Subject:
|
Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:26:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > It seems to me that today is the natural
> > evolution of a hundred years of incrementally giving up the American way.
>
> I think I understand your intended point here, but the notion that The
> American Way should be what it was 200 years ago is baseless and
> anachronistic. The American Way of 200 years ago was to deny women the
> right to vote and to own human beings as property. Which American Way are
> we giving up, exactly?
The good parts, of course. Unequal sufferage of the law was (and still is) a
problem with the implementation of 'The American Way' not a flaw in it. We
should keep working to improve our inclusion of all people. I don't seek to
replicate the times 200 years ago, we have come too far and gotten to much good
stuff to ever give it up. 200 years ago, most of my ancestors that were
already on this continent were living on dirt floors. Almost no one in the US
lives like that now. I don't want to go back, but I do think there are things
about the government (or at least our romanticized notion of the government)
that were better. Rampant corruption existed too and I'm obviously not in
favor of that. But I feel that in many ways we took a very cool and novel idea
of government and have taken one step forward and two steps back.
Historical perspective is a great tool for looking for improvement. And I
value the ideals of freedom, small government, striking independence, openness
to cultural influx.
> > > oh no, the givernment can do no wrong, they are acting in our best • interests.
> >
> > This really is a troubling trend. I stil work in a place where heated • comments
> > will ensue if I make comments that mildly disparage our national policy. All
> > hail Lord Bush is more popular.
>
> To be fair, no one--and I mean no one--has put forth a reasonable or
> realistic alternative to Bush's policy.
You seem to have concentrated on the detention issue. There are many policies
with which one could find fault. I'm not too keen on bombing Afghanistan at
this point. I'd rather stand off, let them do their thing and then go back to
bombing them if they create another hideously repressive government. I'm
queasy about rounding up Arabs, but like you would wait to really blast the
practice. But my coworkers say things (pretty universally) like "Bush hasn't
done anything wrong." When I question that stance, I am branded an unpatriotic
liberal. I don't consider myself either, exactly.
> > > They don't realize that Bin Laden has already won- we have
> > > given away the freedoms we cherish,
>
> I would identify that as a naive view of a complex situation. In what
> demonstrable way has your freedom been compromised by the US Government in
> the wake of 9/11?
I can not enter New York City unimpeded through the previously common chanels.
(Actually I haven't had any problems, but other I know have. And I guess it
was more serious six weeks ago.) Nothing really significant has yet happened
that we know of.
> > I'm not sure that matters as to whether or not we should be bombing in Asia.
> > Agree that he gave us a thumping and we're sore from it, but I think we are
> > actually seeing to it that he's both won and lost.
>
> Bid Laden's goal was probably not to make the US Government curtail the
> rights of US Citizens and VISA-carrying aliens, so to claim that bin Laden
> has won on the basis of either is simple propaganda.
I imagine that his goal was to demonstrate that we were vulnerable so that he
could instill a bit of fear in our seemingly top-of-the-world culture. He did
it. But I certainly could be wrong about his goal.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
