- Image via Wikipedia
One post 9/11 mantra is “do this or the terrorists win.” This has been used and is still being used to justify all sorts of things ranging from enhanced interrogation techniques to full body scans. While we obviously do not want to let the terrorists win, we need to be critical about whether something actually helps keep the terrorists from winning or not. We also need to critically consider what counts as a win for the terrorists.
For the most part, people tend to focus on the obvious terrorist victory condition: successfully killing people. However, while this is a terrorist goal, it is also primarily a means to a more fundamental end. This end, as their name implies, is the creation of terror. Naturally, terror is also a means to the ultimate end(s) of the terrorists. However, I will be focusing on terror in this discussion and leave the matter of ultimate ends to another time.
While the terrorists have not been very successful at killing Americans (we kill way more of each other in accidents and crimes), they seem to be doing quite well in creating terror. During the Bush years, American foreign policy was shaped by a terror of terrorists. This fear (and anger) led to practices that seemed to clearly violate key American principles and values (such as the right to trial, the right to privacy, and so on). While these practices were justified in terms of keeping America safe, we acted like a terrified people eager to trade liberties and treasure for security.
It might be replied that we were not acting out of fear, but that we acted courageously by invading two countries, by creating secret prisons, by tapping phones without warrants, and creating a massive homeland security apparatus to heroically spend billions of dollars.
The easy an obvious reply to this is to remind people of scare tactics and fear mongering employed to “justify” these things. Ironically, those who were supposed to fight the terrorists were actually helping them create terror by constantly employing these scare tactics and casting the terrorists as incredible threats. The terrorists, one might argue, could have hardly hoped for a better ally in making them appear significant, powerful and terrifying.
While we no longer see quite the same level of scare tactics that marked the Bush years, the terror continues. To use the most recent example, the body scans and body pats show that we are apparently still terrified (or at least our “leaders” are). Even children and grand parents are patted down. Of course, this is not the start of the humiliation, just the latest chapter. One of the most heartbreaking things I saw occurred when I was going through security a few years ago. I saw a very old man hobbling towards the security checkpoint, his leg wrapped in a brace. The TSA agents pulled him aside and made him take off his brace and then the other support under it. They were not particularly nice about it and tears started flowing from the old man’s eyes. I could hear him saying that he was a veteran and had been wounded in war (hence the brace). I started walking towards the old man, but a TSA agent stepped towards me, presumably ready to arrest me if I said anything about how they were treating the old veteran. That, it seems, was either an act motivated by cruelty or fear. After all, people who are not scared or mean do not treat people that way.
But, someone might say, terrorists might use kids or old people to carry bombs! Hence, we need to check everyone. After all, how would I feel if some kid or grandma took down a plane because of some misguided rules about not touching kids’ junk or taking images of grandma’s body?
First, saying that sort of thing seems to be a clear sign of being scared-the terrorists have some people so frightened at their alleged power and genius for destruction that they think that terrorists can get, for example, old American veterans to carry bombs or can load the children of middle America with bombs. The fact that we are so scared of even the most remote possibility of an attack (such as another underwear bomb) seems to be a sign of either stupidity or fear (or both).
Second, I do agree that people should not be exempt from security procedures. However, the process should be handled rationally and TSA should handle the checks better rather than humiliating, scaring and making people cry. We can have real security with dignity, but we need to change what we are doing now as well as the current attitude (as exemplified by Janet Napolitano, who, to borrow a phrase from the Tea Partiers, just doesn’t get it). Hmm, perhaps the government is not motivated by fear-maybe they just want to degrade and humiliate us.
We cannot beat the terrorists by being terrified. Yes, we should have effective security measures. But these should not be based on fear rather than reason.
You reached the answer in your penultimate paragraph. The government wants to treat us a serfs, not citizens. That is true of any government at any period. Terrorism is merely the latest excuse.
I don’t know what victory would be for the “terrorists.” The term is too broad. It covers everyone from Francis Marion to Michael Collins to Colonel Stauffenberg to Osama bin Laden. Al Quaeda seems to want infidels out of Muslim lands as its immediate goal, but I’ve heard talk about building a caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia, as if that’s actually possible. In other words, their victory conditions are as vague as ours.
Once again, we are reminded of how prophetic (using the term correctly) George Orwell was. Wars without end, all to maintain control of the people. Alas, I don’t have a brilliant solution to this. The war and occupation of Afghanistan was necessary; Iraq was not. We have to defend ourselves and secure the resources that we need, but it’s time that we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries otherwise.
Will that stop the “terrorists”? Only to the degree that they are rational and that our interests and theirs do not conflict. What it may do, though, is remove the element of fear from our politics. We’d be acting out of strength, not weakness.
Beyond that, we need to learn that four men with box cutters cannot control an airplane full of passengers when those passengers buy into the mythology of the old West, rather than metrosexuality.
Terrorism is not the ultimate goal of terrorists. There are no terrorists. There are evil, mostly Islamic, mostly fundamentalist sons of bitches who want the same thing as you and I and everyone else want, which is the easiest path possible to satisfying their needs. The problem is their needs. They need to have their will and their desires imposed on the rest of the world. Their ideas have repeatedly failed for the last millennia or so, thus the only practical solution for them, from their perspective that is, is to control every little aspect life, including the lives of anyone else they come in contact with (and even those that they don’t) in order to bend those people to their will. Terrorism is simply a tool that they are trying to use to accomplish that goal.
Much of the rest of this post plays with the old, tiring Republicans=fear, Democrats=fearlessness PC BS. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again and again, the Democrats are the bigger of the two “parties of fear” by leaps and bounds. Fear you’re going to lose your job? Big Government will take money from others to give to you. Fear you will get sick? Big Government will provide you health care (because God knows, it can’t be found by any other means) Fear that your bank will go under? No need to worry about what the banks do with your money, Big Government will take money from other people and give it to you when they fail. Don’t waste your time asking a lot of questions about what the bank is doing with it. Fear your Pinto might explode or your Audi will run away from you because you saw some poorly researched story on 60 Minutes, even though there’s no practical rationalization for that fear? Big Government will regulate them to death. There’s alar in your apples, there’s bird flu in your neighbor, the hurricanes are coming, the sea levels are rising, OMG we’re all gonna die.
The weak mostly vote Democrat, most of the strong vote Republican. Not that there isn’t tons of spill over both ways in the center, but to believe otherwise is to believe that Charlie Rangel is broke, that John Edwards loves his wife, and that the person giving the BJ is the one having sex, but the one having the orgasm is not. This fear meme is just plain bullshit. Find another talking point.
Fear is the simplest path to regulation and government control. Create the fear. Convince the people they need safety from government instead of liberty and there you go.
“During the Bush years, American foreign policy was shaped by a terror of terrorists.”
I though we were “arrogant cowboys” during the Bush years? I guess I missed the memo that we were actually in terror of the terrorists.
All I can say to Mike’s statement that you quoted TJ is : O><
We were scared cowboys. Fear often underlies displays of bravado.
Oh bull fucking shit. Give me a break. That’s the typical answer I used to hear from the little coward who sat across from me at work years ago. Can’t admit you’re afraid so you call the brave cowardly. Sophistry to the highest degree. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and bravado is cowardice.
heh…that of course should read “bravery is cowardice”
The brave are not cowards, but not all who claim bravery are truly brave. Just because someone acts tough or leaps to attack does not mean he is brave. After all, people do those things out of fear as well.
Being brave does not mean lacking fear. But it does mean that one is not ruled by fear.
I am guessing that everyone or at least most soldiers rushing a machine gun nest in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam…etc was pretty scared. Where they not brave also? I am sure you can be both.
Mike, you seem more scared than anyone else I know.
“One of the most heartbreaking things I saw occurred when I was going through security a few years ago. I saw a very old man hobbling towards the security checkpoint, his leg wrapped in a brace.:”
You’ve truly dropped to the lowest of arguments…the purley emotional ruse. Where was your blog post on this the day after you saw it occur? Were you so broken up it took you several years to mention it?
My God, man, have some self-respect…
Trying so hard to be outraged…
http://soldiercitizen.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/im-just-not-that-offended/
Oh, and if we start profiling, I’ll drop my argument. that would fix it all. But we know that won’t happen. So the politically correct can deal with the America they’ve made.
Well, profiling would not be a total fix. But directed searches would be more effective and less invasive.
Refusing to use rational profiling seems to involve refusing to acknowledge the fact that some people are more inclined to commit crimes or acts of terrorism than others.
