Zach Oooh!n
Killing myself, killing us both, I can't afford not to take these risks.
On what happens when a Liberal Professor, a Conservative Undergrad, and a Liberal Grad Student come into a head on collision; or where the hammer meets steel is usually the best place to catch a spark, an interchange
Where it started:
To: ENGDEP-L@listserv.ilstu.edu
Subject: citizenship & Iraq
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:12:31 -0500
Dear friends and colleagues,
Today I sent the following "toy-store story" to:
Pantagraph letters to the editor
Rep. Timothy Johnson
Sen. Richard Durbin
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald
President Bush
Vice President Cheney
Please keep in mind that if you do not communicate your opposition to the impending U.S invasion/bombing of Iraq and assassination of Saddam Hussein, then you need to take responsibility for those events--and for the blowback (i.e., more terrorism against U.S. citizens) that will undoubtedly follow from them. After all, this is a democracy. Unlike the governments of Afghanistan or Iraq, the U.S. government claims to act on the authority of the American people's consent. And silence counts as consent.
To contact your U.S. Rep. and Senators, go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
and click on "House Directory" or "Senate Directory."
To contact the President and/or V.P., go to:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Fellow citizens: This is the time to speak out.
Peace to you. Message follows.
***
Last night I was shopping in the local toy store when I witnessed an unforgettable sight.
As a crowd gathered, a little boy named “Georgie” was writhing on the floor near the checkout line, shrieking and pounding the linoleum, demanding that his father buy him the new “Attack Iraq!” video game. The father looked a little sheepish, and explained to his son all the reasons he did not want to buy Georgie the game. “If I buy you this thing, you’ll neglect your chores even worse than you already do. Your bedroom is a pit, you haven’t done any dishes since last month, and you never help me in the yard. Besides, I just lost my job; I can’t afford to buy you more toys right now. Plus, each time I buy you a war game, you treat me even more rudely than before and you bully your classmates at school.”
At this the little boy began screaming even louder. “GIVE ME MY WAR! If you don’t, I’ll tell Mom you were mean to me, and then she’ll get full custody and you’ll never see me again. I don’t care how much it costs. I WANT MY WAR!”
By this time the crowd was clearly siding with the father. They called out encouraging words to him. “Stand up to the little brat.” “Say no for once.” “Be a father to the kid and teach him how to act.” The father looked miserable. He obviously knew Georgie shouldn’t get the game, but he was also terrified of losing custody of the kid to his ex-wife.
“Okay, okay,” cried the father at last. “Have it your way. You can have your 'Attack Iraq!' video game. Just promise me that you’ll stop cheating at school, do your chores at home, quit beating up your classmates, and not ask for any more war games, okay?”
As the father handed his Visa card to the cashier, the little boy looked back at the astonished crowd and stuck out his tongue. Then he looked up at his father and smiled sweetly. “Yes, Father. Whatever you say.” ------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to engdep-l, the discussion list for the English Department at Illinois State University. To join or leave the list: http://www.english.ilstu.edu/join.html List archives: http://listserv.ilstu.edu/archives/engdep-l.html
To which there is a response of:
At 04:47 PM 10/9/2002 +0000, you wrote:
Dr. B-----
Quite a creative tale, but rhetorically impotent to those wanting to protect this nation. Those citizens not wasting time at teach-ins and peace vigils know that Iraq possesses dangerous weapons that could harm Americans, a risk not worth taking to most of us.
This morning I read a friend's copy of "Social Studies and the Young Learner"--a publication from the National Council for the Social Studies. This issue, titled "Citizenship and Governance," profiled several young students between the ages of five and eight, and asked their opinion on the role of the President. The interviewer asks, "What are some of the things that the United States government does?" A third-grader responds, "They probably call up certain places to solve the problems that need to be solved [Iraq]...and if there's this really, really hard-to-catch killer on the loose, then they'd probably call in a couple of army men--they'd call up the nation of armies and they'd say, 'I want about 50 people going here and there and surround this person,' and they just keep scooching in until they get him."
Maybe there is hope for today's early education after all. This country needs decision-makers and a no-nonsense youth willing to "scooch" in and actually...solve problems. As for the selfish brat at Toys-R-Us, methinks Daddy needs to get a grip.
