Argument From Infallibility: By Any Other Name, A Sacred Cow
Dear Ann,
It has come to my attention that recently you have been attempting to sell books by pissing people off (like that's new) and in so doing you have picked some pretty high-sounding words instead of the more accessable ones (like 'sacred cow').
In the particular case to which I refer, you have claimed that some women who are angry with George Bush for not—they believe—doing enough to protect our country from terrorists such as those who drove jetliners into the Twin Towers and killing some people (including their husbands) use, when they criticize Mr. Bush, said dead people as “human shields” (BTW if they're dead, aren't they “dead” human shields and doesn't that kind of negate the meaning of using humans as shields anyway?)...but I digress...and you go on to further claim that said women use said dead husbands *not* for political ends but in fact, to make money.
Well, for the sake of argument, let's say you've got a point and that using the memory of dead people for political or material gain is reprehensible and that those so doing should be called out for who they are: Godless self-obsessed millionaries, lionized on TV and infallible to attack because of their use of “human shields” and who are in fact, only using politics to enrich themselves financially.
Does that mean it is finally okay for folks who think George Bush used several thousand dead folks from 9/11 as “human shields” (in other words, sacred cows) and his position as President of the United States to get away with invading a sovereign nation on the grounds of national defense, to finally say so, and to ask whether in fact, familial revenge and enriching his friends and families oil coffers, may have been at least in part, his real motivation?
Just asking...
Always Yours,
Cranky
It has come to my attention that recently you have been attempting to sell books by pissing people off (like that's new) and in so doing you have picked some pretty high-sounding words instead of the more accessable ones (like 'sacred cow').
In the particular case to which I refer, you have claimed that some women who are angry with George Bush for not—they believe—doing enough to protect our country from terrorists such as those who drove jetliners into the Twin Towers and killing some people (including their husbands) use, when they criticize Mr. Bush, said dead people as “human shields” (BTW if they're dead, aren't they “dead” human shields and doesn't that kind of negate the meaning of using humans as shields anyway?)...but I digress...and you go on to further claim that said women use said dead husbands *not* for political ends but in fact, to make money.
Well, for the sake of argument, let's say you've got a point and that using the memory of dead people for political or material gain is reprehensible and that those so doing should be called out for who they are: Godless self-obsessed millionaries, lionized on TV and infallible to attack because of their use of “human shields” and who are in fact, only using politics to enrich themselves financially.
Does that mean it is finally okay for folks who think George Bush used several thousand dead folks from 9/11 as “human shields” (in other words, sacred cows) and his position as President of the United States to get away with invading a sovereign nation on the grounds of national defense, to finally say so, and to ask whether in fact, familial revenge and enriching his friends and families oil coffers, may have been at least in part, his real motivation?
Just asking...
Always Yours,
Cranky
<< Home