It's been a busy month with many things I've seen/heard but haven't had a chance to write on. Just a few quick hits to get me back in a rhythm, hopefully...
Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.
A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.
Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Monday, May 2, 2011
Thoughts on Osama's demise
Last night at 10.00 pm, I saw flash go across my Twitter feed indicating that President Obama would be making an announcement at 10.30 pm EST. So, my curiosity aroused by the fact that the president was requesting time on the national television stations at 10.30 on a Sunday night, I decided to stay up to see what was going on. Normally, I would have been bound for bed by that time since I have to get up at 6 am in the morning for work, but I figured I could handle it for a day.
At 10.30, I flipped on the television and found a news station that had the talking heads wondering what was so important that the president need to announce. They originally considered it had something to do with Libya (which, to be honest, was also my first thought). Then, about 10.50, some 20 minutes after waiting for the president to appear, the news started to filter out that Osama bin Laden had been killed with no shortage of varying details (in this case, "rumors" would be a better description) as to his demise.
My better half and I both looked at each other in amazement and not some small degree of satisfaction. The perpetrator of the worst terror attack in our lifetimes had come to suffer a not totally inappropriate fate at the hands of the military of his avowed enemy. He was killed in a surprise attack against his compound where he had spent, according to reports, much of the last six years.
We watched as the television showed scenes of spontaneous celebration breaking out in various parts of the US. I followed my Twitter feed as people from all over the world offered various commentary on his death, ranging from the witty to the macabre and everything in between - much of it by people who I know as being mainly apolitical at best. The actions of September 11, 2001, planned by Osama bin Laden, had now been revisited upon him and justice, such as it was, had been served almost 10 years later by the nation that had suffered under the repressive memories that he represented.
And yet, I now stop to ponder, almost 24 hours later, just what is the appropriate reaction in this situation. Should we feel glee at the killing of another individual, even one as evil (subjective though that term may be) as Osama bin Laden? Does his death restore the sense of peace and security that America (and much of the rest of the world) may have known prior to 9/11? Does it bring back to life those who died on that tragic day or repair the lives that were ripped asunder?
There are no easy answers to these questions. For me, I take no satisfaction that he died the way he did but I am not unhappy to see him gone. I miss the sense of security that I had prior to 9/11, illusory though it may have been, but recognize that it likely will never return to what it once was in my mind. But then again, the days passed are always better than today in our minds so this is not surprising. I did not suffer losses directly as a result of that day but I do not know how I would feel if I had - and I am glad that I do not have to worry about that feeling.
My hope for tomorrow is that it will be better and brighter than today. I hope the spectre of Osama bin Laden will disappear soon and the negative inspiration that he provided will fade as the hope of an entire region replaces the hatred that he so fervently espoused with the strong push for freedom that has enveloped it over the last several months. May his legacy be not his hatred and violence but the recognition by people that he was the antithesis of what we all desire and the hopes we have were encouraged by opposition, and successor, to him.
At 10.30, I flipped on the television and found a news station that had the talking heads wondering what was so important that the president need to announce. They originally considered it had something to do with Libya (which, to be honest, was also my first thought). Then, about 10.50, some 20 minutes after waiting for the president to appear, the news started to filter out that Osama bin Laden had been killed with no shortage of varying details (in this case, "rumors" would be a better description) as to his demise.
My better half and I both looked at each other in amazement and not some small degree of satisfaction. The perpetrator of the worst terror attack in our lifetimes had come to suffer a not totally inappropriate fate at the hands of the military of his avowed enemy. He was killed in a surprise attack against his compound where he had spent, according to reports, much of the last six years.
We watched as the television showed scenes of spontaneous celebration breaking out in various parts of the US. I followed my Twitter feed as people from all over the world offered various commentary on his death, ranging from the witty to the macabre and everything in between - much of it by people who I know as being mainly apolitical at best. The actions of September 11, 2001, planned by Osama bin Laden, had now been revisited upon him and justice, such as it was, had been served almost 10 years later by the nation that had suffered under the repressive memories that he represented.
And yet, I now stop to ponder, almost 24 hours later, just what is the appropriate reaction in this situation. Should we feel glee at the killing of another individual, even one as evil (subjective though that term may be) as Osama bin Laden? Does his death restore the sense of peace and security that America (and much of the rest of the world) may have known prior to 9/11? Does it bring back to life those who died on that tragic day or repair the lives that were ripped asunder?
There are no easy answers to these questions. For me, I take no satisfaction that he died the way he did but I am not unhappy to see him gone. I miss the sense of security that I had prior to 9/11, illusory though it may have been, but recognize that it likely will never return to what it once was in my mind. But then again, the days passed are always better than today in our minds so this is not surprising. I did not suffer losses directly as a result of that day but I do not know how I would feel if I had - and I am glad that I do not have to worry about that feeling.
My hope for tomorrow is that it will be better and brighter than today. I hope the spectre of Osama bin Laden will disappear soon and the negative inspiration that he provided will fade as the hope of an entire region replaces the hatred that he so fervently espoused with the strong push for freedom that has enveloped it over the last several months. May his legacy be not his hatred and violence but the recognition by people that he was the antithesis of what we all desire and the hopes we have were encouraged by opposition, and successor, to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)