To which Zach then gets all mad and red faced and replies:
Subject: Re: citizenship & Iraq
To: ENGDEP-L@listserv.ilstu.edu
Cc: zskuhn@ilstu.edu
Mr. B------ and all:
I would have to argue that "those wanting to protect this nation" include Dr. B-----. It is sadly typical of those who are for an action of War to bottle their opposition up and label them "cowards" or "idiots". I have "wasted my time" over the past month and a half by questioning the intent of President Bush (and his advisors, who it was made clear from the get go were Bush's decision-makers) and whether this "schooching in" was for the purpose of protecting the citizens of this country from a clear enemy or if it was to:
a. Move public attention away from the scandals at home (Bush's undisputed connections to the financial crisis; the failure of the Bush Tax-Cut to do anything but make that 1% richer and the rest of us lose public funding for important programs)
b. Protect our growing dependence on the Middle East for oil
c. Move public attention away from the fact that Operation Snow Eagle or whatever they call our "War on Terrorism" has failed to capture Osama Bin Laden or any of his higher-ups (see a recent New Yorker article called "The Man Behind Bin Laden" by Lawrence Wright)
d. Destroy the campaigns of Democrats and Independents who were on the verge of a major political (dare I call it a) regime change by accusing them of being "Un-American" in their refusal to accept blindly the terms of the Bush Administration (one need only look back over a few New York Times articles about Republican Strategist Karl Rove to find proof that this was, indeed, a part of the plan)
e. Give something for Bush to use in his next campaign to prove he's "a man of the people" (though less than half of the people voted for him, but let's not...)
There are no links between Sadam Hussein and Al Qaeda, other than a report of a report that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague. If Bush wants this to be a war on terrorism, he needs to push harder in the war that the people (via their elected officials) consented he wage. Asking the American people now to fight Hussein is not only morally unjust (how can the average separate Al Qaeda and Hussein without being called a "Terrorist" themselves?) but it is against the consent of a majority of Americans, despite what the polls show. I cite a recent interview done by Chris Matthews on Hardball with Senator John Kerrey of Massachusetts at the Citadel (hardly a friendly atmosphere to a man who protested the VietNam war after fighting bravely and being decorated!!!) where Matthews had the crowd on their feet when he asked them "Who here wants to go to Iraq and take down Hussein!?" Kerrey smiled, and agreed, that he too would like to see Hussein gone. But, he said, "That may be trying some people’s patience, but let me tell you something. When the bullets are flying, and the body bags are coming home, and the nation’s resolve is being tested, we will be glad that we went the last measure of effort so that we understood when we look at a parent and say this is why your son or daughter died, we explain, we tried everything."
What many of us "wasting our time" are attempting to do is force our President to participate in an action that has not only the consent of our government (and we are not the only people in the world who matter, sir) but also the consent of the United Nations. Why kill thousands of innocent civilians in an unprovoked attack? Why "schooch" Hussein back when no other country sees the need to? France is a more direct target of Iraq than we are, and are they on the boat to destroy and topple Hussein? It doesn't make sense, at least to me, to attack a country for the possibility that they may do something wrong in the future. Hussein having biological weapons isn't any scarier to me than the existence of those weapons within my country.
I am not against war. I think that in certain situations acts of physical self-defense are called for and justified. In this, I know, I differ from Dr. B----. Christopher Hitchens recently wrote a profound reasoning for war in The Nation that, while I disagreed with it, I respected the way in which he attempted to open a dialogue between the anti-war Left and the itching-for-war Right. Both sides are informed and both sides are dug in and keeping their powder dry. But it is hardly fair to cite the reactions of elementary school children, whose only mode of questioning shoots straight through their parents and their teachers and whose capabilities for searching out unbiased sources are scant at best, as a reason to attack a country that has never done anything more than disobey us.
(apologies for any errors, I wrote this fast)
Zach
To which the response is:
Well, nothing. He, Eric B_____, attacked some other person who responded to him, but said/wrote nothing to me. The listserv jumped to my defense (one professor calling it "The most intelligent thing ever written on this listserv" (Sound of Zach blushing and patting his own fucking back)) quickly, and many of my fellow fellows said "I would have written that, but..." People like this can't just bully their way around life cos we, as the progressives, feel like they have a right to their opinion. They do, but they don't have the right to bully, and that's how Dubya ended up where he is, and how Ann Coulter gets away with Slanderous Lies, and how Limbaugh et.al. make a living.
Anywho.
Next five: "born into giving it up" by richard buckner (thanks to Chris G. for recommending this, as well as for paging my name over the intercom at Best Buy, which, honestly, didn't happen that much when I worked there due to the fact that, well, I wasn't well known there.); "colour" by waxwing (although I want to protest their cheesy use of a Freeman speech from The Shawshank Redemption in one of the other songs from their very great new album); "Misunderstood" by wilco; "didn't I just tell you something about not telling me what the fuck you want from me?" by lois lane; and "lord let me die with a hammer in my hand" by themtsthelens.
in the (computer lab) stereo: Richard Buckner (Good job, Chris!)
