Here is an interesting opinion piece, laundry listing a serious of awards going to criminals or miscreants, both political and otherwise...
Reading through it, I was asking myself, "Man, what were they thinking when they gave an award to a lady who killed her baby and herself. What were they thinking when they gave an award to a convicted fellon... etc. What WERE they thinking!?"
Then when I finished reading his laundry list, I started searching the web just to find out what THEY were thinking. In some of the cases the opinion piece tended to leave out the details that help explain, what they were thinking.
However in other cases, I can see valid criticism. Anyway, I have not had a chance to search for all of the stories he listed, but I open this thread for those who have more input on the various awards to please enlighten us a little on the story.
The one that I knew of straight off, was the Tookie Williams execution. Yeah he was considered for a big award.. twice, it was called the Nobel Peace Prize... After watching the Jamie Fox made for TV movie about this now executed man, I could understand what THEY were thinking when they considered giving him that award.
Anyway... please post your ideas... as the list is crucial to this debate, I will paste it here, instead of providing the usual link.
Quote from yahoo opinion »
*Stanford University gives the Allan Cox medal each year for faculty excellence in guiding student research. Cox was a professor of geophysics and dean of the school of earth sciences at Stanford. He committed suicide in 1987 while under investigation for sexually molesting the son of a former student. The molesting allegedly went on for five years, starting when the boy was 14.
*One of the most elegant prep schools, Phillips Exeter Academy, gives an annual Edmund E. Perry Award for "diversity and cultural awareness." Perry was an outstanding black student at Phillips Exeter who was shot to death in Harlem while trying to mug a plainclothes cop.
*Convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal has been honored as a commencement speaker (via audiotape) at Antioch College, Evergreen State University, Occidental University and the University of California-Santa Cruz.
*Warren Kimbo confessed to shooting a fellow Black Panther in the back of the head. After his release from prison, he was accepted at Harvard, then served as a dean at Eastern Connecticut State University.
*Susan Rosenberg, an advocate of "collective violence" against the U.S. government, was caught with nearly 700 pounds of explosives in 1984, and went to prison to begin serving a 58-year term. She was pardoned by Bill Clinton, then hired as a writing instructor by Hamilton College in upstate New York, the institution that gave us Ward Churchill. Her course was in "Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity and Change."
*Bard College notoriously maintains a chair in social studies named for Alger Hiss, the communist spy, traitor and perjurer. This is perhaps the stupidest honor given anywhere in America. The University of Washington's Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies is named for the late and powerful labor leader, who was a communist, a perjurer and an apologist for Stalin.
*Last year the Borough of Manhattan Community College in New York announced a new scholarship named for Ho Chi Minh and another honoring Joanne Chesimard, the former Black Panther and convicted murderer of a New Jersey police officer. Both scholarships were quickly renamed after protests.
*Stanford Law School paid Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who had been indicted for aiding Islamic terrorists, to speak and mentor students at a conference. After loud complaints, the school withdrew the word "mentor" from her conference title, but let her conduct mentoring and deliver her lecture anyway. Since then, she has been convicted on all five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government.
*Jeffrey Eden, a 17-year-old Rhode Island student, created a high-school art project comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, complete with three swastikas, little toy figurines and several slogans. One slogan was "Hitler's own justification was his own hatred." The Bush-equals-Hitler artwork was just what some people wanted to see. It got an A from his teacher and a silver key at the Rhode Island scholastic art awards.
*Villanova University installed a memorial plaque honoring a professor who killed her Down syndrome baby and herself in 2003. After protests, including some from parents of Down children, the plaque was removed. A spokesman said, "At no time did the university nor anyone associated with the university intend to devalue the sanctity of life."
*And we have the awards that many Austrians and other Europeans wanted to bestow on Tookie Williams, the unusually vicious multiple murderer who was executed in California late last year. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize by opponents of the death penalty, and when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Williams clemency, a drive began to remove Arnold's name from an Austrian sports stadium and dedicate the building to Tookie instead. Awards are the new frontier of moral confusion.
well i personally have no prob with Tookie, and as i h8 teh death penalty and ahnold, i support teh Austrians, and i love the idea of Bush=Hitler in art(i h8 bushikins)
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Perhaps I'm one of the more egalitarian people on this board, and knew that many of the details were being left out of these alleged 'travesties of morality'. There is real danger in passing judgment about people, who have the capacity to change, and grow, and atone for the evils they have caused. A gang member can in fact go on to repent for his misdeeds, serve his time, and sober up enough to be a spokesman for peaceful resolution of conflict. A woman tormented by postpartum depression can in fact be treated and realize the grave mistake she has made, without compromising her committment to her academic duties, ironically these may have brought her some measure of strength and stability. There are more effective and constructive ways of ensuring true repentance for evil.
