Small Town Veteran: Defending the indefensible

Please support Soldiers' Angels and Project Valour-IT

2006.06.08

Defending the indefensible

TigerHawk is "Defending the indefensible." I'd say he has some very good points. I guess we'll have to be unpopular together.

***

Promoted from the comments:

So someone has finally called out the Jersey Girl Mafia. A couple of years late in my opinion. And it could only have been Ann Coulter. Of course the usual suspects are venting their bile, the more so because they know that Ann scored a direct hit. It is a shame that so many “conservative” paladins have not the courage to stand by a lady when she leads the charge the rest of us might have led even sooner. Thankfully there are still a few men left. Of course these include the Emperor Misha I [Link added -- BF], and Tigerhawk, and most gratifying, our own Small Town Vet, Bill Faith. Embarrassed that I am late to the party. let me hurry to stand by these honorable gentlemen as a fourth. And while Misha and Tigerhawk may squirm a little at Ann’s word “enjoying”, I am not troubled in the least, and think he word most appropriate. Those three women, and by extension Cindy Sheehan, do indeed seem to be enjoying themselves. And no, I do not believe for a moment that any of them have been “stricken mad by grief”.

Apply some common sense psychology. We lost between 3000 - 4000 souls on September 11. We have no reason to believe any were pre-chosen angels ready for Rapture. Only for a few individuals do we know how they met their fates, but as a generalization we can be assured that some died heroically, others with stoic dignity, and still a few others cravenly. That is the selection you get from a group of several thousand people. Likewise, some of them were truly good, and decent people, and others were not so good. Almost certainly a few of the police who perished heroically on the Eleventh were on the take on September 9. For no man is either entirely virtuous or entirely corrupt. And I say this reflecting on my own successes and failures, and those of people with whom I have served.

And it also stands that those thousands of dead, and their survivors, included all the more mundane personal weaknesses and corruptions. Of those three thousand dead, were they all happily and loyally married? Were there none who were dealing with failing marriages on September 10, none who were cheating on their spouses? No abusers or drunks or spendthrifts? And the same questions of their survivors. No vices? Were there none with marital troubles? Out of nearly three thousand couples, were there none who did not hear the news and feel a moment of guilty relief, “good riddance to the cheating bastard”. Or relief that now he won’t make a big deal about “that thing he caught me doing”. Or primarily a worry about the loss of a meal ticket? When considering men who have lost their wives, there is an expectation that some will greet the occasion with mock solemnity before rushing out to find a new trophy replacement. Should we not expect to find even a few such amongst the widows of 9-11?

Such reactions are perfectly normal, but socially unacceptable, and thus those who experience such feelings often may engage in special mind games with themselves. A common example is the old aunt, who dies “years after everyone else hoped she’d go”, finally freeing up her estate. In such situations not only do we feel guilt, we often feel anger, and it is usually displaced against someone other than ourselves. But it cannot well be turned against the poor departed victim. We may blame the doctor whose “incompetence killed Grannie in her ninety-second year”, or we may blame someone else. And sometimes we may even try to use the death to turn our own previously drab lives into something important, and to turn hollowness into meaning. Some may seek celebrity in misfortune, as has happened on a number of occasions recently with the parents of children victimized by crime.

As for the “Nine-Eleven Widows”, or rather a small, select group of them, is it possible that this shoe may fit some of them? Were it a case of “driven mad by grief”, should we expect to see the rage directed at those who actually did the murders? Or would it be expressed randomly and generally in all directions, toward all others who “had the indecency to survive”. Or would it be directed almost exclusively at some other party, not directly implicated, but in some way useful? To ask the questions suggests awkward answers. And let’s press on and ask if the madness is continuous, or expressed under carefully chosen circumstances. The photo of Cindy Sheehan sitting calmly and smiling while being made up for a television performance says it all.

And finally, even granting a perfectly sympathetic explanation for genuine madness, do we let the insane advise us on serious policies, or even topical issues? Should the mad not be cared for gently, and provided with guardians to keep them from harming themselves or others, until they recover their mental facilities? If these women perchance are mad, then they may not deserve padded cells, but equally they should not be paraded in public. And if the media believe they are mad, then why do they continue to focus on what the poor women say? Again, asking the question provides the answer.

And if even some of the Jersey Girls (notice the jaunty moniker) are exploiting their husbands’ deaths for political or personal aggrandizement, then Ann Coulter’s tongue has been not harsh enough by half.

