April 15, 2004
Some thoughts on Victimhood
From Dorothy Rabinowitz and from E-Claire. Rabinowitz discusses the antics of the four "Jersey girls," activist 9-11 widows who have taken it upon themselves to lecture our nation on what, exactly, we did wrong on and before 9-11, and to dictate how we should conduct ourselves in the future. Their conduct is egregious, and it's probably time that they STFU.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Rabinowitz link via James, wie immer.
Posted by: Attila at
09:19 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Far be it for 9/11 widows to actually have clear heads. They should be screaming incoherently for blood like Bill O'Reilly!
There's a double standard in conservatism: just like entertainers should shut up about politics unless they're Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent, they want the 9/11 widows to shut up unless they're lock step with the GOP bloodthirsty revenge mantra.
I guess the conservatives are mad at these women because they aren't letting themselves get exploited.
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 19, 2004 05:21 PM (J50f+)
2
Far be it for 9/11 widows to actually have clear heads. They should be screaming incoherently for blood like Bill O'Reilly!
Clear heads from the Jersey Girls? This, I haven't seen.
There's a double standard in conservatism: just like entertainers should shut up about politics unless they're Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent, they want the 9/11 widows to shut up unless they're lock step with the GOP bloodthirsty revenge mantra.
Your comparison is a bit lopsided: in Hollywood, around 95% of the opinions one hears are Textbook Lefty Stuff, often not very well thought-out or clearly expressed. It's pretty reasonable for some of us to ask that those who want to speak out take the time to think before they open their mouths, and not assume Middle America hired them for their putative political analysis. For the most part, we'd like them to act and sing. Period.
The case of the 9/11 widows is more complex, in that there is a very vocal (lefty) minority, drowning out the voices of the (more centrist) majority, who--for the most part--are too tasteful to boss the rest of the country around.
There is a terrible precedent being set by how we treat the families of 9/11 victims, because 1) we paid them money, whereas no other widows/widowers of any other national tragedy--from Pearl Harbor to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole--got any kind of a buyout; 2) we are allowing some of these families to dictate how the Port Authority goes about rebuilding the World Trade Center (did the Cole families provide us with specs for ship design?); and 3) we are listening to a steady stream of anti-American invective from a small group of these people, who are exploiting their personal tragedies for political gain. It's a nauseating sight.
I guess the conservatives are mad at these women because they aren't letting themselves get exploited.
Hard to get exploited when you're busy exploiting.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 01:24 AM (q85Vj)
3
"In Hollywood, around 95% of the opinions one hears are Textbook Lefty Stuff, often not very well thought-out or clearly expressed."
Even if this was so, then why would it bother you?
"It's pretty reasonable for some of us to ask that those who want to speak out take the time to think before they open their mouths, and not assume Middle America hired them for their putative political analysis."
This comment reminds me of those jerks from middle school that, when you said something, immediately snapped back with "Who asked you?" This is a free country with freedom of speech. Besides, you didn't even counter my point.
"For the most part, we'd like them to act and sing. Period."
I like opinions and intelligence from anyone if it is insightful and informed. Are you saying, then that you are opposed to Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent speaking out for conservatism?
"The case of the 9/11 widows is more complex, in that there is a very vocal (lefty) minority, drowning out the voices of the (more centrist) majority, who--for the most part--are too tasteful to boss the rest of the country around."
How can you prove this? And would it matter anyway? Can't we agree that staging a presidential campaign on corpse footage(real and fake) is utterly tasteless? Or is tastelessness exclusively the realm of those who speak out against such exploitation?
"There is a terrible precedent being set by how we treat the families of 9/11 victims, because 1) we paid them money, whereas no other widows/widowers of any other national tragedy--from Pearl Harbor to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole--got any kind of a buyout;"
BUYOUT? Glad to see you care so much about human life. "Gee, Bush had my boys killed, but this paycheck is just dandy! Sorry, Evelyn, you can't have any. Your boys died at the wrong time." What a joke.
"2) we are allowing some of these families to dictate how the Port Authority goes about rebuilding the World Trade Center (did the Cole families provide us with specs for ship design?); and 3) we are listening to a steady stream of anti-American invective from a small group of these people, who are exploiting their personal tragedies for political gain. It's a nauseating sight."
Why do you pit the Cole victims against the WTC victims? They're ALL victims!
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 22, 2004 10:04 PM (8kgO3)
28kb generated in CPU 4.3972, elapsed 4.4468 seconds.
209 queries taking 1.8315 seconds, 460 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
209 queries taking 1.8315 seconds, 460 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








