits, and bloggers?
You'll die when it's convenient for them that you die.
Oh brother. Who is the "them" in this bit of paranoid hyperbole? The government? The press?
From the article cited:
Since arresting the three people in May, federal agents have served hundreds of subpoenas across the country in a domestic terror investigation that made it onto President Bush92s daily intelligence briefings and set off national security alarms among the country92s most senior counter-terror officials.
The government has made several arrests, issued hundreds of subpoenas, and officials at the highest level are following the investigation. So they seem to be taking it seriously.
Are you mad at the press for not giving it more exposure?
For what it's worth...Christopher Hitchens' response to an article in the National Review on this subject (from the Christopher Hitchens Web):
I never thought I'd have to outdo Arnold Beichman in a denial, and for the first few outings of a certain rumor I had really believed that no rebuttal was needful, but given today's over-wrought atmosphere I suppose it's unsafe to make any assumption. So I had better say, at once, that I am not now and have never been an advisor or confidante of the George Bush White House, or of any other Executive Mansion for that matter. Things, in other words, are not that bad.
There's more, but why believe the actual man rather than an unsubstantiated line from a Congressional speech, transcribed on a site that can't even spell his name (Hitchins) right?
Well, that's the thing.
I'd certainly like to stay on topic and actually maturely argue the relative merits of opposing points of view.
That's difficult to do when the other person prefers flippance, condescension, and denial to actual conversation. But it's become increasingly clear this is not a forum for honest disagreement.
David Moles writes: (For what it92s worth, which may not be much 97 Derek really isn92t such a bad guy. He just lets his natural zest for argument get in the way of rational discussion sometimes, particularly when he92s on line.)
Um, thanks, David. Except for the part about being irrational.
Seems much more irrational to make particular characterizations in a post, then deny that you were really saying anything of the sort.
Patrick writes: If you weren't, in fact, obviously smart, I would explain again that my original post wasn't in the service of any such argument. I would point out that my central point wasn't Boo Americans, Yay Europeans; it's about the dogged attachment of people everywhere have to their established storylines, no matter what. Counting the original post, this is now the third time I've explained this.
Oh, I see. You weren't making a point about American vs. European journalism, or patricular American worldviews, or anything along those lines. It was just a broad point about people sticking to storylines. Any other example would have done as nicely. Silly me, focusing on the particulars and missing the forest for the trees.
You're obviously intelligent yourself, so do you expect anyone to believe this insistence that you weren't actually saying anything beyond "People sure do stick to their storylines"?
But you are, in fact, obviously smart. You know this; you've made a conscious moral decision to talk shit anyway.
As you've pointed out, anyone is free to scroll up and read the exchange. It should be clear who first lowered the level of discourse, and who continues to do so.
To answer edub's question from earlier in the post: No, I've commented here a few times before, and invariably I'm met with the same reaction. Dismissed, belittled, and then accused of dirty pool.
Don't know why I bother.
Patrick, I didn't comment here to "slither", "angle", or "palm cards" (but the ad homs sure do make a fella feel welcome). I invariably post in a given forum in an attempt at intellectual exchange.
Your original post paints European journalists as brave thinkers, willing to challenge leaders in a way that American journalists, broadly depicted by yourself as jellyfish, are not. I disagree with a counterexample, and am met with derision. Am I still mischaracterizing the exchange?
But I got it. Russert's a shill for the GOP, basically for using the Treasury Department as a source of information...and I'm an idiot for thinking otherwise.
Patrick writes: Oh, we do plenty of substantiating our viewpoints around here. We also notice who engages in good faith, and who slithers away in search of new angles of attack. Time was when I could be head-tripped by this. Not any more.
Who, exactly, has done the slithering and angling so far in this exchange?
I posted an opinion, with links to two interviews, one by the British journalist mentioned in the post, the other by Tim Russert.
I think Dimbleby asked some good questions, be he occasionally asked inflammatory ones...thus I don't see him being the paragon of journalism, juxtaposed with the seemingly spineless, unprofessional norm of American journalists portrayed in this post.
But my view was dismissed as so ludicrous as to be beneath comment. You're telling me that's discussion in good faith?
Sometimes, comment is superfluous.
And sometimes a glib remark is easier than actually substantiating your viewpoint.
Here's the transcript of the Dimbleby interview of Rumsfeld.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2819931.stm
I wouldn't necessarily call it hard-hitting journalism. He asks some very fair, direct questions. He also asks a few very loaded, leading questions. For example:
Dimbleby: So what do you say to what the French are putting forward? You need more time, things are working. I mean, the French Foreign Minister yesterday, for instance, and I know your view of France is that it's old Europe and you don't really count it or rank it very high. But he said, you can't -
Rumsfeld: I don't know that you ought to be putting words in my mouth.
