|
|||||
C’mon, I mean how bad was it really?You might have read yesterday that a Johns Hopkins University history prof made something of a splash when he asked of the national tragedy represented by 9/11 – “Was it really all that bad?” I mean, after all, isn’t this whole “War on Terror” thing a bit of an over-reaction? We could take a whole lot more casualties and not materially change a thing for those of us left behind. After all, in the big scheme of things, what’s the death of 3000 innocents and an economic impact of some $30 billion dollars. Didn’t the Soviet Union survive much worse in World War II, what with 20 million dead? Why yes, they did. And what exactly was your point again Professor Bell? Because if I understand you correctly, you’re an idiot. Essentially the man is saying is that he thinks that we haven’t died enough to justify our current level of outrage. But the goal of any conflict, kinetic or otherwise, should never be to determine exactly how much blood you can shed without succumbing to your wounds, nor to graduate our response to the ineptitude of our adversaries. Suppose we get it wrong? But the op-ed itself was so absurdly stupid, and had been so very well rebutted elsewhere that your correspondent left it to better men. We can spend our lives breaking ourselves on the shoals of academic silliness, and have nothing at all to show for it. Energies must be rationed. Nevertheless, for every action there is a reaction, and for every dialectical thesis there is the antithesis. Professor Bell said something stupid, scores of bloggers called him on it, and now other bloggers are calling them on that. Which is where Jeff Goldstein comes in, with synthesis:
Hyperpartisans like Maha have spent so much time sneaking around trying to frighten each other with their Geo. W. Bush frightmasks, that they’ve blinded themselves to the real erosion in human liberty that occurs when you find a way to rationalize away the death of your own citizens – and after all, what more fundamental right exists than the right to life? That right is an individual right, which is why the collectivists pooh-pooh it. They do this while piously spouting the dogma of identity politics and catechizing their victimization theology which combination more than anything else attempts to carve the electorate into ever-smaller groups of mutually antagonistic favor seekers snuffling at the trough of governmental dependency. Which, ewww. 25 comments to C’mon, I mean how bad was it really? |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Captain Lex:
Sir, you can have no idea how deeply these lines resonate. Thank you.
Absoloutely unfrickin believable.
Another case of an individual being educated beyond their intelligence. Our universities are full of them and they are on the faculty. With tenure.
I would challenge professor Bell to make a list of 3000 people he knows, knows of, is related to, has met, has bumped into in the halls of his academic building, he has taught, or lives/recreates with. Then imagine all 3000 people on that list lying dead in a pile of rubble, how he would feel about 9/11 after that. Certainly, by the standards of the holocaust or the ghoulag, 3000 is a mere pittance, however; this is neither facist Germany nor Communist Russia. This is the United States, the most powerful, stable, and shining example of a free democratic society, and had there been only 1 death it could be easily argued that that had been 1 death too many.
Apparently, I asked too pointed a question over at Maha blog because she turned off the comments.
My question, of course, was “what would it take” to make something an act of war befitting the entire strength of our military and national resources if not the death of 3000 citizens at one time?
That got the comments shut off and some response of “I’m not your monkey”..blah, blah, blah
I think that was a little too uncomfortable a question
I can understand the idea behind the question, for being a simple hick in South Dakota I knew not one of the dead in the 9/11 attacks and also know it pales in numbers compared to, say, the dead we had at Iwo Jima or Normandy. What the idiot in question seems to forget is the number of souls lost aboard the Maine, or at Pearl Harbor, or at Concorde Bridge, and the reaction to such comparatively minor events. It seems, to me, that some minds are so focused on numbers that they forget the ramifications that cannot be quantified.
This might annoy some people, but please bear with me. The loss of two skyscrapers in an economy the size of the US is miniscule, even if we pay Manhatten real estate prices for them. The Big Dig in Boston wastes that kind of money on a yearly basis it would seem, and we have Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere to use as a counterpoint. Thus, it’s not monetary damages that were of concern.
It wasn’t the loss of lives in and of themselves. As people note, more were lost that year to drunk drivers or smoking-related illness and medical malpractice and quite likely to just eating too many french fries. And it’s not like stock traders are irreplacable — those offices would be staffed again within weeks. That specific office may be empty, but the company will go on.
In real terms the biggest effect of the attack was the security crackdown and loss of revenue for the air carriers, which again in an economy the size of the US has less effect overall than the mini-recession during the dot-com bomb.
What this sort of number-crunching fails to account for is the non-enumerable factors. Such as the fact that this attack happened in *my* country and even if only 5 were killed it required a response that was overwhelming. The fact is that when liberty for a continent was on the line we held similar losses in perspective, that the greater good to be gained was worth that significant and bloody cost.
What the cost of doing nothing is has never been quantified by these number-crunching games.
