Wednesday, June 22, 2005

A letter to Sullivan

The West is a civilization built on arms and murder. Like any other civilization.

What is different is that the people are armed and there is less murder.

Are you forgetting WW2? The West can murder with the best of them. In fact we are better at it than the rest of the world combined. What we also have is better restraint. Not perfect but better.

Perfection is not an option. Especially when murder is a necessity.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

And if that doesn't work for you try Kiplings's "Tommy".

Or try this:

An essay on September 11

May I quote:

But whenever Americans have been challenged, they have risen to the task. In some awful way, these evil thugs may have done us a favor. America may have woken up for ever. The rage that will follow from this grief and shock may be deeper and greater than anyone now can imagine. Think of what the United States ultimately did to the enemy that bombed Pearl Harbor. Now recall that American power in the world is all but unchallenged by any other state. Recall that America has never been wealthier, and is at the end of one of the biggest booms in its history. And now consider the extent of this wound - the greatest civilian casualties since the Civil War, an assault not just on Americans but on the meaning of America itself. When you take a step back, it is hard not to believe that we are now in the quiet moment before the whirlwind. Americans will recover their dead, and they will mourn them, and then they will get down to business. Their sadness will be mingled with an anger that will make the hatred of these evil fanatics seem mild.
The fellow is dead now (more is the pity) but he sure could write.

Well any way. Some of us are still angry. Others of us have gotten over it. I know how it is; life as a Copperhead is never fun. I went that route in an earlier war. It didn't work out the way I thought it would.

=====================

The Democrats have forgotten their anger. The nation has not.

And there is the Dem's problem.

Daniel Pearl vs Gitmo. Which is the bigger problem?

11 comments:

blueenclave said...

Hi again.
Gitmo could be the same scale problem as Daniel Pearl if we direct our hate against all Muslims and not just the ones who did it. I remember on 9/11 thinking that the intifada had come here, so the anger and (mostly) sorrow which I felt and feel is wrapped up in a larger phenomenon. Those Democrats who want a safe Israel will continue to stand against Islamofascism in war or peace.

blueenclave said...

We may have sovereignty ultimately because our military is ready to defend us, but the rule of law is so important because it prevents us from basing our everyday lives on guns and murder.

blueenclave said...

Did you see "DSM Again" on Andrew Sullivan's site?

comminutor said...

Well stated, Simon. Don't give an inch. Those voices who've met tyranny and terror head on speak the clearest to me. I just read a short article on Natan Sharansky by Jay Nordlinger in National Review (04JUL05). I recommend it to you. It might be available at NROnline.

blueenclave: A too clever paraphrasing of your comment comes to mind...something along the lines of guns and murder have assured our sovereignty and thereby have enabled a society base on the rule of law, but somehow I suspect the effort would fall on deaf ears. I can always spot a liberal by the big "but".

Your statement, "Those Democrats who want a safe Israel will continue to stand against Islamofascism in war or peace," somehow has an empty ring to it. I prefer,
"If somehow you could pack up your sorrows,
and give them all to me,
You would lose them,
I know how to use them...
Give them all to me!"

blueenclave said...

Yes, comminutor, I was acknowledging in the first clause that civil society doesn't stand by itself. Civilization means the ability to build civil society and have something to fight for other than getting up and fighting again. I avoided "but".
dKos, which can be such an effective echo factory, will not be made one on Israel/Palestine. A civil discussion on that issue is very difficult no matter what side began it. This leads me to believe that there are grassroots Democrats of all faiths who stand for a safe Israel. A strong pro-Israel position is necessary in mainstream politics although some of the people who espouse it probably didn't think about it for five minutes.

blueenclave said...

I also found that AIPAC, mind you, does not endorse candidates to promote the idea that support for Israel should be a bipartisan issue.

comminutor said...

blueenclave:

"Those Democrats who want a safe Israel will continue to stand against Islamofascism in war or peace."

I hope so. Granting your premise that there exist "grass roots Democrats" who...stand for a safe Israel, I seriously wonder how long they can remain true to that longing and still support the Democratic party. Please name me one nationally prominent Democrat from the Clinton era through today who has by word or action demonstrated an effective approach to achieving "a safe Israel". Platitudes by the likes of Madeline Albright don't count. (I'll give you Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, but I'm sure you'd agree they're exceptions.)

I hope there are significant numbers of Americans who can examine an issue such as the safety of Israel, and decide that perhaps their partisan loyalties belong to a pary that is more effective in achieving that issue, rather than neglecting their issues by continuing support of a party that demonstrates its ineptitude and fecklessness.

comminutor said...

blueenclave: I just visited your blog and was interested in your post "Democrats and Israel". If I may offer a suggestion, you're making it way too difficult, but I appreciate the rigor with which you attack your problem. A fundamental flaw in your approach is evident when you state: "One must then decide what level of support for the peace process implies a "safe Israel", even though the lawmaker may have sincere faith in the PA." No lawmaker possessing a "sincere faith in the PA" is going to give a fig for Israel, honey.
One more thing. What does "and to have a public record in case I decide to do something" mean?

blueenclave said...

Am I more disconcerted that you called me "honey" or that you said "I can always tell a liberal?" The comment was meant as a "stub" comment in case I do decide to put together a scorecard of some kind. You have given me the idea of doing an "Israel/Palestine congressional scorecard" which is based on pro-Israel votes and pro-Palestine votes.

comminutor said...

blueenclave:
Wonderful to hear back from you, darlin'...sorry 'bout the honey thing. Is there someway I can contact you outside this site? I tried to leave a comment at your site, but it was refused by your blog service. My question relates to your interest in NYC, the NYT arts section, and specifically what's happening in NYC re Alice Walton buying treasured fine art in NY and absconding with it to display it in (gasp) Arkansas. I hate to clutter Simon's site with this off-topic chat.

M. Simon said...

comminutor,

You can call be honey. :-)

When forced to compete my mate rises to the occasion. :-)

BTW if you want to carry on a conversation here I have no objection. Pull up a chair and treat the guests like family.