On the other hand, academia is very skilled at turning a blind eye to one's personal and moral conduct, so long as the University's nebulous conditions for leadership are met. I, for one, don't think Tookie would have ever been able to atone for the dozens, nay hundreds, of deaths properly laid at his doorstep.
Who ever remembers the truly good? Infamy lives longer in human memory and history.
While I will agree with memory, I'm not quite so sure about history. For instance, who are our most famous presidents? Who are the most famous religious leaders? While you do raise a good point, it's not always that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
I think a major flaw with the writer's glib argument, was the idea that a person's crimes defines that person. I believe people can redeem themselves, or atleast do their best to try. Often these awards are given irrespective of the person's faults. In some cases, regardless of if they are a felon or a nun in the catholic church, the things they are being awarded for are worthy of recognition.
For example Hitler. If the fashion world post humously awarded Hitler for innovation in fashion design, would that be morally repulsive? (Putting aside the menacing ideas that the Nazis represent, those Nazi uniforms were pretty spiffy) While my example is contrived, I hope it illustrates my point. I can see the opinion piece author's perspective though. Perhaps it is unecessary to recognize the achievements of morally corrupt individuals, even if their achievements are worthy of noteriety.
However, in the Williams case, it would have been a loss if his books were completely ignored. So at some point the obvious headline opposition to such awards needs to looked at a little deeper... Thus this thread.
I'm sorry, but this piece is quite slanted. Mumia Abu-Jamal is indeed a convicted cop killer. However, whether he was rightly convicted or not, is the question, and is the reason you see "Free Mumia" bumper stickers and flags. A site which promotes Mumia's case says this:
New evidence, including the recantation of a key eyewitness, new ballistic and forensic evidence and a confession from Arnold Beverly (one of the two killers of Officer Faulkner) points to his innocence
Anyway, the others on the list are similarly slanted, in many cases. Susan Rosenberg, for instance, appeared on DemocracyNow! where Amy Goodman introduced her saying of her 58 year sentence and pardon by Clinton which your opinion piece's author bemoans, "Under normal circumstances, say her lawyers, the crime would have drawn a five year term. But Rosenberg's case was politically charged."
Anyway, my opinion of the author's piece is as follows. Clearly he/she believes that a conviction in the US is akin to the word of God. If the jury says you did it, then you did it. Our justice system is infallible.
This is purely nonsense.
I think opinion pieces like this are more a sign of "moral confusion" than any of the issues he/she cited.
*Stanford University gives the Allan Cox medal each year for faculty excellence in guiding student research. Cox was a professor of geophysics and dean of the school of earth sciences at Stanford. He committed suicide in 1987 while under investigation for sexually molesting the son of a former student. The molesting allegedly went on for five years, starting when the boy was 14.
So he was a good teacher, who happened to also be accused of child molesting and killed himself. Doesn't seem to make any difference to how good a teacher he was, though.
*One of the most elegant prep schools, Phillips Exeter Academy, gives an annual Edmund E. Perry Award for "diversity and cultural awareness." Perry was an outstanding black student at Phillips Exeter who was shot to death in Harlem while trying to mug a plainclothes cop.
Also seems a little irrelevant, in the same token as the above.
*Convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal has been honored as a commencement speaker (via audiotape) at Antioch College, Evergreen State University, Occidental University and the University of California-Santa Cruz.
*Warren Kimbo confessed to shooting a fellow Black Panther in the back of the head. After his release from prison, he was accepted at Harvard, then served as a dean at Eastern Connecticut State University.
Well, God forbid people with criminal records might be allowed to, you know, do anything.
*Susan Rosenberg, an advocate of "collective violence" against the U.S. government, was caught with nearly 700 pounds of explosives in 1984, and went to prison to begin serving a 58-year term. She was pardoned by Bill Clinton, then hired as a writing instructor by Hamilton College in upstate New York, the institution that gave us Ward Churchill. Her course was in "Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity and Change."
