good for you, maggie gyllenhaal
NEW YORK (AP) – Maggie Gyllenhaal has waded into sensitive political waters by raising questions about Sept. 11 and American foreign policy. The 27-year-old actress, who stars in a new film about the 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, said in an interview last week that the United States “is responsible in some way” for the attacks.A fan Web site devoted to Gyllenhaal was overwhelmed with criticism, forcing the site’s editor to remove the ability to post messages “because it’s gotten too outta hand.”
that’s what happens when you state the obvious in a world of fools.
i will be sure to support maggie gyllenhaal’s work now, even if i find out she’s a fucking dumbass otherwise. her single act was more bravery than most people can muster in a lifetime. hope she doesn’t back down like the dixie chicks.
In a statement issued Monday by her publicist, Gyllenhaal said Sept. 11 was “an occasion to be brave enough to ask some serious questions about America’s role in the world. Because it is always useful as individuals or nations to ask how we may have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to this conflict.“Not to have the courage to ask these questions of ourselves is to betray the victims of 9/11.”
She also expressed her grief for “everyone who suffered and everyone who died in the catastrophe.”
Gyllenhall stars in “The Great New Wonderful,” which features stories about people living in New York in the aftermath of the terror attacks. …
now, to any “rah rah rah american can do no wrong” types who stumble in here, just ask yourself if you know of the following, and how one thing leads to another:
- israel. 1948.
- mossadegh. iran. 1953.
- shah. iran.
- khomeini. iran.
- afghanistan. russia.
- UBL (ha!)
- iran-iraq war.
- april glaspie. iraq.
- bushes.
- US military in over 135 countries (notably saudi arabia)
- clinton.
- 500,000. albright.
- CIA.
figure it out; it’s not that hard if you take the flagpole out of your ass.
go, maggie!
April 27th, 2005 at 00:44
There’s plenty to criticize the US for, to be sure. The problem here is that you glossed over the one that bin Laden and al Qaeda care most deeply about–i.e., the US’s “infidel” army on Islamic “holy” soil–i.e., Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca and Medina.
Unfortunately, we were asked to be there by the sovereign government of Saudi Arabia to protect it and the oil supply (on which the entire world’s economy depends) from Iraq, which had just invaded Kuwait (and yes I know who April Glaspie is).
Now, let me ask you: Why should bin Laden’s vision for the Middle East (which would resemble something like Afghanistan under the Taliban or present-day Sudan) receive any more consideration than that of the Saudi government’s? Why should bin Laden dictate Saudi or US foreign policy?
And why on earth should anyone care what an actress thinks about it, especially when her values and those of the people who attacked us differ, thank god, so dramatically? It’s a non-sequitur of sorts.
My name is Sean.
April 27th, 2005 at 00:50
This is Sean again.
I just wanted to add that I know that Saudi Arabia sucks. My point is that SA would be even worse, especially for women, if it conformed to bin Laden’s vision of what islam looks like. Now I’m aware that Maggie is an outspoken feminist so the ironies do abound, don’t they?
April 27th, 2005 at 01:13
thanks, sean, especially for identifying yourself (a rare thing for visitors to this blog, unfortunately).
you’re right that i left out saudi arabia, but i wouldn’t say i “glossed over” it. i meant to include it, but then i immediately thought of all the countries in which the US military is, and got distracted putting that in. i’ve added saudi arabia now, so thanks.
i don’t buy into this “US interests” line in the least. nor do i faint in respect when i hear the dubious phrase “sovereign government”, primarily because i consider the only sovereign governments to be those with 100% voluntary inclusion (basically, individuals, with rare, imperfect exceptions). everything else involves coercion; it may be necessary, but i wouldn’t call it sovereign.
and you’re right; why should we accept bin laden’s vision for the middle east? we shouldn’t! we should mind our business, keep a big stick handy to fight direct, real aggression, and we should let the market work. what happened for “oil interests”, including in iran in the 50s was arrogant jackals pretending that humans are chess pieces. that never works, and we have seen the result.
