July 12, 2005

"More and more, there's a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure."

The NYT knocks the "We Are Not Afraid" site:
[M]ore and more, there's a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure. Yesterday there were lots of pictures posted of smiling families at the beach and of people showing off their cars and vans. A picture from Italy shows a white sports car and comes with the caption: "Afraid? Why should we be afraid?"

A few days ago, We're Not Afraid might have been a comfort. Today, there's a hint of "What, me worry?" from Mad magazine days, but without the humor or the sarcasm. We're Not Afraid, set up to show solidarity with London, seems to be turning into a place where the haves of the world can show that they're not afraid of the have-nots.

Justified?

That "What, me worry?" crack resonants a little too much with the recent Hillary hoo-hah.

And, jeez, it almost seems to be implying that this is the answer to the question "Why do they hate us?"

81 comments:

chuck b. said...

I read that article this morning too and my reaction was something along the lines of, "F*&% you, Sarah Boxer."

Freeman Hunt said...

Yeah, I bet those people were trying to show off their minivan. And heaven forbid there be any humor--if we are truly not afraid we'll all stare at the cameras in grave seriousness.

Absurd article.

DirtCrashr said...

They're upset that people aren't tilting their head and solemnly holding a sign saying, "I'm sorry you had to kill people in London because of George Bush - I hate him too."

Goesh said...

"a brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure" - gotta' luv it!

L. Ron Halfelven said...

The sellers of the $1,325,000 co-op advertised on the nytimes.com front page wish it to be known that they are not afraid of the have-nots either.

Charles said...

They hate us because we work, earn money, and buy stuff. Then we export achievements from technology, society, academia, health, business, and government to other countries. Their leaders feel bad they must steal billions in aid money since those backward followers would just spend it improving their lives and not listening to how evil we are.

Henry said...

What I can't get over is the implication that sorryeverybody.com was to be taken seriously. I think that's the implication, but on reflection, I may have it wrong. When Ms. Boxer writes "We're Not Afraid has exactly the same form as Sorry Everybody, but a wholly different tone and effect" perhaps she is actually crediting the latter Web site with the humor and sarcasm of Mad magazine.

Dirty Harry said...

"brutish flaunting" ????

Sarah Boxer's an asshole.

There can never be too many "New York Times" reporters in jail. Judith Miller represents nothing more than a good start.

Ann Althouse said...

DirtCrashr: They're upset that people aren't tilting their head and solemnly holding a sign saying, "I'm sorry you had to kill people in London because of George Bush - I hate him too."

Perfect! Wish I'd said that.

Pogo said...

From the NYTimes, the home of self-loathing wankers, the definition of "brutish" is not blowing up innocents in a subway, but saying "Not Afraid" when standing by your car.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Dirty Harry said...

Exactly Pogo,

I wonder if Miss Boxer has ever used "brutish" to describe our enemy? But she's a perfect example of the war we're waging here with our own left wing -- especially in the media.

We can only lose this war at home and The Left has their successful Losing The Vietnam War Playbook opened, dog eared, and well-thumbed.

Sam said...

As an example of brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure she cites "smiling families at the beach." How could she better reveal her contempt for America, mom, and apple pie than by sneering at a smiling family on vacation?

ploopusgirl said...

I love the way you paint all 'Leftists' with the same brush, Dirty Harry. How right wing of you. Personally, and as a lefty (YES, IT'S TRUE!!), i think Boxer's article is absurd. However, as always seems to be the case with Althouse's readership I wasn't even given the chance to express that before my political standing was bashed! Thanks!

henny said...

What the hell is she talking about. I saw way more pet and baby photos on this site than fancy car photos.

Perhaps I will send an "I'm not afraid" photo of myself with my terribly old and boatish Buick. Perhaps that will earn some points with the NYT! I'm not afraid and I have a shitty car as well!

Vorpal Librarian said...