Like deaths in training being tallied along with deaths in combat, as if they are the same. Deaths in training are regrettable but if you train hard, train realistic, train as if you want to learn something from the exercise deaths are unavoidable. If you don’t lose anybody in training you’re probably not training hard enough to make it worthwhile when it becomes the mission. Most people know this, but if you’re merely comparing numbers it’s easy to overlook.
Looking at numbers gives no sense of perspective, it just gives digits that can be compared. Those do nothing to quantify the *value* of those numbers to the effort at hand. To do that requires leadership and an understanding of the Big Picture. Comparing numbers can be done by anybody with a basic knowledge of long division, and the conclusions reached are likely to be equally as limited. It is also the area where academia shines, having no vision and only a need to publish to remain isolated from the rest of the world.
– Max
Another thought – if the number of 3,000 dead on 9/11 is insignificant and not worth getting riled up about or responding to, then I suppose by the same logic the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq is also puny, insignificant …. surely the country can afford to lose a lot more service men and women that that, can’t it?
And besides, isn’t it said that “making war” is actually a good thing for the economy? Refresh my memory please, what exactly was it that Cindy Shaheen was so concerned about?
Silly sentimental me, I must remember that human life is to be measured simply in economic terms – perhaps that’s just one of the joys and effects of a capitalism system that I’ve failed to take proper note of.
I’m struggling to come up with something insightful, articulate and worthy of this blog, its host and its commenters. But I just can’t – I’m overwhelmed by the stupidity of these kinds of people and their “halls of academia”, where they exist in a pure vacuum and never see the light of day, or truth. Comparing the deaths on 9/11 – with no mention of the thousands more who suffered injuries on the day, and the thousands of rescue workers who will suffer physically and emotionally for decades to come – to car ACCIDENTS misses the entire point doesn’t it. 9/11 was no accident – those people were murdered. It’s on their death certificates; I wonder if that a$$hat knows that – cause of death for all victims of 9/11 is “murder”. NO response could be too much; there is no payback that is too extreme for the events of 9/11, and all those that went before it.
In memory of Heather Lee Smith, Flight 11
These sanctimonious professors remind me of the academic who was raising his concerns that there are entirely too many people on the planet. Odd thing though – he never seemed to want to step up to the plate and set an example by removing himself from us. Then again, what if 3000 academics had been lost on 9/11?
What concerns me is the next attack. 9/11 shocked the nation, and our collective response was to put aside our political differences, albeit temporarily, and work together to recover.
The next attack will garner no such cooperative spirit, not even temporarily. Within hours of the next attack, our country will be splintered right down the middle, with both sides pointing the finger of blame at the other.
“You enabled the enemy with your NYTimes malfeasance and your non-binding resolutions for retreat timetables!”
“No, it’s Bush’s fault for riling up the Arab street by invading an innocent country, who by the way had to WMDs.”
Mark my words, the next attack, even if less costly in terms of human life, will far surpass 9/11 in the damage it does to our very fiber.
Cap’n,
To say I find the good professor’s comments offensive is a monumental understatement. I used to dream of being a tenured academic with a 6 figure, 1 comma salaried job for life, then the Messenger of the Watch woke me.
This country went to war over the loss of fewerAmerican lives at Pearl Harbor (Territory of Hawaii) “A day that shall live in Infamy!” as Saint Franklin the Roosevelt said. Back then, we knew our enemies and what we, as a country, stood for. The insult to our nation, our citizens and our way of life demanded then (and now) retailiation. In today’s benighted world, we are not fighting countries, we fight an amorphous ‘Thing’ that hides in shadows to make cowardly attacks on innocents.
A Professor of History (itself a haven for Marxist practitioners) his essay is a model of his socialist ilk. I wonder what the good professor would say if he talked to the incensed Russians who fought and defeated an invading army. I have and it ain’t pretty. I daresay that, if these terrorists attacked St. Petersburg in a similar fashion, an entirely different (and massive) retaliation would be forthcoming.
As a French historian, if Professor Bell is so absolutely certain that we are ‘overreacting’, I’m sure he’s more than welcome to personally test his theories as the point man in a room clearing mission in Fallujah.
Oh and Prof, don’t forget your accordion…
Kat, like Jeff Goldstein mentions over at PW, it’s really not worth your while to even bother commenting over at Mahablog. I’m a co-blogger at a classical liberal oriented site, and we got into a dustup with her over an economic issue a few months ago. My first comment got my threatened with being banned; my second resulted in my “banning”. A subsequent email exchange revealed that she supports the free exchange of ideas as long as she agrees with the ideas being exchanged.
“A subsequent email exchange revealed that she supports the free exchange of ideas as long as she agrees with the ideas being exchanged.”
Where you quoting that off of CNN’s homepage?
Here it is in a nutshell (and borrowed from a forum I hang out in):
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
“…which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Byron, that reminds me of certain West Texas cowboy aphorisims that are so stunningly clear++ in their wisdom as to destroy academic wishful thinking and deconstructivist nonsense:
e.g. “Why that’s like wiping your a$$ with your shirtail.” Meaning a poorly considered action whose consequence lingers…
++like a 2×4 upside the head
Funny, I almost emailed, because she had these “rules” that seemed reasonable…but then, I didn’t because, however reasonable the “rules” the reaction to my comment (after I’d been insulted several times as a “warmongerer” without responding directly) was over the top. So, I dropped it. Not really a reasonable peron. Probably didn’t like me explaining the pragmatic decision process in determining who we confront and what actions we take with the final “I think our actions were relatively constrained considering the number of potential actors”.
Next comment got me banned.
There is nothing like a little controversy if you want to be the center of attention. This op/ed is so stupid it hardly warrants all the discussion it has been receiving.
A question I find more interesting is the following: If we agree that we could ever overreact, at what point would our response become an overreaction?
Clearly, this point exists; there are some actions we could take that we will not. In a purely hypothetical example, it would obviously be unthinkable for us to drop nuclear bombs over every square inch of Iran in the name of stopping terror. So rolling that back, where do we draw the line? When would we not be able to justify going any further?
Shipmates,
So, vis-a-vis an earlier thread on this forum, and in light of the good professor’s editorial, would anyone here care to expound once more upon why tenure is so important to the academic world?
Would it not be possible to institute (say…. institute…. I like that word. Reminds one of institution, wherein such an establishment I would happily place the good professor… but I digress) a certain scale whereby the salary of a tenured professor could be reduced based upon the “idiot” factor of their published works?
I have, of late, begun to despair of our institutions of higher learning ever ascending to a minimum level of ability, based upon their own published standards. They seem to remind me of a croissant, all flaky, puffed up, full of fat and embued with a french essence that leads the purchaser to falsely believe they are receiving something of substance.
Come the revolution, the first thing we do is set fire to the attorneys and use their flaming carcasses to set alight the colleges.
Respects,
Thank G I went mostly to night school (where most instructors held real day jobs) and I didn’t have to be submitted too many of this absent-of-any-mind professor Bell’s kind of ilk.
For any of you familiar with Iowahawk, he has a wickedly outrageous satire of Bell’s op ed.
Found at LGF: Iowahawk-_Historically_Speaking
Or on Iowahawk: Historically_Speaking
Had me ROFLMAO.
Dang it. Sorry for the Anon. That was me again forgetting to fill in all the fields.
I have another one, although I can’t remember where I read it. The author was describing something else, but I think it fits.
What we are dealing with is a perfect organism. It’s structural perfection is matched only by its hostility; a survivor unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.
Geez AW1 Tim, and here I thought we were, you know, kind of, sort of ….. almost friends. Now don’t get me wrong, this particular prof is obviously a wing nut and it sounds like many of his colleagues likely fit in the same category but….
Well, first of all, I kind of like croissants. On rare occasion. Heated with butter. I know they’re not really but good for me but…. they are yummy. Secondly, oh forget it, not worth bothering….its pretty obvious that its just one of those days.
Michelle, ma belle, etc….
Ah, mon petite femme, you spoke French! Cadida! Oh wait, that’s Gomez’s line… ah well..
Lookit here, I have no problem with croissants. they are excellent when filled with chocolate and warmed to gooey perfection, or when used to secure eggs, sausage and cheese.
The problem is that the left-nutz can’t just let it be a pastry. they have to find fault, to project upon the croissant all that is wrong with the world: trans fat, excess carbs, lack of true substance. they simply cannot accept it for it mouthyness, it’s tactile exhileration.
To the Professors of the world, a croissant can never, ever, be a simple thing. it must be broken down and examined, exposed, and corrected! Were the grains used to produce the flour grown organically, and ground via a stone wheel, powered by simple peasants who live only for the simplicity of life, uncorrupted by capitalism and American hedgemony? Or were, gasp, the grains grown by a corporate farm, using the underpaid sweat of poor farmers and peasants to produce a chemically-enhanced, genetically modified flour which lined their pockets with unwarrented profit?
The problem with institutions of higher learning is that they dwell a little tooooooo much on the minutiae of life, and seem to miss the simple joy of indulging in life’s bounties. They fail to realise that sometimes a croissant is, well, just a croissant.
And I am too your friend… so there:)
Respects,
LOL Thanks for the chuckle – it was quite funny and today I definitely needed it! And, of course, it goes without saying that one in my position can never have too many friends – its a national affliction!