I can't see how either are in any way true. As uttered by that specific Republican President (fully supported by and deeply entangled by the PNAC) they are bald faced lies.
> attempting to include them would add nothing, and weaken much.
I could not disagree more with you here. Finding ways to include the complex and ongoing harm the United States caused (and causes) adds emotional intelligence and humanity while weakening the dissonance that continuously leads to the ongoing conflict and the chafing that those inside and outside This Great Nation feel at the bonds of Corporatocracy."
*** I will cheat a bit here and pre-address what I heard as two elements of the response I received via email:
1) Speak to the level of your audience's ability to comprehend
2) The country was in shock and needed good parenting
I agree with the second of the two, but disagree with how the missive above reflects a 'good' parenting perspective. Energizing the country with a strong hand may be the 'candy' that sooths the 'sore mouth' of the country, but what was (and remains) needed is a complex set of choices that don't all 'taste good' to properly move forward from these complex wounds/encounters.
The first I can't agree with. When teaching (a practice the center of which I am deeply familiar and experienced) - I find that while I am called to 'meet' my partner or audience where they are, I MUST speak to (and include) deep guiding principles. My communication requires that depth to allow those with less insight/experience/perspective to imbibe the encounter in a way that permits complex unfolding to take place where and when they are ready for it. Even if I secretly fear they may never be ready for it, I cannot choose to let my view of their limitation limit the depth of my offerings.
But there's a thing about ... "fitting the tongue to the ear"? Knowing your audience, knowing what they are capable of absorbing and accepting.
It's a lot like parents who don't try to explain the full complexity of sickness and death to a three-year-old. I think that what we actually got, post-9/11, was horror and atrocity and death and destruction; I think the terrorists basically "won" and 9/11 was a devastating success for the enemies of peace and prosperity. We were fully manipulated.
And I don't think that it's actually realistic or possible to have been fully unmanipulated. What I was shooting for, when I wrote this speech back in high school, was a sort of realistic best possible outcome. I don't think that the American people are (or were) sufficiently calm and mature and reasonable to have fully woken up and realized their own contribution to the attacks. I don't think that the American people were capable of absorbing all of the truths at once.
What happened historically was that they didn't absorb any truths. Here, in this speech, I tried to get them to absorb some. The rest ... call it little white lies. I think that if we had gotten started moving in the right direction, there could have then been a chance for more, and more, building on the momentum. But I don't think it would have been wise to try to shoot for total awareness and truth, all at once, while the nation was reeling and terrified and furious.
As requested, I am sharing a comment emailed.
"I feel deeply moved to reply to two snippets:
> without warning and without provocation
I can't see how either are in any way true. As uttered by that specific Republican President (fully supported by and deeply entangled by the PNAC) they are bald faced lies.
> attempting to include them would add nothing, and weaken much.
I could not disagree more with you here. Finding ways to include the complex and ongoing harm the United States caused (and causes) adds emotional intelligence and humanity while weakening the dissonance that continuously leads to the ongoing conflict and the chafing that those inside and outside This Great Nation feel at the bonds of Corporatocracy."
*** I will cheat a bit here and pre-address what I heard as two elements of the response I received via email:
1) Speak to the level of your audience's ability to comprehend
2) The country was in shock and needed good parenting
I agree with the second of the two, but disagree with how the missive above reflects a 'good' parenting perspective. Energizing the country with a strong hand may be the 'candy' that sooths the 'sore mouth' of the country, but what was (and remains) needed is a complex set of choices that don't all 'taste good' to properly move forward from these complex wounds/encounters.
The first I can't agree with. When teaching (a practice the center of which I am deeply familiar and experienced) - I find that while I am called to 'meet' my partner or audience where they are, I MUST speak to (and include) deep guiding principles. My communication requires that depth to allow those with less insight/experience/perspective to imbibe the encounter in a way that permits complex unfolding to take place where and when they are ready for it. Even if I secretly fear they may never be ready for it, I cannot choose to let my view of their limitation limit the depth of my offerings.
Thanks for putting the comment here!
My reply in email was:
I don't disagree with either of your objections.
But there's a thing about ... "fitting the tongue to the ear"? Knowing your audience, knowing what they are capable of absorbing and accepting.
It's a lot like parents who don't try to explain the full complexity of sickness and death to a three-year-old. I think that what we actually got, post-9/11, was horror and atrocity and death and destruction; I think the terrorists basically "won" and 9/11 was a devastating success for the enemies of peace and prosperity. We were fully manipulated.
And I don't think that it's actually realistic or possible to have been fully unmanipulated. What I was shooting for, when I wrote this speech back in high school, was a sort of realistic best possible outcome. I don't think that the American people are (or were) sufficiently calm and mature and reasonable to have fully woken up and realized their own contribution to the attacks. I don't think that the American people were capable of absorbing all of the truths at once.
What happened historically was that they didn't absorb any truths. Here, in this speech, I tried to get them to absorb some. The rest ... call it little white lies. I think that if we had gotten started moving in the right direction, there could have then been a chance for more, and more, building on the momentum. But I don't think it would have been wise to try to shoot for total awareness and truth, all at once, while the nation was reeling and terrified and furious.
This is beautiful and I hadn't read it before. I think the author's note at the end is unnecessary.