Welcome to Stupidity Watch. As someone experienced in both the academic and entertainment industries, I (Greg) figured that I was the obvious choice to head up this new department. I haven’t cleared this feature with management just yet (so don’t tell Robert), but increasingly I come across items that don’t really fit into the current JW or DW categories.
One month from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America.
What kind of a sick b—–d would write such a thing?
A b—–d so sick of how splintered we are politically – thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq – that we have forgotten who the enemy is.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O’Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and division is weakness.
As if the torrent of multicultural doublethink wasn’t bad enough, we now have to contend with public advocacy of mass-murder from “mainstream” American political commentators. Perhaps almost as much as the plentiful, Islam-is-peaceful line, this sort of rant prevents serious consideration of the issues at hand. The aggregate effect is to throw up so much noise that fact, fiction, serious proposals, and sheer stupidity all coalesce to drive out sober analysis and clear thinking.
America’s fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago’s Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.
A “target-rich environment”? How about the offices of the Daily News? This man is actually expressing a desire to see thousands die for the sake of short-lived political unity.
For argument’s sake, let’s stipulate:
1. Iraq is going badly and the nation is divided on how to proceed;
2. massive sneak attacks tend to unite a nation;
3. no sentient vertebrate can listen to more than five minutes of what passes for political discourse today without nauseation.
But what this fellow is saying is that he would like to see another spectacular slaughter of American civilians for the purpose of getting George, Nancy, and Harry to play nice together — at least for awhile, at which time we’ll need yet another 9/11. But even if they all agreed, what would they agree on? That terrorism is bad? That Islam is a religion of peace? That we need another 100,000 troops in Iraq? That we should pull out entirely?
Political unity is a means, not an end. We should unite behind a realistic view of the nature of the struggle we face to prevent another 9/11 — not the other way around. We need careful consideration of the motivations of the enemy, his strengths and weaknesses, and serious reflection on our own physical and cultural vulnerability. This is what an open society is supposed to foster in times of crisis — but which it cannot if persons in positions of influence (including columnists and their editors) offer up nothing more than unscreened impulses from their political id.
As Mr Bykofsky and the Philadelphia Daily News have seen fit to propose the killing of several thousand of their countrymen — you and me, perhaps — civil letters of remonstrance would seem in order: try email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org.