I did a double-take when I saw this van today on the way to work. It seemed both clever and unkind. It left me wondering whether, and to what extent, it was over the line.
I wonder what blind people would think about this play on words. If they all said that they were OK with it, should that be the deciding factor?
Am I just being too PC?
The Associated Press is reporting that there is a new curriculum debuting in 7 states this year with the goal of teaching middle-school and high-school students about the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Developed by the September 11th Education Trust, the curriculum will focus on 7 areas "designed to help students reflect on the impact and legacy of September 11, 2001". Sample units include:
"This is one of the critical subjects on which young people should develop some ideas and thoughts. They're going to have to live with this for quite some time," he said. "It gives young people a framework in which to think about Sept. 11, all that it meant and all that it means to the present."I'm not quite sure what he means when he says that "They're going to have to live with this for quite some time." Does he mean the threat of terrorism? Does he mean the consequences of our reaction to 9/11?
Building on our recent discussion of Afghanistan, a couple of items of interest today. Daring to stand up to the budding consensus that it may be time to get out of Afghanistan, Ruben Navarette today released an commentary on the topic. He notes that "Senior Pentagon officials are expected to ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops this month. Currently, there are about 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan." To him, this is not a bothersome development. He complains that the only "nation-building" the left supports is the type done by the Peace Corps, rather than the military. With no indication why this position is incorrect, he asserts that "Liberals love to build things, especially with other people's tax dollars. They just don't like the idea of U.S. troops doing the building. Maintaining a military presence on foreign soil makes the left nervous because it feeds the perception that the United States has an itch for imperialism and can't go long without scratching it." Maybe it's just me, but I think it's the 737 military bases around the world and millions of deployed soldiers that really "feeds the perception" that we have an "itch for imperialism." I wonder why Navarette doesn't criticize war-mongering conservatives for "loving to build things, especially with other people's tax dollars"?After all, the Pentagon estimates that our overseas bases are worth at least $127 billion-- does he think they were paid for through donations from grateful Iraqis and Afghanis?
This quote is from the Federalist Papers, number 41 to be exact. I lifted this paragraph as it bears, I think, directly on the current political climate. I think Madison is more sanguine about the average American than many today may be. But I think his view is worth noting.
It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
Some people seem to dissolve into their worst attributes over time. There is a seige mentality that develops, it seems, and from within the bastions and barricades the fever dreams of the misunderstood and disillusioned take root and grow into horrible, twisted things. I don't care much for people who are constantly running around trying to scare the rest of us with apocalyptic prognostications. The sky is falling, yes it is, and there's nothing we can do about it. Who can hold up the sky or keep the stars from falling? Not me and it would appear a waste of what life might be left to spend my time fretting over it and ruining other people's day telling them to not enjoy themselves because the impending catastrophe is of such significance that to ignore it in any way is to cheapen all human history. Having a good time in the face of Doom is being, somehow, rude to the awesome relevance of said Doom. Everyone needs a hobby. Conspiracy theorists have found the X-Box of their desires within the serpentine confines of a world delimited by the constant back-stabbing one-up-manship of imagined black ops, coups, assassinations, and creeping ideological subversion. I wish them good times playing with their toys. But occasionally they decide to rewrite history to justify their paranoia and depending on what it is they're trying to sell by doing so, I get a bit less tolerant.