It has been eight years, yet 9/11 is still a massive sore spot for the entire country. It certainly is for me… my blood boils every time I watch this video (especially at 2:50) . The closest event in American history with the same sort of impact as 9/11 was the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. But here’s the thing: eight years after that was December 7, 1949. This was some decades before I was born, but my understanding is that Americans were, as a whole, no longer thoroughly pissed off at the Japanese, and indeed were well on the way to making them fast friends. America was healing from 12/7 in a way we’re not from 9/11.
Why? What’s the difference?
To me, it’s simple: after 12/7… we won. We ground the Japs into the dirt. We spilled their blood on a massive scale. We invented new ways to kill to do it. We tapped into the fundamental forces of nature to do it; we seemingly broke the laws of time and space to lay a beatdown on the Japanese the likes of which the world has never seen, before or since. We slaked our thirst for vengeance… and then, the Japanese surrendered. Expecting to be further beaten into the ground, the Japanese were, instead, aided back up. We had gotten the rage out of our system by both extracting our pound of flesh and seeing them give up. We beat them. And having done so… we could be at peace.
But after 9/11, none of that happened. We did not carpet bomb whole nations. We did not parade captured enemy leaders before the press before stringing them up. We did not nuke their cities out of existence. We did not gain vengeance. Hell, we didn’t even *try.* Instead, we went to every effort to minimize collateral damage. We started helping them back up *before* the fighting was over. And, as it turns out, the fighting never was over. And it probably never will be. The Germans and the Japanese… they knew when they were beaten. They could do the calculus and realize that as bad as things might be under the thumb of the Americans, it would be far worse to remain under the bombsights of the Americans (and the Brits, Russians, Canucks, etc.). But in this war, we not only do not have a conventional enemy to fight, to defeat, and to see grovel in an official capacity before us, the general concensus of those who live in the culture that rained ruin down upon us 8 years ago seems to be that things are just fine, and there’s no need for capitulation. And why not? Their culture has sucked so bad for so long, that Americans coming in and dropping a very few bombs here and there and then handing out cash and goodies can well be understood to be an improvement.
We did not have a major propaganda campaign to remin ourselves who and why we were fighting. Instead, we had major propaganda campaigns against our own soldiers and intelligence officers. We learned to see ourselves as the enemy, rather than the enemy that actually wants to wipe out our way of life. “Abu Ghraib” and “Waterboarding” became more popular rallying cries for hate and vengeance than did “WTC” or “Pentagon.”
What did you see more of in the press?
This?
Or this?
This?
Or this?
What also does not help: after 12/7, the Naval and Army bases in Hawaii were rebuilt and re-armed as soon as possible. Except for the Arizona, all the ships that had been sunk were raised and either repaired and sent out to the fight or scrapped to make other ships to send out to the fight. But in New York City, rather than a pair of gleaming new towers where the old towers once stood, there are just two holes in the ground. That is a monumental failure on the part of politics. Rather than give Americans a symbol of hope and victory, politicians preferred to squabble, chasing their own petty ends.
Without victory, without even the symbols of victory, the US will continue to be mired in malaise over the events of 9/11. And so long as out government so massively misunderstands the messages of that day (here’s a heads-up: “A National Day Of Mourning/Anger/Rage” would make far more sense than “A National Day Of Service”), we never will truly heal.
31 Responses to “Why 9/11 Still Hurts”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Scott if you wrote this it is very good. It brought tears to my eyes. Dad
I’m going to sneak this in:
The comparisons between Pearl and 9-11 are slowly but steady pissing me off. Those two were NOTHING alike.
Pearl Harbor was the attack of the standing military of a sovereign nation on a military facility of another sovereign nation, which is a legitimate target.
The only problem Pearl Harbor had, was that there was foul up in the Japanese embassy in DC over translating and typing out the declaration of war. Would that have worked everything would have been fine. But it didn’t. Things like that happen.
Besides. Sneak attack? The signs were clear. Everyone, who had even just little knowledge over what was going on in Japan, should have known that a strike against the US, Britain and the Dutch was about to come. Japanese propaganda back home had been ranting about the “ABCD encirclement” that had to be broken for years. ABCD, America, Britain, China, and D for Dutch, the Netherlands. The strike was only a matter of time, simply because the war in China was eating up resources on a completely crazy rate. Japan needed to expand into the Pacific, that was the only “logic” course for the leaders. Nobody can tell me that it was really a surprise. The facts are clear. Japan would have attacked the US sooner or later. It was inevitable.
The strike would have come. It was only a matter of time. But people in charge refused to see the signs. America was caught with her pants down.
9-11 was the attack by a terrorist group, who follow a completely fascist ideology, against civilians. Men, women, children. They aimed at innocent people, trying to kill as many as possible.
The Japanese targeted warships and planes (and the crews, and yes, they did hit a few civilians as well, but try a strafing run on a Zero or a Hellcat and then come again; my own grandmother dodged US fighters when they strafed German civilians, because they simply had no way of telling who was civilian and who wasn’t, I’m not blaming these pilots, they did what they had to do.) Osama and his merry band of monsters targeted civilians.
Completely different.
As for Germany, well, Germany didn’t give in until the Soviets were swarming Berlin and the Americans were already drinking Göring’s booze in Berchtesgaden. Hitler had to bite the dust to make this happen. Without his death the resistance may have continued for months, maybe even years. Cut off the head and the snake loses control.
Btw, if America wants to cry over something from WW2… cry over the thousands of Japanese women who have been raped by US soldiers (there are, literally, thousands of reports that were filed to Japanese police, which had no jurisdiction over US soldiers.) Cry over the fact that the Allies executed the wrong man for Nanking (it was not General Matsui’s fault, even Chinese historians confirm that, the man responsible for the Rape of Nanking was prince Asaka, a member of the imperial family, that’s why he was spared from justice; the order to “exterminate” Chinese POWs came from his office, from there it went straight to hell.) Cry over the fact that you let Hirohito go. It was his war. It was fought in his name. His name was on EVERY order. He authorized it. And he walked away after it. The day that was decided, now that is a day of infamy.
As for the nukes (I know they’re always dragged into something like this), no. While I don’t support the decision to use them, what was Truman supposed to do? The bomb was there, it worked, it had cost billions and there was a chance to protect American lives with it. Truman was Commander in Chief. It was his call during times of war. He had to use it. Period. Americans today aren’t responsible for this and bear no guilt over it (I know there are some crazy people in the US who want to apologize for it, what idiots.)
(Even though the nukes did not force Japan to surrender. That’s one of the biggest lies in history. Fact is, that Hirohito had hoped for the Soviets to talk with the Americans on his behalf. Correspondence between the Japanese embassy in Moscow and the imperial palace proves this. When the Soviets invaded Manchuria -which led to atrocities against Japanese civilians, usually women and girls, on the scale of the Rape of Nanking- it broke Hirohito’s will to continue the fight. The military would have continued to fight even after Nagasaki. Hirohito’s surrender speeches -there were several, with different contents- had to be smuggled out of the palace. Hirohito, when he surrendered, chose the lesser evil. An occupation by the US was still better than an occupation by the Soviets.)
And now, finally:
I’m glad the US smacked the crap out of both of our countries. Thanks to them I don’t have to fight Russian partisans at the Ural and I don’t have to praise Adolf Hitler as the greatest Aryan in history. I also don’t have to sing hymns over how great Josef Stalin was. The woman I love in Japan could go to university, can live her life the way she wants it to be, instead of having to work in a munitions factory to support the emperor’s war, or giving birth to the emperor’s future soldiers.
Thank god there was Pearl Harbor which pulled the US into the war. Because without them… we’d either still be ruled by the Nazis, or by the Soviets.
The US freed millions of people who were afraid to do this themselves. That’s how it is.
> The comparisons between Pearl and 9-11 are slowly but steady pissing me off. Those two were NOTHING alike.
Incorrect. The two were alike in their impact ont he American people. From what I can tell, prior to 12/7, the American people knew that there were troubles with Japan, but didn;t really figure on the troubles manifesting themselves in a serious way on American soil. After 12/7, American vision of being separated fromt he Old Worlds incessant warring was broken. Additionally, Americans were now well and truly worried – perhaps panicked – that war had come to their shores. In this way, 12/7 and 9/11 were quite simialr.
> Nobody can tell me that it was really a surprise.
Actually, it was. Not, of course, to the US government… but to the US *people* having a bunch of sub-human Japs (which was how they were seen at the time… just watch some of the cartoons!) successfully carry out a massive military sneak attack on US soil and wholly bitchslapping the pride of the US Navy was a *staggering* surprise.
> Completely different.
