FROM THE "ONLY IN INDIANA" DEPT. On Teus. Mar. 13, we had a record high of 80 degrees here in Indy, and some boaters became so entangled in ice on one of our local lakes that they had to be rescued... The melting snow has also provided some ponds large enough for Canadian geese to move in &feel right at home...
Twin cities in the City, in the sky, soaring to meet the clouds; greeting the sun with joy, gladly catching golden light that kindles answering golden light in glass and metal.
Rank upon rank of lights, gleaming in the night like strands of diamonds, carefully arranged in ordered rows by a proud master jeweler.
Humming with people, busy at their work; “Just work!” Perhaps, but careful, constant work kindles and keeps a dream’s light glowing in one’s heart, and in time gives it solid form. And dreams can kindle other dreams in other hearts, light answering to light, life after life made brighter.
Thus rose the mighty skyline all around, and thus the towers themselves; built by, and built for, dreamers, who could keep their dreams alight, and, as the metal, stone, and glass were thrown higher and ever higher into the sky, rejoice as they took shape.
Evil comes, killing a lovely morning, screaming out of the sky, flashing twin knives, unnatural weapons, filled with stolen lives. They strike. The wounded towers now bleed smoke and fangs of flame that race like hellish poison, tearing at their steel. Sadly the twins falter and fall, weeping tears of splintered glass and metal, floor smashing into floor, their strength and gladness crumbling into smoke and ruin as they plunge downward, taking with them lives; so many precious souls, that vanish, with their dreams, their strength and gladness, love, and tears, leaving lonely bits of paper flying in the gray, choking dust that rolls like waves of surging water down the streets, to whisper mournfully of those destroyed.
The skyline now is wounded; a gash of emptiness where once the towers stood echoes the wounds in hearts and lives.
But God still reigns; He steers all things to suit His purpose, even in this horror, and has promised to one day share that purpose with us, speaking face to face. He also is never neutral between fear and freedom, good and evil, and would have us fight evil with the last atom of our strength.
Take courage from the courage of all those:
Who fought the toxic smoke, the killing breath of the twin ravening, snarling infernos, to save all whom they could; who faced twin hells whose slashing fire-claws brought the towers thundering down, rather than leave a comrade.
Who wrenched another weapon from the hand of evil, choosing to face their own fiery death, rather than risk other lives.
Who dealt with grief and horror day by day, sifting through each scrap of the twisted pile of wreckage, a long-smoldering mass grave, hoping to find some trace of those who died.
So may we truly honor the lives lost that day, in Pennsylvania, in the Pentagon, in the twin cities in the City, in the sky.
Sooo..Mr. Bin Laden has crept out from beneath whatever rock he's hiding under this week, and has asked for a truce, has he? We need to:
Remember 9/11- the Twin towers wreathed in hellish flame and smoke, then falling from the blue sky and crumbling into wreckage, innocent lives crumbling with them
Remember Madrid and London - innocent people killed simply for the "crime" of going about their business
Remember Bali - innpcemt people blown to bits simply because they happened to be enjoying themselves
Remember Israel - innocent men, women, and chidren murdered simply because they were Jewish
And then we need to say: There's only one honorable answer to you, and to all your vile, murderous, cowardly kind, from Hitler to Hamas, and that's NO truce from us until you've been blown to bits, and tossed onto the rubbish heap of history.
Twin cities in the City, in the sky, soaring to meet the clouds; greeting the sun with joy, gladly catching golden light that kindles answering golden light in glass and metal.
Rank upon rank of lights, gleaming in the night like strands of diamonds, carefully arranged in ordered rows by a proud master jeweler.
Humming with people, busy at their work; “Just work!” Perhaps, but careful, constant work kindles and keeps a dream’s light glowing in one’s heart, and in time gives it solid form. And dreams can kindle other dreams in other hearts, light answering to light, life after life made brighter.
Thus rose the mighty skyline all around, and thus the towers themselves; built by, and built for, dreamers, who could keep their dreams alight, and, as the metal, stone, and glass were thrown higher and ever higher into the sky, rejoice as they took shape.
Evil comes, killing a lovely morning, screaming out of the sky, flashing twin knives, unnatural weapons, filled with stolen lives. They strike. The wounded towers now bleed smoke and fangs of flame that race like hellish poison, tearing at their steel. Sadly the twins falter and fall, weeping tears of splintered glass and metal, floor smashing into floor, their strength and gladness crumbling into smoke and ruin as they plunge downward, taking with them lives; so many precious souls, that vanish, with their dreams, their strength and gladness, love, and tears, leaving lonely bits of paper flying in the gray, choking dust that rolls like waves of surging water down the streets, to whisper mournfully of those destroyed.
The skyline now is wounded; a gash of emptiness where once the towers stood echoes the wounds in hearts and lives.
But God still reigns; He steers all things to suit His purpose, even in this horror, and has promised to one day share that purpose with us, speaking face to face. He also is never neutral between fear and freedom, good and evil, and would have us fight evil with the last atom of our strength.
Take courage from the courage of all those:
Who fought the toxic smoke, the killing breath of the twin ravening, snarling infernos, to save all whom they could; who faced twin hells whose slashing fire-claws brought the towers thundering down, rather than leave a comrade.
Who wrenched another weapon from the hand of evil, choosing to face their own fiery death, rather than risk other lives.
Who deal with grief and horror day by day, sifting through each scrap of the twisted pile of wreckage, a long-smoldering mass grave, hoping to find some trace of those who died.
So may we truly honor the lives lost that day, in Pennsylvania, in the Pentagon, in the twin cities in the City, in the sky.
ODDS AND ENDS... Well, I'm basically pleased that Mr. Bush won the election, for reasons I detailed in my previous posts.
And I am SINCERELY grateful that Mr. Kerry had the class not to drag the election through the courts 'til doomsday - Thank you, Sir, for being gracious in defeat.
I am saving my gloating, however, for those special folks who truely deserve it, such as Osama, and Yassar Arafat - may they both soon begin to enjoy their 72 raisins! **GLOAT**GLOAT**EVIL CHORTLE**SNICKER!!!
Administrative announcement - our home computer has come to a screeching halt, which may require a replacement, and will really slow down my posting for awhile. Please be patient, and I'll be back "on the air" ASAP. Have a great weekend!
WHY I’M SUPPORTING MR. BUSH AND NOT MR. KERRY PART IV, OR WELL, WELL, LOOK WHAT THE CAT DRUG IN….