Sounds like she's aptly suited to this position.
*Bard College notoriously maintains a chair in social studies named for Alger Hiss, the communist spy, traitor and perjurer. This is perhaps the stupidest honor given anywhere in America. The University of Washington's Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies is named for the late and powerful labor leader, who was a communist, a perjurer and an apologist for Stalin.
They shouldn't be honoured because they were communists? What is this, the 50s?
*Last year the Borough of Manhattan Community College in New York announced a new scholarship named for Ho Chi Minh and another honoring Joanne Chesimard, the former Black Panther and convicted murderer of a New Jersey police officer. Both scholarships were quickly renamed after protests.
So what's the problem?
*Stanford Law School paid Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who had been indicted for aiding Islamic terrorists, to speak and mentor students at a conference. After loud complaints, the school withdrew the word "mentor" from her conference title, but let her conduct mentoring and deliver her lecture anyway. Since then, she has been convicted on all five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government.
Her crimes are also rather irrelevant to this.
*Jeffrey Eden, a 17-year-old Rhode Island student, created a high-school art project comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, complete with three swastikas, little toy figurines and several slogans. One slogan was "Hitler's own justification was his own hatred." The Bush-equals-Hitler artwork was just what some people wanted to see. It got an A from his teacher and a silver key at the Rhode Island scholastic art awards.
Good on them for looking at the art and not at the political message. Gee, with this and that communist thing I wonder which major party this fellow supports?
*Villanova University installed a memorial plaque honoring a professor who killed her Down syndrome baby and herself in 2003. After protests, including some from parents of Down children, the plaque was removed. A spokesman said, "At no time did the university nor anyone associated with the university intend to devalue the sanctity of life."
See, they put up the memorial for one reason (honouring a good professor), and took it down when it was pointed out that it may be interpretted as an endorsement of the less favourable aspects of said professor. What's the problem?
*And we have the awards that many Austrians and other Europeans wanted to bestow on Tookie Williams, the unusually vicious multiple murderer who was executed in California late last year. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize by opponents of the death penalty, and when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Williams clemency, a drive began to remove Arnold's name from an Austrian sports stadium and dedicate the building to Tookie instead.
A misguided crusade, much like this list.
Awards are the new frontier of moral confusion.
Well they certainly seem to have confused this person, who apparently can't tell the difference between the good things people do and the bad things people do.
I seached the web and saw the kid's art project... For a 17 year old, artistically it definately was not worthy of an A (very amaturish)... but I don't think the author's criticism was based on the pieces artistic merits. I doubt that the teacher's approval was either, for that matter.
When I first started reading this list, I was sure it was the product of David Horrowitz or his ilk (nowhere else does whining about academia and total irrelevance coincide more completely). Like pretty much everyone else on this thread, I'm a little disheartened by the author's inability to distinguish an individual from their acts.
But I found the fact that this guy apparently gets paid to complain about high school art projects even more ridiculous. As a culture warrior, I realize that Leo feels it his duty to attack any social mores that deviate from his conception of the norm. But stuff like this goes to emphasize just how much his side is winning.
The Ward Churchill thing epitomizes why this is stupid. For those of you unfamiliar, Churchill was a professor who was fired from Hamilton college after he said some legitimately inflammatory things about the U.S. in regards to our post-9/11 foreign policy. Right wing pundits went into a frenzy, claiming that he was evidence of the left's deadly stranglehold over the higher-education system, which would surely DESTROY AMERICA. Now, Hamilton is an extremely small and isolated college in upstate N.Y. (I applied there, and know an alumna). Their student body is somewhere around 1000. How many students could he have possibly taught over his career? Having a few hundred students exposed to an authoritative person with badly formed opinions is the best evidence you can come up with for the liberal plot against America?
I'm a writer, and the fact that most of the above examples don't even reach that level of seriousness is both comforting and scary to me. Comforting in that there are people who will pay you to write pretty much anything. Scary for the same reason.
Yes, this is pretty slanted. There is a strong conservative tradition of viewing matters in black-and-white terms. A person's conduct outside of the classroom or official duty is just as important and defining of their worth to society, as what they do in the classroom or public office. It's a fear of setting a precedent for people of questionable personal conduct to become role models.
Where "questionable personal conduct" could mean whatever the writer wishes, from wanton homicide to anti-government sentiment.
