Dear author,

Hi. I am disturbed by your "America's Enemies" list. Certainly, there are folks on the list who are well-known for contradicting themselves publicly, or jumping on what the mainstream might call a dubious bandwagon.

But there is a certain tone or stance that you are taking towards them which seems to me to be dangerous, perhaps mean-hearted, though I'm not asserting that such meanness is where the article comes from.

You say these are people who hate or don't like America, and never have. The logic in such an assessment seems quite reductive, over-simplified.

Do they dislike America because they criticize America? Are you suggesting that the power and freedom to criticize everyone and everything is NOT one of our founding rights, championed by forefathers? What is the danger or evil in protest? If you think protest might weaken Bush's resolve to fight -- well, clearly, that's not the case. And wouldn't you rather live in a country where people have differing views? Where change and growth occur because true democracy is at work? There are many people in the country who, for example, have strong passions about protecting the interests of the working class and believe in organizing and lobbying through unions. But many Americans in our history have died in union battles, precisely because people labeled them or felt threatened by them and the "changes" they wished to adopt. Are our nation's electricians, carpenters, sanitation workers, etc. communist because they belong to a union? Are they communist because they want affordable health care? Or because they oppose the war?

I wonder about Martin Luther -- the old timey German dude who rebelled against the Catholic church. Without his rebellion, we wouldn't have had the Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist churches, etc., right? I'm sure many people thought he was pure evil, because he criticized the Pope. But the Pope wasn't and still isn't Christ, and neither is Bush. That isn't to say we should be disrespectful to Bush or any particular member of Congress, but is disagreement (even vocal disagreement) disrespect?

I don't agree with everyone's opinion on the war any more than I agree with everyone's opinion about everything. Sometimes people express their opinions and if they think differently than I do it upsets me. But I don't see the point in "shaming" someone who disagrees with me, any more than I see the point in calling someone an enemy of America just because their opinion is in the minority or is opposed to my own. I think people make a mistake when they try to compare tragedies -- to say the deaths of 9-11 are no more numerous than the deaths Malaysia had in a recent flood, for example, does no one any good. The loss of any single life is a cause for mourning -- at least, it is that way for those who truly embrace their spirituality. Only God can judge if someone deserves to die -- as humans, we are admonished (by Jesus, Buddha -- all great spiritual leaders) to love our enemies, which we all know is hard to do. How can you love someone you are angry with? Jesus says if someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. The commandment goes "thou shalt not kill." It doesn't say, "except when the person has done some crime that is really heinous." We simply are commanded not to pretend to be God. It's hypocritical, as a true Christian, to be against abortion on the one hand but be ambivalent or so-so or supportive of the death penalty and/or for dropping bombs on people -- as many of our fellow Americans are.

So, as a Christian, if someone is passionately against war, then I have a difficult time finding a reason to disagree with them, since my commandment is clear. That doesn't make me -- or them -- a communist or hater of America.

It's easy to let someone push your buttons, if they are talking anti-war and also talking up a bunch of other subjects you disagree with, as many of them do. But I guess I believe that most people have good intentions, and if they are marching in the streets or writing angry letters to the paper about something, chances are they aren't 100% insane, but instead have something of a valid point, somewhere in the midst of all the inflammatory language or flawed presentations.

I guess I prefer an America where I can debate with those people, engage them in real dialogue as real people that I can respect and learn from (or teach a thing or two), instead of an America continually divided up into camps where there are those who think like me and therefore right and good, versus "the enemies."

Anyway, have a good holiday season.

Brian

-- Thanks, Brian. Let me begin by stating that The Shinbone reserves the right to edit letters for space, and will do so in most cases in which those letters are as long as this one. However, it's also important to be fair in representing a reader's point of view, and since I was having difficulty discerning which points you might or might not consider to be vital to your argument, I decided that my only options were to post the letter in its entirety, or else not at all.

The title of the piece to which you refer is actually America's Enemies' List, with an apostrophe on "enemies," since the list was their own creation. The statement these seventy people signed likens the Sept. 11^th terrorist attacks (not the Sept. 11^th "tragedy") to multiple U.S military actions throughout the late 20^th Century, and scoffs at the idea that a war between the U.S. and the terrorists would be presented in "a simplistic script of good vs. evil." I call them America's enemies not "just because their opinion is in the minority or is opposed to my own," but because they characterize our nation as being, at best, the moral equivalent of al-Qaeda.

