My typical 9/11 column has focused not simply on the horrific attack on innocent Americans, but also on the US response to those attacks. I usually recount the horror I felt, now ten years ago, watching those towers come down, the fear I felt as I attempted to go about my day as though business were usual, and the despair I felt knowing that business would never be usual again.
For the first time, we commemorate that horrific day knowing that its architect has finally been captured and killed. We also know that the cost of this war on terror can be measured in lives – both US, as well as Afghani and Iraqi. We know that the cost of this war can be measured in dollars. And we know that the cost of this war can be measured in the loss of civil liberties.
I would argue that, despite the death of bin Laden, al-Qaeda won this war by changing the US and making us more like them and less like us.
If you were looking for the standard 9/11 commemorative account, I suggest you should have known you were not going to find that here.
Diminished Role for bin Laden?
This week, the UC Davis News Service had an interesting account of Professor Flagg Miller’s research that argues that the US, in a rush to hold someone accountable, both oversimplified the role of Osama bin Laden and overly exaggerated his importance to the al-Qaeda organization.
Instead, Professor Miller casts doubt on the common belief that the 9/11 attacks 10 years ago this week resulted from a two-decade-long conspiracy against the United States by bin Laden and the organization he led, arguing that did not emerge in its ultimate form with bin Laden at the helm until the late 1990s.
Professor Miller instead argues that bin Laden maneuvered himself into becoming the leader of al-Qaeda more through self-marketing than as a recognized militant leader, particularly after 9/11.
In a forthcoming paper, Professor Miller writes, “In the years following Sept. 11, Americans joined others worldwide in seeking to not just understand why such a thing happened but to track down those responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice.”
“Ten years later and with bin Laden dead, I believe that we are in a better position to reassess the accuracy and legacy of this early wealth of history for our understanding of the movement bin Laden claimed to represent.”
An al-Qaeda propaganda tape produced in October 2000 is the only source Professor Miller has found so far that refers to “al-Qaeda,” or “al-Qaida,” as a militant organization or base associated with bin Laden.
Al-Qaeda means “base” in Arabic, but has different meanings in different contexts, according to Professor Miller.
“Al-Qaida can refer, of course, to bin Laden’s worldwide terrorist organization, but so too can it simply mean a ‘base’ of operations, as was the case for a host of training camps from the 1980s-2000s in Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond that had no significant connection to bin Laden or his ideology,” he said.
What becomes important is understanding the role that bin Laden played in the al-Qaeda organization, which helps one better understand that the world did not suddenly change when bin Laden died this year. Indeed, Professor Miller’s research also suggests that al-Qaeda marginalized bin Laden in the early years.
Professor Miller also found al-Qaeda’s legacy to be broader than simply promoting anti-Americanism, though that was bin Laden’s primary focus.
“To begin with, the primary enemy was not the American, Jew or Christian, but rather the errant Muslim within,” he wrote. At the same time, the primary audiences were those yearning for a restoration of Arab ethnic pride.
By the latter half of the 1990s, however, bin Laden had positioned himself as al-Qaeda’s leader, an achievement that Professor Miller credits to bin Laden’s self-marketing and media outreach – as well as his family wealth, social connections among Saudis, expanding community of Afghan-Arab volunteers, and his political alliances throughout the 1980s and early ’90s.
Bin Laden’s anti-American sentiments had also become very much part of his public rhetoric by this time, amplified by Western news outlets.
In the months and years following 9/11, many experts spoke of bin Laden’s “intimate involvement with the establishment and development of al-Qaida,” Professor Miller notes.
“These accounts helped remind audiences of his impressive role as bankroller, organizational chief, warrior and spokesperson for a struggle that would be turned against the United States in no uncertain terms. Given the generalizing and often breezy nature of narratives about bin Laden’s role in history, however, it is important to recognize their inadequacy as records of the past, especially considering the desire of many interviewees to figure prominently in the unfolding drama of bin Laden’s unveiling.”
Legacy on Civil Rights
That Osama bin Laden may not have been all that he has been made out to be, should really not surprise many. Bin Laden fit a role that was needed at the time – a scary figure that spewed forth anti-American rhetoric, well-financed, educated, and most of all elusive and reclusive – he, in short, made the perfect boogey man.
It was this fear that allowed for the creation of the security apparatus that, in my view, lost us the war on terror. Terrorists were never going to defeat the US militarily, they only win by propagating terror, fear manifested in a seemingly legitimate threat to security that would cause the US to curtail its civil liberties in order to regain the feeling of security.
As Anthony Romero of the ACLU wrote this week, “We could not have imagined that in the decade to follow, our nation would engage in policies that betrayed our foundational values and undermined our Constitution. Pledges by the Bush administration to uphold civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 quickly rang hollow.”
He continues, “We lost our way when, instead of addressing the challenge of terrorism consistent with our values, our government chose the path of torture and targeted killing, of Guantánamo and military commissions, of warrantless government spying and the entrenchment of a national surveillance state.”
This has always been my chief concern. It has always been a source of great irony to me that far more people die of domestic accidents each year than will ever die at the hands of terrorists. Even more people will die from a heart attack or cancer. And yet the national focus turned to a curtailment of civil liberties in the face of this fear.
In the summer of 2005, as a graduate student I attended a summer-long training on political psychology at Stanford University, where over a period of time, we were exposed to lectures by some of the top people in the field.
One of the most fascinating lectures was by psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Professor Zimbardo will likely be best known for his 1971 research that became known as the Stanford Prison Experiment.
24 students were selected to play the role of prisoners and live in a mock prison. The roles were randomly designed and what happened is that the participants ended up adapting to their roles far beyond what the experiment was intended, to the point where many of the “officers” engaged in authoritarian behavior and even began torturing the “prisoners.”
Professor Zimbardo acknowledged that the experiment even impacted his own conduct and permitted the abuse to continue until a number of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the experiment itself was ended after just six days.
Professor Zimbado’s research changed the way research was conducted and also gave us insights into what he referred to as a situational attribution of behavior, rather than a dispositional attribution.
For Professor Zimbardo this meant that otherwise good people could be “corrupted by the behavioral context, by powerful ‘situational forces,’ ” as opposed to dispositional behavior which would be explained more by personal pathologies, character defects and sadistic personalities.
This research immediately led insight into the holocaust, where there was a dichotomy of sadistic behavior carried out by “monsters” like Dr. Mengele, and also barbarism carried out by seemingly normal individuals.
Professor Zimbardo had been called out to examine the conditions of Abu Ghraib, the prison camp that became one of the worst examples of abuse in the Iraq war.
Professor Zimbardo’s research showed an environment with normal people working in inhuman conditions, “12-hr night shifts, 7 days a week, 40 days with no break; extreme exhaustion, high stress level, chaotic conditions, filth, noise, unsanitary; in charge of 1000 prisoners, 12 army reserve guards, 60 Iraqi police…” and under the constant fear of attacks, where soldiers and prisoners were killed and wounded, finally broken.
The Fay Report, by Major General George Fay in August of 2004, lends credibility to Professor Zimbardo’s claims that the commanders and leaders should bear far more blame than those on the ground who perpetrated the horrific acts. For a period of 7 months, “Military Intelligence personnel allegedly requested, encouraged, condoned or solicited Military Police personnel [the Army Reserve guards] to abuse detainees, and/or participated in detainee abuse, and/or violated established interrogation procedures and applicable laws…” the General reported.