I read the article. In describing one of the pics she complains about, Boxer refers to "Eric" from South Park. I had to think about that for a moment before I realized she meant Cartman. She is clearly unfamiliar with the show, which is fine, but I expect better research from an edited and checked-by-multiple-layers-of-people article in such a prominent newspaper.

Also, I didn't see any hamster pics, but I did see a pic of two adorable guinea pigs. Sure, plenty of people can't tell a hamster from a guinea pig, but it's sloppy of her to report it wrong in a newspaper. Makes me wonder what other information she's being sloppy about...

So in addition to missing the point of the pictures (the minivan wasn't the important part of that pic), she misses accuracy in some of her details. How very unimpressive.

Brendan said...

So that's why they're trying to kill us: jealousy of our beach time. Stop throwing it in their faces! Truly vile. The ironic thing is that many Times readers who might be sympathetic to such an argument have plans this weekend ... at the Vineyard or the Hamptons. No flaunting there.

thad said...

When I visited, this article decrying the 'brutish flaunting of wealth and leisure' contained a promo for the NY Times Travel site, proposing a visit to Switzerland or San Francisco.

Reminds me of the days during the 1980s when the Times editorial page would rage against Reagan's America-for-the-Rich policies, while flaunting a $60,000 wedding receptions in the pages of the NYT Sunday Magazine.

Dirty Harry said...

I'm sorry Ploop, when I talk about leftists I mean elected ones in politics, self-annointed ones in the liberal media, and the so-called spokespeople in academia, civil rights, etc...

Not the run of the mill Dems like you who are uneasy with stuff like this.

Hey, I was a Democrat once. And to make it up to you, I'd be more than happy to be your mentor in the "12 Step Liberal Recovery Program." *joke*

Walter said...

Sarah Boxer must be another one of those people suffering from liberal guilt. To have looked at the pictures on the site and come away with the idea that it is the wealthy flaunting themselves is to see the world though a major set of blinders. I expect that people are posting their leisure photo's because that's what handy.

Her reaction reminds me of the problem that the USSR had years ago. A movie was made of a big strike in Detroit and then played for the workers back in Russia, to show the labor and unrest in the USA. The Russian workers had a different take, as they saw most workers with recent [read: new, high quality] cars. The "employee" parking lot was full of hundreds of cars owned by regular workers. The message sent to the Russian workers was not "Labor troubles in the USA", but rather "workers in the USA are wealthy [just look at all the cars they own]."

I would not be suprised if the reporter doesn't have a bit of car envy (or she is projecting car envy).

Sam said...

Ploopus said:
"I love the way you paint all 'Leftists' with the same brush, Dirty Harry. How right wing of you."

Is this irony?

Anyway, if it helps, consider your political standing bashed independently of your stance on this inane NYT article.

matthew said...

"Brutish flaunting of wealth"? Has this writer ever looked at the ads in the New York Times Magazine?

ploopusgirl said...

I forgive you, Harry. ;)

TJIC said...

As I said in my blog:



I’m getting more and more sick of the leftist-lensed conceit of calling folks “haves” and “have-nots”.

The NYT article assumes that because some Brits have pictures of themselves in which their cars are visible, they are - effectively - giving the finger to third world “have nots”.

This sort of idiotic Marxist worldview had to be learned at some $25k / year ivy league college.

Let’s google.

Sarah Boxer was born in Denver, Colorado, and earned her B.A. in philosophy at Harvard. She is a critic and reporter at the New York Times, where she writes about photography, psychoanalysis, art, animals, philosophy, and other subjects. At the age of eleven she published her first cartoon and at fifteen she began reading Freud. She lives with her husband in New York City and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ho!!!

I swear on a stack of bibles, I figured out that she had gone to a top tier idiot-indoctrination school BEFORE I googled her.

( I was just hoping it wouldn’t turn out to be my alma matter Cornell. I was betting on Swarthmore, or Brown…but Harvard is the cherry on top of my successful speculation. )

Goesh said...

