How about the whole gaggle of Euro-wags I've had to put up with, lecturing me on September 11th... pretty much the way Lileks describes it. They give a rhetorical nod to the indefensibility of the attacks, and then they pile on the US. They just can't wait to turn this atrocity against the US. It's nuts. I would never do the same to them.
Still don't believe these people exist? Well, then who was buying "L'Effroyable Imposture" (The Appalling Fraud)? That's the French book claiming 9/11 was a US government hoax. During a trip a while back I made a point of turning that book cover-backwards on the shelves of any European bookstore I entered.
Is Lileks making too big a deal about this? Yes, but the number of people fitting his description is significant. If that gets him overwrought, I'm prepared to forgive him. The people who committed the 9/11 atrocity were animals. The act indefensible. It's the kind of thing we damn well should get angry about. When did it become wrong to be emotionally affected by such an atrocity?
And why the need to mark this day by criticizing others for the way they've done so? Yeah, a comment -- maybe two? -- would be warranted, but I count five.
You shouldn't let it get to you. Most people honored the day appropriately. Don't pick at the exceptions -- you'll always find them.
I hear the crap Lileks is talking about everyday at the coffeeshop I hang out in. If you don't hear it, count yourself lucky. Real people really do this.
Look at Indymedia if you want a whole bunch of examples.
When I'm troubled, it is comforting to know that things really are very simple. Black and white, good and evil, Us and Them. It is comforting to know that there is pure evil in the world. Look, there it is. Pure evil. And we are pure good. Us vs them. Very comforting.
Because pure good will never die. It will always flourish. We are pure good. We will never die. We will only get stronger and stronger until the universe is us and we are everything and all time.
Reading the post, I see that I wasn't clear about what I meant by "who?" I don't doubt at all that such people exist. What I object to (very strongly) is that Lileks doesn't write about specific instances, but leaves the intended target vague. That, as I tried to explain in the final paragraph, easily and inevitably becomes a blanket condemnation of people who express reservations and disagreements but in no way "hate this nation" or "humanity."
Elide distinctions and manipulate emotions: plain old demagoguery.
I had the same reaction to the Lileks piece, Ogged. Lileks always writes with grace and sometimes with insight, but he never argues with any dialectical skill or subtlety. I can't imagine being convinced by him of anything. You read Lileks to have your convictions reinforced. (Not an entirely bad thing.) --Ted
I had a student last year from rural Tennessee. He claimed that he knew people back home who thought New Yorkers had it coming to them: all that godlessness and sodomy. I can't verify that student's claim. But I've no doubt there are people on the fringes (on both the right and left) who take this kind of position.
But what Lileks wants to do is silence all criticism by smearing all of those who express doubts and reservations and who ask tough questions.
Ted Rall. I've pointed out his latest example of "they had it coming." This is, in many variants, quite a popular attitude.
The local "alternative" weekly in Boulder did a special 9/11 issue that week of 2001, which is unsurprising. It is equally unsurprising that it was entitled -- I'm not making this up -- "Why Do They Hate Us?" and consisted entirely to explaining why the US deserved to be hated by millions around the world.
Their anniversary issue this week applauds that issue in retrospect, and explains how utterly correct they were, and how very very very brave they were and are to Speak Up This Way in the face of such Repression and Censorship as now exists in this terrible Big Brother State we now are all trapped in. (Enslavement is just around the corner, although, of course, we are already mentally and economicaly enslaved. I hear this sort of thing every day here in the People's Republic of Boulder.)
People react to what they're confronted with. This is not surprising. I have little but contempt for George Bush, or, say, Tom DeLay, but I take this so for granted I don't bother mentioning it too often. I don't tend to spend time praising people who worship Bush, either, for more perhaps obvious reasons.
What you've just written, and your post on the topic, are the perfect counterpoint to Lileks. You're talking about Ted Rall and pointing to a particular thing he said. That is how discussion starts. Thank you.
How about the whole gaggle of Euro-wags I've had to put up with, lecturing me on September 11th... pretty much the way Lileks describes it. They give a rhetorical nod to the indefensibility of the attacks, and then they pile on the US. They just can't wait to turn this atrocity against the US. It's nuts. I would never do the same to them.
Still don't believe these people exist? Well, then who was buying "L'Effroyable Imposture" (The Appalling Fraud)? That's the French book claiming 9/11 was a US government hoax. During a trip a while back I made a point of turning that book cover-backwards on the shelves of any European bookstore I entered.
Is Lileks making too big a deal about this? Yes, but the number of people fitting his description is significant. If that gets him overwrought, I'm prepared to forgive him. The people who committed the 9/11 atrocity were animals. The act indefensible. It's the kind of thing we damn well should get angry about. When did it become wrong to be emotionally affected by such an atrocity?
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 12:37 AM
And why the need to mark this day by criticizing others for the way they've done so? Yeah, a comment -- maybe two? -- would be warranted, but I count five.
You shouldn't let it get to you. Most people honored the day appropriately. Don't pick at the exceptions -- you'll always find them.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 12:41 AM
I hear the crap Lileks is talking about everyday at the coffeeshop I hang out in. If you don't hear it, count yourself lucky. Real people really do this.
Look at Indymedia if you want a whole bunch of examples.
Posted by Michael J. Totten | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 3:02 AM
James Lileks is making sense!
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 6:24 AM
When I'm troubled, it is comforting to know that things really are very simple. Black and white, good and evil, Us and Them. It is comforting to know that there is pure evil in the world. Look, there it is. Pure evil. And we are pure good. Us vs them. Very comforting.
Because pure good will never die. It will always flourish. We are pure good. We will never die. We will only get stronger and stronger until the universe is us and we are everything and all time.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 7:47 AM
Reading the post, I see that I wasn't clear about what I meant by "who?" I don't doubt at all that such people exist. What I object to (very strongly) is that Lileks doesn't write about specific instances, but leaves the intended target vague. That, as I tried to explain in the final paragraph, easily and inevitably becomes a blanket condemnation of people who express reservations and disagreements but in no way "hate this nation" or "humanity."
Elide distinctions and manipulate emotions: plain old demagoguery.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 7:51 AM
I had the same reaction to the Lileks piece, Ogged. Lileks always writes with grace and sometimes with insight, but he never argues with any dialectical skill or subtlety. I can't imagine being convinced by him of anything. You read Lileks to have your convictions reinforced. (Not an entirely bad thing.) --Ted
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 8:28 AM
I had a student last year from rural Tennessee. He claimed that he knew people back home who thought New Yorkers had it coming to them: all that godlessness and sodomy. I can't verify that student's claim. But I've no doubt there are people on the fringes (on both the right and left) who take this kind of position.
But what Lileks wants to do is silence all criticism by smearing all of those who express doubts and reservations and who ask tough questions.
Posted by Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 8:39 AM
Ted Rall. I've pointed out his latest example of "they had it coming." This is, in many variants, quite a popular attitude.
The local "alternative" weekly in Boulder did a special 9/11 issue that week of 2001, which is unsurprising. It is equally unsurprising that it was entitled -- I'm not making this up -- "Why Do They Hate Us?" and consisted entirely to explaining why the US deserved to be hated by millions around the world.
Their anniversary issue this week applauds that issue in retrospect, and explains how utterly correct they were, and how very very very brave they were and are to Speak Up This Way in the face of such Repression and Censorship as now exists in this terrible Big Brother State we now are all trapped in. (Enslavement is just around the corner, although, of course, we are already mentally and economicaly enslaved. I hear this sort of thing every day here in the People's Republic of Boulder.)
People react to what they're confronted with. This is not surprising. I have little but contempt for George Bush, or, say, Tom DeLay, but I take this so for granted I don't bother mentioning it too often. I don't tend to spend time praising people who worship Bush, either, for more perhaps obvious reasons.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 5:15 PM
What you've just written, and your post on the topic, are the perfect counterpoint to Lileks. You're talking about Ted Rall and pointing to a particular thing he said. That is how discussion starts. Thank you.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 11:54 PM