Bruno – (nice to see a post here)
I certainly don't agree with every point listed by Robbins but the general theme of his speech is important and raises some very serious questions. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who raises a concern because there will always be someone who offers a critique based on the writers/speakers history. Sometimes we can just listen to the argument and respond on its merit. Personally I don't always like the politics of Sarandon and Robins – but at least they are out there fighting the good fight.
``If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified.'' Americans could have worked together to make their society better and more equitable however Robbins is right – ‘the old paradigm was restored’. In reality it was always going to be because few in America have the stomach to actually effect change on a scale that would actually make a difference. Apart from anything, change doesn’t benefit the top 1% so there is little use of talking about it.
It is easy to go to the Dentist and get a shiny new cap and the rotten tooth, it will look good however whilst our smile will look impressive, the problem will only get worse. Americans are increasingly hated around the world, and the Bush regime is viewed with suspicion. To mention a rapprochement in Israeli/Palestinian relations whilst the US/Israeli’s are pushing for a trained Israeli friendly replacement of Arafat is premature. The problems are manifest and US interests are too short term to take into account why so many people still hate them.
MM does society need to have reached an authoritarian level of control before becomes pertinent to speak of the dangers? Is it not wiser to question whilst we still can? Sure Tim Robbins is an actor (I liked him as Andy Duframe in Shawshank Redemption) and sees the world from a different skew however his right to question doesn’t necessarily deem him self centred. He warns of “democracy [being] compromised by fear and hatred” and not speaking out for fear of their positions – this isn't too far fetched surely? Is it only after a person has become disenfranchised that they have a right to stand up and fight back, to dare to question?
Calling for an end to bipartisanship doesn’t necessarily equate to a wholesale disengagement of each of political parties in the US. By making this call, Robbin’s was suggesting that the parties could use the single purpose vision of post Sep 11 as a way forward – this does not mean no republican, no democrat, only a vision a rebuilt US. Of course I suggest that this is naïve because no matter how true your purpose, others will always seek to tear down, manipulate and profit by yours and others despair. Here I am not only talking of individuals but of corporations and of governments. There is no altruism there is only opportunity. Its quite simple – Robbins mistake is in holding too much faith in people and institutions. They cant change, America cant change, it will just get worse, and as oil is depleted it will become more aggressive.
At the end of the day though, I enjoyed Robbins speech, sadly though he will keep speaking and few will listen opting instead to tune into Presidents in fighter planes pulling stunts (must say I liked I even like the footage).
As for the allegation that the US had already planned an attack – I can imagine that that would cause a great deal of angst to many Americans because it would actually destroy the façade that the US is the benevolent power seeking only peaceful means to disputes. The history shows otherwise – and I will be honest and say that I have read that and ----heard of it through limited sources though Gore Vidal was one.
And Joseph, I don't think it's necessary to have a degree in journalism to know that there is a fundamental difference between "news" and "opinion".
For sure but how often is news simply the opinion of those at the top. Some stories don't get reported, others do – news is always very skewed and subjective. At least opinion is just that.
