12:15:46 AM
More notes on the recent onslaught of bad commentary:
1. Some guy on FOX news recommended that the Muslim community be more weary of their surroundings since this incident occured. He described their physicalities, generalising that their, "darker skin colour, turbans, hairy facial accents" will make them targets of intolerance. Do all Muslims wear turbans or have beards or is this guy just picturing bin Laden? This guy could've just thought of Muhammad Ali and his description would have been blown into space. The commentator also remarked on how these features were not reminiscent of your "typical American." Okay, so the majority of the US is of European descent, but Americans are not limited to mere superficial traits. My god.
2. Norman Scharwzkophf (squirmish salute) actually admitted that the US aided bin Laden in the early/mid 80's. He embarrassedly detailed how we used him against USSR during the Cold War, handing him weapons and assisting bin Laden and his associates with military training. "After the Soviets were defeated, bin Laden turned against us." So what Scharwzkophf is implicitly saying is terrorism is a-okay if it's against other countries, but wrong if it's against US? Woah, what a blatant hypocrite!
Did Walmart just lay off a bunch of their employees or do these guys actually know what they're talking about?
September 15, 2001
5:28:09 AM
Saddam Hussein has finally spoken up.
I'm not sure how evil the media has painted Saddam Hussein to be (though one must be pretty twisted to murder members of one's own family . . . ), but his comments regarding the 11th's events sounded more rational and progressive than the cry of war Bush and his conglomerates are chanting.
Hussein castigated the US's policies in the Middle East, noting that this was the wake up call the United States needed to reassess its foreign policies. He advised Bush to (and I'm paraphrasing here, I cannot find any online sources at this time) "use wisdom, not force," an alternative solution that could inevitably prevent future acts of terrorism, as (paraphrasing again) "force has not been proven effective in the past."
Though there was a lack of sympathy on Hussein's part, he likened the situation to the random aerial attacks on Iraq during the Gulf War (and the ones that still continue to this day). In a way, he expresses his sympathy in the form of relation and urges the US to discontinue these kinds of attacks. In Hussein's perspective, they will only breed future backlash.
Hussein exhibits sound and reason in his ideas, suggestions that I doubt Bush will listen to. (Now why would he follow the words of his father's mortal enemy?) Perhaps Bush can take some of this into consideration -- Hussein, though littered with many legitimate faults of his own -- sounds like he genuinely wants continuity between parts of the Middle East and the US.
The anchorman on NBC news hurriedly broke Hussein's statement through a translator and switched onto a story about the revival of patriotism in America. After the montages of flags and unity (something I like, only if they don't carry with them connotations of an America at war), one of those ever-present "Middle East experts" was invited for their "insight." The expert inveighed against the religions of the Middle East by generalising that all Muslims denounce the driving forces of the West, in his opinion -- capitalism, violence (and I forget what other element he named). If what he is saying is true, why do so many Muslims peacefully inhabit the Western part of the world (many in the US)? As with any religion, there are variations and to oversimplify is to be unaware.
After absorbing Hussein's comments, the anchor, speaking to the aforementioned commentator, called Hussein's remark "disingenuous."
Hussein’s comments will most likely be disregarded by the popular media because it’s not what the majority of Americans wants to hear. Anything coming from Hussein will probably be brushed off, since he's one of America's most hated enemies. He has something insightful to say this time and unfortunately, it might not be heard. It's all about revenge. Sweet, startling revenge.
We don't need to see more bloodshed from the innocent, but something has to be done. Passivity, in this situation, is an injustice in itself, but we must think of a long term plan, not an implusive, anger-driven hit. That's how the terrorists reacted and we shouldn't stoop to their level. That's probably what they wanted anyway -- continued destruction of human lives.
I don't want to reap the consequences of the risks the law makers are taking today. After reading and listening to many of my peers (friends, councils of college students on television), many side for a less violent resolve than what I am expecting out of our older, supposedly more enlightened leaders.
I don't get it.
September 14, 2001
3:04:14 AM
I am in no way expressing sympathy towards the terrorists.
But I do want to investigate the questions that should be dealt with before anything is done in retaliation.
That's the first step -- to understand what is triggering this. Robert McNamara (the guy who prompted the entrance into Vietnam) suggested a plan of 1) bombing the "enemies" into oblivion, THEN 2) figuring out what triggered this. I'm thinking -- shouldn't it be the other way around? If McNamara's pattern is followed, wouldn't it just be a never-ending struggle?
There are innocent people in Afghanistan (I am assuming the media is referring to this country) as there were innocent people in NY/DC/PA and all around the United States. Wouldn't we be perpetuating hell against the "other" when we just want to attack the terrorists/government who sponsored them?
Why bring innocent people -- who pretty much have NOTHING to do with the government/terrorists -- into it? It's like bringing innocent US citizens into the political wars that are waged between the US and other governments.
And say, what if the terrorists were home made? What would we do in that case? Blow ourselves up for producing such hate in our own country? All the government could do about Timothy McVeigh was to execute him. That was it, the story ended there.