“Abuses would not have occurred had [military] doctrine been followed and mission training conducted,” he continued.
“The environment created at Abu Ghraib contributed to the occurrence of such abuse and the fact that it remained undiscovered by higher authorities for a long period of time,” he concluded.
Nevertheless, the military court found that individuals were “personally responsible for the abuses,” and therefore they were dishonorably discharged and imprisoned for a number of years.
Professor Zimbardo told us this was “the triumph of a mindless dispositional view,” where the individual gets blamed without regard to situational determinants, and the corrupt system and chain of command – both the military and the Bush administration – were absolved.
To me, this incident and Philip Zimbardo’s vivid presentation demonstrated to me what was a microcosm for the entire post-9/11 world.
Terrorism is a psychological attack and is about “creating fear of violence from random, unpredictable attacks,” which work by “inducing generalized anxiety” and by undermining “confidence in the government to protect citizens.”
While bin Laden may have served as the boogey man, the true face of terrorism is better embodied by the hijackers themselves who form a “faceless” and “placeless” enemy that can never be killed or eliminated.
Policymakers would argue that its threat could only be reasonably reduced by wise intelligence and international cooperation.
Less Secure America
But are we there? As strange as it may seem that we go from analyzing the work of Professor Miller and the world-class scholar, Philip Zimbardo, we bolster this claim by looking at the Davis Enterprise, of all papers, op-ed that argues that American is “not quite as secure as it thinks it is.”
Writes the Enterprise, “In the aftermath of 9/11, the public perception was that there was a massive increase in security all across the board: federal, state and local. Except for the federal government, that was largely illusory. In some areas, we are less protected than we were before 9/11.”
Indeed, they argue, “But combined security employment – federal, state, local and private – increased just 5 percent between 2000 and 2010 while the population was growing at around 10 percent. That’s because federal hiring was more than offset by a decrease in local and state police and private security guards.”
This is the first-responder argument that says that the first wave of response to a terrorist attack will not be from the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security or the Transportation Security Administration (unless it happens to be another airliner attack). It will be by police, firefighters and even private security.
Notes the Enterprise, “Because of the struggling economy, that discrepancy is likely to grow as state and local governments try to shrink their workforces, including law enforcement, and private-sector hiring remains anemic.”
They cite Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: “We know we’ll never eliminate all risk. I’m not providing any guarantees for the country. But we can minimize risk and maximize our opportunity to stop something, and that’s what we’ve done.”
And for all of that, where has that left us? The ACLU argues, and I would agree, we are a nation who has sacrificed greatly – in a loss of freedom and a loss of our moral compass. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay mark the most visible efforts. But there is the entire Patriot Act and the corresponding government intrusion without warrant or regulation that troubles us most.
“That is not who we are, or who we want to be,” Mr. Romero of the ACLU writes. “And that is why the ACLU has vigorously campaigned to defend the basic values of American democracy. We argued for transparency and accountability, robust checks and balances, due process rights for all, equal protection for religions and ethnicities, and First Amendment protections for protesters, dissenters and whistleblowers. We won landmark legal victories, pursued years-long court cases, blocked harmful laws and policies, and protected the rights of thousands of people nationwide.”
However, despite those modest victories, we still face a daunting situation a decade after 9/11, as “the U.S. is at risk of enshrining a permanent state of emergency in which our nation’s core values are subordinated to ever-expanding claims of national security. In other words: our nation still faces the challenge of remaining both safe and free.”
This week, the ACLU released a report entitled, “A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11,” “which shows how sacrificing America’s values – including justice, individual liberty and the rule of law – ultimately undermines our safety.”
“Many of the controversial policies we discuss have been shrouded in secrecy under the rubric of national security, preventing oversight and examination by the public,” they argue. “The unique danger inherent in trying to articulate a war against terrorism, or even a war against Al-Qaeda, is that the ‘end’ of such a conflict is a distant abstraction, not an actual event.”
The ACLU’s report “challenges the contention that a ‘war on terror’ that takes place everywhere and will last forever makes us safer. By invoking the right to use lethal force and indefinite military detention outside battle zones we hamper the international struggle against terrorism by straining relations with our allies and hand a propaganda tool to our enemies.”
Taking on the legacy of the Bush administration’s sanction of torture (as well as Obama’s capitulation on this point) – perhaps the most shameful of post-9/11 policies – “the report warns that the lack of accountability for torture leaves the door open to future abuses.”
The report details how profiling based on race and religion has become commonplace nationwide. “Fundamentally, profiling-based counterterrorism investigations are doomed to fail because they are predicated on the false and unfair assumption that Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorism than other groups,” the ACLU writes.
Finally, the report warns that “9/11 attacks have raised the risk of a permanent surveillance state, through the use of warrantless wiretapping, email monitoring and cell phone location tracking.”
Few media outlets will focus on this impact of the war on terror. They will focus today on a look at the families of the victims ten years later, the death of bin Laden, progress or lack thereof in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the state of al-Qaeda.
If that is the account you want to read about, I suggest you read one of many in the newspapers. But for me, we did not win the war on terror, we are not going to win the war on terror, until we lose our fear and restore our values of freedom, due process of law, and justice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thank you for writing about this David, it is certainly under-reported.
I agree that we have lost some liberties and privacy, and perhaps it has swung too far. I don’t know the answer, nor does anyone else. We’ve been relatively safe inside our borders since 9/11, and for that we must be thankful. If we endure another attack anything similar to 9/11, we’ll likely lose more liberties, and the longer we go without another attack, the more of our liberties that will be returned. If is fair to question whether the liberties we lost help keep us safe, but from my perspective, the lost liberties are a very small price to pay for safety and freedom to enjoy the liberties and rights that we have.
It is inevitable and appropriate that how our government ensures our safety would have changed. The 9/11 attack took advantage of our civil liberties and our assumptions about how enemies would attack. Prior to 9/11, our civil liberties assume that attacks on our country would come from nation-states and from outside the US. Now, we rightfully assume otherwise.
Finally, I think there is much to consider and debate out the results of the attacks. Yes, our country has been changed, and we have committed some embarrassing acts. But there have been significant changes in the Middle East. There is a wave of democracy sweeping through countries that likely wouldn’t have happened without US leadership and support for democracy. I don’t think one can conclude that “we lost”. I think one can conclude that we’ve been changed, and you can also can conclude that change was inevitable.
Remember Shanksville… average citizens, not the government (except in the eyes of some seriously mentally ill conspiracy theorists) stopped evil intentions from even greater tragedy.
[i]I usually recount the horror I felt now ten years ago watching those towers come down, the fear I felt as I attempted to go about my day as though business were usual, and the despair I felt knowing that business would never be usual again.[/i]
This statement is interesting, and I’ll share my perspective, which is that of a New Yorker. I moved to SF in June 2001, after living in NYC area for 9 years. On Sept 1O I was in NYC, and traveled by train that night to Washington DC and was in a car near the Gannett building when the Pentagon was hit – we saw the smoke and flames. I was trapped in the city all day before they reopened the bridges. I was unable to return to SF, until Saturday afternoon, and to find a flight, I drove to Newark from DC on Saturday morning. I, like tens of thousands of others, lost several friends who were at work in the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or who were first responders.