In returning your holiday greetings, I don't know whether you belong to the Donkey Party or not, but all the same, Hee-Haw and Merry Christmas -- DC

[Editor's note: according to the subject line, the following letter was somehow or other intended to serve as a rebuttal to America's Enemies' List: 70 names you need to remember (6/29/02)]:

Cracker please?

James

-- Thanks for the letter, James, but for future reference, the entire slogan is "Crackers, Not Bombs." Glad to have been of service. -- DC

[Another editor's note: The Shinbone will not, as a rule, allow a reader to filibuster The Watering Hole with consecutive letters. However, it will use its editorial judgment to make an exception in this case]

What could be more American than standing up and saying "no, not in my name you don't" when you find your country's foreign policy unacceptable. The U.S. Constitution itself provides for this right. Name calling (un-American, traitor, enemy, etc.) such as you employ in your bloated screed is not something in need of meticulous rebutting. You make no point other than that taking a stance against current American policy makes you an enemy of the state. This is a ridiculous point and rebuts itself.

-- The terms you dismiss as "name calling" are perfectly accurate descriptions, which are extensively corroborated by the words and actions of the people to whom I've applied them. It's no wonder, then, that you don't feel the need to rebut my statements, since you'd then have to contend with theirs as well. Moreover, I never referred to the people who signed the "Not In Our Name" statement as un-American. That's far too neutral. What they are, and therefore what I've called them, is anti-American. To say that they oppose an American foreign policy doesn't even begin to describe it. A majority of them are outspoken socialists, who oppose practically everything about America, starting with its free-market economy and republican form of government. Subsequently, they habitually oppose anything that furthers our national interests, including a defensive war against an enemy that wishes for the total annihilation of the United States. You ask what could be more American than that, as if there were something patriotic about them exercising their constitutional rights by demonstrating against their country. You might keep in mind that they would deny that same right to you or me, if only given the chance to implement their utopian vision. -- DC

Of course, the "fact" that there are too many people on the planet means nothing to you. When it will start having meaning for you is when your neighbors sneak into your backyard to deposit their urine and feces. At the present there are more people living on the planet than it is able to sustain. Since some women are brave enough to make the choice, rather than avoid the realities of their choice, it should, as a matter of law, remain their personal choice.

While there is validity in the argument regarding a basic respect for life, and the right for a life to reach completion, the fact is that humans do not reach completion until they die, and then some argue that it does not stop there, yet those who seem most adamant in their feelings regarding the right to life, seem equally as willing to allow for the execution of adults.

life thru peace

Ellen

Finally, I must admit that your salutation, "life thru peace," confuses me. If there are already more people in existence than the world can sustain, then wouldn't it be beneficial to the continuation of the human race to have a nice, prolonged nuclear war? Just curious. -- DC

Hey there. I just found out about your list [America's Enemies' List: 70 names you need to remember (6/29/02)] from my local independent media center and I would love to be added to that. I’ve written and directed a film called (deleted) and amongst the offenses in this movie are … referring to republicans as the American Taliban, decapitation of a republican intern, a congressman stripped to a thong and humiliated in the national media, blatant propaganda for the antiglobalization movement, sex, drugs, violence and general mockery of the entire political system and capitalism in general. But if that wasn’t enough, we’ve managed to drag a republican Senator into our publicity stunts for no reason other than we think he’s a piggie. Feel free to check out the details of this abomination of a film at (deleted) where you can also see our Washington Post article where (deleted) was used and abused by us, as well as our offensive trailers and behind the scenes footage. Oh yeah, and I even quote FDR in my sig file. It would be my honor and privilege to be listed with these other great Americans. Thank you.

Jason

I noted your reference to Carole King serenading Fido Castrato with her hit song, "You've Got A Friend." [Cranial Tumbleweeds: Martyrdom, Fighting Whities, electric rats, etc. (5/8/02)]You might be unaware of the first "hit" song she ever wrote, back in the late 50s as a member of the girl group The Crystals. It was called, "He hit me, and it felt like a kiss!", all about the need for American boys in that time period to express their true-love feelings of jealousy by beating the crap out of girlfriends who strayed.

Jim

-- Sounds just like El Jefe's kind of gal. Thanks for the history lesson, Jim. -- DC

Watering Hole '07

Watering Hole '06

Watering Hole '05

Watering Hole '04

Watering Hole '03

Watering Hole '01

Watering Hole '00

Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

News Round-Up . Harumph! Harumph! . Shinlinks

Mailbag . Watering Hole . Issue Index . Politimals