Killing myself, killing us both, I can't afford not to take these risks.
On what happens when a Liberal Professor, a Conservative Undergrad, and a Liberal Grad Student come into a head on collision; or where the hammer meets steel is usually the best place to catch a spark, an interchange
Where it started:
To: ENGDEP-L@listserv.ilstu.edu
Subject: citizenship & Iraq
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:12:31 -0500
Dear friends and colleagues,
Today I sent the following "toy-store story" to:
Pantagraph letters to the editor
Rep. Timothy Johnson
Sen. Richard Durbin
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald
President Bush
Vice President Cheney
Please keep in mind that if you do not communicate your opposition to the impending U.S invasion/bombing of Iraq and assassination of Saddam Hussein, then you need to take responsibility for those events--and for the blowback (i.e., more terrorism against U.S. citizens) that will undoubtedly follow from them. After all, this is a democracy. Unlike the governments of Afghanistan or Iraq, the U.S. government claims to act on the authority of the American people's consent. And silence counts as consent.
To contact your U.S. Rep. and Senators, go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
and click on "House Directory" or "Senate Directory."
To contact the President and/or V.P., go to:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Fellow citizens: This is the time to speak out.
Peace to you. Message follows.
***
Last night I was shopping in the local toy store when I witnessed an unforgettable sight.
As a crowd gathered, a little boy named “Georgie” was writhing on the floor near the checkout line, shrieking and pounding the linoleum, demanding that his father buy him the new “Attack Iraq!” video game. The father looked a little sheepish, and explained to his son all the reasons he did not want to buy Georgie the game. “If I buy you this thing, you’ll neglect your chores even worse than you already do. Your bedroom is a pit, you haven’t done any dishes since last month, and you never help me in the yard. Besides, I just lost my job; I can’t afford to buy you more toys right now. Plus, each time I buy you a war game, you treat me even more rudely than before and you bully your classmates at school.”
At this the little boy began screaming even louder. “GIVE ME MY WAR! If you don’t, I’ll tell Mom you were mean to me, and then she’ll get full custody and you’ll never see me again. I don’t care how much it costs. I WANT MY WAR!”
By this time the crowd was clearly siding with the father. They called out encouraging words to him. “Stand up to the little brat.” “Say no for once.” “Be a father to the kid and teach him how to act.” The father looked miserable. He obviously knew Georgie shouldn’t get the game, but he was also terrified of losing custody of the kid to his ex-wife.
“Okay, okay,” cried the father at last. “Have it your way. You can have your 'Attack Iraq!' video game. Just promise me that you’ll stop cheating at school, do your chores at home, quit beating up your classmates, and not ask for any more war games, okay?”
As the father handed his Visa card to the cashier, the little boy looked back at the astonished crowd and stuck out his tongue. Then he looked up at his father and smiled sweetly. “Yes, Father. Whatever you say.” ------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to engdep-l, the discussion list for the English Department at Illinois State University. To join or leave the list: http://www.english.ilstu.edu/join.html List archives: http://listserv.ilstu.edu/archives/engdep-l.html
To which there is a response of:
At 04:47 PM 10/9/2002 +0000, you wrote:
Dr. B-----
Quite a creative tale, but rhetorically impotent to those wanting to protect this nation. Those citizens not wasting time at teach-ins and peace vigils know that Iraq possesses dangerous weapons that could harm Americans, a risk not worth taking to most of us.
This morning I read a friend's copy of "Social Studies and the Young Learner"--a publication from the National Council for the Social Studies. This issue, titled "Citizenship and Governance," profiled several young students between the ages of five and eight, and asked their opinion on the role of the President. The interviewer asks, "What are some of the things that the United States government does?" A third-grader responds, "They probably call up certain places to solve the problems that need to be solved [Iraq]...and if there's this really, really hard-to-catch killer on the loose, then they'd probably call in a couple of army men--they'd call up the nation of armies and they'd say, 'I want about 50 people going here and there and surround this person,' and they just keep scooching in until they get him."
Maybe there is hope for today's early education after all. This country needs decision-makers and a no-nonsense youth willing to "scooch" in and actually...solve problems. As for the selfish brat at Toys-R-Us, methinks Daddy needs to get a grip.
