I'm reading the Crooked thread now, and I'm not yet sure which side I'm on. But if I were to decide that Kieran is right and Orin is wrong, it wouldn't be because we can't let Bush take advantage and not answer him. Since we could just answer him tomorrow. Also, "He did it first" isn't much of a moral argument, except in certain self-defense cases.
There's nothing wrong with George W. Bush using the occasion of a civic observance to venture a political argument about war and sacrifice. Political leaders have done this sort of thing forever. Lincoln did it at Gettysburg. There's likewise nothing whatsoever wrong with Kieran Healy, or anyone else, doing so.
To memorialize is to remember; to remember is to think; and to think is to form opinions. The idea that something called "Memorial Day" should be observed by not thinking and not remembering would be pretty startling to a long lineage of patriotic Americans.
To the extent that Ogged's argument has merit, it's in the realm of simple tact. Of course we owe "respect to the sensiblity of the mourners." Just as clearly, Kieran Healy's comments were perfectly respectful to the day's mourners. Moreover, it seems that Ogged is rather quick to jump to conclusions about what "the sensibility of the mourners" is, to and the extent to which it's unitary. Plenty of Americans, including many who've lost limbs and family members, agree with the sentiments Kieran expressed, and would regard them as appropriate on Memorial Day. Is the day not theirs as much as anyone's?
The political battle in this nation is as much a battle over symbol as anything else. I almost think that what we're talking about is whether it is tactically better to show respect to the symbol or to rip the other guy's head off. I hate this sort of politics because most determiniations are tactical, not moral. The good of man is the end result of the science of politics if I remember my Nichomachean Ethics. We've strayed. And it eats at me. If I ever left the sharktank and went into consulting I'd call the firm sophistries r us.
Despite the lessons of the Clinton War Room and the Swift Boat August, progressives don't have to answer every attack at every time. And outside of the campaign framework, I don't buy that you necessarily have to respond in the news cycle. Particularly when you're responding to something launched by a lame duck president who can't legislate despite a clear majority in both houses.
But the sum of our answer has to be loud and clear. And it has to come from a vision of what we want for the country and our families. We have a lot of work to do on that front.
I think the point is clear: Ogged hates America, Gawd, and Keiran Healy. Though not in that order.
Seriously, is this worth the level of commentary it's getting around the web? Healy made an obvious point, but perhaps he could have been more politic in making it. In five years, when we've declared victory and rolled on, and when Iraq is either in midst of a civil war or ruled by Saddam-lite, what do we do on Memorial Day then? Look sheepishly at our shoes and hope that no one who lost a soldier realizes we didn't get much for that blood?
With Bush on this one, by tearing away the veil of lies the peace creeps use to hide the truth, he is honoring their sacrifice by honoring the purpose for that sacrifice. People who pretend that these wonderful people died for a "lie" just make themselves look like bitter whiny losers, which makes a lot of sense. Trying to claim that nothing was gained or accomplished by our soldiers lives is a falsehood. This is something that is understood by anyone who supports our mission in the middle east, that the Arab people are indeed deserving of a chance to be helped. The military is in the best position to liberate the oppressed from the tyrannical (and from hard left liberal conceit).
If you really want to honor the troops, you will realize these facts instead of hiding behind 40 year old talking points which are no longer relevant.
Moreover, it seems that Ogged is rather quick to jump to conclusions about what "the sensibility of the mourners" is, to and the extent to which it's unitary.
This is right. I haven't lost anyone in this war, but I could have, and may still -- my cousin spent a year as a combat medic in Iraq, and is expecting to be sent back in sometime soon (he's in Germany now). His parents think this war is idiotic, I think this war is idiotic, some of his siblings think this war is idiotic.
The idea that, if Timmy had gotten killed, that Kieran's post would have offended my sensibilities, or my aunt and uncle's sensibilities is wrong, and kind of contemputous. It assumes that anyone who has suffered a personal tragedy is going to want to be deluded into thinking it happened for a good reason, even if they wouldn't have thought so if they weren't personally affected.
This whole line of argument, claiming that saying anything against the war that might be interpreted as saying that soldiers are being used in a pointless and harmful way is an insult to those soldiers, bothers me a great deal. War supporters are using these innocent servicepeople who are making great personal sacrifices as human shields for their arguments by defining opposition to the war as disdain for the troops, and I find it offensive and illegitimate.
