Wow. Now I really need to open the damn book

[CelestialBody]

 

[Amused]

If she tears up a picture of the Pope, I might be able to get her a record deal.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

If she tears up a picture of the Pope, I might be able to get her a record deal.

ROTFLMAO!

That was my first comparison also; anybody who cuts off their hair to spite others has about as much maturity as Sinead O'Conner. While I like her music, she has the political maturity of some pre-teen in Junior High.

 

[CelestialBody]

Fire

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[WriterDom]

First there was Hanoi Jane and now we have Kabul Arundhati. Isn't that special?

 

[Amused]

Why doesn't she return the blood money she has earned from her oppressive American publishers?


I don't see that happening.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Even then, it's usually the men that shave their heads, a woman's beauty is her hair.

My point exactly; any person who intentionally makes herself less attractive to call attention to her political views seems immature in my opinion. Ever hear of the phrase, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

She was getting more praise for her looks than her writing-which is rather impressive actually.

I have not read her writing, but such stunts usually put me off, not attract me to read her stuff. But then I probably wouldn't like it anyway given my political leanings (I lean more towards Ayn Rand and Von Mises).

To each their own.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I suggest you try a bit of her writing on for size, she's very coherent, very logical.

Noam Chomsky is, and Nietzsche was, very coherhent and logical, but both are/were wrong in their conclusions.

Don't judge the book by it's cover.

I don't really, but I do judge people by their actions, and such stunts put me off as they seem to show a lack of maturity. Moreover, IMO, anti-nuke, anti-war people are naive - BTDT.

 

[WriterDom]

Anyone else here fighting big dams? First I've heard of the anti-dam group.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I wonder on that. I didn't think Sinead's hair shaving stunt was immature, simply pointless. It didn't accomplish anything.

I believe she herself has admitted it was immature and now regrets her protest actions, including ripping up a photo of the pope.

Anti-nuke people are naive?

Naive in the sense that many want to put the genie back into the bottle, when they had no choice but to let it escape in the first place. It is human nature that nukes would be discovered and developed, and no amount of legislation or protesting, regardless of historical timing would have mattered. Nukes are here, they are not going away until some way of neutralizing/defending against them is developed - deal with it (realistically) and move on. Same for war and violence.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

See

 

[lavender]

 

[Guru]

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I've read the articles. I vehemently disagree. I think this woman is shortsighted. I'm going to pick apart some of the articles, but just a little at a time. Beware, long Lavy post ahead.

I haven't read the articles (not sure where to find them), and you therefore have me at a disadvantage (since I cannot read the full context of the quoted statements) but nontheless I am going to pick apart some of your picking apart.

We are not going to manufacture any enemy.

We do to some degree - that is the nature of war and propoganda, the latter being needed to garner support for a war. We did in the Gulf War to some degree when Hussien was compared to Hitler, we will again. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a somewhat valid observation, as is the rest of the quote to one degree or another, albeit overly polemic (she is a polemicist after all).

Just the same, while her statements have some truth to them, her conclusions are flawed, and the proof will be in the pudding (the ultimate defeat of Afgahnistan).

This is not like past wars. This cannot be compared to Vietnam, the Gulf War, or the Yugoslav conflict.

Actually, I would prefer that it be very much like the Gulf War where we had a clear purpose, and the will and means to achieve that purpose.

As for whether it will be like Vietnam, in some ways there are already parallels, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought, just maybe fought differently.

How could America lose sight of why this war is being fought?

People in general are shortsighted, they will tire of it eventually if the terrorists do not attack again, and the propoganda is not kept up. But that is beside the point and I don't see her making that point in the statement - moreover, it is no reason not to fight the war.

The FBI is just being more cautious than the president. I think the identities are solidly known now, almost 2 months after the attacks.

Agreed, these sound like trivial observations thrown in to bolster her argument (I assume, I haven't read the articles).

No evidence? Whatever. This is just utter rubbish.

Agreed - that is the problem with such absolute statements; had she left out that statement, it would have just been a valid observation. Sometimes polemics don't know how to make subtle arguments, they feel they have to be forceful to drive home their arguments.

This was an attack on our way of life.

Yes it was, but her observation was valid nonetheless; I don't really see a problem with the statement by itself - it sounds like something a strategist would use as preparation for how to structure a position paper on why we should attack Afgahnistan.

Easy answer. You don't kill as many people with the Statue of Liberty.

Agreed, it was a poor argument - even I could do better than that, and I don't get paid near as much as she does (maybe I should go back to writing full time). If these statements are an example of her writing then I stand by my earlier assessment of them.

But to be fair, I should read them in context - where can I find them in their totality?