Clearly there are oafish displays of wealth and leisure too, which do warrant derision. I saw this guy the other day in a Hummer sporting a nasty sunburn, wearing an ill-fitting cowboy hat with 3 brats in the back their faces covered with some type of candy goo.

ploopusgirl said...

Sam: LOLOL.Congratulations for passing your seventh grade English class where you learned what irony is. You must be so proud.

TJIC said...

As I said in my blog:



I’m getting more and more sick of the leftist-lensed conceit of calling folks “haves” and “have-nots”.

The NYT article assumes that because some Brits have pictures of themselves in which their cars are visible, they are - effectively - giving the finger to third world “have nots”.

This sort of idiotic Marxist worldview had to be learned at some $25k / year ivy league college.

Let’s google.

Sarah Boxer was born in Denver, Colorado, and earned her B.A. in philosophy at Harvard. She is a critic and reporter at the New York Times, where she writes about photography, psychoanalysis, art, animals, philosophy, and other subjects. At the age of eleven she published her first cartoon and at fifteen she began reading Freud. She lives with her husband in New York City and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ho!!!

I swear on a stack of bibles, I figured out that she had gone to a top tier idiot-indoctrination school BEFORE I googled her.

( I was just hoping it wouldn’t turn out to be my alma matter Cornell. I was betting on Swarthmore, or Brown…but Harvard is the cherry on top of my successful speculation. )

TJIC said...

Doah. Double post. Sorry!

knoxgirl said...

London is bombed by terrorists, there are over 50 deaths of innocent civilians and this is what she chooses to write about.

I can just see her sitting at her desk, chomping at the bit for material to come by so she can wax poetic on the evils of Western affluence. As opposed to third-world poverty.

I wonder how much of her salary she donates to charity?

Rick said...

Two "What Me Worry?" references in the past week?

Oddly, just this past Sunday the Boston Globe ran a brief history of the Alfred E. Neumann character in the Ideas section (apparently not available online). It seems the character can be traced back to the late 19th Century, was fairly common, and was based on a racial stereotype of an "Irish idiot boy."

It looks to me as though somebody missed a memo somewhere.

csh said...

brutish eh?

So if I blow people up in the name of my religion and proclaim a holy war against anyone on the planet who does not recognize my religion as the only one that should exist then the Times will try to understand me. However, if I simply live my life trying to be at peace with all men then I'm a brute.

Can we send Sarah Boxer to Saudi or Iran where she can live the rest of her life covered from head to toe in black, not allowed to vote or drive, and beaten for having any kind of opinion at all. Then maybe she'll re-evaluate her understanding of the word brutish.

sheesh.....

I'm Nobody said...

What would it take to start a "We are not reading the New York Times" weblog?

bcn said...

Looking at the picuters that she references in her article, I see the German with a bong and a water bottle appears to be in a Middle Eastern cafe enjoying some tobacco in the traditional way. I don't really know what he was trying to convey, but whatever it is Sarah Boxer missed it if she thinks it is brutish flaunting of wealth.

BCN

James d. said...

The interesting thing is, even if there are a few frivolous photos out of the thousands, the "have-nots" are not those who don't have wealth, but are those jihadist terrorists and those who approve of their actions. In that context, the "haves" are everyone else in the world, even Sarah Boxer, although she doesn't realize it and might be upset if she knew.

Hollywood Wags said...

So this Boxer person has TWO residences?

Isn't that FLAUNTING wealth? it sort of is to me, and in the light of her wierd reaction, pretty frickin hypocritical.

"Oh, I live in both Manhattan AND Cambridge. It's wonderful, dahling. Kisses."

Alec Rawls said...

Imagine thinking that ordinary people showing pictures of their ordinary lives are engaged in brutish flaunting? That is a perfect expression of the culture of envy that marks our terrorist enemy. Send her to Gitmo!

LDM said...

Yea! Though I be wealthy and smart
verily I signify to shoppers at Wal-Mart
that our victuals are mutual, of common cart
I enter'th my Lexus and blow'th them a fart
-LDM

Freeman Hunt said...

