| |
 |
February 13, 2004 |
I've been debating with an "Order of the Day" reader for a few days now over one of the items I posted recently. The reader mentioned the "added threat of terrorism" in a post, as a response to one of my arguments, and I challenged this idea. I wish I could speak to the American people and have them understand (my intention not being to villify America) that America has contributed to far more "terrorism" in the last century than any of the countries now aligned with the term by the current administration (Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc.). If by "terrorism" one means the unwarranted use of force or threat of violence to achieve political ends or to instill fear in another, then the United States has sponsored more terrorism than the aforementioned countries. Anyone who has read Noam Chomsky over the past three decades knows as much.
My bigger concern is the presumption that many Americans share that says there is an "added threat of terrorism" since 9/11. I have maintained for some time that, relative to the victims of American terrorism over the years (Chile, Panama, etc.), America's own threat of being the victim of terror is virtually non-existent. Outside of 9/11, the threat has not claimed many lives at all. And even 9/11, as terrible as it was, must be put into context to reign in the hysteria that has controlled the American public. Consider this passage from a story in the March 2004 edition of Harper's magazine:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,622, and homicide, not including the attacks, another 17,330. As President Bush pointed out in January, no one has been killed by terrorists on American soil since then. Neither, according to the FBI, was anyone killed by terrorists in 2000. In 1999, the number was one. In 1998, it was three. In 1997, zero. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality ought to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those people killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors. (page 79)
I realize that when I make an overstatement like "there is no added threat of terrorism," I am inviting the failure of that argument at the first sign of a terrorist attack on US soil. Eventually, someday, maybe next week, maybe next year, maybe not in my lifetime: Somebody will try to attack the United States through the use of terror. That does not mean any efforts to prevent such an attack are justified. Crimes against civil liberties and crimes against foreign nations are not justified by the potential for terrorism.
A smarter response to the perception of an added threat of terrorism (one that has never existed, and one that shows no sign of materializing) would be to seek conciliation with the nations America feels are threatening. Make concessions. Remove military installations from some foreign countries. Breach the cultural divide that exists between the West and the Muslim world. Such concessions will make the difference between those who dislike America and those who dislike America enough to attack it. Some people will always have differences with American ideology; but not all of these people represent threats of violence against America.
Continuing to "fight fire with fire" will only stoke the flames of hate. This will only force some opponents of America from private forms of disagreement to public acts of terrorism. Cooler heads must prevail, and the beginning of this kind of conciliation is the recognition that 9/11 does not prove there is an added threat of terror. It's the same threat it always was.
11:25:30 PM 
|
|
I said just moments after last night's Late Night with Conan O'Brien: "[The Triumph skit in Quebec] was the first time Late Night really showed how little it knows about Canada and Canadian humour, and the first time the flaunting of Canadian stereotypes crossed over into typically American-style bigotry."
I was not alone. CHUM, a Toronto TV station that aired the show, apologized today for the segment.
Earlier in the day, several members of Parliament expressed outrage over the segment, and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty distanced his government from the comedy sketch.
"I think it was vile and vicious. I think it amounts to hate-mongering," said NDP MP Alexa McDonough. She demanded the federal government get its subsidy back from the U.S. network.
Ottawa and the province gave NBC about $1 million to help pay for O'Brien's show to come to Toronto for a week to try to boost tourism after last year's SARS outbreak.
"The Conan O'Brien show does not speak for Ontarians," said Premier McGuinty. "Ontarians have a wonderful relationship with the people of Quebec."
6:17:43 PM
|
|
To understand why questions about George Bush's time in the National Guard are legitimate, all you have to do is look at the federal budget published last week. No, not the lies, damned lies and statistics — the pictures.
By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.
It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
The rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?th
5:32:01 PM
|
|
It's a real shame that Late Night with Conan O'Brien had to stoop as low as it did in its "Triumph the Insult Comic" skit tonight. Adam Sandler's appearance was fine. The "Canadian Small Talk Moment" was funny again. Other show characters appeared. But the Triumph segment just left me feeling really disappointed.
Triumph, the dog puppet modeled after Toronto's own Ed The Sock (though Late Night will never admit it), went to Quebec to film a nasty segment in which he accosted unsuspecting Francophones and ridiculed them for being French. It was the first time Late Night really showed how little it knows about Canada and Canadian humour, and the first time the flaunting of Canadian stereotypes crossed over into typically American-style bigotry. As much as English Canada and French Canada have their differences, relations have generally improved in recent years, and few people in English Canada find the prospect of Quebec separation a funny topic. Further, there is much more respect for French culture in the rest of Canada than there is in the United States. Despite profound cultural differences between French and English Canada, and the occasional outburst of domestic bigotry courtesy of hockey analyst Don Cherry, I don't think most English Canadians would have found the Triumph segment very funny.
I'm sure in America playing up hate gets big laughs in many places; it's probably considered "edgy." But the Triumph segment reflected a distinctly American dislike of the French, not a Canadian appreciation for Quebec's distinct culture. I was disappointed by the whole thing, because it seemed to erase the good will of the first three nights of shows, and seemed to suggest that underneath all the talk of "being happy to be in Canada" there was really just the same old American arrogance and bigotry. There's nothing funny about telling Francophones in Quebec to "learn the language" of North America. In case the writers behind the Triumph skit didn't notice, Canada has two official languages. Didn't anyone brief you about the "cultural mosaic" thing in Canada when you crossed the border? No "melting pot" here. We celebrate multiculturalism, bub.
After that ugliness was over and Sandler's appearance was finished, Stompin' Tom Connors brought the house down with his classic "The Good Old Hockey Game." Sure it's corny stuff, but it's a hell of a lot more fun than watching a dog puppet use American prejudices for cheap laughs.
1:55:58 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2004 General Stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
