Blog

11 September 2005

We remember.... right?

My roommate turned to me at 8:30 tonight while we were both busy typing away at our laptops and he said, "Whoa I just realized it was September 11th today." It struck me as odd, but the more I thought about it, I realized I shouldn't really be that surprised?

But before I take off on this subject, and go out on many of those frail limbs I like to perch myself upon, I just want to say that this is nearly an impossible subject to broach without stepping on someone's toes. And so, I apologize in advance. No one should ever forget the sacrafice and sheer atrocity of the events that day four years ago. The memories my fade, but it'll never change that sick feeling anyone with half a social conscious must have felt. Because it was the first day my world stood still, and admittedly, I still get a chill anytime I see 9:11 on a digital clock.

There's really only one question to ask. Has anything really changed since then? I would venture to say no.

So there's a terror level. Red, orange, blue, green, whatever. They raise it sometimes, but for intelligence reasons, don't usually tell us why. So basically the terror color has every appearance of being totally and completely arbitatry. And for all practical purposes, to your average Joe, it is.

So let's look at this War on Terror. We did a pretty bang up job in Afghanistan. I mean, we took out the Taliban. +10 points for us. We used light and fast ground units and tactical strikes to get the job done. Lower casualties that way. +10 more points for us. But in the wake of such a quick regime change, and lacking substantial forces to maintain the peace, the opium drug lords took over and now there's a blossoming illegal substance economy in place. -40 points.

Went to War in Iraq for arguable reasons. The claims "it was just for oil" are just as shaky as "ties to Al Qaeda" so those + and - cancel each other out. +5 points for trying to spread Democracy to the Middle East and renaming the whole proposition "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If you're not cynical, and still believe in the power of democracy to transform a people, as I do, you'll see the inherent good in what we're doing over there in spite of however the war was sold to the American people. But another -5 points for percieved deceit (whether we were actually lied to is irrelevant, because perception is reality) so Iraq's net balance is back to 0.

Toppled Iraq in less than 30 days. +10 points. Captured Saddam. +30 points. Insurgency increasing in size, strength and impact since we got there. -20 points. Iraqi constitution being stifled by minority groups and concerns over Islamic law. - another 20 points. Come on, let's be realistic. If we are going to have democracy in the Middle East, of course it's going to have an Islamic face to it. You have to trust that transforming power of democracy once again to secularize their government over time, as they're ready for it.

I lost track of my points. They were arbitary anyways--just like the terror alert (haha self-referential humor is the stupidest). The important thing is that we're doing something. There's a sports analogy to be made, but I'll save myself the embarrassment and just say if we're going to make a mistake, I'd rather it be through action than inaction. Actions leave only yourself to blame. I guess inaction still leaves only yourself to blame, but you didn't do anything about your condition so you leave yourself no grounds for complaint. You're the victim in that case. A hapless victim of the world's unpredictable, unstable, uncaring forces. And that's something America has never been. That's the difference.

But, this is all ignoring a very fundamental point which I wished to make when I initially sat down to write. Has September 11 changed anything about our mundane, daily lives? I don't think it has.

We're still the same bunch of materialistic consumer whores we've always been. We corporatize and commodify every aspect of our lives, from our $3 cup of coffee in the morning, to the prestigious logos on our polos, to the gas guzzling SUVs we drive (and of course, the royal use of "we" is the greated admission of guilt in the English lexicon, but that's a topic for another rant altogether).

Our attention spans are short. We get caught up in the throes of the latest season of American Idol, we hang on every episode of Survivor, we attach ourselves to the Laci Petersons and Natalee Holloways, but we forget them just as easily. The fad, fast-lived and short-remembered, is every bit a part of American culture as apple pie.

All I'm trying to say is that the fear of September 11th was just as short-lived. No body, to my knowledge at least, walks around every day wondering if a terrorist is going to strike. We're still sheltered, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's a struggle we all need to recognize. A struggle to see the world from something outside our own perspective. I'm gonna go out on a limb and make a statement without really supporting it, but news coverage in the United States of the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in general is biased. The media perpetuates this "America is the greatest" image because I guess that keeps a steady viewership. But as far as representing that objective reality that we as journalists are supposed to be trying to attain, we sell ourselves short, and it's Americans who suffer the most.

07 September 2005

High-ground Lost (it was never there to begin with)

To be great is to be misunderstood. -Ralph Waldo Emerson

I wish to change my original sentiment that the feminazi discussion is disinteresting and that other topics should have all the focus. Those things shouldn't be ignored, but they don't necessarily detract from this debate's importance. Although I still stand by my original remark that it's getting out of control. But as that old saying goes, if you can't beat em', join em', right?

The dictionary definition, which has been referenced so many times, lists feminazi as a derogatory slang word invented/made popular by shock jock conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. I told Liz that when Brian used the word, however derogatory it may be, it still conveyed all the meaning he wished to convey given his context.

Then Liz hit me with a bomb.

"Ok so the 'N-word' is technically just a derogatory word for black person but that doesn't mean we should use it."

And then it hit me. I saw how I should have been framing the argument all along. Does the term feminazi in fact carry the same weight as the "n-word"? And that, my friends, is a harder question to answer.

During World War II, thousands of Americans died to put an end to Hitler's Nazi regime. In addition to our nation's sacrifice, untold millions more died world wide, both civilian and military. To call someone a Nazi obviously carries serious overtones, and I would argue that it would hush a crowded room if any of us delivered it as an obscene moniker towards someone else.

So combining the innocuous label of feminist with the much harsher Nazi to create the slang "feminazi" is arguably just as derogatory as calling someone a Nazi, or, as with the original analogy, the "n-word."

All of this is further intensified by the fact that Liz is a feminist. I don't think I'd appreciate my views being compared with Naziism, no matter what the context.

So what is the answer? What’s the moral, so to speak? I don’t really know. Calling someone or comparing someone’s views to Naziism is disrespectful and an ineffective means of arguing. But then again Liz did call Brian a dictator with her “look in the mirror” comment. So maybe both sides need to cool off and stop with the personal attacks. And maybe this can stand as a lesson to conservatives on the usefulness of PC. Or maybe, just maybe, we debate, you decide. Although that seems an awful cliché thing to say…

What happened?

The CR blog has sadly devolved into a debate over a term whose application has many implications (effectiveness, offensiveness, etc...), none of which are very interesting to me, nor would I imagine them to be very interesting to any other sensible human beings that might come across our corner of the web.

Originally, I didn't want to post anything about this “debate” because in some ways refusing to take part is to take the high ground, but the levels of absurdity that this catty back-and-forth discussion has reached is appalling enough to warrant some sort of comment. After all, someone smart once said all it takes for bad things to happen is for good people to do nothing.

I thought we all worked for the same paper, with the same self-defined goals (see mission statement for more detail), and with cooperation as an underlying, guiding principle? Obviously it's OK to disagree, even encouraged, because it's at those borders of disagreement where true knowledge is attained, but at the same time, the sheer number of posts on "feminazi" (7!!) is utterly ridiculous. Focusing so intently on a single word in the English lexicon seems so blatantly counterintuitive to those aforementioned "common goals."

Take a good look around. People are killing, raping, and stealing (although not necessarily in that order) in the flooded streets of New Orleans. The chief justice of our nation's highest judicial body is dead. Cobb still isn't finished. Full scholarship students from out of state will now pay in-state tuition. Gas is approaching $4.00 a gallon. The NFL kicks off next week. And thousands of America's sons and daughters are on the other side of the world fighting a war to ensure our lazy college selves the right to rant and rave under Amendment 1 on our beloved blog.

With all of this going on, and so much more that I wasn't able to explicate, are we really going to sit here and argue over the justification/impiety of using a derogatory slang term in--of all places--an internet medium? As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break."

I use the Oxford English Dictionary, Fitz

feminazi, n.
N. Amer. slang (derogatory).
A radical feminist. The term was first popularized by the U.S. talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
www.oed.com

06 September 2005

my dear offensive editors

Razzmatazz is also in the dictionary, that doesn't mean you should use it in this blog.

Abortion has nothing to do with the news right now. Would you please just not use the term 'feminazi' out of respect for me if nothing else.

Main Entry: feminazi
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of womenEtymology:
feminist + Nazi
Usage: derogatory
Usage: derogatory
Usage: derogatory
Usage: derogatory
Usage: derogatory
Usage: derogatory

Feminazi

With all this talk of dictionaries, Liz, perhaps it would be best if you bought one yourself. The Webster's New Millennium Dictionary lists "feminazi" as "an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women." Look it up.

As Brian suggests, therefore, the term feminazi, while inflammatory, has everything to do with abortion.

Brian, try a class on reproduction.

The term 'feminazi' has nothing to do with abortion. I think you are smart enough to convey your point without name calling. I'm asking you not to compare Hitler to women wanting equality. I want equality of the sexes, so are you going to compare me to Hitler? ........If anyone should be compared to a dictator, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

p.s. Women can still get pregnant on the pill.
You don't need an apostrophe in "Feminazi's want nothing to get....."

02 September 2005

Response to Brian's 'Tax Cuts Work'

I believe that with your wide vocabulary you can think of better word to use than 'feminazi.' Referring to people who want civil rights as "nazis" is like referring to MLK as a killer of Jews. Does that make any sense? Clearly not. If anything, feminists are the kind of people who would stand against the nazis- not with them. Try thinking a little harder about the words you use- a basic history lesson might be helpful. Brian, I'll try to remember a dictonary for you at our next meeting.

Rebuilding New Orleans

We live in an era where we have the technology to overcome any geographical hurdle. We have casinos in the desert, airports in the middle of the ocean, and the state capitol in swampland. We could place a shopping mall on a melting glacier if we wanted to, but this all depends on how much effort and money we are willing to spend. Throwing up our hands and saying "rebuilding a city below sea level? phsh! What a waste of efforts that could go towards war in Iraq!" seems a bit ironic to me. New Orleans is a vital part of this nation, and we do have the power to discover a good way to rebuild it.
About Carolina Review
Carolina Review is a journal of conservative thought and opinion published at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Since its founding in 1993, Carolina Review has been the most visible and consistent voice of conservatism on campus.