9/11

Buckethead Buckethead

I've been watching the Republican National Convention on the news; and while I have no real desire to turn this into some sort of simulblog experience, I was struck by the tribute to 9/11 that happened immediately following McCain's speech. It was moving. One thing in particular - Deena Burnett said (I'm paraphrasing) that heroes were not created that day, but that the lifelong practice of virtue led to their actions - the decision to do something. This is true.

And we have seen over the last couple years a growing reluctance to remember the events of 9/11. It is a virtue to look reality in the face. Many have criticized the the Republicans for an expected focus on 9/11 at the convention, saying that it is almost sinful that the Republicans are draping themselves with the events of that terrible day for political gain. But as I think on it, I am truly awestruck that the entire Democratic convention made so little reference to the single most important event of the last decade - and one of the most important in our history.

Naturally, there is political gain for the Republicans in reminding America of the events of that day. And Democrats are naturally leery of bringing up a subject that will bring to mind images on the whole favorable to their opponents. But this is completely beside the point. If our elections are in part referendums on the direction our nation should take - and they should be - then discussions of 9/11 are not merely acceptable, but necessary.

But Kerry has made a thirty year old war the focus of his campaign and convention. Talking about 9/11 focuses us on the realities of this world and its future. Talk about Vietnam (from Kerry or his critics) not only tells us nothing about the future and Kerry's plans for it, but actively distracts us from it. Not talking about 9/11 creates an intentional delusion; one where we forget that we were brutally attacked without cause, forget that there is a real threat not eliminated by our many victories, and where we pretend that history has ended.

I think also that the controversy over Vietnam is strangely appropriate. Given the way the Democratic primaries played out, and the protests - there is very much a sixties feel to the left side of this election. The fact that a large part of Kerry's support looks like they are attempting to channel the antiwar movement of the sixties makes it seem important to define where Kerry actually stands on the issues of that time. But if Kerry is to make any headway and reverse his recent slide in the polls he will have to offer something more than four months of combat and saying that everything the president does is wrong.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 6

§ 6 Comments

1

See, that's funny Buckethead, that you speak of the past, cuz the past has been on my mind.

I'm looking at [url=http://georgewbush.com/]georgewbush.com[/url] trying to find the webpage where W lays out his plan for the next four years, you know, his plan for the future, the future which is not the past, and I'm seeing bupkis. There is a whole page devoted to "Compassion," however, which is nice because it shows us that George has some talent as a fabulist, perhaps a novelist after he leaves office, but nothing about bold new policy initatives, sweeping reforms of environmental regulation, the whole How Inverts Ruin The Fambly thing that some of his constituency seem to be all hepped up about, or anything else.

So, what then? "GEORGE BUSH: MORE OF THE SAME?"

At least John Kerry has a big "Plan For America" [url=http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/]thingy[/url] on his campaign site. Of course, he's the challenger, so he has to introduce himself. But when you speak of John Kerry's regrettable and embarrassing overuse of the past (did you know he was in, Vietnam, was it?), I feel compelled to brandish a pointy stick from the other side and point out that your man George and his super-team haven't yet said what they're up to next term, provided they win. Which is real classy.

Almost as classy as giving Rick "gays are like dogs when they screw" Santorum face-time at the convention.

Johno Johno

2

J,
That's why I don't bother.

Working slobs are going to get the high hard one whoever's in charge. I already lose more than 1/3 of the $$ I earn, why not a few more precentage points? Wanna give me a tax cut? Sure...I'll never see it.

So it comes down to a few core issues of personal interest- abortion, gay marriage, faux-repression, and other social stuff- to certain people. Personally, I care about tightening immigration and securing the borders, so on that point no member of any party has anything for me. Except for Tancredo from CO, who his own party ostracizes over that very position.

Look, either way my quality of life is not changed whatsoever, regardless of which name is on the White House mailbox.

If it'll make you feel better, you can write me in on your ballot.

GeekLethal GeekLethal

3

GL, Thanks. I feel fuzzy inside now, though that might just be the super-strength Naproxen kicking in.

That tax cut thing is a funny one! So far this year, I have seen a total tax savings of $0 over last year. Mmmm, thank's Mr President! That and my good looks can get me kicked out of most places!

....reading back, it appears someone shat in my Wheaties today.

Johno Johno

4

Yeah man, I'm totally off Wheaties...they're shit magnets.

I got a $200 tax cut ca 2001. Which I had to claim as income the next year. Was I happy to have it? Mmmm...well, since it was my fucking $$ in the first place, it WAS kinda nice to see it again, but I wasn't exactly enthusiastic about all the fanfare that came with it. I mean, it was mine to begin with, bitch! Do you thank a junky who breaks into your house and takes your TV for returning the VCR?!

If I bother to vote at all, I think I'll write in "Norbizness".

GeekLethal GeekLethal

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]