I thought I was finished with this subject, but it seems that Osama has deigned to crawl out from whatever slimy hole in the ground he’s calling home these days, to favor us with what, when accurately translated, turn out to be some pearls of wisdom regarding the election tomorrow, according to MEMRI:
“The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired…on Friday, October 29 included a specific threat to ‘each U.S. state” designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words ‘ay wilaya’ (which mean ‘each U.S. state’) to mean a country or nation other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state.
The Islamist website Al—Qala explained…This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately…it means that every U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush…has chosen to fight us…and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us…By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies to Islam and the Muslims, and those who will fight for us…The Sheikh reminds the West in this tape of the great Islamic civilization and pure Islamic religion, and of Islamic justice.”
I have to really, really wonder why our media folk couldn’t get an accurate translation…couldn’t be on purpose, could it?…
Here are the actual quotes:
"Oh the American people, I address these words to you regarding the optimal manner of avoiding another Manhattan, and regarding the war, its causes, and its consequences. But before this, I say to you: Security is one of the important pillars of human life, and free men do not take their security lightly, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him explain why we did not attack Sweden, for example. Clearly, those who hate freedom have no pride, unlike the 19 [suicide hijackers of 9/11], may Allah have mercy on them. We have been fighting you because we are free men who do not remain silent in the face of injustice. We want to restore our [Islamic] nation's freedom. Just as you violate our security, we violate yours.
"But I am amazed at you. Although we have entered the fourth year after the events of 9/11, Bush is still practicing distortion and deception against you and he is still concealing the true cause from you. Consequently, the motives for its reoccurrence still exist…
"We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."
Now don’t carry on as if you know what freedom really is, Binney, because you don’t – the only freedom you want is freedom to impose Sharia, in all its bloody brutality, complete with beheadings, stoning, and lopping off of hands, wherever you can.
And we know why you didn’t attack Sweden – they’re no threat to you at all, so why bother?
How, for crying out loud, can Mr. Bush be said to have abandoned the people in the towers? The man was in Florida at the time, and in case you haven’t looked at a map, it’s a little bit more than a quick commute from there to NYC! And I think he finished listening to the story to avoid frightening the kids with a hasty exit. **GIMME A BREAK!**
And finally – you have the **utter**maniacal**egocentric**unhinged**arrogance** to think you have a right to influence our presidential election??? Binney, I keep telling you, back off of the opium or whatever it is…
First of all, why should any of us believe a word of your promises, since you’ve declared that all of us infidels all your mortal enemies??
And even if we did, why would we pay any attention to you? You’re as guilty of mass murder as the crazed fanatics who rammed the planes into the towers were, and the blood of all those who died cries out against you! So you think we’d really, really give a care about how you think we should rn our country? You think we’re truly that weak and contemptible? Listen, the only talking we’d do with you would involve a bullet, a noose, or a lot of high explosives!! Do I make myself perfectly clear?
And as for encouraging Americans to vote for Kerry, well, I wouldn’t vote for Bush just because of that, but it is an added reason, a little bit of extra satisfaction, in which I hope millions of Americans will join as we send you a neon-colored, flashing message –
**IN**YOUR**DREAMS**BINNEY**IN**YOUR**DREAMS**!!!!
WHY I’M SUPPORTING MR. BUSH INSTEAD OF MR. KERRY, PART III
First, let me respond to some comments Elizabeth made on my last post:
I think that Mr. Bush’s statement that we can’t win the war was taken out of context somehow, though I can’t find the entire quote.
This war involves shadowy, elusive enemies enmeshed in a web of vague, shifting alliances; this is going to make victory much harder to define, let alone achieve.Even if we have to keep dealing with new terrorist threats, however, I think we can win a series of victories if we firmly crush each new movement by capturing or killing the hard core of fanatical leaders, destroying its bases, and cutting it off from its support networks.So we could be facing a series of smaller wars rather than one large one, as we put out one fire at a time.And we’d have to be resolute without becoming paranoid…
I’m not fond of the idea of pre-emptive war either, and would not have suggested it if our enemies did not have a chance of getting WMDs. And if we CAN deal with future threats using diplomacy and law enforcement, well, I won’t argue – war is always the last resort.I just think that we need to keep all options open, and let others know that we're doing so.
Yes, we need to work on homeland security, but I don’t think law enforcement alone, while it is absolutely necessary, is going to be enough, because it deals with capturing criminals after the fact more than preventing crime in the first place. With military strikes, on the other hand, hopefully we can deal with terrorists before they can strike here, or anywhere else, for that matter.Besides, while the hard core fanatics can’t be deterred or reasoned with, there’s always the hope that others who aren’t as committed to the fantasy ideology behind their movement might be frightened enough to change their minds.And the states that support terrorists, unless they’re in the grip of a fantasy ideology themselves, should definitely be deterrable. Of course, if we hit civilians indiscriminately, this would backfire (and, even more important, would be morally wrong!), so we’d need to be as careful and precise as possible – we really, REALLY do need to get better intelligence.
Now, let me try to answer some objections:
But Mr. Bush is so…so…unilateral!Don’t we need a President with Mr. Kerry’s diplomatic finesse and nuance, to win more allies?
Well, I wouldn’t call spending several months trying to convince the United Nations to support their resolutions against Iraq unilateral…
We have a number of allies in the war; Britain, Australia, Japan, Italy, Poland…And I don’t really think Mr. Kerry showed too much finesses when he referred to them as – what was it? – the coalition of the bribed and coerced.IMHO, that really sounds like a better description of Saddam’s partners in the “Oil for Food” scandal.And come to think of it, Mr. Kerry wasn’t showing too much nuance when he didn’t bother to show up for the President of Iraq’s speech before Congress, and later all but called the man our puppet.
Iraq is a quagmire!
Yes, we have made mistakes – who doesn’t in a war?The main point is to learn from them, and go on.
Much of the violence is happening, as I understand it, in the “Sunni Triangle”, and part of the problem there comes from the fact that we weren’t able to sweep down from Turkey at the start.
I think the mainstream media have, understandably, been concentrating on the violence, which, after all makes more exciting headlines than schools reopening or power stations being repaired.