No. Not completely different. You have to understand somethign about Americans… for most of our history, we have seen ourselves as separate from the rest of the world… and we *prefer* it that way. All the rest of y’all are constantly warring and fighting and murdering each other on an industrial scale for reasons that seem monumentally stupid to most Americans. Plus, y’all are on the other side of oceans… which has until recently been a pretty good bulwark against meaningful military attacks. So Americans see Europeans and Asians and Africans slaughtering each other as par for the course… but they are supposed to leave that shit *over* *there.* It’s not *supposed* to happen here. Keep in mind, America had a minimum of Big Wars until World War I: we had the War of independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil war. A few other minor wars (Mexican, various Indian, Spanish), but on the whole, Americas wars were few and far between compared to Europe. We got a bellyfull in WWI, and thought we were done with such things.
> Even though the nukes did not force Japan to surrender. That’s one of the biggest lies in history
Uh…. wow. No, you’re wrong. The Japanese were wholly willing to fight the Americans and the Russians in the streets of Japan. But when Hirohito got the reports of the devastation wrought by the Abomb, he knew that the war was well and truly lost, and *finally* grew a pair of stones and told the military to surrender. And even then, when their god-emperor told them to quit, many in the military tried a coup to overthrow the government to keep the war going.
The Soviets entering the war against Japan would have been, from the Japanese point of view, just more of the same. But the A-bomb was a whole different thing. It would have taken the Soviets months to produce any sort of meaningful offensive capability against the Japanese,a nd the Japanese knew this. But American A-bombs were, as far as they knew, being produced hourly.
> I’m glad the US smacked the crap out of both of our countries. Thanks to them I don’t have to fight Russian partisans at the Ural
From the US perspective, we might have been better off had we devoted more effort to Japan and less to Germany. Had the western front in Europe been stalled with an armistice, allowing the Germans to focus more on the Soviets, then the Germans very likely could have put up a fight… possibly even a winning fight. Having the Fascists and the Communists ground each other into powder through the late 1940’s would have allowed the US to devote resources to things other than rebuilding Germany and trying to contain Communism. Would Mao and his Commies have taken over China had the Soviets been mired at the Urals? Perhaps not. Perhaps the 1950’s wouls have been an era about something *other* than the Soviets and the US staring each othe down with missiles, bombers and H-Bombs.
>From the US perspective, we might have been better off had we devoted more effort to Japan and less to Germany.
Yeah, and the death mills would have run through every last European Jew, and Gypsy, and homosexual…but of course, that too would have been “better” from the US perspective, right Scott? Not to mention, no space program, being as how no ICBM race or Sputnik or Vostok. Wait, I forgot…without Kennedy’s winning via the “missile gap,” we’d’ve had Nixon as President in 1960, resurgent US business, and a private industry conquest of luna, right? Riiiight.
> he death mills would have run through every last European Jew, and Gypsy, and homosexual
Very likely.
> but of course, that too would have been “better” from the US perspective, right Scott?
And how do you figure? Apparently *you* want to exterminate Jews gypsies and homosexuals, right, David? Or were you making some bizarre strawman arguement?
> Not to mention, no space program
A suggestion not based on the merits of the case. By 1946, the US, in the forms of Douglas, Martin, Aerojet and North American, already had space launch vehicle designs far in advance of those produced by the Germans. It would in fact be some years before the German-run American rocket program had the same “vision” as the pure American program from the immediate postwar years. The problem was that the Germans had actually built the V-2, which gave them a definite aura of super-science, something they retain to this day.
> but of course, that too would have been “better” from the US perspective, right Scott?
And how do you figure? Apparently *you* want to exterminate Jews gypsies and homosexuals, right, David? Or were you making some bizarre strawman arguement?
Hey, you’re the guy who maintains gov’t owes nothing whatsoever to the unfortunate. Not “investing” blood capital in WWII would have left more Americans alive, and fewer foreigners — a net gain, right? Which in fact is sort of your very argument: better we’d let the Germans and Russians (both led by dictators, and in the latter case anyway not too fond of their leaders) kill one another by the tens of millions, leaving us on the top of the heap.