To which Zach then gets all mad and red faced and replies:
Subject: Re: citizenship & Iraq
To: ENGDEP-L@listserv.ilstu.edu
Cc: zskuhn@ilstu.edu
Mr. B------ and all:
I would have to argue that "those wanting to protect this nation" include Dr. B-----. It is sadly typical of those who are for an action of War to bottle their opposition up and label them "cowards" or "idiots". I have "wasted my time" over the past month and a half by questioning the intent of President Bush (and his advisors, who it was made clear from the get go were Bush's decision-makers) and whether this "schooching in" was for the purpose of protecting the citizens of this country from a clear enemy or if it was to:
a. Move public attention away from the scandals at home (Bush's undisputed connections to the financial crisis; the failure of the Bush Tax-Cut to do anything but make that 1% richer and the rest of us lose public funding for important programs)
b. Protect our growing dependence on the Middle East for oil
c. Move public attention away from the fact that Operation Snow Eagle or whatever they call our "War on Terrorism" has failed to capture Osama Bin Laden or any of his higher-ups (see a recent New Yorker article called "The Man Behind Bin Laden" by Lawrence Wright)
d. Destroy the campaigns of Democrats and Independents who were on the verge of a major political (dare I call it a) regime change by accusing them of being "Un-American" in their refusal to accept blindly the terms of the Bush Administration (one need only look back over a few New York Times articles about Republican Strategist Karl Rove to find proof that this was, indeed, a part of the plan)
e. Give something for Bush to use in his next campaign to prove he's "a man of the people" (though less than half of the people voted for him, but let's not...)
There are no links between Sadam Hussein and Al Qaeda, other than a report of a report that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague. If Bush wants this to be a war on terrorism, he needs to push harder in the war that the people (via their elected officials) consented he wage. Asking the American people now to fight Hussein is not only morally unjust (how can the average separate Al Qaeda and Hussein without being called a "Terrorist" themselves?) but it is against the consent of a majority of Americans, despite what the polls show. I cite a recent interview done by Chris Matthews on Hardball with Senator John Kerrey of Massachusetts at the Citadel (hardly a friendly atmosphere to a man who protested the VietNam war after fighting bravely and being decorated!!!) where Matthews had the crowd on their feet when he asked them "Who here wants to go to Iraq and take down Hussein!?" Kerrey smiled, and agreed, that he too would like to see Hussein gone. But, he said, "That may be trying some people’s patience, but let me tell you something. When the bullets are flying, and the body bags are coming home, and the nation’s resolve is being tested, we will be glad that we went the last measure of effort so that we understood when we look at a parent and say this is why your son or daughter died, we explain, we tried everything."
What many of us "wasting our time" are attempting to do is force our President to participate in an action that has not only the consent of our government (and we are not the only people in the world who matter, sir) but also the consent of the United Nations. Why kill thousands of innocent civilians in an unprovoked attack? Why "schooch" Hussein back when no other country sees the need to? France is a more direct target of Iraq than we are, and are they on the boat to destroy and topple Hussein? It doesn't make sense, at least to me, to attack a country for the possibility that they may do something wrong in the future. Hussein having biological weapons isn't any scarier to me than the existence of those weapons within my country.
I am not against war. I think that in certain situations acts of physical self-defense are called for and justified. In this, I know, I differ from Dr. B----. Christopher Hitchens recently wrote a profound reasoning for war in The Nation that, while I disagreed with it, I respected the way in which he attempted to open a dialogue between the anti-war Left and the itching-for-war Right. Both sides are informed and both sides are dug in and keeping their powder dry. But it is hardly fair to cite the reactions of elementary school children, whose only mode of questioning shoots straight through their parents and their teachers and whose capabilities for searching out unbiased sources are scant at best, as a reason to attack a country that has never done anything more than disobey us.
(apologies for any errors, I wrote this fast)
Zach
To which the response is:
Well, nothing. He, Eric B_____, attacked some other person who responded to him, but said/wrote nothing to me. The listserv jumped to my defense (one professor calling it "The most intelligent thing ever written on this listserv" (Sound of Zach blushing and patting his own fucking back)) quickly, and many of my fellow fellows said "I would have written that, but..." People like this can't just bully their way around life cos we, as the progressives, feel like they have a right to their opinion. They do, but they don't have the right to bully, and that's how Dubya ended up where he is, and how Ann Coulter gets away with Slanderous Lies, and how Limbaugh et.al. make a living.
Anywho.
Next five: "born into giving it up" by richard buckner (thanks to Chris G. for recommending this, as well as for paging my name over the intercom at Best Buy, which, honestly, didn't happen that much when I worked there due to the fact that, well, I wasn't well known there.); "colour" by waxwing (although I want to protest their cheesy use of a Freeman speech from The Shawshank Redemption in one of the other songs from their very great new album); "Misunderstood" by wilco; "didn't I just tell you something about not telling me what the fuck you want from me?" by lois lane; and "lord let me die with a hammer in my hand" by themtsthelens.
in the (computer lab) stereo: Richard Buckner (Good job, Chris!)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home