There are very few folks who witnessed this event on Sept 11 who even thought about going about their day “as business as usual” for weeks or months. Yet, when I finally made my way back to SF on Saturday, I noticed an immediate difference in the reaction to 9/11 on the west coast. Clearly, without the proximity to the event, the impact was lessened. But, there was a deeper difference. Many folks on the west coast seemed to react like it was an very unfortunate weather event, maybe like Katrina, but which happened to someone else. Unlike the east coast, where US flags were flying everywhere, there were very few flying here. Folks on the east coast understood that our county had been attacked and our people had been violated. They understood explicitly that life was never going to be the same, and that “business would not be usual” for a long, long time. They understood, that the US had been attacked and wounded in a very significant way.
I think the difference in perception, in large part, continues today. I’m sure there are of folks from NYC or Wash DC that would agree with David’s view, but in general, they have a much different view of the impact of that day than do many on the west coast.
Any other witnesses to the events have a perspective?
For your consideration…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvj6zdWLUuk
Adam Smith
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I agree that the west coast, east coast difference in perspective is probably both profound and inevitable given that direct observers will have a much more visceral response to a tragedy than will indirect observers.
I would like to share my remembrances and perspective of 9/11.
When I first became aware of the attack, I was on the causeway. When I turned on NPR, my first impression was that I was hearing a retrospective on the 1994 attack on the WTC. This error was rapidly dispelled. My next thought was “not again” and the reference in my mind was not only to the previous WTC attack but also the Oklahoma City bombing. To me, these attacks are equal in their evil in terms of intent ( the stated desire to harm as many innocents as possible and to attack the foundations of our society). Although I was obliged (still had patients to care for) to carry on with as much a degree of normalcy as possible, I knew that much about our life had changed both in the short term, and likely permanently.
My particular set of fears were, as is true for all of us, grounded in my past experience.
Having been an adolescent in the Vietnam era, I feared that we would respond militarily in a fashion that would involve us in prolonged war. We did.
Having a strong belief in the importance of individual freedoms to our society, I feared we would lose many of these freedoms. We did.
Believing deeply in the basic equality of all peoples, with an inherent capacity for both good and evil regardless of race, religion, national affiliation, I feared that we would use this attack as a rationale for stereotyping, hatred and discrimination. We did, and are continuing to this day ( as in the controversy over the location of mosques).
Believing in the rule of law, I feared that we would use this attack as a reason to suspend or distort our own laws. We did ,in the form of condoning inhumane treatment of prisoners and torture.
Fortunately, one of my worst fears, that we would impost a state of martial law, did not occur. A bit of overblown paranoia on my part.
Another thing that I see as a tragic outcome, not of the attacks themselves, but of our reaction to the attacks, is that we focus immense resources on creating a sense of safety that we can never perfect, while stating that we do not have the resources to perfect that which we can control. These resources could for instance be used to ensure that no American child is hungry, that no child is injured or dies because of lack of medical care, that no child is cold , without shelter, or without world class educational opportunities. These are within our control, but unfortunately not within our will as a nation. Very sad.
[quote]I would argue that, despite the death of bin Laden, al-Qaeda won this war by changing the US and making us more like them and less like us.[/quote]
I stopped reading this article right at this sentence. If you cannot see the difference between our society and Al-Qaeda, then your view of America is so hopelessly skewed in the negative there is no point in further discussion…
I remember 9/11 as a day that American pulled together as a nation, picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off, and did what needed to be done. It was tough going, but ordinary people did extraordinary things. We survived, we did not buckle or crumble, we never quit in defeat.
George W. Bush told the world we would hunt down the terrorists one by one, no matter how long it took. And he was right. Obama finished the job that George W. Bush started. Republican or Democrat, we pull together to get done whatever job needs to be accomplished.
Is our way of life perfect? Of course not. But I’d rather live in this great country then anywhere else in the world, with a nation of independent people who can have differences of opinion, but coexist side by side. In point of fact, this blog exists bc America allows for such freedoms. And when people taste freedom, they never want to let go…
If you don’t like what is going on, then work within the system for change… which is the freedom this country, like no other, allows for…
Elaine,
I agree with everything you said in your post, and everything I said in mine. I do not see these are mutually exclusive points of view, but rather as different perspectives on what makes this the great nation it is, and how we might attempt to improve.
I keep waiting for my civil rights to be violated because of 9/11. It hasn’t happened yet.
[quote]I agree with everything you said in your post, and everything I said in mine. I do not see these are mutually exclusive points of view, but rather as different perspectives on what makes this the great nation it is, and how we might attempt to improve.[/quote]
All humanity should continually aspire to improve – it results in the improvement of the human condition. To strive to attain “perfection” is unrealistic, impossible, doomed to failure, and breeds continual discontent. To be able to accept/forgive some degree of imperfection and enjoy the journey along the path of life is the epitome of contentment/acceptance/joy…
Adam Smith:
Thanks for your observations r.e. East Coast vs West Coast, although not all Californians fall into that mold. I mentioned to my wife today that is only recently that I did not burn with anger every time I thought about that event. I hope that is a sign that I am healing too. The dispatch of Bin Laden might have something to do with me finally getting to closure after that fateful day when I emerged from the shower before work to turn on the TV… and joined millions of Americans experiencing the horror of the death of thousands of innocent people in real time… recognizing that our lives had just changed for the worst. At that point and for weeks after I probably would have supported dropping nuclear weapons on the cesspools of the Mid East sponsoring the terrorism of Islamic extremists. Our flag is up today and is every day we feel the need to demonstrate our profound love of country. It was up for three months straight when our cousin was deployed to Iraq the first time.
I would say that geographically California is more apt to display more physical manifestations of American patriotism. The center, east and north of the state burn red white and blue as much as the rest of the most patriotic parts of the US. It is the coastal areas and the larger population centers in California that tend to respond more detached from the general American experience. I wish I could put my finger on it, but California’s large urban areas are just weird with respect to a sense of community. They seem to almost be separate countries from the US, exhibiting a form of laid-back, apathetic, selfishness that is alien to all other American behavior. New Yorkers came together to help each other. I would hope that same would be said of the people living in LA and SF if presented similar challenges… but alas I think it would be different. Like in Louisiana after Katrina, I think there would be more people waiting around for some help to arrive and angry that someone was not taking care of them… or doing something but while having their anger directed at their own country. I don’t think they would wave as many flags as much as point fingers of blame. I hope I am wrong and I never get the chance to prove it right or wrong… but I think my view would play out.
Part of Bush’s speech nine days after 9-11:
[quote]Americans are asking, “How will we fight and win this war?” We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war — to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we’re not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans.[/quote]
Isn’t it refreshing to remember a leader that said what he meant and meant what he said?
JB
Maybe until you remember that this is also the man that led us into Iraq to preemptively strike against the non existent weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, because of course we’ve never had natural disasters in California where people pulled together and showed their sense of community. Jeff, you generalize way too much.
