Sunday, April 30, 2006


A New York Times writer is a moral idiot:

... I can imagine a film other than "Munich" or "United 93," a greater film, a film about different kinds of courage. In this film, the courage of the passengers would be shown and honored, but there would be an equal effort to show the courage of the terrorists (without calling them simply "evil" or "insane"). You can feel already, I know, that that film is less likely. It has a kind of moral ambivalence not settled by giving 5 percent of the proceeds to families of the lost.

The courage of the terrorists! What courage? Attacking and murdering an unsuspecting, unarmed flight attendant does not display courage. Trading on the belief of passengers they would not be hurt if they cooperated?

And then there's this:

[O]n 9/11, we faced the first need to ask ourselves how other people — evil, alien, insane — could be so brave. The history of terrorism — and it includes the independence of this country — is that in the end you have to understand the grievance of the aggrieved, whether you agree with it or not. That film has still to come.

We know their grievance: They want us all dead. Alternatively, we could all become Muslims and don burkas. Wouldn't that be fun?

The moral obtuseness of some people defies belief.

No comments: