No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.
-- George Washington
Friday, September 21, 2007
One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other
Thanks to Bubblehead for writing about and linking to this.
Which reminded me of this cartoon and the discussion it sparked on this blog, as well as over at Geoffrey's place.
I'm not sure what the connection is. Why is it not possible to praise the heroism of what that young Navy SEAL did - indeed be moved by it - and still insist that our troops are not above criticism?
It's been a while since I read the post in question (I must be honest, and say that I didn't even read it after I checked the link), but I don't think I ever once said that I agreed with the cartoon. I was defending the principle that such speech, while offensive to many, was not "wrong". That is sparked all sorts of discussion kind of proves that it was quite right, in fact.
This is not a zero-sum game, Cameron. There are truly noble men and women, demonstrating what it is to be truly human (to the point of the ultimate self-sacrifice) involved in the bloody mess in Iraq; there are truly abysmally stupid and dangerous people there, also, who are a threat to themselves and everyone around them. I can praise the former, fear the latter, and desire most earnestly that the entire situation be ended as soon as possible, all without contradiction because it reflects the complicated reality on the ground (of which I do not have the barest inkling, obviously, except through reading reports and the power of human imagination).
Thanks for linking to the post. God bless those who lived because of this man's selfless bravery, his family and friends, and the United States of America.
OK, so I just read it, and except for a sentence fragment at the beginning (I think the cartoon is spot-on in a number of respects) that I failed to clarify, I think I made it pretty clear I did not agree with the cartoon, but was simply defending its existence.
Anyway, that was my take away. If you differ, please clarify, because this was a while ago, and my mind is not what it once was.
Geoffrey, in my comments on your place and mine I emphasized that the cartoon in question was not simply criticizing "bad" troops. If the cartoonist's intent was to do so, then he failed miserably.
I still say the issue is not the content of the add, but the right for the add to appear at all. I'm not sure what I agreed with in regard to the cartoon, except perhaps for the fact that there are gung-ho, mindless folks in our armed forces who do horrible things. Which is true.
In any event, all I can say right now is that I'm sorry it was brought back, because I think we have both moved on to a situation of greater respect for one another. This was one of those early points of contention between us, and I would rather leave it behind.
5 comments:
I'm not sure what the connection is. Why is it not possible to praise the heroism of what that young Navy SEAL did - indeed be moved by it - and still insist that our troops are not above criticism?
It's been a while since I read the post in question (I must be honest, and say that I didn't even read it after I checked the link), but I don't think I ever once said that I agreed with the cartoon. I was defending the principle that such speech, while offensive to many, was not "wrong". That is sparked all sorts of discussion kind of proves that it was quite right, in fact.
This is not a zero-sum game, Cameron. There are truly noble men and women, demonstrating what it is to be truly human (to the point of the ultimate self-sacrifice) involved in the bloody mess in Iraq; there are truly abysmally stupid and dangerous people there, also, who are a threat to themselves and everyone around them. I can praise the former, fear the latter, and desire most earnestly that the entire situation be ended as soon as possible, all without contradiction because it reflects the complicated reality on the ground (of which I do not have the barest inkling, obviously, except through reading reports and the power of human imagination).
Thanks for linking to the post. God bless those who lived because of this man's selfless bravery, his family and friends, and the United States of America.
OK, so I just read it, and except for a sentence fragment at the beginning (I think the cartoon is spot-on in a number of respects) that I failed to clarify, I think I made it pretty clear I did not agree with the cartoon, but was simply defending its existence.
Anyway, that was my take away. If you differ, please clarify, because this was a while ago, and my mind is not what it once was.
Geoffrey, in my comments on your place and mine I emphasized that the cartoon in question was not simply criticizing "bad" troops. If the cartoonist's intent was to do so, then he failed miserably.
I still say the issue is not the content of the add, but the right for the add to appear at all. I'm not sure what I agreed with in regard to the cartoon, except perhaps for the fact that there are gung-ho, mindless folks in our armed forces who do horrible things. Which is true.
In any event, all I can say right now is that I'm sorry it was brought back, because I think we have both moved on to a situation of greater respect for one another. This was one of those early points of contention between us, and I would rather leave it behind.
Or maybe I'm ducking the conflict.
Oh, I agree that the cartoon has a right to exist, be printed, etc. I just think its message is in extremely poor taste.
Actually, it's more than just poor taste.
Post a Comment