The journalist is obviously trying to provoke here. He could just as easily have asked Rumsfeld what he thought of France or the French position. I mean, why not just ask, "Now then, you referred to France as 'Old Europe', and it's obvious you think they're a lot of spineless, wine-sipping morons, so did the reaction to your baseless, vicious verbal attack suprise you in any way?"
Is this the ideal we should be aiming for in journalism in America?
And as an example of a good, direct interviewer, I'd point to Tim Russert. He grilled Howard Dean reasonably well last Sunday:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp
andrew writes: "Much as conservatives use welfare as a code word for blacks (despite statistical realities) they like to use *illegals* as a handy bogeyman, and through apathy or design, others are swept up in the definition."
Gee, don't generalize or anything.
Some might invoke illegal immigration as a bogeyman. Others, myself included, see it as a legitimate problem.
Two miles from where I work, Bank One has a huge banner on the front. It reads "Matriculas". For those who don't know, this means that instead of using a valid form of U.S. identification, such as a driver's license or a Social Security card, to open an account, you can use your matriculas consulares, a form of ID issued by the Mexican government. Why? Because they want to make more money. But the sign essentially means "Checking Accounts for Illegal Immigrants!"
When the market is big enough so that businesses begin targetting the illegal population with advertising...it's not a bogeyman.
It's a very real problem.
Those that blur the distinction you're pointing out are idiots...about that you're right.
But I seriously doubt this attitude is pervasive. I've lived in Texas my entire life, and everyone can clearly draw the line between illegal immigrants and citizens and legal visitors.
Using your stats, illegal immigrants make up 3% of the Texas population. While it's not anywhere near the figures quoted in the blog you reference, it's clearly unacceptable.
Henley certainly speaks as if any Iraqi could walk into a gun shop and buy a gun.
I simply haven't seen any sources indicating that gun ownership is widespread and evenly distributed among the general Iraqi population.
I am highly skeptical, for example, that there is any sort of parity of gun ownership between the Shia and Sunni populations. Can anyone point to reliable sources on this?
There was a brief discussion of this over on David Moles' site, in which I pointed out that not "everybody is packing heat" (also note that I'm for extreme limits on 2nd Amendment rights...I think handguns should be severely regulated, if not banned).
From the Washington Post:
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said last month that officials had handed out 'hundreds of thousands of weapons' since the Bush administration began deploying additional forces to the Persian Gulf.
One group largely left out of the gun distribution has been Shiite Muslims, who make up about 55 percent of the population but whose allegiance has been questioned by Hussein and other top leaders, who are predominantly Sunni Muslims.
In a police state, it obviously matters very much who has the guns. Neil MacFarquhar's passing comment that ""Most Iraqi households own at least one gun" doesn't quite cut the mustard as a valid assessement of gun ownership among Iraqis. Anybody have any reliable sources that indicate the reality of gun ownership among Iraqis?
Women should be allowed to fulfill any societal role for which they qualify, in the private or public sector, or the military.
More men than women can meet the physical requirements necessary to be a firefighter. Should women not be allowed to try out for the position? Of course not. I don't care what the heck the gender, sexual orientation, or anything else is of the person pulling me from a burning building or guarding my flank or saving me from drowning. I just care that they're able to do it.
In the interest of equal rights along with equal responsibilities, though, I have long believed that all women should be required to register for the Selective Service, just as all men do.
As I wrote about this on my blog last week:
I think it's cool if Swanwick wants to post his opposition to the war on his website and gather as many signatories as he wants from among the SF community. I don't agree with him or those who share his position, but it's an honest disagreement.
I *don't* think it's cool that he thinks the SFWA should have officially come out against the war. Now I'm not a member, but I know many people who are, and they are generally an eclectic, intellectually-diverse group, with many different opinions on many different matters. This is as it should be. Thus, I'm glad that SFWA has made the choice not to take an official stance one way or the other against prospective military action against Iraq.
I wholeheartedly support individual members expressing their opinions as loudly and often as they please, but I would not support an organization that ostensibly represents my field presuming to speak for all writers of speculative fiction on what is obviously a controversial, divisive issue within the community.
Colin Powell?
Nah. He's one of those knaves, criminals, morons, bullies, sadists, and fools, one of those notably ghastly and hapless human beings that lead the country.
I hope we're *both* speaking theoretically (unless James actually intends to take a pair of pliers to Oliver's soft parts).
I think we (you, me, Patrick, James) basically agree. I just think the moral argument, not the practical one, is the strongest.
I think Macdonald is vastly oversimplifying the application of torture, as are those who are downplaying its possibly effective application (which I comment on here).
So I think the strongest argument against it is a moral one, not the practical one. And I happen to agree that it should not be used.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 35 |
| 2002 | 66 |
Total: 102 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Derek James:
Show all comments by Derek James.