A thought on Mr. Obvious and David’s observations: Like Mr. Obvious, I do not see that I have directly lost any civil rights, but collectively, perhaps slightly, I think we have. I see it every time I go to the airport; I appreciate the security, but what was once a way to travel is now an exercise in fear created by 9/11. I remember the outrage of not just the nation, but of the world, when, a decade earlier, Rodney King was beaten mercilessly by police, and I contrast it with what happened here in Davis not long ago when a Tac Squad burst into a home terrifying recent immigrants, resulting in a miscarriage. It made the local newspaper, and got a couple of days’ notice here, but then it was forgotten. I fear we have collectively become desensitized to the loss of privacy that flying demands, and I fear we have become desensitized to abuse of police powers. After all, we want to be safe, and nothing comes free. About a week or so ago, there was an article in the Enterprise about someone, I think in Illinois, who had been sentenced to 75 years in prison for videotaping policemen. We still have more political freedoms than most of our brethern on this earth, but no, it isn’t the same as it was a decade and a day ago.
JB
I think this may be more a case of selective memory on your part. An example that refutes your assessment would be the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 during which a section of highway buckled crushing 41 people to death in their cars.
Residents of the adjacent neighbor hood as well as factory workers came to the rescue of survivors by
climbing up the wreckage itself, using ladders and forklifts to pull out survivors trapped in cars at great risk to themselves of being trapped and crushed should further shifting occur. These first responders were joined by members of Oaklands Public Works Agency to aide in the rescue efforts. I have graphic memories of seeing footage of one particular man, in a tee shirt and jeans, obviously just going about his personal business when the earthquake struck, climbing using nothing more than his bare hands to get to a woman trapped in a car. Doesn’t sound like apathetic waiting around to me. Do you really disdain liberals so much that you believe that people who do not wrap themselves in the flag and loudly protest their patriotism do not love their country, or care as much as you do about their neighbors, or even just strangers passing through for that matter. If that is your position, I am actually very sad for you, because you have chosen to disdain and disrespect the approximately 20% of us who self identify as liberals.
[i]”I am actually very sad for you, because you have chosen to disdain and disrespect the approximately 20% of us who self identify as liberals.”[/i]
I never wrote that I associated just liberals with this apathetic behavior. And, I think Northen Californians are an order of magnitude more apt to help each other in a time of stress than Southern Californians. Remember the south-central riots of 1992? The only thing close to this in Northern CA is when the Giants won the World Series.
I do remember the stories and evidence of ordinary people helping after the earthquake. 9-11 was a bit different though, and Adam Smith points out a fact that Californians, in words and deeds, appear more apathetic. Frankly, I think there are a larger percentage of people in CA that don’t care about anyone but themselves. That certainly does not include the average CA liberal that seems to care about everyone that needs help or saving. However, I do think there are a lot of CA liberals that beleive to some degree that 9-11 was just a criminal act and that the US had it coming to it… the Ward Churchill view.
[i]And, I think Northen Californians are an order of magnitude more apt to help each other in a time of stress than Southern Californians[/i]
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh! Jeff! Just stop with these kinds of broad, sweeping, insulting, pointless, unprovable generalizations! Seriously, you disdain and disrespect nearly everyone who isn’t like yourself. Please, stop this kind of stuff. You have no basis for it. When people make generalizations about others based on their origin, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics, and have zero — and I mean [i]zero[/i] — basis for it, that is called bigotry.
[i]”We still have more political freedoms than most of our brethern on this earth, but no, it isn’t the same as it was a decade and a day ago.”[/i]
We still have more freedoms than all other countries. However, freedom requires safety. If we become softer on crime and free more prisoners, then the law-abiding people will be less safe. Am I free if I have to put bars on my windows to prevent theives from breaking in? Am I free if I cannot fly for risk of being hijacked or blown up? If we become weaker on national security, then everyone will be less safe, and hence, less free. My participation in airport security is in fact an expression of my freedom to be safe.
JB says: “They seem to almost be separate countries from the US, exhibiting a form of laid-back, apathetic, selfishness that is alien to all other American behavior. New Yorkers came together to help each other. I would hope that same would be said of the people living in LA and SF if presented similar challenges… but alas I think it would be different. Like in Louisiana after Katrina, I think there would be more people waiting around for some help to arrive and angry that someone was not taking care of them… or doing something but while having their anger directed at their own country. I don’t think they would wave as many flags as much as point fingers of blame.”
As someone who lived in San Francisco when the Mayor and Sup. Milk were assassinated, during the Jonestown disaster, the AIDS epidemic, and the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, I find your thoughtless comments to be misinformed and lacking in compassion. You seem to have a knack for overly broad generalizations that suggest you haven’t thought your statements through, have a narrow exposure to places and patterns of thought different from yours, or are (and I hesitate to say this) are unable to have empathy and understanding for the hardships that people of all ilk endure and suffer together. Simply because I hold a different set of beliefs about politics does not make me ungenerous or unable to see the suffering around me. Possibly those who lived through Katrina would also like to weigh in on how they just sat there waiting for the government to show up. How insulting and small-minded! You give conservatives a bad name.
JB
And I think that the largest percentage of people who do not care about anyone but themselves are those who
are willing to live their very comfortable lives while closing their eyes to the fact that their ” no revenue problem”,” no more taxes” position causes untold suffering amongst the most vulnerable of our children. Saying that that is not the intent does not alter the reality. Just as saying that one trusts “the prosecution and the jury” does not alter the fact that the system is not perfect and innocents can indeed by executed.
I think that one of the major differences between the liberal and conservative points of view is that self identified liberals have a tendency to prefer that some guilty individuals escape conviction rather than see one innocent executed while self identified conservatives tend to prefer to accept that some innocents may be executed to achieve a higher conviction and execution rate among the guilty. Likewise, I think self identified liberals would rather see an intact safety net for those in need even if it means that they themselves pay higher taxes, while self identified conservatives are so concerned that there may be some abuses of the system that they would prefer that the needs of some innocents are not met in order to prevent what they see as unworthy recipients getting aide. I am quite sure that you would not choose to describe it that way, but those are among the consequences of these positions.
Don Shor,
To you and to any of the other conservatives, liberals, or moderates that I may have offended with my generalizations, I truly apologize. Generalizing is singularly unhelpful and I freely admit that I fell into this trap with my last post.
My only flimsy defense is that I was truly offended by JBs characterization of the victims of Katrina,” waiting around for some help to arrive and angry that someone was not taking care of them… or doing something but while having their anger directed at their own country”. Since many of these people were not doing anything to help themselves because they were trapped on the roofs of their houses, or were fired upon including two who were killed while doing nothing but attempting to walk to safety. Under these circumstances, whose country do you think they should have been blaming Jeff ?
My primary point was that it appeared to me that the “west coast” – SF in my world at the time seemed to view 9/11 in the same way as they would have an earthquake or hurricane, rather than an attack, aimed at destroying our way of life and well-being. I assume neighbors help neighbors everywhere, and certainly hope that will be true in Davis should catastrophe ever find us.
The important issue though, is how you view the event and where you draw the line in providing safety for the homeland. Many have posted their thoughts regarding certain liberties being taken away or retained. However, I think that safety from attacks of those that seek to destroy or kill is a pretty big issue, especially if they attempt to take advantage our civil liberties to execute their plan and or to defend themselves in courts. We generally live under a basic assumption that those around us are civil and abide by the rule of law — when they don’t then sometimes the rules have to be changed for the good of the many.