Ogged is rather quick to jump to conclusions about what "the sensibility of the mourners" is, to and the extent to which it's unitary
No, I'm aware that there are plenty of people mourning who would agree with Kieran (as I do, frankly--just not on Memorial Day), and even go quite a bit further. But, as PNH recognizes, I'm saying something about simple tact: on the day set aside to mourn, arguments about the proper way to mourn should be tabled. Of course I agree with your #8, LB, and Healy did a very good job of showing respect for the troops while registering his disgust at the enterprise. My only point is that Memorial Day isn't the right day to do that (I should add: not the right day to do that publically, or contentiously--because, like Patrick says, it would be an odd day to turn off our brains completely).
Certainly it's a day to be cautious and respectful, both of which Kiernan was. Nonetheless, I think Caleb got it right in his comment above. If we agree that there are circumstances under which we should not express opposition to the war, even respectfully, because it will hurt the feelings of innocent soldiers and family members, then why doesn't that same argument apply universally?
Opposition to the war isn't disrespect or an injury to dead or living soldiers or their family members. If we say that we shouldn't express that opposition on Memorial Day, we're conceding that it is disrespectful or injurious. I don't think that's accurate, and I don't want to make that concession.
My father volunteered to fight in a war that some call one of the "40 year old talking points which are no longer relevant." He was critically injured in battled and in a hospital for over a year recovering from 3rd degree burns. The injuries to his soul and conscience were much deeper. He never recovered from those, to his dying days in a putrid VA hospital, he cried in my mother's arms for having killed another human being. He loved our democracy. His thoughts on war, stated repeatedly, "Peace at any price." He knew that violence was needed in the face of aggressive evil. But he had learned in a way few humans can that violence should always be a last resort. Here's another "outdated" message from the past that, "I don't agree with you, but I would defend to the death your right to say it." Freedom means freedom of speech and freedom to question authority.
To you who call past wars among the "40 year old talking points which are no longer relevant." Here's a message that my father would have remained silent on out of respect: "Fuck you, neo-nazi."
I suppose I have a meta-question about posts like Healy's, which is: "what's the point?" He acknowledges the sacrifice of the troops, and thinks the war in Iraq was unjustified and poorly planned. Those are both respectable enough views to have. And I don't see anything too terrible in voicing them on Memorial day. It wouldn't be my choice, were those views mine, but it is not an unseemly choice.
But what's the purpose? Surely not to convince anyone of anything. Is it merely to show the flag -- to provide a counterweight to the President's "honor scarifice = finish the job" rhetoric? Or is it just expressive writing? If the latter, I wish everyone -- but particularly those capable of doing otherwise and better -- would simply avoid expressive writing about the war. It's futile, it advances no argument, and simply binds us all tighter into our cocoons.
we're conceding that it is disrespectful or injurious
But of course it's injurious (not disrespectful). Is there any question that some people are deeply wounded by even the gentlest criticism of a war in which they lost someone? This seems to me no different from how we speak of the dead on the day of the funeral: I'd say it's not the time to speak ill; others would say, "when else?"
Well, it is showing the flag, and I think it does have some potential to convince people. There's a tendency among sensible people (a category in which I'd certainly place you, and hope to qualify for inclusion in myself) to have a certain amount of contempt for pure rhetoric. I think this is misguided: lots of people whose opinions are worth having can be moved, and convinced, by such rhetorical appeals, and if sensible people don't make them, silly people will. I don't want pure rhetoric to drive out thoughtful argument, but I'm not sorry to see the one accompanying the other.
But of course it's injurious (not disrespectful). Is there any question that some people are deeply wounded by even the gentlest criticism of a war in which they lost someone?
What I want to answer to that is that they aren't injured by the criticism of the war, they're injured by their own misunderstanding of that criticism. If it's wrong to injure them like that on Memorial Day, surely it would be wrong to injure them like that on any given Monday, wouldn't it? I can't make the latter concession, so I don't want to make the former.
There are certainly things I wouldn't say on Memorial Day -- it's not the time for a scathing inquiry into wrongdoing by soldiers, for example. That seems to me much more analogous to not badmouthing the deceased at a funeral that general opposition to the war. But we disagree on this, and probably won't convince each other, so I'll drop it now.
It is in some sense wrong to injure them like that on any other day, but, like I say in the original post, we set aside a day for etiquette to trump conscience. Every other day of the year, I'm sorry for the injury, but honesty demands that I say something. Anyway, yeah, we seem to have reached the end of this, so, Lizardbreath is banned!
