Letters to the Editor
-
"Security" is an empty term
Brooks' use of the term "security" is so loose as to be empty. It can be applied to any policy. However, if people buy into the phrase ("security leads to freedom") and attach their policies to "security", then we've bought into his mindset. People may debate whether clean air leads to "environmental security", but no one can argue with aggressive foreign militarism and a domestic police state.
Doesn't Brooks sound like he's defending the policies of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars?
-
Shooter242
In the end though, it remains true that one cannot be free if one thinks his life is in danger,
One's life is always in danger.
And there are many dangers that we accept every day that are far more real than the threat of terrorism.
http://www.madd.org/stats/6914
In 2002, there were 43,005 traffic deaths in the USA and 17,524 that were alcohol related.
Do you think about those statistics whenever you get in the car?
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsfull.html
The top ten causes of accidental deaths in the USA:
1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200
2. Falls
Deaths per year: 14,900
3. Poisoning by solids and liquids
Deaths per year: 8,600
4. Drowning
Deaths per year: 4,000
5. Fires and burns
Deaths per year: 3,700
6. Suffocation
Deaths per year: 3,300
7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500
8. Poisoning by gases
Deaths per year: 700
9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures
Deaths per year: 500
10. Machinery
Deaths per year: 350
As you can see, more people die of suffocation *each* year than died as a result of the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.
Do you fear suffocation?
-
Brooks
I wonder if Brooks receives a stipend or some kind of monetary gratuity from Osama bin Laden since his writings help destroy this democratic republic.
-
I'll Third That
I agree with a previous poster: I'd rather be blown up than live in the nightmare the PNACers are dreaming about.
-- prunes
I would definitely rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Of course, what we are currently presented with is the worst of both - having to live in the nightmare the PNACers are dreaming about AND being blown up. There is no indication that anything they have done has made or will make us safer.
-
@Jojo @Paul Dirks
Good point - and well picked up on by Paul Dirks. While I am nominally speaking of the government (including its decision-making processes), ultimately it may not matter, at least in the sense that the USA did invade Iraq (okay, I'm taking the liberty of ignoring your coalition partners).
However, to the other aspect of your point, and lest there be any misunderstanding, I have absolutely no problem with "Americans" (heck, one needs no clearer evidence of the quality of individual Americans than the writings and dialogue on this website and around the ol' interweb), but I do take issue with the actions of your government (as defined above).
-
Freedom for corporations
Glenn,
You write "Whatever else one wants to say about the Bush presidency, it has nothing to do with limiting the size, scope and reach of the federal government. The exact opposite is true." In so far as this refers to the relationship between the government and individual citizens, I think you are 100% correct.
However, when it comes to the relationship between the federal government and corporations, the Bush administration has generally restricted the reach of government. For example, consider their actions in dropping or curtailing the litigation against Microsoft and tobacco companies. They have consistently rolled back or attempted to roll back environmental protections.
It has always seemed to me that one of the best predictors of the actions of the Bush administration is to consider the effect of their actions on either corporations or wealthy individuals. (And though I don't think profit motive drove them to war with Iraq, they were more than happy to take advantage of the situation to increase the wealth of their friends and allies).
While Bush's thirst for expansive powers was not especially clear during the 2000 election, his favoritism to the wealthy has always been clear. This leads me to suspect that the "War on Terror" and the resulting restrictions on civil liberties is more of a "happy" (in their eyes) coincidence than a philosphical end in and of itself.
Regardless, thank you for nailing this issue in your post.
-
re: Shooter242
Shooter242 - In the end though, it remains true that one cannot be free if one thinks his life is in danger,
Jonathan - One's life is always in danger. And there are many dangers that we accept every day that are far more real than the threat of terrorism.
All very true, but the causes you list are all accidental. Is that how you see terrorism? Should we be like France or Sweden and accept Islamist violence as a natural part of life?
-
@ shooter242
Liberals are as authoritarian as neocons, they just want a different kind of security.....
Ooooooohhh. You figgered us out. Now what's your ISP login? You can save me the trouble of digging it up so I can provision the intercept and find out how flowery your prose is in your IM chats on myREALpetgoat.com... Just wondering if you're the next TSE, yaknow....
Cheers,
-
@Jonathan
Thanks. Ratbert luvs him some LGF, methinks...
-
We interrupt this thread with...
this important reminder for the fact impaired...
We were attacked by an organization upset by our cozy relationship to the Saudi regime and by our troop presense on supposedly holy sites. In response we deposed the ONLY secular regime in the middle east thus igniting a firestorm of religious violence that is endangering the entire region. In order to mitigate that damage however it's necessary to allow the FBI to collect phone, internet and library records of any Americans who draw their interest. Unsurprisingly the sort of Americans who draw their interest are the ones who find this whole saga disturbing.
We now rerturn you to the partisan sniping and finger pointing already in progress.
-
Where are you going with this...
All very true, but the causes you list are all accidental. Is that how you see terrorism? Should we be like France or Sweden and accept Islamist violence as a natural part of life?
Please explain what that has to do with Americans loving the freedoms God gave us more than our own lives.
There is nothing unique about the terrorist threat. What are you so scared of?