often forgotten in arguments about oil is that the oil is worthless without buyers. it’s usually painted as a one-sided “they will rule the world” deal. they need us and other buyers.
sorry, but i’m calling bullshit on your framing the argument in terms of bin laden trying to “dictate US foreign policy”. i don’t agree with bin laden, nor do i support terrorism. however, evil people shouldn’t be encouraged or pricked. bin laden has quite clearly said to the US “enough — leave us alone.” pretending he’s saying that to reasonable people is a farce. however, if i had to choose who’s fighting more for liberty (under warped principles for both), bush or bin laden, my vote on that single question goes, quite conditionally, to bin laden.
ah, the “who cares what an actor thinks” argument. she can’t speak? is it her fault her words are gobbled up? she made a movie about the subject, and it’s quite reasonable for her to speak on the subject — even to the press. you’ve lost me entirely on that. what the press does with it isn’t her problem, nor should she get less credibility just because she’s an actor. yeah, it’s silly, but it’s just as silly for people to assume her words have more power. what people are really talking about is their words in reaction to hers. that’s fine.
the US misbehaved, and it got its ass kicked (perhaps with official approval) — not in a way i agree with, but in a way very much in line with its own “morals” and actions. that is very relevant, and gyllenhaal is right to say what she did, though her career may be fucked, at least temporarily. the hypocrisy regarding 11 september 2001 would be a hoot if it weren’t so sad what followed.
on your second comment, did i miss something? is gyllenhaal defending repressive actions? where? what irony are you talking about? seems that your push is based on the assumption that those who favor USG minding its damned business claim that utopia would follow. nope. just improvement. then we can go from there using private action. markets are stronger and faster than government foolishness can ever be. governments excel at destruction, pretty much like the 9/11 attackers. fuck them all.
April 27th, 2005 at 19:24
Contact info!
Maggie’s agent is Courtney Kivowitz at BenderSpink. Phone is (323) 856-5500 and fax is (323) 856-5502.
April 27th, 2005 at 19:47
thanks for the contact info. not sure what i’d do with it though — ask if maggie’s available to spank, in a cute little skirt?
April 27th, 2005 at 19:50
Contact info!
Maggie’s agent is Courtney Kivowitz at BenderSpink. Phone is (323) 856-5500 and fax is (323) 856-5502.
April 28th, 2005 at 02:37
This is Sean again. Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner on this. Had a busy day and even now it’s 12:30 am California time.
[i]“you’re right that i left out saudi arabia, but i wouldn’t say i “glossed over” it. i meant to include it, but then i immediately thought of all the countries in which the US military is, and got distracted putting that in. i’ve added saudi arabia now, so thanks.”[/i]
You specified Saudi Arabia where I assumed you meant it to be. Though, when speaking of what motivates bin Laden, I think that US military bases in Saudi Arabia are about 95% of his complaint. I base this on interviews with and statements made by bin Laden prior to 9/11. The Iraq sanctions and Palestinian arguments are his way of throwing red meat to the crowd though I don’t doubt that he is a massive jew-hater, which I do differentiate here from anti-Zionist.
[i]“i don’t buy into this “US interests” line in the least. nor do i faint in respect when i hear the dubious phrase “sovereign government”, primarily because i consider the only sovereign governments to be those with 100% voluntary inclusion (basically, individuals, with rare, imperfect exceptions). everything else involves coercion; it may be necessary, but i wouldn’t call it sovereign.”[/i]
I was actually being a bit disingenuous here. I agree with you about the term “sovereign” being applied to what are essentially dictatorships. I use the term because the critics of the second Iraq war invariably speak of the US’s unprecedented invasion of “a sovereign country”. LOL! I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are equally dubious there as well.
Now, when you speak of US interests, I assume you mean in the Middle East oil supply and SA in particular? Are you saying that no matter what, we have no right being in Saudi Arabia for any reason? That protection of the world’s oil supply is not enough? To be honest, you might be right. But it’s unrealistic to think that the US won’t come to the aid of an ally government (no matter how despicable) when asked to by that government and when it is in the US’s interest (and in the interest of the world economy) to do so. In any case, I don’t think the ethics of this particular question is what Ms. Gyllenhaal had in mind.