Finally, 2 quotes as “food for thought”:
Tom Junod, no Bush supporter, asks his fellow anti-Bush partisans an uncomfortable question:
“As easy as it is to say that we can’t abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does, what haunts me is the possibility that we can’t abide him because of us – because of the gulf between his will and our willingness.What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion…”
Yeah, Yeah, I know: nobody who opposes Bush thinks that terrorism is a good thing…Sure Saddam was a bad guy.Sure the world is a better place without him. But…
And there it is: the inevitable but…it sits squirming at the end of the argument against George Bush for a very good reason:it can’t possibly set at the beginning. Bush haters have to back into it because there’s nothing beyond it.The world is a better place without Saddam, but…but what? But he wasn’t so bad that we had to do anything about him?…
We might as well credit the president for his one great accomplishment:replacing but with and as a basic for foreign policy.The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of him.”
(“The Case for George W. Bush: ie, What if he’s right?” Esquire, 8/1/04, available at KeepMedia.)
Sarah Baxter, former political editor of the New Statesman, “life-long labor voter in Britain and registered Democrat in the United States,” explains why she’ll be voting for “W”, in spite of “a fair amount of gritting of teeth:”
“I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat.They do not deserve to win, even if Bush deserves to lose, a position I am not quite willing to concede…
I am determined my children will grow up in a world of increasing democracy where terrorists are captured, tyrants overthrown.
When Bush said in last week’s debate, ‘We can be safe and secure if we go on the offense against terrorism and if we spread liberty around the world,’ I felt he spoke with conviction.When Kerry said he was going to “hunt and kill” the terrorists, I heard a politician’s sound bite…
On foreign policy, Bush is the idealist and Kerry the conservative, afraid to disturb the status quo (who) is giving Iraqi insurgents who…relish killing their own people most of all – every reason to step up their attacks in the hope of sabotaging their own elections and replacing Bush in the White House.It is the behavior of a politician with more ambition than conscience.”
(“I’m a Democrat for Bush”, Times Online, 10/17/04)
Well, there a more questions I could have looked at, but time is running out, so I’ll at least post this much, and hope that I’ve made my case.
WHY I’M BACKING MR. BUSH AND NOT MR. KERRY: PART 2
The second, even more critical reason I’m backing Mr. Bush can be summed up in three words: WAR ON TERRORISTS. I don’t think just war theory has had a problem with preventive war (if you’re planning to invade us Wednesday, we’re allowed to hit you Tuesday). But I’ve concluded, as a follow-up to my previous posts on Just War, that we not only have to hit terrorists with all our strength, with every weapon and strategy we have, for as long as we need to, but that we have to expand just war theory to allow pre-emptive war, or striking before a threat becomes imminent, for two reasons:
The weapons our enemies can get hold of – I don’t think I need to belabor this too much, but the sheer destructive power of biological or chemical agents, let alone even a small nuke or a “dirty bomb”, along with the speed and ease with which they can be delivered, make them something horridly unique that just war theory will simply have to adjust to. A worst-case scenario would be somebody unleashing ravening hell in Manhattan, or London, or Paris, or anywhere, and not claiming responsibility. What would the world, or the U.S., do then? Would we have to concede defeat and live in constant fear of any barbarians who might threaten to trump all our aces, or would we lash out in fear and anger against we know not whom, and thus risk destroying who we are?
Our enemies themselves – Ralph Peters makes a useful distinction between two basic types of terrorists, allowing for exceptions and gray areas:
Practical terrorists “may behave savagely, but they have tangible goals, and a logical approach to achieving them… their determination is fueled by the intellect and common emotions…They view their own deaths as a misfortune, however necessary or noble, and not as an embrace of the divine…
The practical terrorist may have ambitious dreams… but he (or she) is rarely suicidal and does not view death and destruction as goals unto themselves.
He may commit atrocious acts…but the scale of his actions is usually limited…he does not destroy entire cities, which he would rather rule than wreck…
On the other hand, the practical terrorist’s “hellish counterpart, the apocalyptic terrorist...sees himself as chosen and apart…believes that only his own ideals have any validity…is detached from compassion by his faith and only wants to punish the sinful... apocalyptic terrorists view themselves as tools of a divine and uncompromising retribution. Retribution against unbelievers, heretics, and even their own brethren whose belief is less pure is (their) real strategic goal…
The key distinction between these two types, Mr. Peters says, is that while the practical terrorist is trying to force change in the real world,
“No change in the world order will ever content the apocalyptic terrorist, since his actual discontents are internal…and no alteration in the external environment could sate his appetite for retribution against those he needs to believe are evil and guilty of causing his personal sufferings and disappointments – for such men, suicidal acts have a fulfilling logic, since only their own destruction can bring them lasting peace.”
(“When Devils walk the earth.” Dec. 2001, The Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities; go to “Publications” and then to “Papers.”)
Lee Harris argues that Islamic terrorists are driven by a fantasy ideology, which provides each of them a starring role in his own personal fantasy of glorious martyrdom in the name of Allah, an allure that can be so strong that it overrides political considerations. Thus, he says, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 viewed their atrocities not as terrorism with a political goal, but as a piece of theatre for the Arab street, to prove that radical Islam can, indeed, defeat the West. The key factor here is that terrorists cannot think realistically about the conflict they’re involved in because,
“It matters not how much stronger or more powerful we are than they; what matters is that God will bring them victory…In the fantasy ideology of radical Islam it is almost as if the ‘real’ world no longer matters… because the sole cause of all events is God…if this is so, then the ‘real’ world that we take for granted simply vanishes, and all becomes determined by the will of God.”
(Civilization and its Enemies: the Next Stage of History, New York, Free Press, 2004, p. 17).
For a good example of fantasy ideology, I refer you to a quote from Bin Laden himself, from an interview in 1998 - with a tip of the ol’ Blogger template to The American Thinker:
“I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion.” (“Terrorism at its Root,” Aug. 9, 2004)
Yeah, right, Binney – And if you REALLY believe the whole world will rush forward to embrace Islam, I think maybe you need to back off the opium, because I suspect that most of the non-Islamic world will join me as I say, IN * YOUR * DREAMS!!
The basic problem here is that even if apocalyptic terrorists don’t have a chance of forcing their nightmare vision on the real world, they can still cause unimaginable damage if they get the weapons. So I believe that we need to take the war to them whenever possible, up to and including hitting them (or their sponsors) first. I’m not fond of the idea of pre-emptive war, but I’d rather run that risk than see any more 9/11s, or worse, anywhere at all…
Mr. Peters concludes with some rules for fighting terrorists, including:
“Identify the type of terrorist you face…Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, though their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man…Our bloodiest successes will create far terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.