As to the “not based on the merits of the case” bit, having designs isn’t the point, as you well know. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Ike dismissed Sputnik as a basketball; the whole “space race” was based on its being a RACE. No evil empires to oppose would have left no military space (or indeed, hi-tech atmospheric) needs for funding, and to this day…despite designs aplenty, and the all but off-the-shelf ready habitations represented by the shuttle’s external tank and the self-orbiting Atlas (neither of which would have been built)…American business sees no short-term profit in space, beyond that of pioneered-by-gov’t-bought tech comsats and the recent, small and high-risk investments of Rutan et al. As the world only superpower, I’m guessing the US would have by unmanned satellites and something like a MOL (maybe), but little more.
>you’re the guy who maintains gov’t owes nothing whatsoever to the unfortunate
A position you’ve invented out of whole cloth.
> Not “investing” blood capital in WWII would have left more Americans alive, and fewer foreigners — a net gain, right?
Well, except for that nearly hundred million or so around the world dead due to post-war Communism…
As to the rest: you don’t seem to understand just how much the US has spent dealign with post-war Communism. Not only the direct expenses due to the DoD, but less obvious expenses due to people clamoring for the false promises of socialism. Hell, just cut the US defense and welfare budgets in half since 1960, and see how much money would be left over for Americnas to spend on other things. Who needs a space “race” when your economy is fricken’ BOOMING? Sure we might not have had Apollo, but we might very well have advanced Virgin Galactic by thirty years.
“No bucks, no Buck Rogers” is an odd case to make for someong who’s suggesting that things were better by having the whole world throw blood and treasure into the anti-Communism rathole for sixty years.
>you’re the guy who maintains gov’t owes nothing whatsoever to the unfortunate
A position you’ve invented out of whole cloth.
Huh? Didn’t you maintain a few weeks back that taxing the public to fund social welfare programs was theft? Didn’t you tell a guy whose kid was born with birth defects that his having access to public monies was likewise theft? Didn’t you laud last week or so the FEMA guy who said disaster victims should look to help themselves, and not sit around on their homeless asses waiting for government handouts?
Whole cloth my ass. Or to put it more directly: fine, Scott. Tell me then EXACTLY which forms of aid to the unfortunate you support funding via taxes.
> Tell me then EXACTLY which forms of aid to the unfortunate you support funding via taxes.
Police, firefighters, emergency medical, military. When have you seen me argue against these?
So, no lawyer if you can’t afford one. No translation services for suspects, right? No Social Security or Medicare. No Head Start, or gov’t funded handicapped access, or Federal food or workplace safety investigation or enforcement (yeah, I know…that doesn’t cover “aid to the unfortunate” — so feel free to expand your list to include ALL services you’d think it OK to fund via taxes). Good old Social Darwinism, in all its pre-FDR glory? Ever read or hear any stories about those “good old days?”
> No Social Security or Medicare.
We should be so lucky as to see such glorious days come about. I’d gladly take a flamethrower to the very last Saturn V if it meant getting rid of those travesties.
The rest of the “services” you suggest are all “local level” services. If your city or state wants to fund them, fine. But those are not the job of the US FedGuv.
Why should the FedGuv be involved in grade school? Has schooling improved since Carter started up the Department of Education?
Why does the FedGuv need to be involved with determining “handicapped access” to privately owned businesses? What’s wrong with letting the market deal with that?
The FDA is one I’ll give you, because unlike welfare as currently understood, it actually promotes the “general welfare.”
The FedGuv is supposed to do only those thigns that the people cannot do themselves. Programs that aid *everybody,* such as the penal system, the military and the interstate system obviously apply. Programs that aid individuals do not.
>Good old Social Darwinism, in all its pre-FDR glory?
As compared to Social Darwinism in it’s *post*-FDR days, where the “fittest” has been redefined to be the most capable of sucking resources out of the government?
If the program you like is not in the Constitution…. then it is by definition UnConstitutional. And if you think it’s a great idea to force peopel to pay in perpetuity for programs that are blatantly UnConstitutional, then you have determined that the Constitution does not matter. Which means that if you one day find yourself arrested on blasphemy charges and sentenced to being drawn and quartered by a secret tribunal… and you’d be a hypocrite to bitch about how UnConstitutional your treatment is.
Waall…as you may recall, the Founders made provision for things being put “in” the Constitution via amendment (as income tax, for good or ill, was), and further stated
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
(Article III section II)
Being as how an “activist” court is, so far as I can tell, one whose particular decision(s) the accusor-of-activism doesn’t like, I’ll leave you to bloviate about how the Supreme Court has “gone too far” in determining the Constitutionality of whatever.
