Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Jihad-ehs
James Lileks riffs on how a liberal might react to the roll-up of the Canadian terror cell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
...and we speak of things that matter, with words that must be said...
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(147)
-
▼
June
(13)
- WSJ on why it published The Story
- NT06 - Philemon
- NT06 - Philemon
- The high cost of treason
- The Left wants the NYT shut down
- Bush forced her to get an abortion?!?!
- You can sleep when you are dead
- Bill Whittle is back
- Striking a blow for sanity
- Jesus is a four-letter word
- The Jihad-ehs
- Welcome to Hell, Mr. Zarqawi
- Invitation to a vivisection
-
▼
June
(13)
About Me
- SkyDaddy
- Educator, husband, father, musician, aviation nut. Worldview: Mere Christian (see C.S. Lewis)] Social views: Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket? Political: Pro-American. So sue me. Economic: Capitalist, pro-business, pro-labor, pro-individual opportunity, pro-individual responsibility Gender: Guy Married: Yes, 30+ years to the same wonderful woman Children: Yes, and they are smart and beautiful (you think I married her so they'd turn out like me?) Education: Master's plus post-grad work Any Questions?
Search This Blog
5 comments:
Hi Corrie,
Greetings from Japan.
Your blog serves as an important clue for me as to how world events are interpreted by many Americans. I would like to write aout my intial reaction to this post.
If I had to call myself a liberal or conservative, I would say that I am a liberal. However, I do not hate myself and if there were 17 people in Canada who were planning on blowing up something and killing people of course I am happy that they were caught. Due to my lack of reading up on the plot, I do not know how they were caught but of the were caught by wire tapping please let me know.
I think one of the problems in the US is that people are being polarized into "liberals" and "conservatives" and they write exaggerated hate articles about each other like the one you referenced.
Thanks for visiting, JH. The Canadian 17 were caught in a sting operation with three times the amount of explosive used to destroy the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. I don't know the details of how the plot was foiled, or to what extent the Canadians used telephone surveillance in rolling up the cell.
Lileks is a humorist who often pokes fun at the stereotypical handwringing liberal mindset. It's a serious error to characterize his satire as "hate."
Yes, there is a polarity between conservatives and liberals. That's not a bad thing IMO. Iron sharpens iron.
The problem is when a group gets so polarized that they cease to think clearly. That's what Lileks was lampooning.
Campos expects to be taken seriously. Lileks is clearly going over-the-top.
That's the difference.
No, you don't get it. Campos' writing makes clear that he expects both his point and the vehicle he uses to get there be takes seriously. There's nothing funny about the vitriol he directed personally and specifically against the driver of the SUV with the yellow ribbon on it. He could have made the point in a lot of ways without stooping to name-calling.
Lileks' point is serious, but his vehicle is clearly over-the-top.
Lileks is a satirist. Campos is merely sloppy.
In my view Campos is far more dangerous. Lileks' piece was clearly satire.
Campos' isn't. It's just a vitriolic ad-homiem attack on someone he knows nothing about, stooping to use gutter language.
You can make the point about the disconnect between supporting the troops and driving an SUV (and have you ever considered that people may have very good reasons for driving a large vehicle?) without calling people vile names.
There is a distinct difference. I'm sorry that you can't see that.
Post a Comment