Clearly all of the poverty stricken "have-nots" are sitting at computers right now, cruising the Internet on broadband, and staring incredulously at pictures of people's minivans and the beach.

If we were a sensitive people, we would have dressed in sackcloth before taking such pictures. And we wouldn't have taken such pictures anyway because that implies that we own cameras. We would have drawn the pictures on packing cardboard with coal and sent them. . . no no, we wouldn't have created these pictures at all because it might make some poor bomber (AKA victim of American imperialism) feel badly about himself because we're not afraid of him.

Bah.

Dirtcrashr is right on the money.

peapies said...

I think this is just one more example of a desperate press. Why exactly is this website a blip to be commented on in the big scheme of things?

A confindent press would leave well enough alone, or rather realize that this is not exactly worth the ink...Journalists, reporters, "news media" have enjoyed decades of hero status... uhmm "flunting their important, brave profession"...silliness like this tells me they are coming to realise they are on the verge of drawing a paycheck for no particular preistege or merit.

Eve said...

Looking through all those pictures...I don't know exactly how a photo of a Londoner with stitches in his head (and a caption saying he survived the tube bombings) is a "brutish flaunting of wealth and lesuire". And that one pick of the black cat? And the cute chilean family with the little girl sitcking up her middle finger.
Sure, real brutish display of wealth there...the little girl has a finger!
You suck Sarah Boxer!

ploopusgirl said...

LDM: Have I ever mentioned that I hate you?

Ron said...

What would it take to start a "We are not reading the New York Times" weblog?

Maybe we should call it "No Times like the present."

SippicanCottage said...

Comrades- Is this not De Ca Dence? The running dog lackeys of the imperialist pigs cannot even take their boot off the throats of the working classes for one moment at the beach. And I fear it is not not even a baltic beach, comrades. We must fight the hegemony! We must overthrow the kulak counterrevolution and attack it with our dialectic truth. They must be taken from their bourgeosie beaches to the camps of improvement! Soon I will not be able to get a good table at Elaine's, if the Imperialists and useless eaters continue their rampage.

Wow, this stuff writes itself. I wonder if the Times is hiring?

Sam said...

Don't forget that Sarah Boxer is the same hack who wrote the irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, inaccurate, incomplete, exploitive, biased, and -- worst of all -- dangerous piece suggesting that the pro-democracy bloggers from Iraq the Model might be FBI plants.

peter hoh said...

Just want to point out that our enemy in the GWOT are not the have-nots. Have-nots do not lease homes in Florida while plunking down cash to learn how to fly planes. Have-nots do not offer cash bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. Have-nots do not spend months or years living in the west for the opportunity to place a bag of explosives on a train.

peapies said...

Sam-
why is this not surprising? the press is so predictable these days.

Kathleen B. said...

Have-nots do not offer cash bonuses to the families of suicide bombers.

but wouldn't the suicide bombers be the have-nots?

I don't see why there isn't a complex combination of factors here, with the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education contributing to and providing a toe-hold in the terrorist rank-and-file for the dogma and lunacy of the terrorist leaders. Of course Bin Laden is not a "have-not" and obviously mostly what drives the terrorists is a fear of modernization, a fear of people having a choice and then not choosing their strict regimented Islam, and just simply cruelty. But isn't also the perception of the West as rich and powerful, and the utter lack of riches or power, in say a Palestinian refugee camp, going to make terrorism seem appropriate. Obviously, people are responsible for their choices and many impoverished people do not choose terrorism as their mode of expression. But understanding is different than excusing.

Surely a proper war against terrorism would combine tracking down terrorists, with alleviating hopelessness, poverty and brain-washing among its targets.

DirtCrashr said...

There is a prohibition against imagery in Islam where realistic pictures and imagery represents idolatry, specifically pictorial representation of human and animal figures. In Mosques the only sort of imagery allowed is iconic text, big elegant flourishes of Farsi. That prohibition is one reason why the Taliban blew-up the giant, ancient Buddhist statues - and these people are using IMAGES to defy the terrorists! Maybe that's what Sarah's all-up about, her Art-History degree is threatened, and Bush who doesn't care is making things worse.

jaed said...