[i]“and you’re right; why should we accept bin laden’s vision for the middle east? we shouldn’t! we should mind our business, keep a big stick handy to fight direct, real aggression, and we should let the market work. what happened for “oil interests”, including in iran in the 50s was arrogant jackals pretending that humans are chess pieces. that never works, and we have seen the result.”[/i]
I’m ambivalent on this point–whether getting involved necessarily makes matters worse or not. We were uninvolved in the world in the first half of the last century and the result was the collective catastrophy of two world wars. It’s hard to say whether the Middle East would be better off or worse off if we stayed out. I for one do not know. As for the CIA’s role in Iran, we paid the price for that. And the Iranian people are paying the price for it now, as they deal with the reactionary regime which has kept them in a dungeon for the past 25 years. But the overthrow was wrong and it was a strategic mistake.
[i]“often forgotten in arguments about oil is that the oil is worthless without buyers. it’s usually painted as a one-sided “they will rule the world” deal. they need us and other buyers.”[/i]
If your point here is that no matter what government is in control of the oil, whether it’s the Saudi Royal family or some sort of bin Laden-approved regime, that the US can expect a steady supply, well I’m not so sure. I could conceive of a bin Ladenist government that either excluded the US from its market (in favor of, say, China and India) or forced us to pay some vast infidel/zionist fee. The masses of “Saudi” citizens would be spared the pinch because the wealth would, admittedly, most likely be more evenly distributed than it is under the present Saudi government.
[i]“sorry, but i’m calling bullshit on your framing the argument in terms of bin laden trying to “dictate US foreign policy”. i don’t agree with bin laden, nor do i support terrorism. however, evil people shouldn’t be encouraged or pricked. bin laden has quite clearly said to the US “enough — leave us alone.” pretending he’s saying that to reasonable people is a farce. however, if i had to choose who’s fighting more for liberty (under warped principles for both), bush or bin laden, my vote on that single question goes, quite conditionally, to bin laden.”[/i]
That’s a disturbing conclusion. Bin Laden’s principles are far less in agreement with mine than Bush’s, and I say this as a life-long liberal Democrat and 2005 Kerry voter. Indeed, did not the bin Ladenists in Iraq declare war on the very concept of Democracy as anti-islamic?
We in the West are repeatedly told, by experts on the region, that bin Ladenism represents a small fraction of opinion within the arab world, that most arabs are moderate and only want good relations with the US. I take these experts at their word.
[i]“ah, the “who cares what an actor thinks” argument. she can’t speak? is it her fault her words are gobbled up? she made a movie about the subject, and it’s quite reasonable for her to speak on the subject — even to the press. you’ve lost me entirely on that. what the press does with it isn’t her problem, nor should she get less credibility just because she’s an actor. yeah, it’s silly, but it’s just as silly for people to assume her words have more power. what people are really talking about is their words in reaction to hers. that’s fine.”[/i]
I plead guilty on this one. Though I don’t doubt that if some dumbshit country singer or (improbable) right-wing sitcom Ken or Barbie started waxing on about US foreign policy, that you might be inclined to dismiss them in a similar fashion. No? For instance, did you catch Bill Maher’s hilarious send-up of ultra-patriotic country and western singer Koby Teeth? One’s stance on this question usually comes down to whether the actor/singer/artist agrees with us or not.
[i]“the US misbehaved, and it got its ass kicked (perhaps with official approval) — not in a way i agree with, but in a way very much in line with its own “morals” and actions. that is very relevant, and gyllenhaal is right to say what she did, though her career may be fucked, at least temporarily. the hypocrisy regarding 11 september 2001 would be a hoot if it weren’t so sad what followed.”[/i]
Your opening sentence begs the question. At any rate, when I read something like this–”perhaps with official approval”–I wonder if I’m wasting my energy. You actually think the US government was somehow involved in the attack on the WTC AND the Pentagon? An attack in which we’re lucky it was only 3,000 that died and not 30,000? What evidence do you base your suspicion on? The US government may not be saintly, but it can’t be that stupid and foul. On the one hand you claim that the attacks were politically rational and on the other you imply that the US government might have been a co-conspirator? Help me out here.
