Frederick, I don't know why you're part of this list, since
discussion seems the least of your interests.
A
>Lawrence Upton wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Frederick Pollack" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: 17 December 2001 16:06
>> Subject: (no subject)
>>
>> | There's a great deal of wisdom in Dominic Fox's latest posting.
>>
>> I was pleased when he said that he had forgotten what the point was he was
>> trying to make. I thought it was me.
>>
>> I found it hard going with the relative vagueness rather like your - as in
>> _some academic or academic-hanger-on feminist theorist_
>>
>> easy enough to condemn something unspecified as _whiny tyrannical
>> chip-on-shoulder lucubrations_
>>
>> Not much danger of being challenged on that if you don't name names
>>
>> not much interest in reading it
>>
>> & are those addressed as _ you sweeties_ among those who are those who are
>> designated _some academic or academic-hanger-on feminist theorist_
>>
>> these are rhetorical questions
>>
>> | And by the way, have any of you noticed that the Taliban's gone? And
>> | that nobody seems too heartbroken?
>>
>> Of course not - individuals will be mourned especially as I doubt that all
>> theTaliban are terrible people, just people bullied and / or tricked by
>> terrible people - but no one would *want them
>>
>> Such a pity the US helped put them there
>>
>> But many others have gone too, many of them as innocent as any on the
>> planet. And many more still are still here, but are blinded and / or maimed.
>>
>> That is on top of the many who were killed in all the years when Northern
>> Alliance were the enemy
>>
>> Few who get the microphones in USUK seem to remembering the blue skies the
>> day *those innocents were killed, because of course their lives aren't as
>> important as ours
>>
>> If pushed, those who feel smug about recent events will say that because the
>> perpetrators didn't want to cause those injuries and deaths then they are
>> not responsible for them
>>
>> So, who's to be saved next? The Chechens? The Tibetans. I think not.
>>
>> L
>
>I'm glad to hear from you again, for there's something I've wanted to
>ask you. It's about this business about everybody's life being equally
>important - not just in the eyes of God, or Universal Values, but yours
>or mine. If a friend or family member or even a neighbor of yours were
>brutally killed, don't you think you might be slightly more perturbed by
>this than by the death of a statistic somewhere?
>
>I agree, by the way, that the US - largely by inattention after '89 -
>helped to "put the Taliban there." But now they're gone, and with very
>little - here it comes - collateral damage. All that weepy rhetoric on
>this list about bombs bombs bombs dropped by us "nutters" - but the
>truth is that most of them fell precisely where they should have.
>There's music in Kabul now; and who knows, kids may someday have a
>chance to fuck and disco and eat wonderful junk food. A net gain. OK,
>I've walked right into it - now you have a chance to portray Al-Qaeda as
>victims and indulge in yet more transcendent moralism.
--
Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
Masthead
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
|