(no subject)
Mar. 27th, 2004 07:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jianantonicI'm in New York City for the weekend. Unfortunately, traffic sucked ass yesterday and I didn't get to meet my niece because we got here after visiting hours were over. The weather is really nice, but this morning it is drizzling a little bit. I'm excited to finally meet Lucy:) My brothers both just woke up so I guess we'll be heading out soon. Last night was full of funny stories, which I'd love to tell, but one of them is terribly incriminating and I'd rather not make it publicly available. However, if you're dying to know (I assure you it's a GREAT story), give me a call and I'll probably be willing to tell you all about it. One that I can tell is that Adrian turned British on us last night. We were driving back to Brooklyn from Manhattan, getting all kinds of lost (A was driving), when we turned down this one way street. All the traffic is in the right lane, so Adrian zips over to the left lane and starts barrelling ahead. All of a sudden, we're face to face with a long line of New York City traffic. Why? Because it wasn't a fucking one way street. :) We didn't die, so I had a good laugh about it and all is well.
On the way up here, Adrian made me listen to Rush Limbaugh for two hours. I really didn't appreciate that at all. One part of the discussion I remember vividly is when Rush had a caller talking about apologies, and how Richard Clark apologized to the American people for Sept. 11. The caller was saying it was a step in the right direction, a step in the healing process, etc. Rush basically disagrees with him but goes on to say, "Who should really be apologizing is Al Qaida, but we know they're not going to apologize, so we have to take them out." I understand that there are unstated premises in this argument, and that Rush doesn't really think (I hope not anyway) that we should destroy anyone who doesn't apologize when they do something wrong, but the way he stated it pissed me off. I mean I disagree with the whole process of this war on terrorism anyway, but the attitudes are what get me the most. Even though he probably didn't mean that if Al Qaida were to apologize, then we wouldn't be at war, he said it that way, in a way that implies that anyone who wrongs the US should be annihilated. They say an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but it sounds like a lot of people these past few years have wanted to take out whole races of people in exchange for those eyes. Where is the line between where an apology will make everything better and the point where an action is so bad that we have to blow up everyone involved in it? There's a lot of middle ground that has gone unconsidered for a long time. Argh I didn't mean to get into all this and now I have a headache and I'm feeling shitty, but I'll get over it. I'm going to meet my niece today:)
Peace. (please?)
On the way up here, Adrian made me listen to Rush Limbaugh for two hours. I really didn't appreciate that at all. One part of the discussion I remember vividly is when Rush had a caller talking about apologies, and how Richard Clark apologized to the American people for Sept. 11. The caller was saying it was a step in the right direction, a step in the healing process, etc. Rush basically disagrees with him but goes on to say, "Who should really be apologizing is Al Qaida, but we know they're not going to apologize, so we have to take them out." I understand that there are unstated premises in this argument, and that Rush doesn't really think (I hope not anyway) that we should destroy anyone who doesn't apologize when they do something wrong, but the way he stated it pissed me off. I mean I disagree with the whole process of this war on terrorism anyway, but the attitudes are what get me the most. Even though he probably didn't mean that if Al Qaida were to apologize, then we wouldn't be at war, he said it that way, in a way that implies that anyone who wrongs the US should be annihilated. They say an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but it sounds like a lot of people these past few years have wanted to take out whole races of people in exchange for those eyes. Where is the line between where an apology will make everything better and the point where an action is so bad that we have to blow up everyone involved in it? There's a lot of middle ground that has gone unconsidered for a long time. Argh I didn't mean to get into all this and now I have a headache and I'm feeling shitty, but I'll get over it. I'm going to meet my niece today:)
Peace. (please?)
