Rambling Rhodes

It kind of pisses me off that you seem to take these two guys, who were clearly mentally masturbating one another in a way that I find repulsive (especially when I hear liberals doing it...gah) and assuming that their idea that "9-11 wasn't that bad" is held by some assumed group of people. Maybe it's me being overly sensitive and paranoid - I KNOW that I don't think that way - but I feel included in that group, as a liberal, and that's what pisses me off. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, though. Who, exactly, are you assuming additionally feels the way those guys feel? Whose opinions are you stereo-typing because you overheard this? Maybe if it's not mine, I'll somehow feel better. I AM surprised by their opinions.

I'm not lumping anyone into any particular group. I'm simply relating that there are some people today who honestly don't think 9/11 wasn't that significant. I imagine there are liberals AND conservatives who think along those lines. I say this because one of the two young men I overheard was wearing a "Git er done" tee shirt (and it was snowing outside).

Not to be all contrary or nothing, but I noticed you were okay with making light of Katrina much sooner after the fact than 9-11, and seem to have taken a "not such a big deal" kind of position a few times. I am not suggesting that you lack compassion for those who lost love ones or their homes and livelihoods, but it does seem that the "importance" of a particular tragedy has a lot to do with how it fits into one's particular world view.

I heard a fair amount of conversations when I was in Canada last year, some from Canucks and some Europeans, that amounted to "9-11 was bad but the Americans totally blew it out of proportion." The point I heard a lot was how on a strict body-count basis there are plenty of worse tragedies, although I doubt a Brit would accept this argument as a dismissal of the importance of the tube bombings. Sometimes it's simple proximity and sometimes it's ideology, but it does seem that nearly everybody gives different disasters different "weights" depending on their perspective.

Their remarks were in poor taste, but it strikes me as unlikely that those guys were really advocating "absorbing more going forward." Maybe their blasé attitude is more a reflection of burnout from hearing 9-11 evoked too many times as the single defining event of our times. Or maybe they're just dumbasses.

Oh, I was pretty well shocked by the effects of Katrina, but that was quickly buried by the barrage of finger pointing as to who was to blame.

If I made light of Katrina sooner than was expected, it's probably because of the distinction I draw between a natural disaster tragedy and, you know, being attacked.

I mean, if my house is blown away by a tornado, I be like "man, that sucks but, weather, what're gonna do?" However, if some fucker runs by and jams a knife between my ribs, damnit, my reaction is kind of going to be considerably different.

Whereas, for instance, I look at events like this year's hurricane season and other meteorological anamolies in light of the predictions I've been reading for the last fifteen years or so about projected changes in weather patterns and effects on coastal cities. So Katrina is significant to me not just because my family members have been personally affected, but because it fits into a pattern with my larger worldview.

Just as you seem to be saying "that was bad, but let's move on" with regards to Katrina, there is an equivalent fatigue among some people who've been told that terrorism is the only relevant issue they should ever concern themselves with. I tend to think that any event that causes a bunch of people to die should be examined so that we can determine how best to prevent or at least reduce the impact of future events. If the answer is ultimately "nothing could have been done, we did everything right and reacting differently next time is unlikely to save additional lives" then fine, but at least the questions should be asked.

I also think that the guy who sticks a knife between your ribs, in your example, is a much simpler and more visceral concept to wrap one's head around than " gradual shifts in the climate might cause large-scale problems over the next several decades." In the case of the former there is a clear enemy, a nice convenient focus for action. In the latter instance there are just lots of confusing questions. That does not mean, however, that the first type of threat is the only type that we should ever consider of plan for.

I realize I'm rambling. In summation, I'd like to say: Those guys you overheard, probably just dumbasses.

Back to the political blogging, huh Ryan?

I don't know if this qualifies as political blogging. But, even if it does, I guess. . . so what? I can post what I want, when I want. Saying I'm backing away from political blogging in some previous post doesn't automatically pre-empt me from ever blogging about it again. You little button pusher you.

(evil laugh)