Naturally, the profiling should not degenerate into racial profiling or irrational stereotyping.
But, as has been pointed out, the bureaucrats seem to have the will to order body scans and pat downs, yet lack the will to risk offending certain folks who regard any such assessment as a form of racism/prejudice.
Solve it “all” as in, we could get rid of pat downs and be relatively safe. There’s no complete protection.
No there never is complete safety with freedom and liberty. There is a trade off. The risk is still less than driving on our US highways. The TSA has finally come out and said there is a high risk terrorist threat for the holiday travel season.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39484389/ns/us_news-security
or
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-credible-specific-threat-terrorist-attack/story?id=11747364
Now the administration and the TSA are saying this is why there is hightened security with the TSA at the moment. There was also talk from Polite that this will not go on forever with the TSA. Now I do understand a hightenned alert level because of intelligence from a new looming threat. My problem is still that they will not even talk about the word profiling. They avoid it like the word racism. If we do have intelligence and we do have all the extra man power then we are wasting resources and focus if we are patting down small children and many others that do not fit the bill so to speak. The country also does not have the money to waste on testing everyone at this time.
I think the only ones that are scared are the politicians, who are afraid of not being re-elected.
Look at what happened to Bush with Katrina. By any measure the FEMA response was about the same as in previous hurricanes, but you would never know that from the press coverage.
Politicians are terrified of being Katrina-ized.
They do fear that a great deal.
A brief thought: all of the 2700+ people who died in the Twin Towers , had they lived, would have had every right to express how pissed off they were over the lax airport security standards in place in the years before those planes destroyed those buildings.
It’s likely however that pre 9-11 many of them may have protested body scans, pat-downs, wanding, luggage searches, even the 3-3-1 rule etc for gods sake. But I wouldn’t be surprised, that if their spirits could speak, any reasonable anger they might express over being killed because reasonable precautions weren’t taken would likely be mischaracterized as “fear” by some. . . It’s a wonderful world
Yeah, like cop wear body armor and carry guns because they “fear” being shot. I think prudence is a better word.
In the case of cops, I would generally say that they do that out of prudence. On the face of it, the brave and the fearful might take the same actions. For example, I have an irrational fear of heights (in that my fear exceeds the probability of harm, etc.). However, I take the same precautions that prudence demands. Yet, my primary motivation is my fear. So, I doing what is prudent, but mainly because I am scared. Naturally, I can overcome the fear by will-that is why, for example, I was on my roof to fall from it and bust my tendon. 🙂
My main concern about confusing fear with prudence is that fear often leads to poor assessment that is masked by the fear (this makes me feel less fear, so it must be a good idea). I am all for rational security means, but they must be assessed with a level head. Also, as we do with everything else, the costs and benefits must be weighed (including taking into account probability).
True, people who are killed because of X would probably have wanted something done about X. For example, people who have been killed by guns might want guns banned. Those who died in incidents involving alcohol might want alcohol eliminated. However, it is still reasonable to ask if a specific precaution increases security in proportion to the cost (be it in rights or resources).
ASK if steps taken increase security, but don’t TELL me a plane-load of people should be put at more risk than necessary because someone who refuses a full body scan is squeamish about having his junk or her jewels examined.And while I’m on the subject, responsibility for all lives lost on the first plane that’s brought down by explosives that were carried on the plan in a 5 year old’s panties or a granny’s bra should be placed directly at the ticklish feet of those who bring suits to stop reasonable pat-downs.
OK, this is exactly the problem. This dipshit attitude. NO, NO, NO, NO and, ummm NO. The “responsibility for all lives lost on the first plane that’s brought down by explosives that were carried on the plan(E) in a 5 year old’s panties or a granny’s bra should be placed directly at”…the feet of the radical sons of bitches who put that bomb there in the first place.
Your attitude, Mr. erik, is what is dangerous here. In fact, one might argue, using the same lame logic, it is attitudes like YOURS that are responsible for the inability of the TSA to do its job effectively. Wasting time randomly selecting typical American children and looking in their diapers while letting a vaguely defined quota of ethnically suspicious characters slip through. That is certainly not effective.
Thanks for correcting my spelling. That’s why I come on here. Fortunately I don’t come here for calm debate on a serious subject because you’re not offering much. I see the same tone here as in your Nov 19 post above. All “dipshit” and “bullshit”.