Agreed on 14, contra 12: the drone of false piety is so incessant, and the lure of respectful silence so strong, that any well-stated opposition seems important and worthwhile (just not on...yadda yadda...).
Ogged, your point about the appropriate tact at funerals depends on an implicit analogy between Memorial Day and a private funeral that I don't think has to hold. In essence, what this conversation is about is whether Memorial Day ought to be treated with the same kind of tact that one brings to a funeral, so it simply begs the question to say that the two kinds of ritual are the same.
I agree with LB that to say all families think of Memorial Day like the funeral of their loved one is to speak for them in a way that might also be tactless, especially if one is implying that they are entitled to our respect and compassion one or two days of the year but that they are open game for criticism every other day. The better response, as LB points out, is to question--gently, of course; tactfully, yes--whether criticizing a war in general is a sign of disrespect to a casualty of that war in particular. I don't think it is, necessarily.
lord help me, I think I agree with baa, with the slight modification that I would have been happy if he had at least linked to some substantive reports/arguments, and then summaraized his position as he did. We could pounce on Josh upthread for not dealing with any of the counterarguments, but, really, Kieren did the same thing.
For the life of me, I still don't understand why Healy's post engendered so much controversy. How is it, for example, different from Henley's post or that of the Minneapolis paper to which Atrios linked?
In all cases, it seems like a reasonable call for those who bet military lives to check their assumptions. This doesn't seem disrespectful to the dead, or to the military. It asks something of supporters, who, after all, made the bet. Is it that this is a contentious subject and, as at any ceremony, it seems impolite to bring it up and thus risk a disruption of the ceremony? (Though I'd think the fault would lie both on those who brought up the subject and those who responded.) I guess I'm unclear why it is different, in kind, from asking employers about their treatment of employees on Labor Day.
I can't believe that I am agreeing with LizardBreath on something relating to the current war, but she has it right, I think. Done respectfully, there is nothing wrong with honoring the fallen while disagreeing with the cause in which they fell, even on Memorial Day. Most people can tell the difference between criticizing those who served and lost their lives and criticizing the political policies that put them in harm's way. I can tell the difference and I honor the first and mostly agree with the second.
If you read the book Blackhawk Down, you recognize that the battle in Mogadishu that lead to the US's withdrawal was an exemplary feat of arms and that many of the soldiers involved showed great heroism--indeed, two were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The heroism of those soldiers is no less worthy of recognition and honor because their overall mission was misguided and our retreat afterwards craven. And there would be nothing wrong with criticizing the results of our retreat while at the same time honoring their achievements and sacrifices. If that is true for Somalia, it must be true for Iraq as well.
I think this is a bit different, baa. What we honor (or at least what I think about) on Memorial Day are the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who gave their lives for this country. It is not inappropriate (if done respectfully) to consider what those lives were given for and whether it is necessary to continue those sacrifices. The connection between the deaths and the reasons for them is much more immediate and relevant than the connections you draw in 25 (above).
I won't say any more about this, only that I made my comment on Tuesday, not Monday, and in direct response to a particularly offensive comment regarding the value of history -- and the value of past sacrifices. I'm as respectful at a funeral as the next person, particularly a soldier's funeral. Obviously, there are greater and more urgent questions related to soldiers currently at war.
I'm glad there are still people who read, think and speak carefully. Very glad. Still, what's the old joke: "You can line up all the [fill in area of study] economists end to end and they would still never reach a conclusion."
So we let the current administration make its cheap points unanswered?
Not for me, thanks.
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 05-30-05 11:04 PM
I'm reading the Crooked thread now, and I'm not yet sure which side I'm on. But if I were to decide that Kieran is right and Orin is wrong, it wouldn't be because we can't let Bush take advantage and not answer him. Since we could just answer him tomorrow. Also, "He did it first" isn't much of a moral argument, except in certain self-defense cases.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-30-05 11:43 PM
But wouldn't "those to whom it's a comfort have a greater claim" on any day?
Posted by Caleb | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 6:39 AM
There's nothing wrong with George W. Bush using the occasion of a civic observance to venture a political argument about war and sacrifice. Political leaders have done this sort of thing forever. Lincoln did it at Gettysburg. There's likewise nothing whatsoever wrong with Kieran Healy, or anyone else, doing so.
To memorialize is to remember; to remember is to think; and to think is to form opinions. The idea that something called "Memorial Day" should be observed by not thinking and not remembering would be pretty startling to a long lineage of patriotic Americans.