What most dismayed me in the wake of 9/11 was the apparent willingness of so much of the american public in support of torture in interrogation of suspect terrorists and associates. This is a real symptom of moral decline, as torture degrades everyone involved; the one being tortured, the one doing the torturing, and all those who approve of the process. It becomes hard to maintain any kind of moral high ground; but rather it is more like two teams (americans vs terrorists) who each are willing to do anything it takes to win.
That said; I am OK with moderate abuse of such prisoners–blasting them with AC/DC and Metallica and Broadway Musical soundtracks night and day; only Barney-the-purple-dinosaur` shows on TV, sleep deprivation, lousy food and hard bumpy mats to sleep on (Reminds me of fraternity initiations from my college days; we all lived thru it). A few days of this and they might start to question the glory of themselves and their cause. I draw the line at sexual humiliation and physical mutilation, including electrical shocks; water-boarding seems like a genuine borderline tactic.
How effective has the Homeland Security division been; and what have the costs been to keep it going?
Shortly after its creation; I remember thinking how “Homeland” sounding reminiscent of der paterland or der motherland of Weimar Germany and old Soviet Russia; and was wondering if more of our public and political rhetoric would follow suit.
But 10 years later; I would have to say that security enhancements seem to not be immoderately intrusive (with exception of airports). Perhaps Homeland Security has been instrumental in maintaining our record of no more major terrorist attacks; I really don’t know. How can we know how effective this office has been; presumably any major terrorist plots that they may have foiled have been kept confidential? Could the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other ‘black’ government security agencies have been as effective? Has the cost of this new division exceeded $1 trillion yet?
[i]”We generally live under a basic assumption that those around us are civil and abide by the rule of law — when they don’t then sometimes the rules have to be changed for the good of the many.”[/i]
Adam Smith: Well said. Excellent point.
Islamic extremist suicide killers pose a profound moral dilemma. Our legal system was not designed in consideration of people like this. Even our military systems struggle with it. When we overlay American sensibilities for justice, it just does not fit. Even idealistic Obama thought he could make it fit, and then changed his mind.
[i]”Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh! Jeff! Just stop with these kinds of broad, sweeping, insulting, pointless, unprovable generalizations! “[/i]
Don, What the h*** was the 1992 South Central riots is not specific, provable evidence of this point. Just stop being so dang hyper-sensitive and graviate toward taking thing personally that you can’t consider the point.
Beside, if the generalization pants fit, then wear them. I am provided my opinion… which is what blogs are all about. What evidence have you provided to counter? Maybe you can help educate me that this perception is incorrect. Frankly, your response tends to confirm a bit what I see.
I have lived in over 20 states other than CA, and it is clear that there are nothing like Califorians in terms of their self-centeredness, elitism and rudeness (although usually passive-agressive). Why do you think I live here!? People in other states are too damn nice and won’t argue.
Medwoman: On New Orleans and Katrina. I am not talking about the time during the flood. I am talking about the time after.
See this quote from an article from Reason magazine:
[quote]The speed and quality of the recovery effort along the Gulf Coast have depended upon a number of factors: the type and amount of damage from the storm, insurance coverage on affected homes and businesses, whether governments made credible commitments about infrastructure and the “rules of the game” for rebuilding, and the inherent resilience of the communities affected. Indeed, community resilience is a perhaps the most critical factor in recovery, and one that researchers are just beginning to understand.
The most effective solutions to rebuilding are actually coming from people, not governments. So it’s not really prudent to discuss recovery in conventional, red-blue political geography. While governance is important, it hasn’t been the sole or even primary determinant of the recovery process. [/quote]
Compare this to the resiliency of New Yorkers after 9-11. That point does not seem too difficult to accept given the facts.
Jeff.
1. South-central Los Angeles area is not “Southern California” and the riots there don’t prove anything regarding the 20 million+ residents of the southern part of this state (which is where I came from). Those riots are not “specific, provable” evidence of anything, certainly not a sweeping, stupid generalization about who is more or less likely to “help each other.”
2. I don’t provide “evidence” to counter your bigoted statement, because it is not possible to disprove an unprovable statement.
3. And now you finish with four more sweeping, unprovable, denigrating, bigoted generalizations, this time about the whole state.
I have watched you make similar sweeping statements about numerous groups on this blog. I sometimes wonder if you are aware of the absurdity of such generalizations.
rdcanning: [i]”have a narrow exposure to places and patterns of thought different from yours”[/i]
So the average Davisite thinks like me?
Getting a bit personal aren’t you? I guess this gives me some license to do the same, right? I know it is a common trend to get frustrated in disagreement and gravitate toward discounting the other as less knowledgable or less experienced (read: stupid). The rest of us are just not as worldly. I’m sure if I traveled to and lived in all the places YOU lived in I would see things differently.
Welcome to California as you make my point.
[i]Even our military systems struggle with it. When we overlay American sensibilities for justice, it just does not fit. Even idealistic Obama thought he could make it fit, and then changed his mind. [/i]
Yes. I am surprised by how few of Obama’s supporters pick up this argument in his defense. He campaigned hard against the use of many of the techniques which he has adopted, adapted and expanded. I give him credit for learning and realizing that his campaign promise demonstrated a lack of knowledge and experience. He was against the surge in Iraq, but benefited politically from its success and used a similar strategy in Afghanistan, much to the chagrin of his supporters. They should understand that they just don’t know what they need to know.
Don: I am not bigoted at all (note, you are getting personal too like rccanning, so I will take license to respond in kind) as much as you appear to have your head stuck in the hyper-sensitive sand. I would understand this a bit better if I was trashing the Lakers!
My company’s name is California Statewide. We do most of our business in Southern CA, but throughout the state. I have lived in Northern CA for 37 years. I know a bit about the state.
I appreciate your perspective, but please don’t make it personal because you don’t agree with mine. Maybe you and David should put your heads together and come up with some blogging rules and let me know when I cross the line.
[quote]Our flag is up today and is every day we feel the need to demonstrate our profound love of country. It was up for three months straight when our cousin was deployed to Iraq the first time. [/quote]
I’ve had two flags on either side of my door up ever since 9-11, and intend on keeping them up until our troops come home for good, which may be never. Our military troops (and so many are young kids) try to spread the seeds of democracy, which may or may not sprout, but at least we give it a try…
[quote]We still have more political freedoms than most of our brethern on this earth, but no, it isn’t the same as it was a decade and a day ago.[/quote]
No, life is not perfect, and sometimes it is necessary to adjust to the realities of life as they are, not as you want them to be…
[quote]An example that refutes your assessment would be the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 during which a section of highway buckled crushing 41 people to death in their cars.
Residents of the adjacent neighbor hood as well as factory workers came to the rescue of survivors by climbing up the wreckage itself, using ladders and forklifts to pull out survivors trapped in cars at great risk to themselves of being trapped and crushed should further shifting occur. These first responders were joined by members of Oaklands Public Works Agency to aide in the rescue efforts. I have graphic memories of seeing footage of one particular man, in a tee shirt and jeans, obviously just going about his personal business when the earthquake struck, climbing using nothing more than his bare hands to get to a woman trapped in a car. [/quote]
Yes, when push comes to shove (pardon the pun), Americans almost always pull together and do what needs to be done. Even in Katrina the National Guard finally stepped in and got the victims out. Rescue groups went in and saved people’s pets. One of the big differences between New York and New Orleans in terms of recovery had a lot to do with relative wealth. The twin tours were in the heart of the wealthy financial district, and you better believe the financial markets were not going to allow some terrorists to destroy the nation’s economy and ability to make money. Whereas in New Orleans, the poorer neighborhoods were hit the hardest, and thus had a much more difficult time recovering. But even there, there were many miracles and ordinary people doing extraordinary things.