Do not be afraid to be powerful…Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp.
When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies.
Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances…We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful – and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies”
(“When Devils walk the earth.” Dec. 2001, The Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities; go to “Publications” and then to “Papers.”)
Again, I’ve said all that to say this: Mr. Bush “gets it:” he understands the significance of the conflict we’re involved in, and seems to be willing to do whatever’s necessary to win it. For instance:
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept. 2002, states that:
“We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction (p.14)…The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” (p.15)
Mr. Bush has extended the scope of the war to include states that support or sponsor terrorism, including Iraq, which is just as important as striking the terrorists themselves – you can run, but you can’t hide...
We’ve already seen one extra benefit of hitting terrorism effectively – Libya, for the time being at least, seems to have decided to turn from its wicked ways. In fact, I’m thinking that if we keep up the relentless pressure, we’ll probably see more would-be terrorists make the same rational decision, which would mean we might have fewer enemies to worry about, which would be a good thing.
Mr. Bush has a broader strategic vision; to make the world safer by encouraging democratic reform in the Middle East. This is going to be very difficult and long term, but he has a very valid point. Even if democracy isn’t a part of a particular culture, I think most people would like to be free from the constant threat of a knock on the door in the middle of the night, from the threat of watching their family tortured before their eyes, from the threat of being fed into a paper shredder, etc…And that, I think should provide some common ground to build on.
Saddam Hussein and the Taliban government of Afghanistan are no longer in power. ‘Nuff said, I think.
Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, has proclaimed that he will treat terrorism as simply a matter of law enforcement, as a “nuisance,” like prostitution or gambling, to be reduced to an “acceptable” level. Forgive me, if like Rudy Guilani, “I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they just a nuisance.” I’m sorry, Mr. Kerry, but terrorism went off the nuisance scale a LONG time ago!
Mr. Kerry has never (or almost never?) voted to authorize any new weapons systems during his time in the Senate. For instance, he opposes the Administration’s plan to modify “bunker busters” so that they can penetrate enough rock to take out underground installations, including those that contain WMDs. But the project is scheduled to cost only 27.5 million during the current fiscal year, not the hundreds of millions Mr. Kerry claims. And this sort of weapon would give us a viable option in dealing with rogue states and their WMDs besides giving in to their demands, using airborne nukes, or mounting a conventional raid. Is Mr. Kerry so suspicious of our motives that he’d deny us this option? (The Wall Street Journal, “Bunker Busting Myths,” 10/24/04)
I’ll be saying more about this later, but so far we have a clear choice here, and, in spite of specific reservations I might have, I’m sticking with the man who seems more interested in winning the war.
I’ll have more by the weekend; thanks for your patience, and please stay tuned!
WHY I’M BACKING MR. BUSH AND NOT MR. KERRY: PART 1
Well, first off, I’m adamantly pro-life, because I contend that the Bible teaches that a human life begins at conception, and thus is protected by God’s very strong prohibitions against shedding innocent blood. Those of you who are interested might look up Psalms 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, and Proverbs 6:16-19 for starters. There’s a lot more to say about this, and perhaps I will in the future, but for now, let’s cut to the chase…
Unfortunately, I don’t expect to see Roe v. Wade rolled back any time soon, without major shifts in the culture, and I think we evangelical/fundamentalist Christians are partly to blame for letting things slide so far – we haven’t, as a group, been doing such a great job of being salt and light during these past decades, now, have we? (I include myself here)
But still…Even though I realize we can’t scientifically prove that life begins at conception, and allowing for cases where neither child nor mother would survive, wouldn’t simple, ordinary human decency want to give the child the benefit of the doubt???
I’m sure many of you have heard of Amy Richards, who decided to abort two of the triplets she was carrying, because, in her own words:
“Now I’m going to have to move to Staten Island. I’ll never leave my house because I’ll have to care for these children. I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise… When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone (which) my doctors thought was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one.” (7/18/04 New York Times Magazine, quoted in National Right to Life News, Sept. 2004)
I realize that Ms. Richards is an extreme case, but I do tend to stretch an idea until it snaps. I also DO*NOT*FOR*A*MOMENT think that everyone who’s pro-choice is this callous. However, I think that this self-absorbed, cold-hearted indifference is the logical end result of accepting abortion on demand, and I can only see it as a giant, lurching step towards evil.
I’ve said all that to say this:
Mr. Bush has been as reliably pro-life as a President can be; he opposes using tax dollars to fund abortion, has supported legislation to keep minors from being taken across state line for abortions without their parents’ consent, and has signed laws that give legal rights to unborn children injured or killed during violent crimes, and to children who survive an attempted abortion. And to his firm stand on principle, I can only say, “GO W!!”
Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, can’t even steel himself to vote against the abomination of partial-birth abortion, which, so help me, I can’t see as anything but cold-blooded murder. I mean, GIMME A BREAK!!! – it involves crushing the skull of and sucking the brain out of a living child, who would otherwise be able to survive outside the womb, so that he/she can be more easily removed and tossed into the trash. If we can’t even be bothered to stop THAT sort of barbarism, I would say we have some big problems.
NOTE: According to Dr. Kathleen Raviele, fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that organization has stated that “this procedure (partial birth abortion) is never necessary to do to save the life of the mother.” (Dr. Raviele, interviewed by Kathryn Jean Lopez, “ Life, Stats & Election–Year Snow Jobs,” National Review Online, 10/21/04)
Like I said, especially with partial birth abortion, it’s a question of basic human decency; Mr. Bush understands this, while Mr. Kerry, in spite of his sophisticated “nuance,” doesn’t.
I have more on why I’m supporting Mr. Bush, hopefully by this weekend, so please stay tuned!
This is dedicated to all who died on that bright and horrid morning, and those who died
in Bali, Madrid, Israel, Russia, and anywhere else terrorists have struck:
Twin cities in the City, in the sky,
soaring to meet the clouds; greeting the sun
with joy, gladly catching golden light that
kindles answering golden light in glass
and metal.
Rank upon rank of lights,
gleaming in the night like strands of diamonds,
carefully arranged in ordered rows
by a proud master jeweler.
Humming with people, busy at their work;
“Just work!” Perhaps, but careful, constant work
kindles and keeps a dream’s light glowing in
one’s heart, and in time gives it solid form.
And dreams can kindle other dreams in
other hearts, light answering to light,
life after life made brighter.