To the extent that Ogged's argument has merit, it's in the realm of simple tact. Of course we owe "respect to the sensiblity of the mourners." Just as clearly, Kieran Healy's comments were perfectly respectful to the day's mourners. Moreover, it seems that Ogged is rather quick to jump to conclusions about what "the sensibility of the mourners" is, to and the extent to which it's unitary. Plenty of Americans, including many who've lost limbs and family members, agree with the sentiments Kieran expressed, and would regard them as appropriate on Memorial Day. Is the day not theirs as much as anyone's?
Posted by Patrick Nielsen Hayden | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 6:43 AM
The political battle in this nation is as much a battle over symbol as anything else. I almost think that what we're talking about is whether it is tactically better to show respect to the symbol or to rip the other guy's head off. I hate this sort of politics because most determiniations are tactical, not moral. The good of man is the end result of the science of politics if I remember my Nichomachean Ethics. We've strayed. And it eats at me. If I ever left the sharktank and went into consulting I'd call the firm sophistries r us.
Despite the lessons of the Clinton War Room and the Swift Boat August, progressives don't have to answer every attack at every time. And outside of the campaign framework, I don't buy that you necessarily have to respond in the news cycle. Particularly when you're responding to something launched by a lame duck president who can't legislate despite a clear majority in both houses.
But the sum of our answer has to be loud and clear. And it has to come from a vision of what we want for the country and our families. We have a lot of work to do on that front.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 7:28 AM
I think the point is clear: Ogged hates America, Gawd, and Keiran Healy. Though not in that order.
Seriously, is this worth the level of commentary it's getting around the web? Healy made an obvious point, but perhaps he could have been more politic in making it. In five years, when we've declared victory and rolled on, and when Iraq is either in midst of a civil war or ruled by Saddam-lite, what do we do on Memorial Day then? Look sheepishly at our shoes and hope that no one who lost a soldier realizes we didn't get much for that blood?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 7:42 AM
With Bush on this one, by tearing away the veil of lies the peace creeps use to hide the truth, he is honoring their sacrifice by honoring the purpose for that sacrifice. People who pretend that these wonderful people died for a "lie" just make themselves look like bitter whiny losers, which makes a lot of sense. Trying to claim that nothing was gained or accomplished by our soldiers lives is a falsehood. This is something that is understood by anyone who supports our mission in the middle east, that the Arab people are indeed deserving of a chance to be helped. The military is in the best position to liberate the oppressed from the tyrannical (and from hard left liberal conceit).
If you really want to honor the troops, you will realize these facts instead of hiding behind 40 year old talking points which are no longer relevant.
Posted by Josh | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 7:49 AM
Moreover, it seems that Ogged is rather quick to jump to conclusions about what "the sensibility of the mourners" is, to and the extent to which it's unitary.
This is right. I haven't lost anyone in this war, but I could have, and may still -- my cousin spent a year as a combat medic in Iraq, and is expecting to be sent back in sometime soon (he's in Germany now). His parents think this war is idiotic, I think this war is idiotic, some of his siblings think this war is idiotic.
The idea that, if Timmy had gotten killed, that Kieran's post would have offended my sensibilities, or my aunt and uncle's sensibilities is wrong, and kind of contemputous. It assumes that anyone who has suffered a personal tragedy is going to want to be deluded into thinking it happened for a good reason, even if they wouldn't have thought so if they weren't personally affected.
This whole line of argument, claiming that saying anything against the war that might be interpreted as saying that soldiers are being used in a pointless and harmful way is an insult to those soldiers, bothers me a great deal. War supporters are using these innocent servicepeople who are making great personal sacrifices as human shields for their arguments by defining opposition to the war as disdain for the troops, and I find it offensive and illegitimate.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 7:58 AM
Ogged is rather quick to jump to conclusions about what "the sensibility of the mourners" is, to and the extent to which it's unitary
No, I'm aware that there are plenty of people mourning who would agree with Kieran (as I do, frankly--just not on Memorial Day), and even go quite a bit further. But, as PNH recognizes, I'm saying something about simple tact: on the day set aside to mourn, arguments about the proper way to mourn should be tabled. Of course I agree with your #8, LB, and Healy did a very good job of showing respect for the troops while registering his disgust at the enterprise. My only point is that Memorial Day isn't the right day to do that (I should add: not the right day to do that publically, or contentiously--because, like Patrick says, it would be an odd day to turn off our brains completely).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:09 AM
Certainly it's a day to be cautious and respectful, both of which Kiernan was. Nonetheless, I think Caleb got it right in his comment above. If we agree that there are circumstances under which we should not express opposition to the war, even respectfully, because it will hurt the feelings of innocent soldiers and family members, then why doesn't that same argument apply universally?