If you think the days before Social Security and/or Medicare were “glorious” for those who then lacked them, you are either utterly uninformed or simply callous to the point of resembling a stone. If you claim otherwise, make your case for the “glorious” days of pre-FDR retirement. If you can’t, be honest enough to admit it, or at least to simply say “I don’t care.”
>Why should the FedGuv be involved in grade school?
I’ll give you a reason not yet applied: because to the extent that grade school funding depends upon local tax bases, poor regions have poor schools. Can’t pursue much happiness under a capitalist society if you lack for education from day one. As to “since the DOE,” I frankly don’t know, haven’t read up on it, can’t cite statistics, and doubt your expertise to judge. By your own admission, you don’t think the DOE should exist. I missed it if you praised Headstart, which I’ve heard DOES work. Or don’t you care to acknowledge successful programs born of “stolen” taxes?
>Why does the FedGuv need to be involved with determining “handicapped access” to privately owned businesses? What’s wrong with letting the market deal with that?
What’s “wrong” is that the market isn’t likely to spend anything other than what’s involved in its making a profit. Handicapped access serves a small fraction of the market, therefore fails the cost-effectiveness test. Leave it to the market and it won’t get done. Which of course is fine for you and I, today, being as how we are (I presume, in your case) both able-bodied. But what of cripples? In your “Great Society,” they’d be a)without any financial assistence save familial and charity b)faced with barriers to access wherever they went and c)without recourse in the face of employment discrimination (“Nah, I ain’t hirin’ a crip. You’d scare away my customers”). Personally, I look at these issues (which could befall any of us at any time), balanced against the cost of a “private business” building a ramp, and side with the crips. You, presumably, do not.
> the Founders made provision for things being put “in” the Constitution via amendment
Yes, indeed. But there is no “Social Security Amendment.” No “Great Society Amendment.” No “No Child Left Behind” or “TARP” or “Cash For Clunkers” or “head Start” or “Department of Education” or “Universal Healthcare” amendments.
> If you think the days before
I’m not interested in “the days before,” but “what may be coming.”
> Can’t pursue much happiness under a capitalist society if you lack for education from day one.
And yet people have done so with great success throughout history.
> Or don’t you care to acknowledge successful programs born of “stolen” taxes?
Is it ok to steal from someone if you use a small fraction of that money to do someone else some good?
> In your “Great Society,” they’d be a)without any financial assistence save familial and charity
Unless they got themselves a damned job. Why is it people assume that anyone with a problem is incapable of earning a living? Even the *Vikings* knew that cripples could hold down jobs:
The halt can manage a horse,
the handless a flock,
The deaf be a doughty fighter,
To be blind is better than to burn on a pyre:
There is nothing the dead can do.
The assumption that cripples are universally helpless, useless blobs seems rather an insulting one.
> If you think the days before
I’m not interested in “the days before,” but “what may be coming.”
Me too. And those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. In your case I see no indication you’ve even heard of ’em, though.
As to the rest, sure, crips et al can work, and the ill-educated too. But hell, Scott, the economy is best served by GOOD jobs, right? Well-paid workers spend more than the poor. So isn’t ensuring equal education, compensation for handicaps, and access to health care an “investment in infrastructure” likely to return more than it costs? Englightened self-interest, in other words/
I’ll presume your silence as to my query “why not let the market provide–?” is tantamount to saying “OK, you’re right.” I’ve a good old conservative friend from childhood in PA who’s like that, too. If bested in argument, he sighs and goes silent.
>those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
And thus… we have Obama repeating the mistakes of FDR’s disastrous “Depression Extension Programs.” In your case I see no indication you’ve even grasped the concept that wealth is cfreated by business and innovation, not taxation.
>So isn’t ensuring equal education…
No. A thousand times, NO. “Equality” is a bullshit notion, and a disastrous policy. People are *not* equal.
If you want the *best* for society, then let people rise to their capabilities. in many cases, taht means letting them provide as best they can for *their* offspring. The failed social experiments with “busing” show that quite well.
> I’ll presume your silence as to my query “why not let the market provide–?” is tantamount to saying “OK, you’re right.”
A common presumption among those who hold their views to be supreme, and cannot understand why someoen would not want to be “enlightened” at dreary length.
>So isn’t ensuring equal education…
No. A thousand times, NO. “Equality” is a bullshit notion, and a disastrous policy. People are *not* equal.
You’re right; I misspoke. Equal ACCESS to pre-collegiate education. As to “letting them provide as best they can for *their* offspring” ensures generation upon generation of…well, “less equal,” shall we say.