[i]“on your second comment, did i miss something? is gyllenhaal defending repressive actions? where? what irony are you talking about? seems that your push is based on the assumption that those who favor USG minding its damned business claim that utopia would follow. nope. just improvement. then we can go from there using private action. markets are stronger and faster than government foolishness can ever be. governments excel at destruction, pretty much like the 9/11 attackers. fuck them all.”[/i]
My point was that it is ironic that Ms. Gyllenhaal, an outspoken feminist and graduate of one of the US’s finest universities, asks us to plumb the depths of our souls to understand the reason that a bunch of bin Ladenites–who if they had their way would allow no woman on the planet to even see the inside of an elementary school house, let alone a university–might want to murder thousands of her fellow citizens. Yes, this I find ironic. Don’t you?
April 28th, 2005 at 04:42
what i’m going to say here will be called “fallacious ad hominem” by fools. however, it’s not. it’s relevant to whether you and i should spend “energy” debating, as you brought up.
you sound young to me. you also apparently haven’t stopped to consider that i’ve worked through your position and then some. i’m far beyond it. you are a self-described “life-long liberal Democrat”. based on what? what is your principle? the “politics” espoused at this blog follow core principles, and if i ever deviate from them i am wrong. i don’t mull the “great problems of society” and scheme how they may be solved by my grand plans. i recognize, as any intelligent human over the age of 25 or so does, that i cannot solve the world’s problems, or even my neighbor’s; i can only try to take care of myself, as everybody else should do as well. the problem is that government is a creeping criminal that thrives by fucking with free people, imposing ridiculous plans that have no chance of working, making things worse, and then throwing up its hands and pointing to the mess as evidence for how much government is needed.
the “principle” of “liberal democracy” is that some group comes up with how everybody should live, and then they shove it up the ass of anybody who disagrees. oh, you may dress it in whatever disguise language you think will be accepted enough that the majority doesn’t laugh in your face, but that is the essential human action of democracy. i, however, want nothing to do with any of it. i don’t want to run your life. i don’t want, however convoluted the command, to tell you what to do, how many babies to have, what countries to invade, how to address your employer or employees, how many gays to hire, how many blacks need to live in your neighborhood…
i recognize that these are all decisions that must be made by individuals, and that no man should force his opinion on anyone else, nor take the wealth of another man for any reason or intention, no matter how lofty. that is my belief, and you do not share it. so of course, there’s really not much for us to talk about.
if, however, you want to try as an exercise or whatever, then please pick one subject from the expanding argument we’ve hatched quite quickly, and let’s hammer away. i don’t want to deal with all of this at once though. if you’d like to argue, pick whatever you want, and let’s stick with that one thing until one convinces the other or somebody bolts. focused.
i’m not favorably impressed so far by your rhetoric — especially the inappropriate phrases such as “give you the benefit of the doubt” and “Your opening sentence begs the question.” begs the question? what does that mean? if you aren’t specifying an obvious question that my statement raises, then your use indicates you believe i’ve employed argument petitio principii. if you believe that, then you didn’t follow up on it. i think you’re saying “begs the question” as an authoritative sounding (yet entirely meaningless) opening sentence, followed up by “at any rate,” as if you’ve demolished my argument with that sentence but will deign to discuss it anyway. you’re not fooling this crusty bastard; there was no begging of the question. what you wrote is trendy nonsense. my sentence was, “the US misbehaved, and it got its ass kicked (perhaps with official approval) — not in a way i agree with, but in a way very much in line with its own ‘morals’ and actions.” that “begs the question”? in what universe? BTW, if you ignore that question in your reply, we’re done. so it’s an easy way out if you want to bolt.