Let’s see. YOu’re offering a bumper-sticker-like argument similar to “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”, only you’re saying bombs don’t kill people, “radical sons of bitches” (hereinafter referred to as RSB’s) kill people. If that logic’s true, people who fail to pass and enforce (consistently, across all state lines) sensible laws regulating handgun sales or handgun operation bear no responsibility for deaths caused, accidentally or intentionally by guns–and thus, I assume, we’d have no handgun laws at all. We’d all enter a natural state where the problem of death by firearm would “work itself out”.
The explosive/weapon kills the people on the plane. But because RSB’s create the bomb there is no responsibility for failure to prevent the explosive/weapon from being successfully deployed and detonated. For 7 years a Republican administration tried its best to get the RSB’s responsible for 9/11, bypassing FISA laws and the Constitution in the process. Yet, RSB’s are still dead set on blowing planes out of the sky. A Democratic administration has had two years to get all those RSB’s and has, thus far, failed. Meanwhile, we’re going to put the blame for unnecessary deaths on the RSB’s and not on those who undermine reasonable efforts to prevent the RSB’s from succeeding. Now I understand.
BTW,about that first post of yours. How big is Big Government, Goldilocks? Can it ever be too small for you? When in is it “juuuust right”? Seriously. Government shouldn’t require warnings on cigarette packs? Second hand smoke is harmless? Chemical companies should be free to dump toxic waste in our rivers? We should have no fire codes? Speed limits raised to 90 mph–because you (and perhaps a few others have good reflexes and can afford a powerful road machine that handles well?
Well, vis-à-vis “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” it’s nice that we understand each other. Though where you derive that I must therefore be opposed to ALL gun laws, etc. is quite fallacious. The rest of your argument contains more straw-men than a Wizard of Oz casting call.
Let me see if I can put this in a context that a lefty can understand. If a woman dresses and behaves provocatively, and is subsequently raped, the responsibility for the rape lies entirely on the rapist. The crime is the fault of the criminal. Constructing complex arguments for simple problems in order to avoid solutions that are unpalatable is not being smart, it is being irresponsible. It’s not thinking about a solution, it’s rationalization for not addressing a solution. Though trying to explain responsibility to political lefties is like trying to teach a cat to sing. Waste of time and annoys the cat. And yet I try…
Issues such as these are not political piñatas. They are far too important for this sort of demagoguery. And in case you didn’t notice, you argue with myself and Magus here, but in so far as this issue goes, in the current political context, we are all three on the same side. However, you want to put the blame for the next terrorist attack at the feet of people like Mike, etc. and that’s where I say you are flat out wrong. It’s a blame-the-victim mentality that has even permeated into our police departments.
There is a reality out there, no matter how hard you work to perceive otherwise. Planes take off and land, some even with bombs on board, and the only way that those bombs bring down those planes is when some person either directly or indirectly, with willful intent, activates a detonator.
This is the America we’ve created and radical Islam knows it. They laugh at us because everything is such a big philosphical question.
This is the opening passage to al-Qaeda’s training manual, discovered in a safehouse in Englad and Titled:The Declaration of Jihad Against the Country’s Tyrants.
“In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate: To those champions who avowed the truth day and night . . . and wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases: The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does knot know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.”
They know America eats its own. That a pat down is such a big deal but a bomb isn’t. They target the intellectual mindset. Because they know that thinking to much makes one look like a dog chasing his tail. You become Hamlet.
I predict that extreme Islam will make its next big incursion into the West through our universities, just as communism did. Soon our schools will be churning out anti-American islamists, ripe for political office.
“. . .thinking to[o] much makes one look like a dog chasing his tail”
Oops. Apologies. Thought I was WTP for a second 🙂
I don’t want to appear like I’m thinking too much ( and I have todash this off before heading to work), but kind of extending my reply to WTP, what is “too little” thinking? Or just the right amount? Did the Framers of the Constitution think too much? Did those who subsequently created amendments 11-27 think too much and go too far? Or did they only go too far with amendments you or I disagree with? Am I thinking too much? Should we just go out and blow everyone else to hell and back?
@erik: But you would agree that one can think too much and act too little, right?
I can’t give you a mathmatical formulae, but it would be very apparent in say, a football game. The QB may be as cerebral as they come, but if he holds the ball too long, he gets sacked.