As to “people are not equal,” again, we agree. There are doubtless genetic superiorities of birth, as well as inferiorities. Beyond that, there’s nurture, the source, I believe, of most inequality. People raised to BE productive, will be. Those raised without such incentive likely won’t. Yeah, the public tit offers an excuse to the lazy. But the existence of the lazy offers “justification” to those without much fellow-feeling to say “fuck ’em.” Which you seem to say quite a lot, to quite a lot of people. Or am I making that up out of “whole cloth?”
PLEASE enlighten me at dreary length as to the meaning of your phrase “the failed social experiments with ‘busing.'” I mean the question quite sincerely.
As to my “common presumption,” well, sorry if I’m dreary in my length. But I remain curious as to how or why the “market” would invest in access for a non-profitable fraction of its base. Not to mention, why it didn’t do it of its own accord prior to Federal meddling.
And BTW: *I* “hold my views to be supreme”??? Every other post or so, I allow as how I’ve mispoken, say you have a point, or allow for exceptions to my own beliefs.
I’ve yet to see you do anything similar in the course of your blog. But then, I guess the truly “enlightened” are right about everything all the time.
> Equal ACCESS to pre-collegiate education.
All Americans have such access. If the schools in your area suck… why, you can move, even across state lines, with “no papers.”
> But the existence of the lazy offers “justification” to those without much fellow-feeling to say “fuck ‘em.”
It also provides that justification to those who *do* have “much fellow-feeling.” The concept of triage is applicable to more than battle injuries.
> PLEASE enlighten me at dreary length as to the meaning of your phrase “the failed social experiments with ‘busing.’”
1) Vast expense
2) No recognizable benefits
3) Recognizable declines.
Sometimes it’s best to acknowledge that some ideas fail. the War On Some Drugs and the War On Local Schooling both fall into that category.
> But I remain curious as to how or why the “market” would invest in access for a non-profitable fraction of its base.
Let’s say the fedguv suddenly vanished from (insert your favorite social program HERE), and stopped taxing people, including you, for it. Taxes go down, leaving more money in the people’s pockets… including yours. Now, your favorite program is gone. What are *YOU* going to do about it?
There are many people who have started homeschooling and charter schools because they think that’s a better option than traditional gubmint schooling. Do you think they are wrong to do so?
>Not to mention, why it didn’t do it of its own accord prior to Federal meddling.
According to every objective measure, schooling in the US was, on the whole, better before the DOE than after.
> *I* “hold my views to be supreme”???
“I dare you to blah, blah, blah.”
> But then, I guess the truly “enlightened” are right about everything all the time.
And that very belief is what led us to electing the current incompetant moron to President of the US. I dare you to blah, blah, blah.
I am neither a journalist nor even a decent debater, just a chucklehead angry at watching society going to hell. Here, on the other hand, is good video that makes the points better than I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI
On the subject of busing, you might recall integration’s being the response to states failing to provide “separate but equal” education. Folks back then couldn’t “move away” from their poor schools to better ones; all segregated schools were poor. So what, Scott, do you think should have been done in lieu of the “social experiment” of busing to address the educational issues of segregation?
> Folks back then couldn’t “move away” from their poor schools to better ones…
Now they can.
> So what, Scott, do you think should have been done in lieu of the “social experiment” of busing to address the educational issues of segregation?
Improve the shitty schools. Do not tear down the good ones.
Of course, improving the shitty schools means more than simply improving that school right there. You need to doa whole lot of other things to improve the *entire* shitty community that created the shitty school int he first place. A few preliminary steps:
1) Abandon the “War On Some Drugs.” If the FedGuv does with pot and coke what Utah does with hard booze, then the prices will go down, the tax revenues will go up, and the social *need* for criminality will greatly decline. Get rid of the “need” for the illicit drug trade, then gangs and such will find themselves starved of funds and purpose
2) Abandon failed welfare projects. The “War On poverty” was lost the moment it was started… in the decades leadign up to the “Great Society” programs, poverty ahd been steadily declinging. ONc ethe programs were in place, the decline stopped, and has been between 10-15% ever since.
3) Tear down public housing. Give peopel the opportunity to *own* their own homes. People do not respect what they did not work for.
4) Enforce the immigration laws. Deport the illegals. Consider repealing Ted Kennedy’s tragic 1964 bill.
5) One New Deal program that I did think was a good idea was the civil works projects. Amend the Constitution to actually *allow* such a thing, and then institute nationwide infrastructure maintenance programs. Hire those who otherwise would be on welfare, put ’em to work.
6) Get rid of food stamps. Make “food loaf” available to all. Food loaf is perfectly nutritious, but apparently tastes freakin’ awful. But the government is not in the business of making people happy. Keeping them alive should be sufficient for even the bleediest of bleeding hearts.
7) Keep the government the hell out of the Internet. Allow legal businesses to run online with minimal regulation and taxation. And allow people to trade info. If Grocer Bob down the road is a racist dipshit, then allow people to tell others. And if they don;t like that Grocer Bob is a racist dipshit, then they can shop or work elsewhere.
8 ) Eliminate all corporate and business taxes. Rely either on personal income taxes, or on an end-user national sales tax (one or the other, not both). These would bolster businesses, and allow businesses that had to move offshore in order to make a buck to come back.
9) And once all these are in place, institute local “Rudy Guliani” style quality of life laws. Taggers, muggers, bums, whatever, all find themselves quite unpopular with the cops.
10) Eliminate all current gun laws, and go with what the Constitution actually says. Make “Castle Doctrime” the law of the land.
11) Realize that school isn’t for everyone. Make alternate futures available for such people. Put them to work, put them in jail, put them in institutions, or put them on a boat to the EU.
Do all these, and the worst schools can hardly *not* improve.
Oddly enough, I agree with most of these. Can’t claim enough knowledge to have a take on 2, came up with 6 just yesterday myself (as part of a “what society would answer both liberal and conservative wish lists?” thought experiment), need more detail on 11 (school “isn’t for” those below a certain IQ. Do they get force-ganged, imprisoned, institutionalized (at whose expense?) or deported?
>If Grocer Bob down the road is a racist dipshit, then allow people to tell others. And if they don;t like that Grocer Bob is a racist dipshit, then they can shop or work elsewhere.
is almost childishly naive and ignorant of how racism “works,” on a thoughtfulness par with the offhand “improve the shitty schools” and “now they can [move to better school districts]” with which you addressed my query, “what would you have done about segregation?” Local gov’t REFUSED, for decades, to improve the shitty (black) schools; “move” is damn easy to say to those with as few resources as have the poor. But then, those who can’t bootstrap themselves are rightfully subject to “triage,” right?
Only [practical] problem is, “they” don’t go extinct. They simply carry on generation after generation, a running sore on society. Blaming them for conditions tied generationally to generations of lack of opportunity…or blighting of opportunity…isn’t MOST reprehensible in its lack of compassion, but in its lack of common sense.
A person born into poverty, a dysfunctional social order, bad schooling, et al is analagous to an abused child; abuse, if overly frequent, severe, or long-lasting, is typically utterly destructive of a functional personality. A few in each generation will, by extraordinary effort, “better themselves” out of such upbringing. The extraordinaryily determined and hard-working segment of humanity is, however, at the far end of the bell curve. MOST of us don’t achieve our greatest potential. Obviously, a SMALLER segment wil rise to said potential if hampered from birth.
So what, exactly, is the SOCIAL good of not providing (say) Headstart…health care to infants; and enough food for same; good schools EVERYWHERE, such that none born American rely for their education upon whether or not their parent(s) are able or willing to seek it?
Yeah, I know; “people unfit to be parents shouldn’t have kids, and having kids makes one obligated to raise them.” Absolutely true on both counts, and MY “ideal society” list includes not being able to go OFF birth control until one demonstrates the capability of BEING a fit parent in economic, emotional and intellectual terms (“poor, immature and/or stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to breed;” I await your accusation of fascism).
“Maintence (or creation; remember the transcontinental railroad?) of infrastructure” applies to people as well as property. Among the reasons the West outperforms the Middle East is simple; half their workforce isn’t. Yelling “people should work harder!” makes about as much sense as an old-line Communist’s “people should be more self-sacrificing!” Both are true…but fucked-up people don’t work or share, much. Want a better society? Throw some money at helping people become better. Most convicts, f’rinstance, are damn near illiterate; wouldn’t Federally funded “learning to read on demand” be a good investment in the economy? You’ve rightly decried the war on drugs; how about treatment on demand?
> almost childishly naive and ignorant
Well, it’s been fun.