Thus rose the mighty skyline
all around, and thus the towers themselves;
built by, and built for, dreamers, who could keep
their dreams alight, and, as the metal, stone,
and glass were thrown higher and ever higher
into the sky, rejoice as they took shape.
Evil comes, killing a lovely morning,
screaming out of the sky, flashing twin knives,
unnatural weapons, filled with stolen lives.
They strike. The wounded towers now bleed smoke
and fangs of flame that race like hellish poison,
tearing at their steel. Sadly the twins falter
and fall, weeping tears of splintered glass and
metal, floor smashing into floor, their strength
and gladness crumbling into smoke and ruin
as they plunge downward, taking with them lives;
so many precious souls, that vanish, with
their dreams, their strength and gladness, love, and tears,
leaving lonely bits of paper flying
in the gray, choking dust that rolls like waves
of surging water down the streets, to whisper
mournfully of those destroyed.
The skyline
now is wounded; a gash of emptiness
where once the towers stood echoes the wounds
in hearts and lives.
But God still reigns; He steers all things to suit
His purpose, even in this horror, and
has promised to one day share that purpose
with us, speaking face to face. He also
is never neutral between fear and freedom,
good and evil, and would have us fight
evil with the last atom of our strength.
Take courage from the courage of all those:
Who fought the toxic smoke, the killing breath
of the twin ravening, snarling infernos,
to save all whom they could; who faced twin
hells whose slashing fire-claws brought the towers
thundering down, rather than leave a comrade.
Who wrenched another weapon from the handof
evil, choosing to face their own fiery
death, rather than risk other lives.
Who deal with grief and horror day by day,
sifting through each scrap of the twisted pile
of wreckage, a long-smoldering mass grave,
hoping to find some trace of those who died.
So may we truly honor
the lives lost that day, in Pennsylvania,
in the Pentagon, in the twin cities
in the City, in the sky.
Sorry I’ve not posted for so long, but I have been busy – with, among other things, our trip to England!!
Hubby and I stumbled out of our plane about 6:30 AM on Memorial Day (which was about 12:30 AM Indy time), stumbled through what seemed like miles and miles of Heathrow airport, stumbled into a taxi, then into our hotel room, and spent the rest of the day recovering from jet lag (memo to self – see about upgrading tickets from economy class the next time we go hopping oceans and time zones!) The next day, we actually started our vacation…
A lot of London is still block after block of row houses; brick (I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many colors of brick before!), stucco, stone, iron balconies and railings, windows topped with Greek temple style pediments, windows peering out from mansard roofs, and fantastically elaborate gables, all rubbing shoulders in a cheerful architectural calliope. I think I even spotted one or two recent buildings that tried to fit into their context!
Two words: **GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE** - as in full-bore, pull-out-all-the-stops Gothic, high, wide, and breathtakingly beautiful…
We were walking along a medieval street in York – barely wide enough to get a car through, with as many turns as a snake’s belly - when it suddenly ended, and there was York Minster Cathedral, rising in splendor, her towers reaching to heaven in an exultant hymn of praise, glowing in the afternoon sun. I’m sure my jaw hit the pavement!
So the next morning we headed back to the Minster, me with map confidently in hand, for a look inside… There’s simply no way you can misplace the biggest building in the city…Yeah. Right. **chuckle** I, the great traveler, who led us all over London on the subway, with nary a hitch, got completely bamboozled by York’s medieval street grid…(same thing happened in Canterbury – maybe I should get one of those GPS gadgets?) So a 15-minute walk took an hour, and I was so glad the Internet friends who’d agreed to meet us were patient enough to wait!
And the Minster is just as splendid inside. The arches of the vaults, soaring heavenward, march in perfect, confident rhythm towards and between stained glass windows, which gather every ray of sunlight they can catch, and then joyously fling it out across the church as so many glowing gems. And I could have spent hours wandering around admiring the sculptures…
For me, Gothic architecture is a world of marvels: the colors that still glow from walls and sculptures inside Canterbury Cathedral; the stone carved as delicately as lace; the angels busily climbing up and down the stairways to heaven along the west towers of Bath Abbey. Just like my beloved Art Deco, there’s beautiful, exuberant craftsmanship everywhere. And just like skyscrapers, Gothic churches don’t just sit on their sites; they RISE from them…I haven’t found all the words yet to describe how beautiful they are, but I’m working on it…
I also remember:
The beautiful, green countryside, and the gardens (“Gardens R Us”)
Ruthin Castle, with its peacocks who like to pose for photos, picturesque ruins, and a Medieval Banquet so authentic that all you have to eat with is a knife as big as a dagger. But not to worry – it’s perfectly OK to dunk your bread in your soup, or drink from the bowl…
The “Royal Mile” in Edinburgh, and especially one little store right off it, on one of the steepest little side streets I’ve ever stumbled down, called “Thistle Do Nicely” (after one of Scotland’s national emblems)
The Colonel’s Review, Windsor Castle, the Tower of London…
HOW CAN A WAR BE JUST? III If you wish, you can start with Part II or Part I Now I’ll make some further comments about just cause. First, Darrell Cole observes:
“How can we follow Christ – even at a distance – while fighting and killing? Calvin gives us an indication by pointing out that Christ’s pacific nature (his willingness to suffer violence at the hands of Jewish and Roman authorities) is grounded in the priestly office of reconciliation and intercession that is reserved for Him alone. Christ’s pacific nature is thus inextricably tied to His role as redeemer and cannot be intended as a model for Christian behavior. No Christian can or should try to act as a redeemer, but all can and should follow Christ in obeying the commands of the Father. And the Father commands the just use of force.” (“Good Wars,” First Things, Oct. 2001, p. 30)
I think I might clarify what Mr. Cole says here by noting that when Christ commands Christians to “turn the other cheek,” he’s referring to a Christian’s personal response to unprovoked attacks, which, as I’ve previously observed, does not abrogate a right to self-defense, since he also told the disciples, shortly before his arrest:
“But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one…
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, it is enough.”
