Brad DeLong:
> Ah, but things aren't polite and abstract, are they? The view that
> the U.S. has no "legitimate" steps to take to prevent the next
> Al-Qaeda atrocity is hardly polite. And it is certainly not abstract.
> I was on a panel at a conference last month. Gene Steuerle was there.
> His wife was on the Pentagon plane...
First I wrote:
You're forgetting where I live and work. I may have
more victim cred than you.
I recall some family parties with my in-laws long ago where
there was an older man who was literally a loud, raving
racist. It was explained to me that his unfortunate habits
of mind and expression were justified because his daughter
had been raped by a Negro, and nothing could or should be done
to rebuke him. I guess if you follow the logic, an innocent
Negro who happened to be present would be required to push
Mr. Grieving Dad into the pool -- civility must be discarded
when anything important is at stake.
Well, see? I've discarded civility, a little; I tainted you
by association with a loud, raving racist, even though you're
most likely not a loud, raving racist. Is that the kind of
game you want to play?
But then I thought, no, no one on the LBO list would want to get into something as dumb as this. It's like the mass media. And why would anyone, considering the resplendent victory of imperial liberalism, want to kick a tiny minority around?
So what are you up to?
--
Gordon Fitch wrote:
> > Maybe I should get down on their level,
> >Kelley:
> > > you're already there.
Gordon Fitch wrote:
> >I don't think so. I haven't imputed bad character or
> >repugnant personal behavior to anyone on the list.
Kelley:
> and max and brad have? i see.
Do you? I thought it was pretty straightforward. We _could_ do a closer reading of the text, though, if you like. I think that'll make it look even worse, but who knows? Why not just accept the obvious?
Gordon Fitch:
> >I've been patiently sticking to the text. That people concoct
> >and publish certain texts may reflect badly on them, but
> >I can't help that.
Kelley:
> sure you can, you can stop typing them to this list.
Oh, dear, the schoolyard. A few more of those and you'll be all ready for Usenet newgroups.
Gordon Fitch:
> > I suppose such things could be passed
> >over in silence, but that might seem to condone them,
> >which I don't want give the even the appearance of
> >doing.
Kelley:
> elsewhere, you admit that you'd been foolish enough to engage in the
> nearest antiwar protest, something you think is wrongheaded b/c it presumes
> that such things can influence USG policy. but, oh, now we see that (at
> least some of) the people involved in such protests are not trying to
> influence US policy (no, they are not saying that justice as vengeance is
> wrong), and, instead, that they are just doing what they have to do to
> fight evil.
>
> my answer was specifically to the claim that peace protesters felt a moral
> duty to oppose evil. i pointed out that abortion protestors believe they
> are doing the same.
So what? If anti-abortionists confine their political expressions to public places and are reasonably orderly and polite, well, it's a free country, even for something as reprehensible as anti-abortionism.
I don't know what all of the anti-war protestors think they're doing. My reasoning for my participation was as follows: It seems possible that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the present Administration is not entirely moronic and everything in the official media is not a lie. In that case, the reported carpet-bombing in Afghanistan may actually have taken place. Against a dispersed, well-dug-in force, which is what the Taliban and their allies are supposed to be, strategic bombing is pretty useless, and there are virtually no non-military strategic targets; its function must therefore be for domestic consumption, a performance to make Americans think something significant was being done about the terrorism crisis, although in fact it would mostly be killing old ladies and stray cats, and churning the rubble. But if it appeared that the bombing were not having the desired public-relations result, it might be mitigated or terminated, although it's a rather long shot. Given these stakes, I decided it was my tedious duty to show up.
I agree this that contradicts my usual theory that one can't affect or manipulate the U.S. or other imperial governments, but I'm not always sure my theories are correct, given the vanishingly small number of people who agree with them. So I sometimes go along with other theories and practices on the theory that their proponents might be onto something. I'm supping with the Devil, but carrying a very long spoon.
Also, I wanted to show some solidarity with people who have kindred, if not identical beliefs, all 100 or so of them, brutally assaulting the widows and orphans of Queens by appearing twenty miles away in front of the U.N. in a demonstration pen and holding up stop-the-bombing signs. Even the television reporters made sure to take pictures of them through a screen of the six or seven pro-war demonstrators across the street. We're all depraved.
I hope this explanation relieves any anxieties you may have had about my inconsistencies.
--
Max Sawicky:
> I meant no imputations as to your character.
> That would be idiotic, since I don't know you.
I've described how Brad's playlet functions above. You signed on to it for some reason, mysterious to me, but there it is.
> In a nutshell, the insistence of the peace movement
> on putting 9/11 into some context that minimizes or
> discounts the crime implicit in the attack amply
> justifies BDL's note....
Even assuming the peace movement, if any, was as universally and shallowly moralistic as you claim, at most that would mean that they had the wrong theory, not that their characters were so vicious as to deliberately and gratuitously harass the bereaved. In any case, I'm sure astute imperialist warmongers are putting 9/11 in a context, a genealogy of violence in their thoughts and plans, which is far different from the wounded- innocence number they assume in public -- if they're not, they really _are_ morons. So why not other people? There _has_ been a bit of a problem in America about ignoring history.
Well, none of you have answered my question. Maybe it's unasnwerable, and you all think that those who are opposed to this war or any war should convenience imperial liberalism by going up in smoke. I observe more respect for contrary opinion from conservatives at work.
-- Gordon