You are here:
Geekery Today: posts from November 12th, 2003
Roderick Long Unblogs Veteran’s Day (posted 12 November 2003)
Roderick Long calls his blog In a Blog’s Stead because he doesn’t want to update it daily. I don’t think this actually makes it an un-blog (but, being the dilatory updater that I am, I have a vested interest here). On the other hand, you might call what he does un-blogging
in another sense. One of the negative aspects of blogging is the amount of commentary gas that it generates — a circular, self-feeding, self-congratulatory world of opinion-mongering that at times, no longer content with flying away from the facts, generates entirely new misconceptions to propound (can anyone say flypaper?
). Roderick offers something that is desperately needed in the world of weblogging: rational analysis and serious critical engagement. Posts that, so to speak, deflate nonsense rather than bloating it. Consider, for example, his recent un-blog of the pap surrounding Veteran’s Day:
Is it really true that we in the United States owe what freedom we have to U.S. veterans? Certainly the Bill of Rights was made possible by veterans of the American Revolution, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were made possible by veterans of the Civil War. But none of those veterans are currently living. No American war in living memory was one in which the United States was in serious danger of being conquered by a foreign aggressor; hence no living veteran can plausibly claim to have played a role in defending our freedom.
In fact the U.S. government has used each of its wars as a pretext for increased violations of all the rights listed above. (Not that veterans should be blamed for this result; veterans and civilians alike have been victimised by the murderous militarist schemes of politicians.)
…
Roderick goes on to argue that The best way to honour Veteran’s Day is to ensure that we avoid having veterans in the future.
Indeed, I’d like to see the whole of Veteran’s Day
scrapped — or rather, replaced — or rather, reclaimed. I’d like to see the whole day restored to its old identity — Armistice Day. Rather than an exercise in jingoistic militarism, let’s make Armistice Day what it should be — a celebration of the end of a senseless and brutal war, a celebration of the coming of peace, and a solemn remembrance of those who risked and lost their lives before we laid down our arms.
For further reading:
White House Press Flack Tells All (posted 12 November 2003)
I’ve already posted my thoughts for Veteran’s Day in this space; President Bush, meanwhile, got an early start on his Veteran’s Day festivities by refusing to use Saddam Hussein’s seized assets to compensate 17 Gulf War I P.O.W.s who were tortured by Saddam Hussein. Federal law allowed them to sue the regime and to access its seized assets, but here’s what White House Press flack Scott McClellan had to say about that:
(link courtesy of Tom Tomorrow , who got it from The Homeless Guy)
Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration’s position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?
I don’t know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States — first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. That’s what our view is.
But, so — but isn’t it true that this White House —
They think they’re is an —
Excuse me, Helen — that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?
Again, there’s simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering —
Why won’t you spell out what your position is?
I’m coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.
Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?
I disagree with the way you characterize it.
But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn’t that money, per a judge’s order, available to these victims?
That’s why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through —
— you don’t think they should get money?
— at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served —
That’s not the issue —
— who heroically served our nation.
Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?
And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.
No, but it hasn’t been addressed. They’re entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?
I don’t view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was —
But you are opposed to them getting the money.
This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there’s simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein —
So no money.
— and that’s my answer.