Hey, *I* thought it had been. And you’ve sure taken a few shots at me (not to mention given me a lot to think about). But if one “this comment/opinion of yours is BS,” phrased in a too-harsh manner, was beyond the pale…well hell Scott, why’d you decide to sound off about politics in your blog anyhow? Just for the attaboys?
However…I didn’t mean it personally, and for that, I apologize.
Well…I’m not american so I can’t be certain…But if I had to guess, I’d say perhaps that the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t attack the USA is the reason why you guys don’t feel better after having bombed them?
Do you think the British would have felt any better if they had dropped some bombs on Irish cities and towns back when the IRA was out and about?
> But if I had to guess, I’d say perhaps that the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t attack the USA is the reason why you guys don’t feel better after having bombed them?
Germany, France and Italy didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either, but I don’t see too many people all that upset that we bombed *them.* The diofference was, in that war we actually fought to *win.* That included fighting nations that didn’t attack us, because the war was larger than just the one enemy, but instead a worldwide movement. Back then it was fascism. Today it’s Islamofascism.
I find the England-Ireland analogy to be more realistic…Even though it’s not exactly the same. I don’t think I should have to list the differences between WW2 and this “war on terror”. But I will say this: The axis were an actual threat. Iraq and Afghanistan were not. WW2 was about liberating occupied countries. The “war on terror” is not. The aims and reasons for this war are, at best, unclear. And they are highly disputed by a large number of people. People don’t even agree on wether “Islamofascism” is an actual word…Or even an ideology. You’ve invaded and occupied these countries and found that there is no one for you to libarate…Now what? This time, you are the invader.
I apologize for any spelling or language errors. English is not my first language.
>I find the England-Ireland analogy to be more realistic…Even though it’s not exactly the same.
Sure. In this case, the “Irish” far outnumber the “English.”
> The axis were an actual threat. Iraq and Afghanistan were not.
Are you seriously suggesting that Italy was a serious threat to the existence of the United States?
> People don’t even agree on wether “Islamofascism” is an actual word…
People don;t need to agree on whether a word is a “real world.” The concept the world describes is quite real enough.
> This time, you are the invader.
As we were in WWII. I’m sure the Germans and the Japanese saw us as invaders… since we did, in fact, invade them. We certainly didn’t liberate *them.*
> Sure. In this case, the “Irish” far outnumber the “English.”
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
> Are you seriously suggesting that Italy was a serious threat to the existence of the United States?
Yes. That’s what i’m suggesting. Because everyone knows that the axis consisted solely of Italy. Right?
> People don;t need to agree on whether a word is a “real world.” The concept the world describes is quite real enough.
Word, not “world”. And I did say that people did not agree on whether it’s an actual ideology…Which means that people actually doubt that it’s a concept.
> As we were in WWII. I’m sure the Germans and the Japanese saw us as invaders… since we did, in fact, invade them. We certainly didn’t liberate *them.*
I’ll just copy/paste what i wrote above: “WW2 was about liberating occupied countries. The “war on terror” is not.”
Wow…I feel like this exchange got us nowhere. I just repeated everything I said before using simpler terms 🙂
> > Sure. In this case, the “Irish” far outnumber the “English.”
> Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
You seem to be equating the IRA with Al Queda, and assuming that England bombing some Irish cities woudl be the equivalent of the US bombing some Iraqi cities. Well, here’s your problem: England was bigger than Ireland. And Ireland was pretty much the sole source of Irish terrorists. But Iraq and Afghanistan are only small parts in the Muslim whole, and Dar Al Islam far exceeds in size the United States.
> Because everyone knows that the axis consisted solely of Italy.
Italy was the sole source of Fascism in its day in much the same way that Afghanistan and Iraq were the sole sources of Islamofascism in theirs.
> “WW2 was about liberating occupied countries. The “war on terror” is not.”
Just as wrong the second time as it was the first. The goals of the western Allies in WWI were *not* liberating anyone but themselves. Sure the Brits and the French declared war on Germany after Germany went into Poland… but neither nation really took any major actions until Germany moved on *them.* This is the tiem known as the “Sitzkrieg.”
> I did say that people did not agree on whether it’s an actual ideology…Which means that people actually doubt that it’s a concept.
Some people doubt evolution, as well. Doesn’t mean that evolution – or Islamofascism – do not exist.
[…] Sadly, my post from a year ago seems pretty much entirely as relevant now: http://up-ship.com/blog/blog/?p=3928 […]