There were all sorts of things I wanted to write about today. The stupidity involved in hitting yourself in the eye with a pair of headphones (don’t ask); the beauty of my newly-painted kitchen cupboards and the wonder that is the gloss roller; mispronounced words; when beige is not beige; the immediacy of blogging; and half a dozen other "fascinating" subjects.
But ideas of writing about such frivolity seem fairly inadequate in the light of today’s news.
Now, I know that I have ranted before about things that go on in the world that are tragic and yet do not make the headlines, and how we shouldn’t necessarily always focus on the headline tragedies and react in a knee-jerk style. But I’ve also been interested by the low level of reaction to the bombings in Madrid today in blogs in general. I’ve taken a bit of a straw poll of my regular reads, and none of them have mentioned today’s events so far.
When the Twin Towers were hit in 2001, every single blog devoted gigabytes of content to the subject. There was speculation, discussion, argument, discourse, opinion and even some on-the-spot reportage. But since then we have seen a succession of terrorist acts and other tragedies – the Bali bombing, the Casablanca attacks, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several bombings in Turkey and much much more. Maybe it is less shocking now – perhaps the death of more than 170 people in a terrorist attack that is not so far from home is no longer enough to move us to outrage, revulsion or even to think and write about it. We’ve become numbed by it all and sit blankly transfixed by the news images on television or the articles on news websites.
If that is true, then it is a shame. I think that the content of blogs is a reasonable reflection of the subjects that are being thought about by people at large. Subjects which feature prominently in blogs are also likely to feature in conversations in bars, taxis, cafes and at dinner tables. If people are thinking about these things, by extension they care about them and are likely to come up with some sort of opinion about them. It’s our duty as voters in a democracy to think about the affairs of the day and consider what our opinion is, otherwise how can we ever hope to influence governments so that they truly represent the will of the people. For, in order to do that, the people must have a will to be represented, based on more than the ideas spoon-fed to us by the corporate-funded idealogues that make their pronouncements on the glowing box in the corner of the living room and in the rags that pass themselves for newspapers.
Basically, what I’m saying is this: THINK.
Update: English language blog in Madrid.
It becomes hard to really sum up any emotion for such events when there is so much crap going on in the world everyday. In middle eastern countries for example, every day at 6am on Radio 4 today, I am awoken by ‘x people have been killed and x injured by x suicide bombers in x.’ The first time I heard this, it was really shocking. Not anymore. Not to be negative, but what are we supposed to do about it?
What can you say though that does the situation justice without sounding almost flippant. “It’s really terrible” is true but it doesn’t really reach the level of shock or anger required when more than 190 people like you and me have been murdered while casually making their way to their place of work.
Like Alex I don’t know what I’m supposed to do about it either. Buy a machine gun?
What can you say though that does the situation justice without sounding almost flippant. “It’s really terrible” is true but it doesn’t really reach the level of shock or anger required when more than 190 people like you and me have been murdered while casually making their way to their place of work.
Like Alex I don’t know what I’m supposed to do about it either. Buy a machine gun?
What can you say though that does the situation justice without sounding almost flippant. “It’s really terrible” is true but it doesn’t really reach the level of shock or anger required when more than 190 people like you and me have been murdered while casually making their way to their place of work.
Like Alex I don’t know what I’m supposed to do about it either. Buy a machine gun?
What can you say though that does the situation justice without sounding almost flippant. “It’s really terrible” is true but it doesn’t really reach the level of shock or anger required when more than 190 people like you and me have been murdered while casually making their way to their place of work.
Like Alex I don’t know what I’m supposed to do about it either. Buy a machine gun?
Also, whenever i post a comment, the 404 screen comes up, even though comment is successfully posted (hence mark holland’s comment has been posted 4 times)
The obvious differences between the Madrid Bombings and 9/11 are,
1) We saw 9/11 with our own eyes, perhaps rather more times than was good for us, but it’s impact was all the greater for it.
2) The numbers involved were greater, particularly as an estimate at the time.
3) The way in which 9/11 was carried out. Unfortunately bombings are almost commonplace.
I have a different headline I shall be blogging about although I would probably have touched this from the angle of who carried the bombings out. I’ve not heard as of this moment whether it was ETA or the rapidly becoming generic Al-Qaeda. Although I hate the fact that everytime someone as much as blows his nose it’s attributed to Al-Q I’ve a feeling it is more likely to be them. I’ve a feeling it would work out very badly for ETA if this is down to them. (I can’t somehow seem to phrase that last bit differently although I accept is reads slightly strangely).
Feeling powerless is one thing. Feeling apathy is something else, and that is what concerns me.
Alex: I know about the 404 problem and am working to resolve it. In the meantime, just hit "post" once and the message will be published.
It’s not apathy though that I’m feeling. To be honest, I’ve looked at my own reaction to 9/11 and been a bit embarassed by it… yes we saw it happen and it had a bigger impact, but as you rightly point out hundreds of people die at the hands of tyranny and terrorists every DAY… I’m trying not to react so harshly and quickly to these things.
Dave’s points are valid – and coupled with a similar view to Alex the constant bombardment of war/terror/death/atrocity has numbed me slightly.
