Our country cannot afford to go around responding to perceived threats with knee jerk reactions based in hatred and ignorance. In the end, we will do more harm than good and we will be no safer than we are now ....Yes, of course, September 11 was a "perceived" threat.
And I want to remind my fellow Americans that what we do and what we say still counts in the world. Many look to us as a beacon of light and so we have a great responsibility to the world to light the way. I don't want to leave my grandchildren a legacy of hate and war. I want them to know we lived, we learned and we changed...
But I like the "my fellow Americans" part ... that's almost, well, presidential.
If that were a speech from a president taking this position (a Democrat, of course), it might say, "My fellow Americans, prepare your final effects, we are about to die. Our government shall remain paralyzed as the blackness descends on our nation and we submit to the ultimate, existential evil. Good night, and God Bless America, for the last time."
Somewhere, Deepak Chopra is nodding approvingly.
16 comments:
Don, first: fuck Deepak Chopra. That's right: I said it. He's a new age jack-ass charlatan that believes in magic similar to that you and your religious buddies do. He neither represents the left in this country nor has he ever been asked to, except by right-wing media types who are all too eager to capitalize on his lust for money and exposure by inviting him onto their shows (can you hear me, Sean Hannity?).
Second, after having read the entire post you link to the phrase "perceived threats" is obviously in reference to the proposed wall along our Southern border and our government's recent policy of eavesdropping on the private conversations of it's citizens, the two examples cited in the two previous paragraphs (that's what we in the intellectually honest world of political commentary call a "logical progression").
And like many other dishonest commentators trying to promote their own points of view by conveniently leaving out extremely relevant pieces of information, you omit these lines from your quotes: "On Dec 7, 1941 our country went to war. We had no choice; we had to defend ourselves and our allies. What we didn’t need to do was inter thousands of Japanese-Americans, many of whom had been born here. A knee jerk reaction that did great harm.
On this day, I want to remember and thank each and every military man and woman who has served honorably, with great courage and compassion in the protection of our country and its citizens. Your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your families is remembered and truly appreciated.
To our leaders I would like to say, you are in charge of some very precious lives – please consider your moves carefully and take every care not to waste those lives."
My curiosity is piqued: did you just forget to include these very reasoned and patriotic sentiments or did you do so out of malice of forethought? Whatever the answer, it makes you look either foolish or devious.
And your coup de grace? A fictional quote from a leftist Democrat who has never existed; truly, you are a master of the rhetorical arts. You deserve the patronage of every wingnut attracted to your site by the pretty lights of division and jingoism.
Somewhere, Orwell is nodding approvingly.
Our country cannot afford to go around responding to perceived threats with knee jerk reactions based in hatred and ignorance. In the end, we will do more harm than good and we will be no safer than we are now ....
And I want to remind my fellow Americans that what we do and what we say still counts in the world. Many look to us as a beacon of light and so we have a great responsibility to the world to light the way. I don't want to leave my grandchildren a legacy of hate and war. I want them to know we lived, we learned and we changed...
Professor: This sounds much like what President Ford said in his book. In the interview broadcast after his death he said "We just can't go around freeing everybody." Even your pal Rush Limbaugh said during the Clinton Presidency we can't afford this stuff. So am I correct in thinking you now hate President Ford and Rush Limbaugh as well as this Chopra fellow?
"What we didn’t need to do was inter thousands of Japanese-Americans..."
Americans paid reparations to the Japanese. The border fence really isn't germane to the author's arugment, which is about war.
Why is it that when we fight there is never any condemnation our enemies? It's always the U.S. We're the bad guys.
Also, I generally don't use profanity when I blog, JBW. Please observe that practice in the comments.
Thanks Philippe!
Truth 101:
We can afford to fight for what's right without blaming Americans first.
Yeah yeah the knee jerkers. Always asking the wrong 'why'?
The correct why to ask is why do fun, free, and future tech democracies even tolerate failed pitiful unelected, murderous intolerant regimes that torment their own people and their neighbors, that fiddle about with WMD, gender apartheid and genocide, with pitiful lit rates and have to act out militarily against any democracy in weapons range.
The correct why to ask should be - why not annihilate them. Who ever jumps up to take their place would have much to contemplate.
And it gives them the opportunity to ask, reflect and consider:
Why?
Don, does the fact that our government paid reparations mean that we should have interred the Japanese? Because the author's point was that we made a mistake, not that we didn't make it better with cash.
Also, the post was about "perceived threats" (it's the term you quoted to imply that the author doesn't think 9/11 was a real threat to us and our security) and our reactions to them, militarily and otherwise, so the border fence was indeed germane regardless of your interpretations.
