Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan, Transcend Art and Peace
Created: November 4, 2001
Latest Update: November 4, 2001
jeannecurran@habermas.org

The Limitations of Sound Bites

On sunday, November 4, 2001, Gale Nakamura wrote:

Regarding the article on interference by military with Nancy Oden of Green Pary USA flying to Chicago for meeting of her party.

It seems as though a few of the respondents are missing the greater implication of the actions taken against Nancy Oden. She was denied boarding of the plane, denied access to other flights, the airport was closed to her. The reason that she and her party gave was that because her name was flagged in the computers and that it was a result of her party's anti-bombing of civilians stance. However, the fact that her hotel reservation had been canceled prior to the episode at the airport, lends a more sinister air to the ordeal. Why would anybody go so far as to cancel her hotel reservation? The fact that she was detained in such a fashion by the military, with the idea that it may have been because of her party's political stance implies a serious break in the constitutional rights that we, as a nation, claim to hold dear. The person who started off by calling her a "fruitcake" and "this is crap" appears more concerned with personal feelings towards to woman than the implications of what happened to her.

Granted, there may indeed be more to the story than we are hearing at the moment, but until the whole story is known, why discount what happened? What is to be gained by sarcastically dismissing it as happening because she looked like a nutcase. Looks should be no reason to deny her a flight. The last I heard, looking like a 'nutcase' was not against the law. The whole picture needs to be seen, and personal feelings can muddy one's perceptions or intake of the information. It is difficult to process and spread news in an impersonal way, an individual may tend to try to sway others to their views so that their own view may be, in turn, validated. In turn, the individual may only abstract, or see, what they want to see. Regarding Davis' warning about the suspension bridges. Did he consider the fact that now that the terrorists know that we know about the four bridges being possible targets and that there is heightened security on and around those bridges, that the terrorists will then go to secondary or tertiary targets? Where there was some chance that some of the terrorists may have been apprehended, that chance is now gone?

Gail Nakamura
Soc 555

On Sunday, November 4, 2001, jeanne responded:

Good observation, Gail. It is this quick and dirty analysis, limited to readings or information received from only one perspective, that hampers public discourse in the US today. When people are too quick to have opinions they are likely to be following dominant discourse. Bear in mind that there may be more than one dominant discourse, especially given the close call of our last Presidential election. There was no clear choice of a leader. Consensus was imposed. But that should not be mistaken for consensus on the social and political issues the current crisis engendered.

The trouble is that dominant discourse, whether on the left or the right, represents a normative opinion from that perspective. And when one is expressing a normative opinion, obtained without much reflection, from the dominant discourse, one is parroting rhetoric not engaging in critical thinking. We are often too quick to express an opinion. And then to stubbornly maintain our position. Recall that this informal learning level is the one most likely to cause the greatest affect. And we'll be most likely to shout rhetoricat each other over those things we've learned through normative expectations.

I liked your analysis because you are reading between the lines. You were not distracted into a discussion of whether Nancy Oden is or is not a nutcase. That really isn't relevant to the issue of whether her civil rights were violated by functionaries of the military establishment. It's easy to be distracted that way in a legal argument. If you can be sucked into arguing the facts of the case on some side issue (like whether or not the lady could be judetermined by the military in such a situation to be a nutcase) then you get stuck in the those little micro issues and lose sght of the real macro argument about functionaries violating citizen's rights in the name of "security."

love and peace, jeanne