Since no one has said this yet in so many words, I have to ask: is no one else simply jaw-dropped that a newspaper (or anyone, for that matter) attacked a London-solidarity site? Hello? Say what? [insert other expressions of astonishment as needed]

What's next - an article trouncing Emily's "Britain Fuck Yeah" comments page as unbearably vulgar and triumphalist?

Sean E said...

So I take it that it's safe to assume there were no pictures of cars, families, puppies, people smiling, etc. on sorryeverybody.com?

dax said...

sorryeverybody.com has to be the funniest site I've ever visited.
We sat there looking at the idiots holding the little signs till we had tears rolling down our cheeks. I'm making that site one of my "favorites" just for the laugh factor.

Ross said...

{sarcasm}Sarah Boxer knows her subject well. After all, surely nobody has ever met a liberal Malpractice Attorney or University Professor or Marketing Manager or School Administrator or Psychiatrist who flaunts their wealth{/sarcasm}.

knoxgirl said...

"Surely a proper war against terrorism would combine tracking down terrorists, with alleviating hopelessness, poverty and brain-washing among its targets."

Spreading democracy conveniently achieves all of these things. Whether you agree the War on Terror is spreading democracy is another issue. If you don't, I refer you to Lebanon, Ukraine, and of course, the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan... and I think women recently got the right to vote in Kuwait.

But maybe these things aren't being carried out "properly" in your opinion...

Freeman Hunt said...

Surely a proper war against terrorism would combine tracking down terrorists, with alleviating hopelessness, poverty and brain-washing among its targets.

Certainly. And that's exactly what we're doing. If you end oppression, promote democracy and civil rights, and allow free market capitalism you will destroy hopelessness, poverty, and brain-washing.

Freeman Hunt said...

Heh. knoxgirl, I posted before I saw your comment. Guess we agree.

Kathleen B. said...

Spreading democracy conveniently achieves all of these things.

if only we were spreading democracy.

and I think women recently got the right to vote in Kuwait.

how wonderful. I am sure the US soldiers who died to liberate Kuwait in 1990 are thrilled.

But maybe these things aren't being carried out "properly" in your opinion.
I don't think it is just "my opinion."

And that's exactly what we're doing. If you end oppression, promote democracy and civil rights, and allow free market capitalism you will destroy hopelessness, poverty, and brain-washing.

sorry but that is exactly what we are not doing.

Ross said...

Damn, that's pretty big sports car! Maybe it's a sports SUV.

Ross said...

Kathleen b, don your burqa!

Ross said...

For me, the irony of Sarah Boxer and her article is that I used to get somewhat annoyed by people who 'flaunted' their New York Times subscriptions.

knoxgirl said...

"how wonderful. I am sure the US soldiers who died to liberate Kuwait in 1990 are thrilled."

Wow. I really don't know how to respond to that, especially as you are female. I am officially astounded. I guess you really do think some things aren't worth dying for. Thankfully the soldiers who died in Kuwait likely did not agree with you.

Freeman Hunt said...

if only we were spreading democracy.

??? Have you missed all of the pro-democracy demonstrations? The elections? ???

how wonderful. I am sure the US soldiers who died to liberate Kuwait in 1990 are thrilled.

Yes, I'm sure they are. They believed in something enough to fight and die for it. Do you?

Kev said...

Has anyone figured out if this Boxer is any relation (by blood or possibly marriage) to Barbara? It wouldn't be that big of a surprise...

SteveR said...

There's not a better example of the brutish flaunting of wealth than being a writer for the NYT, getting paid to produce *crap ass* material. Talk about criticizing the "splinter in your your neighbor's eye..."

ploopusgirl said...