And why is it when someone talks about America having a great responsibility to do the right thing, you automatically infer that they mean that we're the bad guys and that our enemies should not be condemned? Of course we're the good guys, that's the point of the post: that because we're the good guys we have to make sure that what we're doing is right.
As to the profanity, I didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities; or is it because your kids read this blog? Regardless, since you said please: phuck Deepak Chopra, and phuck our enemies and those who would do us harm as well. You're welcome.
Setting a good moral example is much more effective and cheaper than invading countries that were no threat based on lies Professor Douglas.
As I've pointed out before here and my former blog, a well aimed cruise missle is also much cheaper and more effective. I'm no pansy lib. I'm with Courtney on the annihilate the creeps train.
JBW: These folks are anti-American, plain and simple. Why you defend them is beyone me.
As for profanity, we all do it sometimes. I try to keep off the blog, and frankly, that's what separates civilized society from the dogs, which I don't think you're one of.
Philippe: I don't think your comments are so bad, and if I did I'd say so.
JBW: It's easy to say, in hindsight, that the interment of the Nesei was a bad idea, 66 years after the fact. But President Roosevelt and the Congress were operating on low information, with a poor idea of what the actual threat was. The Hawaiian Islands in particular had a very heavy Japanese population, and the Japanese had just shown us what we saw as the deepest form of treachery, an attack while negotiating peace.
We didn't understand the Japanese mindset, we didn't understand their culture or their logic, and we didn't know just how much of a threat they posed to the United States itself; we were actually taking measures to prevent Japanese attacks on the west coast, something completely beyond their capabilities.
Perhaps President Roosevelt over-reacted with the interment of the Nesei, but in the atmosphere of 1941-1942, it's completely understandable.
Don, if it's an atmosphere of civility that you're trying to foster around here then I suggest you start asking every person who calls Barack Obama and many others on my side of the ideological spectrum straight up traitors or terrorist sympathizers or 666beasts or whatever else the right deems an acceptable insult to rein in their behavior as well; I would think that a higher priority than the abolition of my occasional swearing to impart emphasis during a discussion with other adults for a civilized society to base itself on.
I just don't understand this kind of puritanical mindset: excusing or ignoring people making the vilest of accusations and impugning my humanity and patriotism while at the same time acting as if I've committed some kind of sin for using a few curse words; it's the linguistic equivalent of letting your child watch horrifically violent movies but then freaking out if you find a porn mag under his mattress. I think your definition of civilization could use some prioritizing.
Dana, I'm not condemning our leaders who authorized the interments; they did what they at the time thought was right and would protect this nation. I'm just saying (and yes, with the benefit of hindsight) that it was a mistake and that to admit that we as a nation have made such mistakes in the past and to take steps to insure that we don't repeat these mistakes in the future is not anti-American, it's patriotic.
It's the responsibility we have as the leader of the free world to make sure that as the good guys, we act with more intelligence, more forethought, more pragmatism and more compassion than those who would choose to do us and our allies harm. That was the point of the post Don was attacking but it seems that his "knee-jerk reaction" to pretty much anything coming from that site is to vilify; I hope you can see the difference.
JBW: All I'm asking is that you refrain from the F-word. If you want to make arguments demonizing someone, I think that's different ball park.
Amazing. Leftists such as the author of The Swash Zone use the Pearl Harbor anniversary to bash the U.S. for... I'm not sure. He is conveniently vague about the "perceived threat."
As far as profanity goes, JWB seems to think it a matter of "delicate sensibilities," a comment that marks him as nothing but a boor.
No, sir, it is a question of common decency.
Times change, Dana. Back then, folks thought waterboarding was torture. Nowadays, we see it as just a cool, refreshing dip. On the other hand, maybe 60 years from now people will look back with shame, as they should.
As I said Don, your condemnation of my use of "the f-word" (Jesus...) versus your approval of demonization is what I was suggesting you reprioritize. Your obtuseness notwithstanding, I'll try my best to avoid using the seven words you can't write on American Power but I can't make any promises.
Tom the Redhunter, I called you out on what you wrote on this site when I was here last over a month ago and your response was that of a silent coward. Neither your opinion of my boorishness nor your uptight Christian conception of decency are of any interest to me.
The phrase "delicate sensibilities" was written tongue in cheek, as I was obviously just giving Don shit (sorry, poop); it's what guys do to each other. On a related note, I took the time to write your made-up Internet name correctly; in the future I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.
Post a Comment