"We are one nation — one people — bound not only by grief but by a set of common ideals. . . . [T]he sense of responsibility we felt for one another that day was not a fleeting passion, but a lasting virtue. This is a difficult time for our country. It's often in such moments that some try to stoke bitterness, to divide us based on our differences, to blind us to what we have in common. But on this day, we are reminded that at our best, we do not give in to this temptation. . . . So let us grieve for those we've lost, honor those who have sacrificed, and do our best to live up to the shared values that we have — on this day and every day that follows."
My post on September 11, 2008: "Do you see what's happening?"
Saturday, September 11, 2010
President Obama on the September 11 attacks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The way he talks about "people trying to divide the country" is inappropriate for this speech. It's a concept I agree with, but he is being partisan when he says it. If you want to be inclusive you have to include dissenters.
This speech is a lie to me.
How is it partisan?
How is it partisan?
We know through repetition exactly who he is talking about, and it doesn't include people on his side of the partisan divide.
What I'm trying to ask is: who are the Republicans to whom he is obviously referring?
It could be anybody, generic "evil Republicans", or Rush Limbaugh. The point is, he's planting the idea of "an enemy within" in our heads. Divisiveness in a speech about working together!
We have to keep in mind that Obama probably didn't write anything he is saying. He's probably reading something written by other people, very intelligent people who are dumbing down their thoughts for the American public.
They need to do a better job of keeping their contempt for us out of what they write; because right now, THEY are the people spreading bitterness and keeping us from working together.
I understand that what Obama said is no doubt written for him. On the other hand, I would like to believe that he isn't just a talking head for bullet points either. There are some people, Republicans, Conservatives yes even Democrats and Liberals (did I cover them all?) that have agendas.
The point is that we should come together as a country, as a people to remember, but not hate. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with making a comment about people, whoever they are, that are using a day like today to further their agenda? I do not believe that the President is being contemptuous to the average person. Although I don't mind if he has contempt for people that want to make 9/11 a talking point for hate.
You know what? Fuck them.
I've gotten over the shocking revelation that the president (any president) says things other people have written. The president never acts alone, and likewise he never speaks all by himself. Several years ago, a friend of mine was working for a senator. Let's call him Senator Bill Smith. When I asked my friend what he had gained from the experience, he told me he realized: "'Bill Smith' isn't a person." That was an odd way of phrasing it, but what he meant was that we refer to a politician as if he were a solitary individual, but this obscures the reality behind the scenes. A politician is a convenient figurehead for dozens of writers and decisionmakers.
That's all tangential to the substance here. It's hard to deny Jason's point that there's some irony in a speech that criticizes those who are trying to divide us, since even referring to the existence of some unnamed divisive people is implicitly drawing a dividing line between us and them. But sometimes a bit of irony is necessary. It's like people who say, "We shouldn't be intolerant of intolerance!" Well, it's not quite so simple. It's great to be in favor of "tolerance," but you can't make that an absolute value; at some point you have to stop tolerating other people's intolerance, or else your own values will self-destruct. Similarly, the fact that a preacher in the US was planning to burn Korans (which was a major subtext of Obama's address) is not something we can all just decide to ignore if we care about having more religious harmony and less strife in our country and the world.
That's all tangential to the substance here. It's hard to deny Jason's point that there's some irony in a speech that criticizes those who are trying to divide us, since even referring to the existence of some unnamed divisive people is implicitly drawing a dividing line between us and them. But sometimes a bit of irony is necessary. It's like people who say, "We shouldn't be intolerant of intolerance!" Well, it's not quite so simple. It's great to be in favor of "tolerance," but you can't make that an absolute value; at some point you have to stop tolerating other people's intolerance, or else your own values will self-destruct.
Exactly. Honestly, I don't see how one could read that speech as partisan, unless they are partisan themselves. He wasn't calling out dissenters, or his critics--he was talking about those who have made it their business to promote division, and they know who they are. To say that he shouldn't draw attention to them, or that criticizing divisiveness is equally divisive misses the target.
Post a Comment