or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
January 17, 2006
Against Against Against The War On Terror
Go say hello to Against the War on Terror, a new blorpf run by young students and activists in New York.
I like what they're doing, even if I think the beginning of their founding statement is wrong:
The war on terror is more than just another public policy. It tries to turn the reduction of even the smallest risks into the highest goal of government and the fundamental purpose of politics. We at Against the War on Terror aim to challenge the idea that security, rather than liberty, should guide our political life. We reject the very premise of the war on terror.
I don't think the reduction of even the smallest risks has much to do with the Bush administration's actions. That's just the PR cover. In reality, they're making the world much more dangerous, while refusing to take common sense precautions (chemical and nuclear plant security, etc.) that even a traitorous America-hater like myself would support.
So, to accept that these people care whether Americans live or die is giving too much away at the start. The truth is, if we're killed in large numbers, they see it as an enormous opportunity.
Posted at January 17, 2006 01:19 PM | TrackBackI agree with your premise, and I think the Against the WoT are a bit jejeune with their approach. Not only do they misstate the problem by accepting the other team's premise (that they are actually trying to protect us), as you note, but they also alienate a majority of the country by announcing their position as being, essentially, opposition to protecting the US from terrorist attack. While they may have a more nuanced position than that, they come off exactly as I described. I don't predict that will be a big winner with a lot of people. I'll be ignoring them and hoping they don't gain any traction or much notice.
Posted by: DBK at January 17, 2006 02:50 PMBoth the comments and the original post here actually make our case for us. It is not us but you who are accepting their language. It is the Bush administration that made a big deal out of turning everything into a security question. And you have accepted their logic. You say, the problem with the Bushies is that they make us less safe, rather than more. That only further entrenches security as the only way we evaluate policies and actions. Our point at Against the War on Terror is that the only step to real progress is to step outside the security paradigm itself, because it has become totally irrational. It calls for devoting huge resources to very small risks (look up the data on what Americans really die of - it's not terrorism), and even worse, lowering our expectations to think that the biggest thing we can achieve in life is mere survival. It's an ideological thing, as well as a matter of rational policies.