(Luke 22: 36,38)
As to the seeming contradiction between Christ’s words here and his later rebuke of Peter for drawing a sword (vs.49-51), Cyril of Alexandria suggests that Christ is here warning the Jews of the war that would culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem, and urging them to flee if they can (taking a purse and scrip), or to at least buy a sword to defend themselves if they can’t leave (Commentary on Luke, Homily 145). This interpretation would also seem to permit self-defense. Norval Geldenhuys argues that Christ as he rebukes Peter is affirming that, “The use of material force in the vindication and extension of His church on earth…is quite foreign to the teaching of Jesus.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1951, p.571) Loraine Boettner observes:
“As strange as sword-bearing may seem to us, who live in a peaceful, settled country…it was entirely appropriate to that lawless, barbarous age…If we lived under such conditions, we would have occasion to become much better acquainted with weapons than we now are…
Jesus’ rebuke to Peter was not a command to destroy the sword or to throw it away, but simply, ‘Put up the sword into the sheath.’(John 18:1) The Lord thereby implied that although this was not the proper time or place to use it, since He proposed to surrender Himself voluntarily, there would nevertheless be appropriate occasions for its future use…
We are to put our trust in the Lord, although He expects us to use the ordinary means at our disposal for protection against vicious men as definitely as He expects us to use the ordinary means to keep us from starvation or to provide clothing and shelter…” (The Christian Attitude Toward War, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1985, p.24-25)
Mr. Cole makes another comment which no doubt will seem very unpleasant to many pacifists (it even startled me):
“From the divine point of view, God desires to restrain evil among His creatures …From the human point of view, the virtue of charity (the love of God) drives just soldiers to do all they can to restrain evil – to see that justice is done – and this sometimes means using force.
This strikes a discordant note among many. How, we are asked, can an act of force be loving? The short answer is that force becomes an act of love when it seeks to resemble God’s use of force…this means, among other things that acts of force must never involve intrinsic evil (such as intentionally killing innocent people...)” (ibid, p. 31)
I think he has another good point here. In fact, using force to protect or rescue the innocent can at times, I’d argue, approach the concept of self-sacrificing love contained in the Greek word agape, which is, for a Christian, the highest kind of love. Mr. Cole concludes that:
“A failure to engage in a just war is a failure of virtue, a failure to act well…The Christian who fails to use force to aid his neighbor when prudence dictates that force is the best way to render that aid is an uncharitable Christian...Hence, Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war do a vicious thing; they fail to show love toward their neighbor as well as toward God.” (ibid, p. 31)
Yes, this can be frightfully abused (consider the Crusades), but again his basic point is sound; I’ve realized that there’s such a thing as a just war and an unjust peace ever since I learned about WW II and the Holocaust in grade school. And when Allied forces freed the survivors of the death camps, well, if that wasn’t a great act of charity, I’d sure like to know what is…
I think I’ve managed to show a distinction here between legitimate or moral force (in defense of self or others) and immoral force (used to spread Christianity, for instance), and a distinction between Christ’s role as redeemer and the role of Christians today.
I’ll talk a bit more about this next time around, hopefully by the weekend. In the meantime, take care!
In "Did Hitlerism Die With Hitler?," a review of Hitleer's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf, Omer Bartov compares the current Anti-Semitism, which often tries to hide itself as simple criticism of Israel's specifc policies, with Hitler's ideology, and finds that they have the same writhing, all-devouring evil at their center. He also contends that many commentators are refusing to recognize what's going on, or to take the anti-Semites at their word. He makes his point with a number of quotes from Hitler and his philosphical descendants, and concludes:
"So Hitler is dead, but there is a Hitlerite quality to the new anti-Semitism, which now legltimizes not only opposition to Zionism, but also the resurrection of the myth of Jewish world domination. And those who foolishly think that doing away with Isreal...would remove anti-Semitism had better look more closely at the language of these enemies. For they - I mean the enemies - insist that Jews are everywhere, and so they must be uprooted everywhere...(and) since they are the cause of all evil and misfortune, the world will be a happier place without them...
Hitler taught humanity an important lesson. It is that when you see a Nazi, a fascist, a bigot, or an anti-Semite, say what you see. If you want to justify it or excuse it away, describe accurately what it is that you are trying to excuse away...If the attacks on the Twin Towers were animated by anti-Semitic arguments, say so. If a Malaysian prime minister expresses anti-Semitic views, do not try to excuse the inexcusable. If a self-proclaimed liberation organization calls for the extermination of the Jewish state, do not pretend that it is calling for anything else. The absence of clarity is the beginning of complicity."(my emphasis)
("Did Hitlerism Die With Hitler?," Jewish World Review, 1/26/04)
As I've said before, you need to clearly and correctly define what you're fighting against; you have no chance of really dealing with evil if you won't look it in the face and call it what it is...When, I wonder, Dear Lord, will humanity ever learn this?
I'm a little bit late on this, but I finally got a look at some pictures of the recent atrocity in Iraq, courtesy of a link from Emperor Misha at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, and, so help me, some of the people enjoying the carnage are kids!!! With great big smiles on their faces, too!!
OK, OK, so why should I be surprised at anything, after seeing child suicide bombers, 9/11, 3/11, etc? But still - that just sickens me...Some people over there need to meet their Maker, and fast...
Sorry I haven't gotten anything else posted in the last week - I'll have more up ASAP, so don't give up...
I've been rather snowed under at work the past two or three weeks, but I finally have more on just war:
Historians tell us that the Romans, at least during the time of the Republic, would take proper steps before sending out the legions. They would notify a state that had managed to really tick them off, and if this state didn't give a satisfactory answer, the final step before "hobnailed sandals on the ground" involved a special priest who would throw a spear over the offender's border to let them know they were in * EXTREMELY * DEEP * trouble (states were a lot smaller then).
Moving on from the amusing image of Mr. Powell or Mr. Rumsfeld, wearing a toga and no doubt followed by the Joint Chiefs decked out in plumed helmets, breastplates and other hardware, solemnly stalking up to the Iraqi border and lobbing a javelin across it, I?m going to turn to the just war tradition that St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin helped to develop. This tradition, according to Keith Pavlischek,
"provides a normative grounding for statecraft, subjecting the use of force to a higher-law ethic?provides guidance to military commanders, placing their role within the larger context of the moral ends of statecraft" (and) offers moral guidance to individuals as they conscientiously weigh the question of participation in the use of force" ("Just and Unjust War," Intercollegiate Review,Spring 2002, p.30)
The first set of criteria involve jus ad bellum, or justice going towards war; in other words, the means of and reasons for going to war.
The first requirement for jus ad bellum is proper authority. Aquinas explains why ?the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged is needed:
"it is not the business of a private person to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the material sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4): He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so to it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies." (Summa Theologica, Part II of Second Part, Question 40, Article 1)
The second requirement for jus ad bellumis a just cause for going to war, according to Augustine
"For it is the wrong-doing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing even though it gives rise to no war, would still be a matter of grief to man because it is man?s wrong-doing." (City of God, 19.7)
"Just wars are usually defined as those that avenge injuries...when a people or a city neglected either to punish wrongs done by its members or to restore what it had wrongly seized." (Questions on the Heptateuch, 6.10)
John Calvin asks two rhetorical questions:
"For if power has has been given them (governments) to maintain the tranquility of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, can they use it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquility of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs?"
"If it becomes them (governments) to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been afflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity?" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 20, Sect. 11)
As Keith and Karl Payne observe,
"The spread of religious and political ideologies, territorial conquest and/or revenge are not considered justifiable causes? All aggression is likewise condemned. The only bases that war, or the use of force, can be considered just, is if it is defensive."(A Just Defense: the Use of Force, Nuclear Weapons & Our Conscience, Portland, OR, Multnomah Press: 1987)
I'll try to have another post up by this weekend - in the mean time, take care!
PART I PART III
MORE THAN 140 KILLED BY TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MADRID
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou (God) art with me; thy rod and thu staff, they comfort me."
Ps. 23:4
"For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life...nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, or depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Rom. 8:38-39
THE AXIS OF CHEESE-EATING SURRENDER WEASELS HITS A NEW LOW…
The title isn’t meant as a slam against the entire French nation, but I have to say that French writer Alain Soral must be a charter member of the Axis (courtesy of Merde in France). Here is his recollection of Sept. 11, the most rancid bilge I think I’ve encountered outside of the Fundamentalist Islamic fever swamps:
"I was in my home office writing a pen-named freelance psy-sex piece for a women’s' magazine in order to put some food on the table, the phone rang and it was an old friend who I had a falling out with a few years ago, an old friend who was doing the same debilitating work under a pen-name for a different magazine. He screamed into the telephone: "switch on your TV, this is great!". I turned the TV on and it was so beautiful that we put our differences aside. I then called another friend who I had had a falling out with over some political nonsense. He had gone to Spain. On the backdrop of the same images we experienced the same communion and we buried the hatchet as well... Guys the world over who share the same feelings with those who are humiliated, felt the same sense of euphoria while watching these biblical images of justice and punishment! For me, 9-11 represents the reconciliation, concerning most subjects, with all those that this mediocre life has forced me to hate because of insignificant differences... Truthfully, it was a beautiful moment of love. That should tell you how much I remember it!"
And in case anyone might doubt that someone who ISN”T a certified member of the Fundamentalist Islamic fever swamp might say this, Merde in France helpfully provides the original French, which I can read well enough to verify the accuracy of the translation…
Cher Monsieur Sorel, I thought M. Derrida and Noam Chomksy had gone off the rails pretty badly, but yoursneering comments are a smoldering moral train wreck! So you thought the gut-wrenching, horrid images of hell on earth in Manhattan were “great,” beautiful,” “biblical images of justice and punishment,” did you? You could call watching the deaths of thousands of people whose only crime was coming to work that morning “a beautiful moment of love?” Do you know how inhuman and twisted you sound as you celebrate the deaths of innocents? Do you even care? (Well, I guess I didn’t need to ask that!) Would you have spouted the same contemptible, smirking weasel words as the Blitzkrieg rolled over France back in 1940? Or do you just think that American lives somehow don’t count as much?
Do you feel the same euphoria (surely a dark, festering negation of everything that true pleasure means, at least for those who are playing with a full deck, shall we say?) when Palestinian suicide bombers blow up Israeli children?
At any rate, M. Sorel, if you REALLY believe what you wrote, you are wading in a stinking sewer of moral depravity, and if your views become popular, I tremble to think of Europe’s future, because, to judge from what you’ve said, you and your friends not only wouldn’t defend civilization against the barbarians du jour – you’d hand them another torch and dance with them in the flaming ruins!
And that, fellow netizens, is a classic example of the sort of opposition we face from within – does the word “quisling” ring a bell?
I thought I’d post a poem that captures the cheerful chaos that’s one of the things I enjoyed about New York City. Old construction photos, BTW, show that the Empire State Building was, indeed built right next to a furniture store…
NEW YORK
The city is cutting a way,
The gasmen are hunting a leak;
They’re putting down asphalt today,
To change it for stone in a week.
The builders are raising a wall,
The wreckers are tearing it down,
Enacting the drama of all
Our changeable, turbulent town.
For here is an edifice meant
To stand for an eon or more;
And there is a gospeler’s tent,
And there is a furniture-store.
Our suburbs are under the plow,
Our scaffolds are raw in the sun;
We’re drunk and disorderly now,
BUT –
‘Twill be a great place when it’s done!
BAD PHILOSOPHY PART ONE, OR WHO CARES WHAT DERRIDA THINKS, ANYHOW?
I’ve seen this problem in novels with villains as “heroes;” in movies with such a repulsively immoral or amoral “sense of life” that I wish I could take a mental shower after being unwary enough to watch one (or part of one). I’ve seen it in the works of historians who use painstaking research (including some genuinely useful new concepts) with no apparent purpose except, perhaps, to demolish the reputation of anyone in history who otherwise might possibly be admired. I’ve even seen it in the proposals for rebuilding Ground Zero, most of which have nothing resembling beauty or harmony about them.
I don't know if there's one word for all of this bad philosophy that's been trickling down from the "chattering classes" into popular culture, but the basic ideas include a denial of any meaningful difference between good and evil, the notion that there are no absolutes, no real truth outside of each person's subjective opinion, and the obliteration of real meaning from words (including, of course, words like "beauty", which help explain the trashy architecture I mentioned).
One huge problem with this bundle of rotten ideas is that if there are no absolutes, I’m wondering how much of a leap it is to shrug your shoulders and say that there’s nothing worth fighting for, especially if giving up the harsh, unpleasant, bloody business of fighting might buy at least a semblance of peace? This could eventually make these ideas as dangerous as any outside terrorist threat. So while I’m not going to call the FBI, this is one reason I do think these ideas need to be argued against as strongly as possible. To that end, I’m going to start with a modest Fisking of Jacques Derrida, a major deconstructionist, and thus (as I hope to show) very definitely a part of the problem.