Yes, Kev, Barbara Boxer's taking a stand for the sole purpose of pointing out the extremely flawed United States voting system (not really to wage a war on John Kerry's behalf) is exactly like Susan Boxer's writing an inane article condemning wealth and leisure. Beautiful analogy. Brava! As they say..

Electronic Bubba said...

hay, it aint bout the haves and have nots new yawk times!

Kathleen B. said...

Knox and Freeman:

I cannot decide if you are just obtuse, or are deliberately misunderstanding me. either way, shame on you.

15 years have passed since our soldiers died to liberate Kuwait. And we are supposed to be excited now that you *think* women just got the right to vote there??? Wow. What low standards you have.

daughterofeve said...

Good heavens, Miss Ploopus, to make an analogy between two person's specific behaviour, one has to do more than wonder about whether two people are related. Thus, if I wonder if you are related to my Uncle Joe Ploopus, I'm not necessarily (or analogically) wondering if you leave a stink in every room you enter because of intransigent gastric distress. . .

Doug said...

Regarding, "For me, the irony of Sarah Boxer and her article is that I used to get somewhat annoyed by people who 'flaunted' their New York Times subscriptions."

When I see someone reading the NYT, I imagine him to be someone who needs the security of knowing that what he's learning is what good people believe. I imagine that he's satisfied by what amounts merely to middle-brow conformity and that he's not someone I should make the effort to get to know, because he wouldn't be able to tolerate the least of my immoral opinions.

Ann Althouse said...

Doug: There isn't a viable alternative to the NYT, so you're overdoing your inference. I want to read a real newspaper, not the pile of near-trash that is the local paper. Therefore, I have the NYT delivered to my house and I read it every day.

Shiloh said...

Ann, I love you!

That just reminded me that I forgot to go look at the Statesman today! Off to have a laugh now...

knoxgirl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
knoxgirl said...

Kathleen:

I was referring to women voting in Kuwait as one of many recent developments that can be reasonably attributed as taking place *partly* as a result of our presence in the Middle East since 9/11.

You are the one who assumed I was referring to the Gulf War of 1990. I was responding only to what I took to be your assertion that the soldiers who fought in the Gulf War were somehow resentful of their sacrifice in general.

I also inferred a pretty dissmissive attitude toward women voting in Kuwait from your tone. Perhaps I was wrong.

Anyway, here's a bbc article about it, since you aren't familiar with it--or at least, you seem to be implying that I'm making it up or something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4460781.stm

Bruce Hayden said...

Ann,

I do remember though that a couple of days ago you were moaning that instead of reading the NYT the first thing in the morning, you are now blogging, and that day, you didn't get around to it until the evening, or thereabouts.

Ann Althouse said...

Bruce: True enough. I've gotten back to the old morning habit lately, though. I certainly do still want to read the paper.

Richard Lawrence Cohen said...

Boxer really hit a nerve with that article. What's irresistible about it, aside from seeing the nation's greatest newspaper give a direct affront to the nation's sensibilities in a historic crisis, is how unintentionally revealing she is. She must have thought she was making a witty cultural observation while at the same time aligning herself on the right side of the rich-poor divide. Instead she revealed the pettiness and hypocrisy of her bourgeois Ivy League snobbism, her blithe contempt for ordinary people in favor of a romanticized other that, in actuality, would hate her. The article shows up that whole attitude as pathetically obsolete. Witty cultural observations are no longer wanted on this topic.

ziemer said...

ann, there is a very fine alternative to the new york times. its called the wall stret journal.

doug, right on.

kathleen, do you really think women would be voting in kuwait if we hadn't fought these wars?

Freeman Hunt said...

15 years have passed since our soldiers died to liberate Kuwait. And we are supposed to be excited now that you *think* women just got the right to vote there??? Wow. What low standards you have.

Did the women get the right to vote 15 years ago?

Also, you're focusing on a single tree and missing the huge forest right in front of you. Are you going to acknowledge the fact that democratic movements are starting to well up all over the place since we've gone to Iraq?

What we are doing is working.