We as a nation have our faults just as any other country does, because we are human. Perfection is an illusive and unattainable goal, and not necessary to lead a good life. But I have unfailing faith that there is no way any terrorist organization would ever be able to destroy our country – we are just too strong, too independent, and love freedom enough to die for it if necessary.
[quote]I wish I could put my finger on it, but California’s large urban areas are just weird with respect to a sense of community. They seem to almost be separate countries from the US, exhibiting a form of laid-back, apathetic, selfishness that is alien to all other American behavior. New Yorkers came together to help each other.[/quote]
Every state has its own ethos, character, idiosyncrasies. But ultimately they are all red, white and blue. I’ve seen plenty of selfishness in New York/New York City, and huge kindnesses in CA. I’m from the East Coast, and I can tell you there are huge differences just miles apart between the state of VA and MD. Delaware is quite different. Yet all 50 states somehow find a way to govern themselves without internecine warfare, haven’t given up their freedom to be a democratic gov’t even once, and forge ahead no matter what. We have invented the internet, the laptop computer, the iphone. I just read where a cure for cancer might be in the offing with stem cell research. What an amazing country, that we could be attacked by terrorists, and ten years later many of us are carrying little computers in our hands! I think those that died on 9/11/01 would be very proud of what we have accomplished as a nation…
[i]”I think that one of the major differences between the liberal and conservative points of view is that self identified liberals have a tendency to prefer that some guilty individuals escape conviction rather than see one innocent executed while self identified conservatives tend to prefer to accept that some innocents may be executed to achieve a higher conviction and execution rate among the guilty.”[/i]
I think you are mostly right here. But the legal process required to execute a convicted criminal is long and arduous. I think conservatives think few if any innocents are executed because we already have a rigorous system. I think they also believe that anti-death penalty proponents will not rest and will find a way to bring controversy to every case. Conservatives are also not willing to increase the risk of crime by second-guessing our crimial justice system.
[i]”Likewise, I think self identified liberals would rather see an intact safety net for those in need even if it means that they themselves pay higher taxes,[/i]
They can pay higher taxes. Just write the check. The issue is liberals demanding that other be forced to pay higher taxes. I noticed the Warren Buffet announced he is supporting Obama’s re-election at the same time it was announced he under-paid about $1 billion in taxes. Buffet says the rich should pay more taxes, yet not only does he not send the government a check, but he gives $30 billion to private charities and underpays the government by $1 billion. Priceless.
[i]while self identified conservatives are so concerned that there may be some abuses of the system that they would prefer that the needs of some innocents are not met in order to prevent what they see as unworthy recipients getting aide. I am quite sure that you would not choose to describe it that way, but those are among the consequences of these positions.”[/i]
You are correct… in that I would not decribe it quite this way. What do you mean “needs of innocents”? Why is it your job/mission to seek out people and demand that government takes care of their needs? How does government even know what a person really needs? Self-identified conservatives are against the growing entitlement mindset and our inability to pay for it. There are huge abuses. More importantly, self-identified conservatives are worried that we are becomming a country of lazy, risk-averse, hyper-sensitive, people that expect their government to take care of them.
Interesting: I moved to Northern California 37 years ago. Prior to that I grew up in Southern California. One of the things that startled me when I moved here was the odd negative things people would say about the south state region. I also had to explain more than once that San Diego was not a suburb of Los Angeles, and that the whole southland was not Disneyland, smog, traffic, or the beach.
I have traveled in several other states, but don’t feel qualified to make judgments about the general personality characteristics of the residents even after dozens of visits. That is because such characteristics are not quantifiable or measurable in any way, so they tend merely to reflect the perspectives of the observer rather than the observed. It is possible to make generalizations about the political views or religious beliefs of residents of a region, because there is demographic data; the Bible Belt is a real phenomenon, as is the secularism of the coasts.
Thus you can say that Oklahomans are [i]conservative[/i], and tend to [i]favor traditional moral values,[/i] because that is provable. To say that Oklahomans are [i]self-centered[/i] or [i]elitist[/i] is an unprovable denigration. When all the generalizations are unprovable and negative, that reflects a bias.
I don’t fly a flag, but appreciate those who consider it a sign of respect to do so. Contrary to my teenage years, I stand for the flag now out of respect for those who value that behavior. Had it not been for 9/11, I seriously doubt my daughter would have chosen her career path in the USMC and now in graduate study in international affairs. I remind myself that NYC is marginally safer than Ramadi.
The response to 9/11 led this country to several costly mistakes with long-term impact on our fiscal stability and our standing around the world. As with so many things, there are also positive outcomes.
Don, I moved here from the Midwest in 1974.
[i]”I have traveled in several other states, but don’t feel qualified to make judgments about the general personality characteristics of the residents even after dozens of visits.”[/i]
Interesting. It would seem that would put you at some disadvantage not allowing yourself to develop perceptions about the local culture and behaviors. Do you really need a scientific study to allow yourself to make general judgements about people in a particular geography? What about foreign travel… do you also refrain from making general observations about the behavior of local people when you travel out of the country. Personally, I think that is one of the most enjoyable thing about travel… noting group behavior differences.
I have a minor in, and lots of experience with, marketing… maybe that is why I don’t have a problem looking at group behavior characteristics… especially when my assumptions develop into theories that are validated over time.
Our marketing approach to So Cal is quite a bit different than it is for No Cal. Our So Cal partners are more like cats… territorial, but loyal to the next person that feeds it and scratches it. No Cal partners are more like dogs… loyalties that cannot easily be broken. At work we are always talking about the profound differences between So Cal and No Cal. I really don’t have too much of a bias either way. I think they are just both different.
This is a good commentary and frankly the comments that followed are a bit narrow in focus or off topic completely. Generally speaking I would say the attacks on 9/11 were like a window into some of the horror the rest of the world has experienced, and by doing so, initiated the US territory and population into the horrors of war.
What have we learned from that? Well, through a highly controlled environment, we’ve become more partisan & extreme in our rhetoric, and seemingly more extreme in our legislation and outright willingness to give up our own responsibilities of self-governance to the oddities and absurdity of corporate, private control.
Meanwhile, most of our taxes don’t go to important investments like education, infrastructure, social safety nets like health care or working to lower our carbon emissions. Instead they go to supporting whatever corporate interests win the battles amongst the armies of lobbyists they employ, growing our income gap and disintegrating our middle class.
So, yeah, I’d say we haven’t won at all. Sure, we’ve secured more oil resources, stabilized our economy in doing so, and taken out the logistics network for a major criminal operation (al Queda- the Base) but for how long? We haven’t changed any of the factors that led to the violence. Our economy is still mired in oil and we are still battling for the remaining resources. So, is this an intelligent way to proceed? Are we outwitting our competitors? Hardly.
And there are still some people who think this is about religion and not money.