It could even mean your personal failures, foibles, emotional problems, and youthful indiscretions. Things which affect nobody else, but which some official or editorialist deems unworthy of public acceptance.
It's really a slippery slope, in both directions. I for one do not relish the day when convicted multiple murderers win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that's because I tend to agree that people must live with the choices they've made and atone for their wrongdoings sufficiently before proceeding to a place of respect and honor in society. How can you atone for legions of young black males and innocent bystanders lost to drive-bys and gang violence in this country? It can't be done in a single lifetime.
In the spirit of erikcu's request to examine the facts behind each claim...
*Stanford Law School paid Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who had been indicted for aiding Islamic terrorists, to speak and mentor students at a conference. After loud complaints, the school withdrew the word "mentor" from her conference title, but let her conduct mentoring and deliver her lecture anyway. Since then, she has been convicted on all five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government.
I looked Lynn Stewart up (and can find the links again if neccessary) and her charges of "aiding Islamic terrorists" stem from her being an attorney who specializes in civil rights, and her apparent willingness to defend alleged terrorist prisoners (oops, I mean 'detainees'). From what I read, the worst thing she did (which, really was kinda stupid) was deliver a message from a client to his supporters in his home country that contained inciteful anti-U.S. language.
Disgraceful. I mean, it's not like Bush has formed a Homeland Security office, invaded other countries or thrown people into concentration camps without even a trial.
Oh, wait...
A U.S.-controlled prison, even when torture occurs, is a far cry from a concentration camp.
A U.S.-controlled prison, even when torture occurs, is a far cry from a concentration camp.
Not too far a cry. Check this interesting piece out. It compares two news pieces, one from present day america, one from 1933 Germany. Here's the two for those who don't want to read the only-slightly-longer piece in its entirety:
Quote from American Piece »
The federal government has awarded a $385 million contract for the construction of 'temporary detention facilities' inside the United States as part of the Immigration Service's Detention and Removal Program. The contract was given to Kellogg, Root & Brown, a subsidiary of Halliburton. The camps would be used in the event of an "emergency", said Jamie Zuieback, an Immigration service official.
Quote from German Piece »
A Concentration Camp for Political Prisoners in the Dachau Area In a statement to the press, Himmler, Munich's Chief of Police announced: On Wednesday the first concentration camp will be opened near Dachau. It has a capacity of 5000 people. Here, all communist and-so far as is necessary- Reichsbanner and Marxist officials, who endanger the security of the state, will be assembled. In the long run, if government administration is not to be very burdened, it is not possible to allow individual communist officials to remain in court custody. On the other hand, it is also not possible to allow these officials their freedom again. Each time we have attempted this, the result was that they again tried to agitate and organize. We have taken these measures without concern for each pedantic objection encountered, in the conviction that we act to calm the concerns of the nation's people, and in accordance with their aims. Himmler gave assurance that in each individual case, preventive custody will not be maintained longer than necessary. It is obvious, however, that the astonishingly large quantity of material evidence seized will take a long time to be examined. This police will only be delayed, if they are continually asked when this or that person in preventive custody will be released. The incorrectness of rumors frequently spread regarding the treatment of prisoners is shown by the fact that for those prisoners who requested it, for example, Dr. Gerlich and Frhr. v. Aretin, counseling by priests is supported and approved without hesitation.
Anyway, the author's point is well taken. Concentration camps were conceived initially in the same spirit as Gitmo, and now this new sweetheart Haliburton deal.
I don't understand how anyone can be so scared that they're willing to give up their basic (and really minimal) freedoms for the sake of some perceived "security" when clearly the vast majority of actions thus far taken since 9-11 by our government have made us far more unsafe than ever. And I still don't feel scared, personally. Who buys into this culture of fear? I mean, WAKE UP! We are building concentration camps, and they're just new ones to add to the list of already-fully-operational camps all over the world. Why else do you need a base like Gitmo, off US soil and not bound by our legal framework, unless what you're doing there isn't on the up and up?
"It's a different world, after 9-11," they say. "This is a different kind of war." Nonsense. It's Nazi propaganda in its purest, most recognizable form: fear-mongering jingoism.
Anyway, I think Jedit is absolutely right, and that the comparison is apt.
Let me put it this way: given a choice, I would not choose a Nazi concentration camp. But that's just me, I guess...