Rurik

Posted by Bill Faith on June 8, 2006 at 08:49 PM in Rurik | Permalink

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defending the indefensible:

Comments

Note: I hate to have to do it but I'm turning on comment and trackback moderation. If you post a legitimate trackback or comment I'll do my best not to be too slow about approving it. If the only reason you're here is to advertise your porn, music, or penis enhancement site you can kiss my sweet ass.

So someone has finally called out the Jersey Girl Mafia. A couple of years late in my opinion. And it could only have been Ann Coulter. Of course the usual suspects are venting their bile, the more so because they know that Ann scored a direct hit. It is a shame that so many “conservative” paladins have not the courage to stand by a lady when she leads the charge the rest of us might have led even sooner. Thankfully there are still a few men left. Of course these include the Emperor Misha I, and Tigerhawk, and most gratifying, our own Small Town Vet, Bill Faith. Embarrassed that I am late to the party. let me hurry to stand by these honorable gentlemen as a fourth. And while Misha and Tiger hawk may squirm a little at Ann’s word “enjoying”, I am not troubled in the least, and think he word most appropriate. Those three women, and by extension Cindy Sheehan, do indeed seem to be enjoying themselves. And no, I do not believe for a moment that any of them have been “stricken mad by grief”. Apply some common sense psychology. We lost between 3000 - 4000 souls on September 11. We have no reason to believe any were pre-chosen angels ready for Rapture. Only for a few individuals do we know how they met their fates, but as a generalization we can be assured that some died heroically, others with stoic dignity, and still a few others cravenly. That is the selection you get from a group of several thousand people. Likewise, some of them were truly good, and decent people, and others were not so good. Almost certainly a few of the police who perished heroically on the Eleventh were on the take on September 9. For no man is either entirely virtuous or entirely corrupt. And I say this reflecting on my own successes and failures, and those of people with whom I have served. And it also stands that those thousands of dead, and their survivors, included all the more mundane personal weaknesses and corruptions. Of those three thousand dead, were they all happily and loyally married? Were there none who were dealing with failing marriages on September 10, none who were cheating on their spouses? No abusers or drunks or spendthrifts? And the same questions of their survivors. No vices? Were there none with marital troubles? Out of nearly three thousand couples, were there none who did not hear the news and feel a moment of guilty relief, “good riddance to the cheating bastard”. Or relief that now he won’t make a big deal about “that thing he caught me doing”. Or primarily a worry about the loss of a meal ticket? When considering men who have lost their wives, there is an expectation that some will greet the occasion with mock solemnity before rushing out to find a new trophy replacement. Should we not expect to find even a few such amongst the widows of 9-11? Such reactions are perfectly normal, but socially unacceptable, and thus those who experience such feelings often may engage in special mind games with themselves. A common example is the old aunt, who dies “years after everyone else hoped she’d go”, finally freeing up her estate. In such situations not only do we feel guilt, we often feel anger, and it is usually displaced against someone other than ourselves. But it cannot well be turned against the poor departed victim. We may blame the doctor whose “incompetence killed Grannie in her ninety-second year”, or we may blame someone else. And sometimes we may even try to use the death to turn our own previously drab lives into something important, and to turn hollowness into meaning. Some may seek celebrity in misfortune, as has happened on a number of occasions recently with the parents of children victimized by crime. As for the “Nine-Eleven Widows”, or rather a small, select group of them, is it possible that this shoe may fit some of them? Were it a case of “driven mad by grief”, should we expect to see the rage directed at those who actually did the murders? Or would it be expressed randomly and generally in all directions, toward all others who “had the indecency to survive”. Or would it be directed almost exclusively at some other party, not directly implicated, but in some way useful? To ask the questions suggests awkward answers. And let’s press on and ask if the madness is continuous, or expressed under carefully chosen circumstances. The photo of Cindy Sheehan sitting calmly and smiling while being made up for a television performance says it all. And finally, even granting a perfectly sympathetic explanation for genuine madness, do we let the insane advise us on serious policies, or even topical issues? Should the mad not be cared for gently, and provided with guardians to keep them from harming themselves or others, until they recover their mental facilities? If these women perchance are mad, then they may not deserve padded cells, but equally they should not be paraded in public. And if the media believe they are mad, then why do they continue to focus on what the poor women say? Again, asking the question provides the answer. And if even some of the Jersey Girls (notice the jaunty moniker) are exploiting their husbands’ deaths for political or personal aggrandizement, then Ann Coulter’s tongue has been not harsh enough by half.

Posted by: Rurik | Jun 8, 2006 7:59:40 PM

Post a comment

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives