What a Lunker
Great to hear that this New Zealand artist thought the September 11th attacks were "wonderful". And she's the queen of Moral Equivalence as well. Quoth the moron:
"Since September 11, I've been asking people how that day was for them - almost inevitably I get the answer that in the end, it was wonderful."
She should come to Baton Rouge and ask that question. Or else stop hanging out at fundamentalist mosques when taking her surveys. And isn't the word she is looking for "invariably" rather than "inevitably"? Invariable means that people give the same answer, inevitable means that the conclusion is sort of foregone, as in "we progress inevitably towards death". However, I suspect this particular loon has very selective hearing. I would guess a typical conversation with her might go something like:
She: Isn't that a beautiful sunset! It's just wonderful.
Innocent bystander: Yep, its a wonderful sunset.
She: Oh, I agree! And what about my shoes, aren't they wonderful?
Innocent bystander: Yep, they sure are wonderful all right.
She: Oh, I agree. So what did you think of the events of September 11th, 2001? Weren't they just wonderful?
Innocent bystander: What? Are you crazy? Why, they were terrible! How can you forget the sight of those innocent people leaping to their deaths, the sound of their bodies hitting the pavement, the buildings falling in slow motion, the grief stricken families wondering around downtown Manhattan looking for their loved ones, or the site of the Palestinians dancing in the streets, celebrating the barbaric act like something wonderful had just happened?
What She hears: blahblahblahblahblahblah. blahblahblahblahblahblah wonderful blahblah.
She: Oh yes, you are so right! I'm glad we agree.
Innocent bystander: ?
"What I found, when I went into work the day after, everyone was accusing somebody, everyone had something bad to say about somebody else, whether it was Bush or Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda or whatever - someone was in the wrong and I found that position quite hard to handle."
Notice how Bush is first in the "blame someone" brigade. Let's blame the leader of a country that just suffered a devastating terrorist attack before we mention the perpetrators of the crime. I didn't know that masterminding the hijacking of planes for use as guided missles to kill thousands of people could be dismissed with a simple "or whatever". It is, however, just a hint of things to come.
As part of her doctorate, completed last year, Haffern created an exhibition and wrote an accompanying book called Control Room which dealt with institutionalised control. "With every adversity a scapegoat is found," she wrote, quoting Nietzsche.
Awwwww, poor little Taleban and Al Qaeda. They were scapegoated. Apparently having culpability has nothing to do with it. If you are criticised or found quilty, it is just because you were being treated as a scapegoat. But it gets better.
"Resentment and grievance spring from a ... framework that sources suffering as always originating from the other person.
Well, duh. If I cut my finger while preparing dinner, I usually get mad at myself for being careless. If someone else stabs me with a knife, I'll probably resent them for it, and feel as if I have a justifiable grievance against them. None of those innocent people who died that day flew the plane that killed them. Therefore some other person must have flown the plane that killed them, resulting in the surviving husbands, wives, children, and friends feeling pretty damn resentful about the entire situation. But there we go, in our simplistic way, scapegoating again.
"My doctorate dealt with people in the wrong and I came to the conclusion there is not right or wrong, no evil, no good," she says.
Ahhhhhh, moral equivalence distelled to its very essence. I suppose, in the natural world, this is true. If a lion kills you, it is because he wants to eat you, not because he is inherently evil. If you aren't strong enough to defend yourself, then you end up lunch. But to sit back and declare that there is no inherent evil in the murder of 3,000 innocent civilians (whose only crime, apparently, was to be taxpayers) is stupidity on the highest order. She came to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong? Well, great for her. I have come to the conclusion that she is a simpering idiot.
"The only thing that is good is life on this planet and we are part of it. The way we behave - I can't see it in moralistic terms any more."
I don't even know what this means. Just by being alive means we are good: our actions don't account for anything? Then why are we wasting time with the UN and 400 more resoultions telling Saddam he is a bad man, and please let our weapons inspectors look at your carefully selected sites, and while you're at it could you please stop murdering thousands of Kurds? What we need are a few UN resolutions chiding the Kurds for their unreasonable scapegoating of Saddam, and the inappropriate feelings of resentment that come from watching entire communities be slaughtered by a man who is not good, not evil, but just plain old Saddam. In this numbskulls worldview, there is no good or evil, so Saddam can't be judged. But since there is no good or evilour actions against him ALSO can't be judged. Note to Saddam: We're the lion. Soup's on.
11:08:57 AM 
|