Interesting choice... would you rather be a Communist in a Nazi concentration camp or a Muslim in an American concentration camp... Sound's like one of those rhetorical question polls that pop in the debate forums from time to time.
Strawman. As ouallada pointed out, Gitmo has an identical model to Dachau as founded. You therefore cannot deny the assertion that America has concentration camps into which people are thrown without trial by saying that people aren't exterminated in Gitmo; all that's doing is claiming that American concentration camps are "better" than those of the Nazis.
Sorry. Since the comparison was Bush:Hitler I assumed we were talking about camps on the level of the Nazis.
The term "concentration camp" by itself is a relative term. Attica could be called a concentration camp with little trouble. I was just going on the context of the conversation.
I seached the web and saw the kid's art project... For a 17 year old, artistically it definately was not worthy of an A (very amaturish)... but I don't think the author's criticism was based on the pieces artistic merits. I doubt that the teacher's approval was either, for that matter.
I guess there is no accounting for taste in art.
Even so, the quality of the artwork is never brought into question. Indeed, for most of these points there is suspiciously no mention of the quality of someone's work. It's always "This person kill X" or "that person was guilty of Y" with no mention of any other variables. For someone who's complaining about morally dubious awards, this person seems to place a great deal of importance on whatever bad things a person might have allegedly done when deciding how to honour them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reading through it, I was asking myself, "Man, what were they thinking when they gave an award to a lady who killed her baby and herself. What were they thinking when they gave an award to a convicted fellon... etc. What WERE they thinking!?"
Then when I finished reading his laundry list, I started searching the web just to find out what THEY were thinking. In some of the cases the opinion piece tended to leave out the details that help explain, what they were thinking.
However in other cases, I can see valid criticism. Anyway, I have not had a chance to search for all of the stories he listed, but I open this thread for those who have more input on the various awards to please enlighten us a little on the story.
The one that I knew of straight off, was the Tookie Williams execution. Yeah he was considered for a big award.. twice, it was called the Nobel Peace Prize... After watching the Jamie Fox made for TV movie about this now executed man, I could understand what THEY were thinking when they considered giving him that award.
Anyway... please post your ideas... as the list is crucial to this debate, I will paste it here, instead of providing the usual link.
Please improve your posting style.
Furor
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
On the other hand, academia is very skilled at turning a blind eye to one's personal and moral conduct, so long as the University's nebulous conditions for leadership are met. I, for one, don't think Tookie would have ever been able to atone for the dozens, nay hundreds, of deaths properly laid at his doorstep.
Who ever remembers the truly good? Infamy lives longer in human memory and history.
While I will agree with memory, I'm not quite so sure about history. For instance, who are our most famous presidents? Who are the most famous religious leaders? While you do raise a good point, it's not always that way.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
For example Hitler. If the fashion world post humously awarded Hitler for innovation in fashion design, would that be morally repulsive? (Putting aside the menacing ideas that the Nazis represent, those Nazi uniforms were pretty spiffy) While my example is contrived, I hope it illustrates my point. I can see the opinion piece author's perspective though. Perhaps it is unecessary to recognize the achievements of morally corrupt individuals, even if their achievements are worthy of noteriety.
However, in the Williams case, it would have been a loss if his books were completely ignored. So at some point the obvious headline opposition to such awards needs to looked at a little deeper... Thus this thread.
Anyway, my opinion of the author's piece is as follows. Clearly he/she believes that a conviction in the US is akin to the word of God. If the jury says you did it, then you did it. Our justice system is infallible.
This is purely nonsense.
I think opinion pieces like this are more a sign of "moral confusion" than any of the issues he/she cited.
That's my 2 cents.
Check out the blog too.
As for Warren Kimbo, why is being allowed to get an education after getting out of jail such an outrage?
And Ho Chi Minh? Who were the ad wizards that came up with this one?
So he was a good teacher, who happened to also be accused of child molesting and killed himself. Doesn't seem to make any difference to how good a teacher he was, though.
Also seems a little irrelevant, in the same token as the above.
Well, God forbid people with criminal records might be allowed to, you know, do anything.
Sounds like she's aptly suited to this position.
They shouldn't be honoured because they were communists? What is this, the 50s?
So what's the problem?
Her crimes are also rather irrelevant to this.