Don, I don’t see this comment posted, but it came via email…
[quote]I wish I could put my finger on it, but California’s large urban areas are just weird with respect to a sense of community. They seem to almost be separate countries from the US, exhibiting a form of laid-back, apathetic, selfishness that is alien to all other American behavior. New Yorkers came together to help each other.[/quote]
Every state has its own ethos, character, idiosyncrasies. But ultimately they are all red, white and blue. I’ve seen plenty of selfishness in New York/New York City, and huge kindnesses in CA. I’m from the East Coast, and I can tell you there are huge differences just miles apart between the state of VA and MD. Delaware is quite different. Yet all 50 states somehow find a way to govern themselves without internecine warfare, haven’t given up their freedom to be a democratic gov’t even once, and forge ahead no matter what. We have invented the internet, the laptop computer, the iphone. I just read where a cure for cancer might be in the offing with stem cell research. What an amazing country, that we could be attacked by terrorists, and ten years later many of us are carrying little computers in our hands! I think those that died on 9/11/01 would be very proud of what we have accomplished as a nation…
Civil discourse,
Good to swing the discussion back to point.
It always had seemed to me that if our objective was to take out Osama & terrorists; send in James Bond (aka intelligence operatives); not the army. Bond can get take out the bad guys and get the job done about as effectively and preserve positive public relations for the USA; all for a lot less money, blood, and general destruction and mayhem. Of course if the objective is oil resources and new markets; then we might need the army…I think a reasonable business argument can be made to secure the oil resources of the middle east (Iran is now the only mid-east OPEC holdout USA doesn’t strongly influence); however for $1-2 trillion we could be generating >30% of USA electricity on solar/wind and be powering up a large # of electric vehicle batteries with the excess electricity; reducing our dependence on oil; so in the long run it may not have been a good business venture for the average citizen (certainly good for establishment interests that profit from oil or are based on oil energy).
Also, I don’t see much difference between big government and big business/finance/corporations; it appears to me that big money interests have consolidated their control on the federal government such that they are nearly one and the same entity. Obama, with his Chicago connections and Wall Street backing, was set in place to put on a populist face and make populist noises; meanwhile the big money steering and directing of USA policy continues; the very rich continue to consolidate more wealth while the number of poor grows and the middle class shrinks (this is the bottom line, stealing a favorite phrase/philosophy of the ‘conservatives’).
For the record; I strongly support a capitalist free-market system based on small to mid-size businesses; partly from personal experience it appears to me that big business suffers from many of the same inefficiencies and temptations to corruption as does big government. (we have reached that point where these temptations have been irresistible and assets are being loosened up for grabs; I forsee auctions of public assets such as highways, bridges, parks, government buildings, etc. to help pay government debts; run for profit with no cap on rising rents and use fees…)
“I stopped reading this article right at this sentence.”
Too bad you missed some good stuff.
“I keep waiting for my civil rights to be violated because of 9/11. It hasn’t happened yet.”
That’s because you don’t have dark skin tones.
“That’s because you don’t have dark skin tones.”
Being that his name is “Mr. Obvious” how would you know this unless he has let you know his identity?
Well that’s obvious, because he hasn’t had his civil rights violated because of 9/11.
JB
“do you really need a scientific study to make general judgements about people in a specific geographic location?”
My answer is “yes” and I would like to explain why. In your response to Don, you appear to equate observation with judgement.
I agree with you that when traveling, much of the fun is in observing the differences in the behaviors of the locals. It is also fun to compare and contrast with our own behaviors. It is when we get into making generalizations that there are problems. As pointed out in Larson’s In the
Garden of Beasts, Americans traveling in Germany in the early 1930s came home with the impression that there were no real problems in Germany and that stories of mistreatment of Jews were fictions because they did not observe them in person in their travels. It is a common error to take one’s very limited personal experience and then generalize that to an entire group. Frequently we do this, not only to the peril of the group being observed as any anthropologist will tell you, but also to our own peril.
[quote]Seriously, I was actually going to make the safer statement, that’s because you are not Muslim, but I know a lot of Seikhs and even some Hispanics [b]who people have mistook for Muslims[/b]. [/quote]Hmmmm… do you have some biases, David?… skin color and religion are not tied AT ALL. There are lots of ethnic Persians (Iran?) who are NOT Muslim… there are “whites” who are Muslim… the terrorists betrayed many basic tenets of Islam. Ironically, the events of 9/11 led to cross-faith responses, including a group that promotes understanding between those who are Muslim, Christian, and who practice Judiasm. The ones I think we need to fear are those who have NO spirituality, of any sort. I would tend to worry more about someone who believes there is nothing greater than themself.
Do you think post 9/11 policies distinguish between “ethnic Persians” who are not Muslim and those who are? I suspect not. I have heard enough stories from Sikhs and Christian Arabs to lead me to be my suspicion is correct.
[i]”I agree with you that when traveling, much of the fun is in observing the differences in the behaviors of the locals. It is also fun to compare and contrast with our own behaviors. It is when we get into making generalizations that there are problems.”[/i]
Medwoman, I think it must be difficult to make any progress walking on so many eggshells.
Note there are two types of observations: accurate and inaccurate. Ironically there are two types of scientific studies also: accurate and inaccurate. One more point: scientific studies are often developed from observations.
This is fascinating for me though. Your response and Don’s obviously direct response help me understand something about how we diverge in perspective and practice for this topic. Based on your posts, I detect a great aversion to group observations because of the risk of stereotyping. Is this the egalitarian impulse… the concern that if we classify group behavior it might lead to different treatment? You see, I see this as a cart-before-the-horse impulse. For me, it does not matter what observations I register, or what differences I detect… what matters is my behavior relative to this.
Again, I find this fascinating because my view is that we should observe and register any and all common behavior traits to understand them so we can be tolerant and accepting of them.
Let me use an example. I observe and detect speaking traits among people of African American descent that are unique. Now, as an employer of a customer service rep, should I understand this and accept it or taking your approach consider it only an individual characteristic and therefore be justified to demand speech correction before hiring?
We are a product of our geographic regions, our genetic material, our culture and our cultural origins. I very much enjoy diversity and naturally seek to understand it. I think it does not matter how I classify people and their group tendencies and idiosyncrasies, it only matters how I act and behave. There should be no thought police.
In fact, I would encourage more observation and dialog about our human tendencies, both group and individaul, as a way to improve diversity and tolerance.
Jeff: [i]I detect a great aversion to group observations because of the risk of stereotyping….the concern that if we classify group behavior it might lead to different treatment? [/i]
Congratulations, you’ve brought this back to the original topic. Yes, classifying group behavior might lead to different treatment. Just ask people at the airport who look like they’re from the Mideast.
[quote]The response to 9/11 led this country to several costly mistakes with long-term impact on our fiscal stability and our standing around the world. [/quote]
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s behind what the rest of the world thinks of us – we are not in the middle of a popularity contest. No other country has a lock on perfection/goodness or anything else, that they have the right to judge us as a nation. Where we need to stand as a country is where we should be to keep freedom alive and well; with the ability to defend ourselves.
[quote]ERM: “I stopped reading this article right at this sentence.”
DMG: Too bad you missed some good stuff.[/quote]
What, read a long diatribe on what is wrong with this country? No thank you. I wanted to spend the day in a more positive remembrance of how far this country has come since 9/11; that it didn’t give in to the terrorists and fold, but moved on. I don’t care to dwell on the negative; and if there are negatives, I prefer to spend my time pushing for positive change.