Opposition to the war isn't disrespect or an injury to dead or living soldiers or their family members. If we say that we shouldn't express that opposition on Memorial Day, we're conceding that it is disrespectful or injurious. I don't think that's accurate, and I don't want to make that concession.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:31 AM
My father volunteered to fight in a war that some call one of the "40 year old talking points which are no longer relevant." He was critically injured in battled and in a hospital for over a year recovering from 3rd degree burns. The injuries to his soul and conscience were much deeper. He never recovered from those, to his dying days in a putrid VA hospital, he cried in my mother's arms for having killed another human being. He loved our democracy. His thoughts on war, stated repeatedly, "Peace at any price." He knew that violence was needed in the face of aggressive evil. But he had learned in a way few humans can that violence should always be a last resort. Here's another "outdated" message from the past that, "I don't agree with you, but I would defend to the death your right to say it." Freedom means freedom of speech and freedom to question authority.
To you who call past wars among the "40 year old talking points which are no longer relevant." Here's a message that my father would have remained silent on out of respect: "Fuck you, neo-nazi."
We that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by Judy | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:32 AM
I suppose I have a meta-question about posts like Healy's, which is: "what's the point?" He acknowledges the sacrifice of the troops, and thinks the war in Iraq was unjustified and poorly planned. Those are both respectable enough views to have. And I don't see anything too terrible in voicing them on Memorial day. It wouldn't be my choice, were those views mine, but it is not an unseemly choice.
But what's the purpose? Surely not to convince anyone of anything. Is it merely to show the flag -- to provide a counterweight to the President's "honor scarifice = finish the job" rhetoric? Or is it just expressive writing? If the latter, I wish everyone -- but particularly those capable of doing otherwise and better -- would simply avoid expressive writing about the war. It's futile, it advances no argument, and simply binds us all tighter into our cocoons.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:36 AM
we're conceding that it is disrespectful or injurious
But of course it's injurious (not disrespectful). Is there any question that some people are deeply wounded by even the gentlest criticism of a war in which they lost someone? This seems to me no different from how we speak of the dead on the day of the funeral: I'd say it's not the time to speak ill; others would say, "when else?"
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:39 AM
Well, it is showing the flag, and I think it does have some potential to convince people. There's a tendency among sensible people (a category in which I'd certainly place you, and hope to qualify for inclusion in myself) to have a certain amount of contempt for pure rhetoric. I think this is misguided: lots of people whose opinions are worth having can be moved, and convinced, by such rhetorical appeals, and if sensible people don't make them, silly people will. I don't want pure rhetoric to drive out thoughtful argument, but I'm not sorry to see the one accompanying the other.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:42 AM
But of course it's injurious (not disrespectful). Is there any question that some people are deeply wounded by even the gentlest criticism of a war in which they lost someone?
What I want to answer to that is that they aren't injured by the criticism of the war, they're injured by their own misunderstanding of that criticism. If it's wrong to injure them like that on Memorial Day, surely it would be wrong to injure them like that on any given Monday, wouldn't it? I can't make the latter concession, so I don't want to make the former.
There are certainly things I wouldn't say on Memorial Day -- it's not the time for a scathing inquiry into wrongdoing by soldiers, for example. That seems to me much more analogous to not badmouthing the deceased at a funeral that general opposition to the war. But we disagree on this, and probably won't convince each other, so I'll drop it now.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:51 AM
It is in some sense wrong to injure them like that on any other day, but, like I say in the original post, we set aside a day for etiquette to trump conscience. Every other day of the year, I'm sorry for the injury, but honesty demands that I say something. Anyway, yeah, we seem to have reached the end of this, so, Lizardbreath is banned!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:55 AM
Agreed on 14, contra 12: the drone of false piety is so incessant, and the lure of respectful silence so strong, that any well-stated opposition seems important and worthwhile (just not on...yadda yadda...).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:56 AM
Ogged, your point about the appropriate tact at funerals depends on an implicit analogy between Memorial Day and a private funeral that I don't think has to hold. In essence, what this conversation is about is whether Memorial Day ought to be treated with the same kind of tact that one brings to a funeral, so it simply begs the question to say that the two kinds of ritual are the same.