Good on them for looking at the art and not at the political message. Gee, with this and that communist thing I wonder which major party this fellow supports?
See, they put up the memorial for one reason (honouring a good professor), and took it down when it was pointed out that it may be interpretted as an endorsement of the less favourable aspects of said professor. What's the problem?
A misguided crusade, much like this list.
Well they certainly seem to have confused this person, who apparently can't tell the difference between the good things people do and the bad things people do.
I guess there is no accounting for taste in art.
But I found the fact that this guy apparently gets paid to complain about high school art projects even more ridiculous. As a culture warrior, I realize that Leo feels it his duty to attack any social mores that deviate from his conception of the norm. But stuff like this goes to emphasize just how much his side is winning.
The Ward Churchill thing epitomizes why this is stupid. For those of you unfamiliar, Churchill was a professor who was fired from Hamilton college after he said some legitimately inflammatory things about the U.S. in regards to our post-9/11 foreign policy. Right wing pundits went into a frenzy, claiming that he was evidence of the left's deadly stranglehold over the higher-education system, which would surely DESTROY AMERICA. Now, Hamilton is an extremely small and isolated college in upstate N.Y. (I applied there, and know an alumna). Their student body is somewhere around 1000. How many students could he have possibly taught over his career? Having a few hundred students exposed to an authoritative person with badly formed opinions is the best evidence you can come up with for the liberal plot against America?
I'm a writer, and the fact that most of the above examples don't even reach that level of seriousness is both comforting and scary to me. Comforting in that there are people who will pay you to write pretty much anything. Scary for the same reason.
Where "questionable personal conduct" could mean whatever the writer wishes, from wanton homicide to anti-government sentiment.
It could even mean your personal failures, foibles, emotional problems, and youthful indiscretions. Things which affect nobody else, but which some official or editorialist deems unworthy of public acceptance.
It's really a slippery slope, in both directions. I for one do not relish the day when convicted multiple murderers win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that's because I tend to agree that people must live with the choices they've made and atone for their wrongdoings sufficiently before proceeding to a place of respect and honor in society. How can you atone for legions of young black males and innocent bystanders lost to drive-bys and gang violence in this country? It can't be done in a single lifetime.
I looked Lynn Stewart up (and can find the links again if neccessary) and her charges of "aiding Islamic terrorists" stem from her being an attorney who specializes in civil rights, and her apparent willingness to defend alleged terrorist prisoners (oops, I mean 'detainees'). From what I read, the worst thing she did (which, really was kinda stupid) was deliver a message from a client to his supporters in his home country that contained inciteful anti-U.S. language.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Not too far a cry. Check this interesting piece out. It compares two news pieces, one from present day america, one from 1933 Germany. Here's the two for those who don't want to read the only-slightly-longer piece in its entirety:
Anyway, the author's point is well taken. Concentration camps were conceived initially in the same spirit as Gitmo, and now this new sweetheart Haliburton deal.
I don't understand how anyone can be so scared that they're willing to give up their basic (and really minimal) freedoms for the sake of some perceived "security" when clearly the vast majority of actions thus far taken since 9-11 by our government have made us far more unsafe than ever. And I still don't feel scared, personally. Who buys into this culture of fear? I mean, WAKE UP! We are building concentration camps, and they're just new ones to add to the list of already-fully-operational camps all over the world. Why else do you need a base like Gitmo, off US soil and not bound by our legal framework, unless what you're doing there isn't on the up and up?
"It's a different world, after 9-11," they say. "This is a different kind of war." Nonsense. It's Nazi propaganda in its purest, most recognizable form: fear-mongering jingoism.
Anyway, I think Jedit is absolutely right, and that the comparison is apt.
Check out the blog too.
Interesting choice... would you rather be a Communist in a Nazi concentration camp or a Muslim in an American concentration camp... Sound's like one of those rhetorical question polls that pop in the debate forums from time to time.
The term "concentration camp" by itself is a relative term. Attica could be called a concentration camp with little trouble. I was just going on the context of the conversation.
Even so, the quality of the artwork is never brought into question. Indeed, for most of these points there is suspiciously no mention of the quality of someone's work. It's always "This person kill X" or "that person was guilty of Y" with no mention of any other variables. For someone who's complaining about morally dubious awards, this person seems to place a great deal of importance on whatever bad things a person might have allegedly done when deciding how to honour them.