I’m working from an article (“Kant at GroundZero,” The New Republic, Feb. 9, 2004), in which Richard Wolin reviews Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues With Jurgen Hebermas and Jacues Derrida whose editor, Giovanna Borradori, makes what I might call the big mistake of asking M. Derrida if he has any profound reflections in the wake of Sept. 11.
First, though, Mr. Wolin explains deconstruction:
“In the lexicon of deconstruction, reason…suppresses otherness, heterogeneity, and difference…For Derrida, the hallmark of Western thought…has been a systematic repression of marginal elements (‘otherness’) that fail to conform to reason’s oppressive requirements: its demands for unity, totality, and sameness…
Deconstruction cheerfully severs the pivotal link between insight and emancipation…(which is) philosophy’s central premise: that reason is the key to human flourishing, to a life well lived…
As one of deconstruction’s French critics has aptly observed: ‘Deconstruction is the ruse that makes it possible to speak at the same time as there is nothing to say.’”
Yes, this is barely scratching the surface, and I’m sure I’ll be saying a lot more about deconstruction later, but for now, M. Derrida seems bent on proving the truth of that critic’s comment as he answers Ms. Borradori’s question: were the events of September 11 historically unique?
“We perhaps have no concept and no meaning available to us to name…this ‘thing’ that has just happened, this supposed ‘event’…’Something’ took place…but the place and meaning of this ‘event’ remains ineffable, like an intuition without concept…out of range for a language that admits its powerlessness and so is reduced to pronouncing mechanically a date…as a kind of ritual incantation…We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this way…What remains ‘infinite’ in this wound is that we do not know how to describe, identify, or even name it.”
Pardon me, M. Derrida, but initial numb shock and incomprehension in the face of such a horror are NOT the same thing is “having no concept and no meaning available” to name it. And as for the “place” remaining “ineffable,” didn’t you bother to watch any TV, read any papers or magazines, or even ask any New Yorkers while you were teaching there? If you had, you might have found out about a ghastly, smoldering pile of ruins, a mass grave where two tall buildings used to leap proudly towards the sky, at the south end of an island called Manhattan…and there was something about these terrorists who hijacked jets and turned them into bombs, or did you miss that too? Were you even aware that you were in New York City, or does the “powerlessness” of language (your type of language maybe, but not mine!) extend to an utter inability to deal with geography? If that’s the case, I sure hope to heaven you have a good secretary to make your airline reservations for you!!!
And, M. Derrida, while you may think, from your rarified heights of academic abstraction, that “we do not know how describe, identify, or even name” what happened, well, I have a big, neon-lettered, all-caps news flash for you. A lot of we lesser mortals who actually deal with the real world know precisely what happened; this was an act of war, an atrocity, an abomination…My, aren’t real live words amazing? Yes, they DO actually convey something – surprising, isn’t it? Ultimately, there is one nice, simple word that wraps it all up – E* V* I*L – can you say that word, M. Derrida? Just what part of it don’t you understand? Because that’s what that “event” was – Screaming, foaming at the mouth evil, red in tooth and claw, set on fire of Hell itself!
But there are some more words, M. Derrida, that describe how so many, on that day and after, responded – words like heroism, bravery, sacrifice…that can be wrapped up into another nice, simple word - maybe you think it’s too simple for your finely tuned, esoteric mind, but a lot of us still find it very appropriate. And that word, Monsieur, is G*O*O*D –because when evil threw its worst at them, New Yorkers came back right at it with their best, as a sign I saw shortly thereafter said so well; “You do us proud, New York, New York!” And just what part of “good” don’t you understand, M. Derrida?
And it gets worse, believe it or not, as Mr. Wolin, seeming a bit bemused, tries to explain what M. Derrida sees as the cause of Sept. 11 (I use this long quote because, odd as it sounds, it’s easier to follow than M. Derrida’s explanation, which should tell you something right there):
“In (Derrida’s) view the attacks are best described in terms of the biofeedback mechanism of the human autoimmune system (Yes, really)…the autoimmune system secretes antibodies to attack unwanted foreign invaders. But at times the process miscarries, and the antibodies mistakenly attack the host. According to Derrida, the September 11 attacks were born of an analogous process. As the epicenter of globalization and neo-colonialism, the West has become entangled in depredations and corrupt dealings well beyond its own borders…
On September 11, the West at long last reaped what it had sown. According to Derrida, as a reaction to American foreign policy, the brand of Islamic fundamentalism practiced by Al Qaeda was a type of ‘antibody,’…an indigenous response to…American political overreach. Usually these ‘antibodies’ thrive at the Third World sites where they are originally ‘secreted.’…But…The West’s usually reliable autoimmune system…miscarried, and the ‘antibody’ known as ‘Al Qaeda’ attacked its host. The September 11 attacks thus serve as a cruel reminder of the inequities and injustices of American ‘hegemony.’”
M. Derrida’s penetrating, earth shaking conclusion:
“What will never let itself be forgotten is thus the perverse effect of the autoimmunitary itself. For we now know that repression both in its psychoanalytical sense and its political sense…ends up reproducing and regenerating the very thing it seems to disarm.”
Well, M. Derrida, I have to give you a prize for one of the most badly strained, if not actually dislocated or fractured, uses of imagery I’ve seen in quite awhile. So if Al Qaeda were “antibodies,” what, in your opinion, were the people who died in the towers? And how would you describe our military response? (Or, on second thought, do I really want to know?)
You’ve also managed to do two things that I wouldn’t have thought possible at the same time – assert that whatever happened on Sept. 11 was All Our Fault, even though you insist that we can’t even describe what really happened. But it seems that you’ve finally found a bit of what you might call moral clarity somewhere, though if you think everyone who died because they went to work or boarded a jet simply “had it coming,” I would call your “moral clarity” immoral, repulsive or outright depraved (or are those other words you don’t quite understand?).
And I would strongly advise you NOT to try out that line on anybody who lost a friend, family member, or loved one on Sept. 11, or who helped in the clean up, because, believe me, they DO understand what all those words I’ve mentioned mean…And you might find yourself on the receiving end of some other concepts you no doubt wouldn’t understand – some blunt, pointed, and oh-so-uncultured Anglo Saxon idioms, perhaps topped off with something called a Bronx cheer…
[END FISKING]
After this little introduction, which I hope has shown at least a little bit of the problem, I’m going to continue taking aim at this rotten philosophy – this might take a while, since M. Derrida is, I’m sure, going to be about as much fun to read as getting teeth pulled…And I still haven’t finished with just war yet…so stay tuned!