There is a lot of association with "people of Middle Eastern descent," the past couple of days, but there was a lack of mention of McVeigh in reference to Oklahoma. Hmm. It's just fun for the media/politics to blame the "other." When McVeigh is spoken of in relation to Oklahoma, it is almost under a veil of shame, whereas the media can casually place the blame onto "Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern" people.
If America executes the "war on terrorism" by bombing other countries that, in addition to providing a home to terrorists, also provide homes to innocent citizens, we'd just be in for more terrorist attacks. Even if the terrorists die as a result, their outlook on America (obviously negative) will live on in those who do survive the retribution. America would have just proven itself a greater enemy to citizens of a fallen nation. Terrorists thrive on feeling weak in the political and economic arena, and express/justify their frustrations in heinous acts like those seen on Tuesday. Instead of isolating ourselves from the rest of the world (as we've recently seen in the UN talks on racism, the Kyoto treaties on the environment, and the latest Star Wars efforts), we should actively participate in world politics, and re-evaluate our relationships with Middle Eastern nations, instead of creating more enemies.
The "war on terrorism" should be dealt with on an international level, not exclusively America vs. terrorism. The US can serve as the whipping boy for discontent, zealous terrorists because it attracts the most attention as a country, but terrorism affects every nation. The terrorist network must be disassembled and each member must be punished for their involvement in any terrorist act. With war comes geopolitics, and having to define boundaries to attack. What boundaries are there with terrorist networks? They are global, and it is impossible to prevent their actions by declaring "war."
I can't turn on the television without hearing the repetitive war theme. Bush never fails to include the word "war" in all his rhetoric. What kind of war is he referring to? Is this just something against terrorism, or whole countries in the Middle East? As of late, it is beginning to sound more like the latter.
60% of Americans think this is worse than Pearl Harbor, the spark of the US' involvement into WWII. Eek. What'll this spark? WW3?
There's an e-mail going about the Internet talking about how America is such a great country for inacting the Truman and Marshall plans during the time of crisis after WW2 in Europe. There is also the mention of the generous "donations" to impoverished countries. It's sort of counter-intuitive to think this way, but the first thing I thought about was how America used the Marshall Plan for its own benefit. America came to the aid of Europe when aid was most needed, but in Marshall's speech at Harvard, he made it clear that there was going to be some aquisitions from the plan. And there was: the period after WW2 was one of the most prosperous times in American history. The money the United States gave to Europe resulted in the purchasing of US goods, which stimulated a post-War economy. European production eventually picked up, and the effect was strong trading. The article also failed to mention the huge debts the less fortunate countries have been left to pay. Don't we have a surplus? If the United States was so genuinely good at heart, I would assume it'd just give the money to these countries without a second thought as to whether or not they could pay it back.
This article did point out our aid to natural disaster areas in other parts of the world, an act that deserves praise. This also leads me to think -- since we are at the highest segment possible on the global political totem pole (a view that can be justified, whether through arrogance or fact), does this also warrant us these duties to be the savior and protector of the world? And do benefits come with these responsibilities? (Thinking: trade, influence, homogenic Coca-Cola culture.)
I'll probably get grilled by expressing these speculations during a time of such high patriotic sentiment.
I express my condolences to everyone who had to live through this.
September 11, 2001
8:53:27 PM
It sounds like Bush is definitely going on a "hunt" to find the perpetrators of it. It scares me more than it assures me. It'll go back and forth. On the other hand, the US does have to do something about the whole situation.
One of the major themes today was revenge. I think I understand now.
Everything before it seems so minuscule.
1:53:40 AM
"The assertive flatness of the implacable field of red is emphasized by the linear vertical "zips." Rather than functioning as "drawing" within space, these reinforce and delimit the space as a whole. White "zips" in Newman's works also evoke primal beginnings: the separatoin of light from darkness, the uprightness of man in the void." (Hopkins, 15)
Wait, what? I'm not sure how this Hopkins fellow got his interpretation from this Barnett Newman painting. Maybe my eye isn't developed like a seasoned art historian's yet, but I think most people (even those who are in the know about art) looking at something like this at a museum will not get what this guy got from it. There's a lot of innuending context in "after modern art" type paintings, much which needs to be researched before a conclusion can be made as to what the artist's objective was -- it's like peeling layers of history and, auh, stuff. I'm not sure I'm cut out for this. Renaissance art is much more obvious. I have a feeling my class this fall won't be too easy. I just hope I don't have to write papers riddled with adjectives that don't really make sense to me. Thank god for the little placards in museums!
Dr Phil was on Oprah today. It's Oprah's new season and she's pulling all the stops this time with a reality-tv-esque concept where Dr Phil's locked in a room with 42 squirmish strangers. One lady kept on crying about some molestation incident and the mic was turned on real loud so I could hear her efforts on trying to keep the snot from coming out of her nose. It really hurt my ears. Needless to say, I'm staying tuned! A year ago Oprah bothered me, well, she still sort of does, but I need something to watch after Jenny Jones. Ah, I live the cultured life!
"The assertive flatness of the implacable field of red is emphasized by the linear vertical "zips." Rather than functioning as "drawing" within space, these reinforce and delimit the space as a whole. White "zips" in Newman's works also evoke primal beginnings: the separatoin of light from darkness, the uprightness of man in the void." (Hopkins, 15)