Subject:
|
Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:38:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
912 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > If true, I would view that as a rather apathetic outlook. ;)
> >
> > Not at all! I'm quite upset about it, but I still recognize the futility.
> > I suspect that many of My Fellow Americans feel the same. "Apathy" suggests
> > that we don't care, when in fact we do (some, very strongly). I know you're
> > semi-kidding (hence the wink), but I wanted to underscore the point.
>
> apathetic (adjective): lacking interest or energy; unwilling to take action
> esp. over a matter of importance
>
> Perhaps (the collective) you just does not care enough? 32% of my countrymen
> support an attack on Iraq. I’d bet half of them could not find it on a map.
"Care enough" is hard to quantify, but I really don't know what the
average citizen can do. Even organizing a rally or a letter-writing
campaign seems unworkable in the timeframe available, and we've already seen
that Bush is happy to detain protesters who don't wholeheartedly support
him. In addition, since the "will of the people" was flatly ignored in
2000, it's hard to imagine that the chief beneficiary of that stolen
election will respond now to the will of the people who didn't elect him.
Your point about the 32% is quite valid, alas. I live in Pennsylvania and
once asked a 22-year-old woman where New York is, and she said "about three
hours away." So then I asked her what the capital of Harrisburg is, and she
said "come on--you know I don't know that stuff."
> > If non-conformity results
> > in the loss of one's job or respect or well-being, or if non-conformity
> > causes one's family to lose such things, then it's a bigger issue than
> > simply running with the crowd. The Bush administration is desperate to make
> > this a polarizing litmus test while simultaneously pretending that they're
> > doing no such thing.
>
> Are you saying being "anti-war" can cause you to directly loose your job, or
> are you talking about the longer-term economic case?
My bad. I was actually referring to members of congress who have urged
caution and/or restraint during this whole thing. They've been roundly
condemned in the (so-called liberal) media, and I'm confident that the issue
will be used against them during the forthcoming elections. That's why it's
so funny to me that Bush et al accuse the Democrats of politicizing the issue.
At the level of private citizens, I have no problem at all in voicing my
objections to unilateral military action against Iraq and have written "my"
rep about it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Q. Where is the USA? A. You are standing on it!
|
| (...) I thought this was pertinent: (URL) 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, (...) (22 years ago, 21-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