How many people blogged about this kind of thing BEFORE 9/11? and why should we judge our actions against that event??
You are right apathy is the wrong emotion to have, but just because I’m not blogging about something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been at the forefront of my mind.
“Basically, what I’m saying is this: THINK”
God, what a patronising self-opiniated twerp you are. You think you are the only one here who thinks ? And you need to urge the rest of us to do so ?
Why don’t YOU think a bit more.
I could suggest PALESTINE.
Maybe the causes of the desperation which breeds terrorism.
Maybe our drift towards a police state. Destruction of ancient protections for the citizen, dating back to magna carta.
Maybe take a look at the proposed new US Law which if passed will enforce “acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government” onto the legal system, allowing state legislatures to frame laws and impose punishments based on biblical writings (see http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.asp?action=detail&article=197)
Some of us are thinking about more significant things than paint rollers and cupboards.
fine if thats what matters to you, but DONT tell others to THINK.
Your capital letters.
Wanker.
Thank you “irritated” for your comment. I’m sorry that you don’t believe your own words sufficiently strongly as to put your name and email address to them.
Actually, what I was suggesting in my piece was that people should do exactly what you’ve been doing – thinking. I was not suggesting that they should have an opinion that is exactly the same as mine. It’s all too easy to see things on television or in the newspapers, say "Isn’t it awful!" and then switch on EastEnders. I’m glad that you are clearly not like that.
Since you raise a few points, I’ll gladly respond to them with some of my own thoughts. But before I do so, I think you have seriously discredited any arguments that you put forward by calling me a "wanker" at the outset. I think that this shows that your ability to discuss issues rationally is weak.
Firstly you raise the subject of Palestine. I can see where you are coming from in suggesting that living in circumstances such as those imposed upon the Palestinians could lead to some reactionary responses. But I can not think of any justification for using suicide bombs or other means of killing as a method of advancing the Palestinian cause. Nor for that matter do I think that erecting an enormous barrier is going to help the Israeli government deal with the issue. Surely the only way to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East is through dialogue? But with that, there must come an improvement in the security situation, and both sides have rights and responsibilities in that area.
Secondly, you raise the issue of the increasing role of the security forces in our day to day lives by suggesting that we are drifting towards a police state. Judging by your comment, I guess that you are English and referring to the situation in Britain. As it happens, whilst I think you exaggerate the situation, I concur that government in the UK has become too large and intrusive. Yet, at the same time, as citizens we expect our government to protect our security and safety from those that believe that indiscriminate violent action will further their cause. I am not sure how we achieve a reasonable balance between the need to protect that security and the need to protect the liberty of the individual. Perhaps you have some suggestions?
I’m not sure which "ancient protections for the citizen" you are referring to. Perhaps you mean trial by jury? Or the new powers that allow the security forces to hold people without charge for long periods? In the first instance, I share your concerns, although I recognise that the jury system has been abused by some criminals at great cost to the State. How to resolve that is a thorny issue. In the second instance, I think that to hold someone for a short period of time is reasonable if there is a substantial suspicion that a serious (terrorist) crime may be committed – see my comment above regarding the need to protect the populace. But to hold them for more than a few days is hard to justify unless they are charged – the security forces should not have a mandate to pass judgment before the courts.
As for the new law proposed for the US, I was not aware of it and am grateful to you for drawing it to my attention. However, as an atheist, I am uncomfortable with the notion of any one religion being so close to any state. It would be interesting to compare and contrast with the constitutional situation that exists already in other countries, such as France, Italy, Ireland, Pakistan or Saudi. Or the UK for that matter, where the head of Government is also head of the Church.
As for only being concerned with paint rollers, I find your comment rather pathetic. I’m sure that you yourself think about things other than the big issues of the day – you may consider what type of tea to buy, the health of your loved ones, how the weather has been a bit chilly lately and so on. Just because such issues are not "highbrow" and might be considered as minutiae, does not mean to say that others are not interested in discussing them as well as the big issues. Many people read my site daily, so I guess that they don’t find it to be that dull (oh dear, there’s an invitation for abuse if ever I wrote one!).
“Or the UK for that matter, where the head of Government is also head of the Church”
Point of information. Tony Blair is the head of the government. Her Majesty the Queen is head of state and, therefore, head of the church.
Ooops. My mistake. I stand corrected.
I may have been lost in the legal-ese, but I believe this proposed piece of legislation is intended to prevent, and penalize, the Supreme Court for making decisions concerning religious matters, i.e., “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, former Judge Roy Moore’s giant, mutant ten commandments he refused to remove from his court house, etc.
At best, it is an attempt by the Religious Right to exploit the First Ammendment for its own purposes.
At worst, it is an attempt by the Religious Right to exploit the First Amendment for its own purposes to make certain religious agendas a dominant, down-your-throat reality by hamstringing the Supreme Court.
I sincerely doubt it will pass — it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change or limit the juduciary’s powers. You will notice that this is not worded as a proposed amendment . . .
I also agree with Graybo — the reason we have traded our freedoms for an illusion of safety through enhanced government intrusion is because we do not think enough.
Good luck with the house hunting — I hope you find the perfect place!