The answers that most people have whom oppose this pat down are pretty much like the answers they have for terrorism in general: do nothing. Which is what we tried for decades prior and did not work.
I still say intellectuals are overrated. Noam Chomsky is an idiot in my view.
@magus71 I agree that the same person can think too little and act too little, think too much and act too much, think too little and act too much OR think too much and act too little—likely not at one and the same time 🙂 And, there are exceptions to the examples. A QB can hold on to the ball too long and fumble, hold it too long to hit a receiver on a route yet scramble for a short gain, or he may simply make it back to the line of scrimmage. There are likely other possibilities. As for intellectuals, it depends on what you mean by “intellectual”. Were Jefferson, Frankliln, Samuel Adams, Hamilton, or Madison intellectuals? Did they think too much? Are they overrated? Chomsky’s an idiot so intellectuals are overrated. Then again, maybe today’s intellectuals are like today’s kids. Measuring up to a shorter yardstick. BTW, is WTP right in saying I’m arguing with you about the pat-downs? I thought I was agreeing with you. Oh well.
@ Mike:
So it’s biased because you don’t agree? I’m giving the definition based on what I see. When I hear a liberal speak, I’m reminded of all the reasons I’m one. And when I hear intellectuals speak, I’m reminded of why they’re overrated.
It seems that the lack of neutrality is not really what you and erik have a problem with. It’s that you the both of you admire intellectuals. There are some I admire. But generally, I’ll take Teddy Roosevelt any day over Noam Chomsky. Much of intellectualism is actually romantacism.
You “admire” Teddy Roosevelt, but, as per your def he’s overrated. “I still say intellectuals are overrated. Noam Chomsky is an idiot in my view.” Sorry, but the leap from Noam Chomsky the individual idiot intellectual to “intellectuals” the category is still just too great to ignore. . .
@WTP Do you stay up late looking for ways to misunderstand and or mischaracterize what I write? EX: “. . .responsibility for all lives lost on the first plane that’s brought down by explosives that were carried on the plan in a 5 year old’s panties or a granny’s bra should be placed directly at the ticklish feet of those who bring suits to stop reasonable pat-downs.” Did I mention diapers? When was the last time you saw a normal 5 year old wearing diapers? And did I say I agree with ” letting a vaguely defined quota of ethnically suspicious characters slip through?” For the record and your edification, I do not agree with that at all.
So, let me clarify. If there’s a successful attack that kills 250 people on a plane, I see there are several levels of responsibility. The most obvious level involves the terrorists—who are alive–and well– for the most part and will continue to attempt to destroy aircraft and passengers. We’re not doing too well eliminating that level. Another level lies with the intelligence community if they fail to connect obvious dots that should have been connected. Committees meet and ask questions, but the responsible individuals seldom suffer much punishment. Hopefully, something is learned at the hearings that can improve intelligence gathering in the future. The TSA bears great responsibility. Given adequate tools, they must do the job well. The next level, the level I was specifically referring to , is the group of people who prevent effective security measures from taking effect. I was very specific in narrowing the situation down to “the first plane” not all planes from this point on and tried to provide a few specific scenarios (like granny’s bra) to make it clear that in that situation and that situation alone should all responsibility lie with the objecting group. Anyway, to argue that a drunk TSA agent, or failed CIA intelligence or any other force that could have prevented the detonator being exploded on a plane bear no responsibility and the RSB’s bear it all is a very dangerous stance. What motivation would there be to do the job well if no feeling of responsibility were attached to it?
The RSB’s intentionally or unintentionally interpret their religion in a certain way. Allah is their creator. He bears the ultimate responsibility for the RSB’s wiring it would seem. God or genetics created me. Made me weak is some ways, strong in others. If I rape a girl in a tight short dress,am I’m doing it because I’m that wired that way, because of trauma, or because I want to? We may as well push the responsibility the whole way up the line to the Creator if we’re only going to apply responsibility at one of many levels.
How big does government have to get before it’s too big? When is it just right?
@erik: “Were Jefferson, Frankliln, Samuel Adams, Hamilton, or Madison intellectuals”
First, I said being an intellectual is overrated, not that all of them are useless. I think that if you’re educated but can get beat up by my sister, you’re overrated. I also think that some of history’s worst ideas have come from intellectuals. Marx comes to mind. I much prefer the well-read person who puts his hands to work or who can actually appreciate that doing real things is more important than thinking about real things.
Those men were not intellectuals as I use the word. All I have to do is read their words to know it. They were men of daring and action.
How do you use the word?
Men of daring and action can’t be intellectuals? Would it help if we’d separate the “intellectuals” and the “unhh hnhh intellectuals” from the intellectuals. . . 🙂
Now that we’ve skated around my original question, here they are agains: “Did the Framers of the Constitution think too much? Did those who subsequently created amendments 11-27 think too much and go too far? Or did they only go too far with amendments you or I disagree with?” I’m just looking for opinions here–no need to follow up with action.
Well I’d say that what we have going on right now is an experiment in thinking too much…
I think they did a better job at getting it right than virtually anyone else in history at that point, so who am I to judge whether thought too much or too little. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I’ll take what they gave me.
Goes for the amendments, too–where those who followed didn’t accept what they’d been given as the final word.
“I’ll take what they gave me.” Since we’re talking about the FF’s here does this mean you’d have been happy without amendments 11 thru 27? Or since they gave the power to amend that you’re happy with 11-27?
@ Mike:
Well, it’s a general term like “blue collar”. So again, no mathmatical formulae.
But here’s and example of someone that may be confused as an intellectual but actually despised the intelligencia himself: George Orwell. Orwell was not an intellectual. A man of action, he picked up a rifle and a pack and fought in the Spanish Civil War. Smart, well read, but not an intellectual.
Patton–not an intellectual–though graduate of West Point.
I gave Noam Chomsky as an example earlier of an intellectual. Overrated. And Marx.
Sure there’s been some great ones, too. Lots of scientists. Too many to list.
I’d hardly classify Jefferson as an intellectual. An intellectual probably wouldn’t have sponsored the Lewis and Clark expedition. Or ordered that pirates be “destroyed for their insolence.”
Intelligence nor eduacation has to do with whether one is an intellectual or not. I’ve met many gamers who were intellectuals and were also some of the most annoying people ever. But again, my sister could kick their ass.
Franklin–yes. Intellectual.
Sam Adams: Hell no.
Joseph Goebels: Yes.
Einstein: Yes.
I use the term Intellectual as: “Annoying, arrogant, nerd who uses spacious language and high-browed rhetoric, despises most physical endeavors, would rarely join the military, prefers thought to action.” He is indeed capabale of great things. But so enamored is the world with the intellectual, that when he utters absolute nonsense, the world gives it a second glance. He is capable of the greatest greats and the most heinous stupididies, because he thinks the world can be fully experienced in mathmatical formulas.
To quote my friend John Ringo, when he authored his “Unified Theory of Liberals”, which applies greatly to the intellectual:
“It can’t be denied that many of them do drugs, but I don’t think that’s the crux of the reason. Smoking too much pot will make you stupid, but not this stupid. This is a special kind of stupidity that requires a real brain behind it. This is stupidity with suspenders.”
That seems to be a rather loaded definition. Given that “intellectual” already has a neutral dictionary definition, you might consider coming up with a new term for your rather biased definition. After all, you would surely object if someone defined “conservative” in such a loaded manner.
Nice to create your own definitions. The language is much friendlier to one’s own views that way.
@erik: it’s ok if you’re an intellectual, erik. my sister can show you how to defend yourself. she plays rugby in college so there’s not a lot of shame in her whipping your rear.
Mike,
It’s not loaded. I listed “good” and “bad” people, right? It balances out to neutral. You just saw Goebels and Marx. Ignored Franklin. Probably didn’t like that I said Orwell wasn’t an intellectual.
I’ll repeat. Intellectualism is overrated.
There are some I like, not because they’re intellectuals, but because I agree with them. Krauthammer for example. Many people agree with somebody merely because the person is an intellectual, like being a movie star where everyone nods in agreement. WF Buckley–intellectual.
It’s still overrated. Robert Heinlein explains why I think intellectuals are overrated:
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Loaded is not a matter of whether good or bad is included. Ideally, a definition should be neutral (that is, non-biased). Since the term already has a good, non-biased definition (standard dictionary definition), you should come up with a new term for your definition. Definitions are a bit like game rules-you have to tell people when you are changing them, otherwise it is rather unfair and confusing.