I agree with LB that to say all families think of Memorial Day like the funeral of their loved one is to speak for them in a way that might also be tactless, especially if one is implying that they are entitled to our respect and compassion one or two days of the year but that they are open game for criticism every other day. The better response, as LB points out, is to question--gently, of course; tactfully, yes--whether criticizing a war in general is a sign of disrespect to a casualty of that war in particular. I don't think it is, necessarily.
Posted by Caleb | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 9:57 AM
lord help me, I think I agree with baa, with the slight modification that I would have been happy if he had at least linked to some substantive reports/arguments, and then summaraized his position as he did. We could pounce on Josh upthread for not dealing with any of the counterarguments, but, really, Kieren did the same thing.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 10:10 AM
For the life of me, I still don't understand why Healy's post engendered so much controversy. How is it, for example, different from Henley's post or that of the Minneapolis paper to which Atrios linked?
In all cases, it seems like a reasonable call for those who bet military lives to check their assumptions. This doesn't seem disrespectful to the dead, or to the military. It asks something of supporters, who, after all, made the bet. Is it that this is a contentious subject and, as at any ceremony, it seems impolite to bring it up and thus risk a disruption of the ceremony? (Though I'd think the fault would lie both on those who brought up the subject and those who responded.) I guess I'm unclear why it is different, in kind, from asking employers about their treatment of employees on Labor Day.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 10:36 AM
I can't believe that I am agreeing with LizardBreath on something relating to the current war, but she has it right, I think. Done respectfully, there is nothing wrong with honoring the fallen while disagreeing with the cause in which they fell, even on Memorial Day. Most people can tell the difference between criticizing those who served and lost their lives and criticizing the political policies that put them in harm's way. I can tell the difference and I honor the first and mostly agree with the second.
If you read the book Blackhawk Down, you recognize that the battle in Mogadishu that lead to the US's withdrawal was an exemplary feat of arms and that many of the soldiers involved showed great heroism--indeed, two were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The heroism of those soldiers is no less worthy of recognition and honor because their overall mission was misguided and our retreat afterwards craven. And there would be nothing wrong with criticizing the results of our retreat while at the same time honoring their achievements and sacrifices. If that is true for Somalia, it must be true for Iraq as well.
Posted by The Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 10:55 AM
And given that you're a far-right Republican cave-dwelling loon, anything we agree on must be correct. Right?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:21 AM
Cave-dwellers can be pretty ok.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:26 AM
I know. You should see the walls of Ideal's office. The clients do occasionally object to all the dead aurochs, though.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:27 AM
Maybe we can extend the genre.
Honoring civil rights, but deploring judicial activism: On Martin Luther King's Birthday!
Deploring the holocaust, but acknowledging the injustices of the Israeli occupation: on Yom Ha Shoah!
Respecting Christ's sacrifice, but attacking the reasoning of HUMANAE VITAE: on Easter Sunday!
I have one wing-dinger of an Earth day planned.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:30 AM
Going snowmobiling in ANWR to celebrate?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:39 AM
Good! By the way, auroch is just a fantastic word...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:48 AM
I think this is a bit different, baa. What we honor (or at least what I think about) on Memorial Day are the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who gave their lives for this country. It is not inappropriate (if done respectfully) to consider what those lives were given for and whether it is necessary to continue those sacrifices. The connection between the deaths and the reasons for them is much more immediate and relevant than the connections you draw in 25 (above).
Posted by The Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 11:55 AM
I agree Idealist. I was just funnin'
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 12:15 PM
I won't say any more about this, only that I made my comment on Tuesday, not Monday, and in direct response to a particularly offensive comment regarding the value of history -- and the value of past sacrifices. I'm as respectful at a funeral as the next person, particularly a soldier's funeral. Obviously, there are greater and more urgent questions related to soldiers currently at war.
I'm glad there are still people who read, think and speak carefully. Very glad. Still, what's the old joke: "You can line up all the [fill in area of study] economists end to end and they would still never reach a conclusion."
Posted by Judy | Link to this comment | 05-31-05 1:47 PM
"I still don't understand why Healy's post engendered so much controversy." (20)
Because there are so many people with keyboards who see anything other than slavish devotion to GWB as reason for rhetorical overkill (see 7, above).
For an example of honoring men who fell in a wasted cause, see ANZAC day at Gallipoli.
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 06- 1-05 9:33 AM