I will be quite frank – I object to the latest tactic of the media to always “raise the bar” by pointing out what is wrong with this country and its every perceived “mistake”. It doesn’t matter how far we have come, there is always something to carp about – which fills up the news hours/blogs/newspapers. “The sky is always falling” according to the media. It is easy to carp, much harder to actually do something positive about what you think needs fixing.
[i]”classifying group behavior might lead to different treatment”[/i]
You use the word “might”. Let’s just focus on the treatment issues and not the thoughts. I bet the Israelis, a country that does an excellent job keeping their free country safe with much more risk of terrorism, don’t wring their hands so much over classifying group behavior.
In my view, the thought police are much more dangerous to a free world than is the risk of harm from “might lead to different treatment”.
Actually, you used the term ‘might’. I was quoting you.
Israel is a good example.
Most Americans would be very averse to the security restrictions the Israelis place on their population. But with thousands dead on both sides of the conflicts resulting from the Second Intifada there, we might draw some lessons. Here’s what El Al does:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Airport_security_measures[/url]
In the tension between security and rights, security has clearly won in Israel.
We seem to be much more divisive than we have been before – along political lines. During the Vietnam War there was more agitation but I never felt we had this wide split between two political sides. We seem to be damaging ourselves from within, inflicting much more damage than that caused by the terrorists. I hope we can go back to the realization we are one country.
Nature provided the highlight of the memorial at the Reno Balloon Race. The Memorial event involved two balloons with flags lifting off as the sun rose as thousands waved small flags and sung the national anthem. As the song ended five military planes soared in from the south, flying directly over the balloons in the “missing man” formation.
Then Nature arrived. Right after the five planes passed over, five Canadian Geese flew in from the west in exactly the same “missing man” (or missing goose) formation and flew under the rising balloons. The people began to applause the geese as the announcer acknowledged the bird performance and reminded everyone that life goes on.
[quote]Nature provided the highlight of the memorial at the Reno Balloon Race. The Memorial event involved two balloons with flags lifting off as the sun rose as thousands waved small flags and sung the national anthem. As the song ended five military planes soared in from the south, flying directly over the balloons in the “missing man” formation.
Then Nature arrived. Right after the five planes passed over, five Canadian Geese flew in from the west in exactly the same “missing man” (or missing goose) formation and flew under the rising balloons. The people began to applause the geese as the announcer acknowledged the bird performance and reminded everyone that life goes on. [/quote]
Thanks for sharing those wonderful moments…
FYI, medwoman:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Jeff:
“I noticed the Warren Buffet announced he is supporting Obama’s re-election at the same time it was announced he under-paid about $1 billion in taxes. Buffet says the rich should pay more taxes, yet not only does he not send the government a check, but he gives $30 billion to private charities and underpays the government by $1 billion. Priceless.”
I heard this yesterday and had to laugh. Obama touts this guy in his Thursday night address and then this comes to light. Michelle is sitting next to the GE chairman Immelt whose company paid zero taxes last year and Obama’s leading IRS guy is a tax cheat. And Obama’s up there lecturing America about taxes, what a farce.
AdRemmer: don’t forget also the Pelosi lie about being briefed on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. I bet she is still dreaming of having been able to just vote “present” on House Intelligence Committee agenda items.
From CNN:
[quote]A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah.
This appears to contradict Pelosi’s account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.
Sheehy attended a briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in February 2003, with Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who took over Pelosi’s spot as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.[/quote]
Pelosi is one of many Democrat politicians caught in a bald faced lie but it did not impact their approval ratings with their base.
FYI AdRemmer: [url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp[/url]
[quote]FYI AdRemmer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp [/quote]
Interesting – but it seems to me it just supports AdRemmer… so often when candidates become president, they find the solutions are much the same no matter what side of the aisle they are from…
Elaine,
I guess I can accept this point to some degree. It seems, however, that we may be making excuses for politicians saying one thing and doing another. Wouldn’t we prefer someone saying they “won’t know the answer until they have access to the information that a President does?” Obama made promises many of knew he could not keep. So, why does he get a pass when any other President would be skewered? I think this is a slippery-slope making excuses for Presidents that flip-flop.
Also, what about the responsibility of admitting when you are wrong? The left opined for Bush admit that he was wrong about Iraq. He never did and likely he never will. However, I don’t see the same fervor from the left demanding that Obama admit he was wrong about anything… and he has been clearly wrong about a whole lot of things.
Does this excuse also work for career politicians that run for President?
What is Nancy’s Pelosi’s (or “Not See Peloski” as I affectionate refer to her as) excuse? She did a 180 while pretending she never changed her mind. This seems more egregious than just a lack of experience.
AdRemmer
Since you FYId your list of partial, out of context quotes to me, I can only assume tbat you were somehow thinking that I would defend liberals or democrats blindly. I do not. At the time involvement in Iraq was being debated I was as crItical of ant one supporting it regardless of their party affiliation.
However, the bottom line is that the call fell to the commander in chief who happened to be Pres. Bush. It was his decision, in my opinion, his mistake, and citing any number of names and quotes will not change that fact. I will never support a “preemptive strike” that involves an invasion with the inherent destruction of innocent lives just as I would never support an invasion of our country because someone thought we might use our nuclear force on them.
77 Senators voted yes for the Iraq war including 28 Democrats. At least Bush had the vote. Where was the vote on Libya?
rusty, now don’t go comparing Bush and Obama’s record using math! I think the Bush-hate that consumes some lefties is like a warm soft teddy bear that they refuse to ever give up. Math will just make them clutch the bear even harder.
We know that most congressional Democratics supported the war in Iraq, or else they were complicit in it (like voting “present”). Give Senator Obama credit though, since he was consistently against the war before he was for it; was consistently against enhanced interrogation before he was for it; was consistently against Guantanamo before he was for it; was consistently against military tribunals for trying terrorists before he was for it; was consistently against partisan politics before he earned the distinction of being the most politically polarizing president ever.
Jeff, also don’t forget that Obama was against raising the debt ceiling before he was for it.
It’s amazing that most of the press lets him slide on this stuff.
Hey Jeff, what did you think of last night’s election in NY? First time the GOP has ever won that seat in a district that is 3 to 1 Democrat. Doesn’t portend well for Obama in 2012.
Medwoman, no, I do NOT “assume.” Just quickly providing info. There’s more.
BTW if you are open; listen to a brief explanation by Dick Cheney when he was on ‘The View’ the other day.
http://theview.abc.go.com/video/dick-cheney-his-new-book-part-1
Boy, doesn’t this clearly represent the ideological gap related to national security? Cheney explains it all very well, but these View ladies don’t seem to be able to undersand it unless they are Elizabeth… the only conservative in the bunch.
I was emailed by Professor Flagg Miller, he informed me that I misrepresented his work.
He writes:
“David Greenwald’s piece entitled “Ten Years After 9/11 – Analyzing the Toll On Freedom and Civil Society” misrepresents my research. He states that in a recent article about me, I imply that Usama Bin Ladin’s role in 9/11 was exaggerated. My research does not suggest this. Instead I only suggest that his role in al-Qa`ida has been exaggerated, especially in narratives after 9/11 about his significance at the movement’s inception.”
On behalf of the Vanguard, I apologize to Professor Miller and have corrected the record.