F15C said...

kathleen b. said: "15 years have passed since our soldiers died to liberate Kuwait. And we are supposed to be excited now that you *think* women just got the right to vote there???".

The mission of the US forces in Kuwait was not to spread democracy, it was to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Kathleen, you seem to be either willfully disingenuous regarding the facts of that war and its basis, or you truly know very little about the subject.

The recognition in Kuwait of the basic human and democratic right to vote for women happened due to external and internal pressures on the Kuwaiti government. According to Al Jazeera: ""MPs (members of parliment) are being pressured from all sides ... locally and externally, to grant political rights to women," lawmaker Ali al-Deqbasi told the house."". The source of the 'pressure' to liberalize the Kuwaiti government?

The American left... HAH! Obviously I'm kidding! (That one even made me laugh.)

Ok back to reality. Actually, those 'pressures' came after the overthrow of Hussein and other diplomatic efforts were exerted against the Kuwaiti government. Where did these pressures emanate from you ask? The good old US of A., George W. Bush and his administration.

Bottom line, Bush's policies (along with the good Kuwaitis who struggled for years to secure the right) must be given a lot of credit for giving Kuwaiti women the right to vote beginning in 2007.

Regarding your unfortunate remark about the supposed 15 year span between America's liberation of Kuwait (remember no spreading of democracy, just kick Saddam's behind out of the country and split), what you wrote has absolutely no merit and makes no sense.

Regardless of what you think, the opinion that really matters is the *Kuwaiti's* themselves, so let's see what a Kuwaiti citizen - who knows just a thing or two about human rights - has to say regarding women's right to vote in Kuwait shall we?

""This is a celebration for democracy even though it is 45 years late," said Jassim al-Gitami, a former MP and head of the Kuwaiti Human Rights Association.""

Gee, it seems Mr. al-Gitami who I would guess knows just a bit more than you about 'Human Rights' in Kuwait, seems elated about achieving this goal in only 45 years. Imagine how thrilled he'd be if it had happened in only 15.

So, yes kathleen b., it is perfectly reasonable to be "excited" when a basic human right is restored to an entire people. Being excited about such things shows substance, heart, and good character.

Your unsuccessful attempt to subvert a significant human rights event in a self-centered and grasping attempt to bash Bush (ho. hum.) demonstrates a lack of knowledge about recent history in the Middle East, and callous lack of respect for the plight of the women of Kuwait.

Kathleen B. said...

no, what demostrates a callous disrespect for the women of Kuwait is you and your agenda claiming the victory for their human rights achievement. what also disrespects the women of Kuwait is failing to ensure their human rights when we sent our soldiers to die to liberate their country. the fact that a decade and a half later, the Kuwaitis are ready to move into the 20th century hardly provides any support for your Bush-is-great-he-loves-freedom argument. not that you won't drape their success around your shoulders regardless. cheers for you.

Joanne Jacobs said...

I wonder about Sarah Boxer's editor. How could he or she let her make such a "brutish" fool of herself? She missed the whole point of the site, which is to say that "we" are going on with our normal lives, not cowering in fear as the terrorists want. They brag of their superiority because they embrace death. We embrace life, which includes going on vacation with the family.

I might add in response to her profile that I published my first cartoon at the age of 8. (It was lousy.) And I was reading Freud ("Civilization and Its Discontents") by the age of 15. She's not as smart as she thinks she is.

AST said...

I thought the site would have something a little more mocking.

How can any reaction to a terrorist suicide bomber be too insensitive?
What are we supposed to say, "You're right! We deserved to be murdered for using public transportation."

This site was inspired by those inane websites with pictures of people apologizing for the war in Iraq. It's not just a message to the terrorists, but also to the fools who think we deserved these attacks.

Ann Althouse said...

Ziemer: I wasn't forgetting about the Wall Street Journal. It just doesn't have the kind of coverage of a wide variety of things that I'm looking for. I got both papers for a while and there's just no comparison: I'm interested in the things that are in the Times.

And with blogging, I just blog about anything that rubs me the wrong way.