Re: George W. Bush's Speech on September 20, 2001

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Sat Sep 22 2001 - 03:25:12 MDT

"Harvey Newstrom" <> writes:

> Greg Burch wrote,
> > <> Consider the confused but dangerous yammering of the "anti-globalists."
> > Where do they stand? Their program of cultural balkanaziation
> > provides the
> > perfect breeding ground for bin Laden's vermin. They are without doubt an
> > unwitting fifth column for his brand of international "cultural
> > terrorists,"
> > because in the deeply divided world they seek to create, Islamic
> > fundamentalism will thrive as a powerful and motivated universalist
> > ideology. Bush defined at least the beginnings of an internationalist
> > mentality that can be premised on values strong enough to
> > withstand both the
> > calls of the critics to step back from progress and the jihad of the armed
> > mullahs. Again, if Bush has begun the process of recasting the West's
> > identity in terms of vigorous self-confidence, then we have indeed seen a
> > "pivotal moment in history".
> This is the most important thing. I am proud of the way Bush handled this.
> His speech and planning is the best I have seen from a U.S. president in a
> long time.
> However... My fear is that his support is based on the immediate emotional
> reaction to recent events. There are many fundamentalist factions within
> our own country and around the world that don't want to be part of the
> global community. There are religious leaders in this country that do not

I don't want to be part of "the global community". We have a precious difficult
enough time preserving human freedom and having a more or less open and just
society within our own borders. Arguably, most of us don't understand or have
a grasp on the bedrock of what makes for a free society. In the world at
large that grasp is much, much more tenuous. If you try to just make a global
state for the sake of a global state it will, I greatly and I believe rightly
fear, thin out truly free society and the philosophical underpinnings of the
same fatally. I do not plan to live under laws proposed by "the world" but
only under those laws of a government I voluntarily support and am a citizen
of and only so long as and to the degree that it upholds freedom. It has nothing
to do with religion for me. It has to do with freedom and
preserving and extending it. I do not see that a world government will do
this and I see much signs that it will create a larger and more bloated tyranny
that is much more inescapable and thorough than any other in history.

That some countries take self-determination and do disasterous things with it
is no more argument against such self-determination of a state separate from
others than the fact that some people do disasterous things with their freedom
is an argument against freedom.

> want to protect what they consider to be false religions. There are
> isolationists who do not want to mingle or cooperate with other people. I
> fear that much of the fervor is being driven not just by patriots and those
> fighting for good, but also by those who want to use this as an excuse to
> become more isolationist.

I do not want to mingle with any people or group that do not understand
the crucial and absolutely essential place of freedom and do not uphold it.

> As the years pass, and our targets become more and more diverse, I expect to
> see support waning. After the WTC and Pentagon attackers are dealt with,
> how many people want to risk American lives to stop terrorism in the Middle
> East? How many people want the U.S. to be part of a global task force
> instead of a single military leader? How many people want to increase
> international cooperation, commerce, immigration and trade? There is a lot
> of support now due to selfish U.S. interests. I commend Bush for taking the
> larger and more long-term view of this crisis. However when the immediate
> threat is gone, and it comes time to risk American lives to protect foreign
> cultures from foreign terrorism, I am not sure how strong the American
> resolve will be maintained.

A global armed force under what kinds of governing principles? Respecting
what matter of human rights? Rights protected by what body of law and
based on what philosophy? I do not need a global state, the ultimate large
gang, in order to decide what is right and act on it.

Of course we want more international cooperation and trade but not at the
cost of losing what makes this country great and different than most others.

We have already fought quite a bit to help foreign peoples.
> Although this crisis has united Americans and all civilized countries in the
> short term, I am predicting that we will see more desperate retaliation from
> racists, isolationists, nationalist, religionists, and luddites from within

I do not appreciate that you so easily disparage all people and attempt
to lump them together in one indistinquishable vile heap. It is a cheap
trick of rhetoric. The real world is much more complex.

> our own ranks. The attack of religionists against gays, liberals and the
> ACL has already occurred.

A few religious people said some stupid and predictable things.

>The battle over privacy and encryption has
> already begun.

It was already begun. Again, a few in that camp took advantage of the

>Battles over due process, search and seizure, and homeland
> security restrictions will be next.

Due to MATA, they already are.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:55 MDT