“All I have to do is read their words to know it.” Like Stewart and hard porno. My Grams Lilly knows it when she sees it. My how she blushes and sputters at the sight of Titian’s Venus d’Urbino. Why how dare they show that!
If I know what an “intellectual” is whenever I read him, why, I’ll know when government becomes ‘ big’ government when I see it, right? In fact, I’ll know the truth of pretty much everything because I’ll know it when I see it.
Hey erik: How about YOUR definition? All you’ve done through three posts is ask rhetorical questions. This is just like an intellectual: Chasing the tail until you fall over dizzy. You think you look smart, but really you just annoy.
Given the ‘personal’ way you define “intellectual”, I can only assume you personally define a “rhetorical question” as any question that you find difficult to answer. THERE’s where your sense of annoyance comes from. You’d like to rail against big government, but a question that asks you to actually specify when you think government is too big is a “rhetorical question”.
Here’s how you prefer to define an intellectual for your argument’s sake :(“intellectuals are overrated. Noam Chomsky is an idiot”) You write: “I much prefer the well-read person who puts his hands to work or who can actually appreciate that doing real things is more important than thinking about real things.” Good for you. But no def. I’ve seen says an intellectual must meet your criteria — that intellectuals who don’t meet the criteria are somehow lesser intellectuals. Perhaps if I go to the OED I’ll find your version. For now I’m hardly convinced that somehow intellectuals are overrated just because ‘some’ intellectuals are overrated when measured by your standards. . .any more than I can assume that because some cops are underpaid or some quarterbacks are overpaid or some plumbers are unskilled they’re all underpaid, overpaid, or unskilled. Or that gumbo is overrated because one out of three bowls I’ve eaten haven’t satisfied me.
There should be a different word for your type of intellectual in the magus71 dictionary. May I suggest “schmurfel”?
“One post 9/11 mantra is “do this or the terrorists win.”
And another mantra is “don’t do this or the terroists win.”
Is there any problem with this analogy?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/when-in-danger-profiling-is-rational/2/
I recall once walking home from an evening college class. I was on a lonely little path between the university and town, and the sun was just setting. Ahead of me on the path was a young lady, presumably another student. She was a bit shorter than me, and over time, because of my longer stride, I was catching up to her. It was not intentional; at first, I did not even notice that I was overtaking her. But she noticed. And then I realized that she was walking unnaturally faster. She accelerated to a near-run as she realized that a guy she did not know was twenty yards behind her and getting closer.
My first reaction was anger: how dare she assume I was a rapist?
But the more I thought about it, the more her prejudiced attitude — her “sexual profiling” — made perfect sense. For practical purposes, all rapists are men. A woman legitimately can assume that an unknown man is infinitely more likely to be a rapist than an unknown woman.
Only a very tiny fraction of men are rapists, of course, but this woman had no way of knowing whether I was part of the tiny fraction who are rapists, or the vast majority who are not: the risk was greater than zero. Consider the danger involved if she wrongly assumed that I was not dangerous. Her assumption was grossly unfair to me, but it was completely rational.
In law enforcement I profiled ruthlessly and I’m proud of it. I know what a punk looks like. If I got reports of 78 year old women breaking into houses at night, I’d look for them.
I was always thankful for tatoos. They identified problem people more easily for me, particularly if they had tatoos on their neck, or tatoos of pot leaves. And studies show–oh my–people with tatoos are more likely top engage in criminal activity.
Crime is a culture, and people want to act and dress like others in their culture.
Cats, tats and bumper stickers reveal much.
Well, the author could use a bit more math: “an unknown man is infinitely more likely to be a rapist than an unknown woman.” That would seem to mean that any unknown man has an infinite likelihood of being a rapist (that is, all unknown men are rapists).
The analogy does seem to be plausible. After all, it is rational for women to be concerned about unknown men when they are in a situation in which an attack is possible. Heck, if I am walking at night on a campus and someone I do not know is trailing me, I consider the possibility that s/he might be up to no good (and I am sure they are considering the same about me). Likewise, it is rational to be concerned that someone who matches the terrorist profiles might be a terrorist. However, the concern and following action should be proportional to the likelihood. So, for example, I do not shoot people who just happen to be following me or call the police to come strip search them because they might be up to no good.