i can defend everything i’ve said, though some of it takes time to walk you through things you obviously don’t understand, despite your attempt at brashness. if you want to go forward, it’s your choice of subject. let’s just tighten it up though, or we’ll talk past each other and only practice typing.
i would very much like for you to start by defending your claim that my “opening sentence begs the question.” that’s pure bullshit, and i’d swear you’re in your early twenties (or lower) from that one blunder alone. ad hominem? nope. you’ve raised the point of whether you’re “wasting your energy”, and i’m countering that i think i’m wasting mine, because you’re out of your league. if you don’t think so, then let’s go at it, one subject at a time. just please deal with the “begs the question” claim, then pick whatever you want me to defend. or just go away.
April 29th, 2005 at 23:37
Sean again.
“the US misbehaved, and it got its ass kicked”
With all due respect to your mastery of latin phrases, you haven’t begun to show that we were attacked for reasons which could be judged as misbehavior. And you certainly haven’t demonstrated it by me.
Now I hate to be impolite, but really you leave me no other choice: When you implicated the US government in the mass murder of its own citizens, absent any evidence whatsoever, I have to question either your intelligence or sanity. Next, having weighed the spirit of freedom in both GWBush and OBL, you come away finding GW Bush wanting. This is the same OBL whose named agent in Iraq, Zarqawi, has explicitly declared war on the very conept of democracy as Western and unislamic and whose most ideal state on the planet was Afghanistan under the Taliban. But now I begin to pointlessly repeat myself.
There is clearly no point to continue.
April 29th, 2005 at 23:48
pussy.
April 29th, 2005 at 23:52
LOL. And I come across as young, eh?
Signing off.
April 30th, 2005 at 00:03
pussy.
April 30th, 2005 at 00:17
OK, then. Nothing was preventing you from refuting the charge of circular reasoning, which you had spent so much time on but hadn’t bother to address directly. Start with that. (That’s a third request, by the way.)
Then, you could lay out some evidence that the US government was complicit in 9/11. And not just links to conspiracy-minded websites! Find me a credible individual who believes it and evidence that can rationally support the claim. And I’ll even be charitable with my interpretation of who’s “credible” and what’s “rational”.
Next address my point that bin Laden (for the reasons that I’ve already stated twice) is a fascist who despises every thing that we in the West regard as liberty; whereas Bush, though far from perfect, isn’t even in the same ballpark as bin Laden.
These are threshhold issues I must get past if you truly want this to continue.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:12
you’re refusing my terms? have the balls to state it clearly then.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:21
Why don’t you simply address the points?
April 30th, 2005 at 01:27
As you said, let’s keep things simple:
Maggie Glynnenhaal said we were attacked on 9/11 because of our “reprehensible” foreign policy. You applauded her. I said why I think she’s wrong about that and you haven’t said one thing that really addresses my argument: namely, that we were attacked because we put our soldiers on Saudi soil at the request of the Saudi government. That I don’t think this qualifies as “reprehensible.”
You’ve thought through this all, so it should be easy for you to explain in simple enough terms.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:36
the only way to smoke out diversionary faggots like you is to get you to stick to one point at a time. otherwise you keep running away, exactly as you’ve done so far. i “address the points”, and you’ll run from all you find uncomfortable, but with enough blather to make it look as if you’re so very cheeky.
i have offered to address any subject you want. all i require is that you defend your claim of “begs the question”, and then pick which single subject you want me to defend (that one or another). period.
the reason you’re refusing (though without even the smattering of honor required to do so directly) is because you know you cannot function in an argument where the single-subject requirement will tend to keep you accountable for what you claim. your argument “technique”, which you obviously feel is quite audacious, is to never answer a direct question that makes you feel uncomfortable. i, on the other hand, offer to answer any direct question you put to me. all i require, after seeing your “technique” and recognizing it easily, is that it be one at a time.
you abhor such a proposal, so you, shocker, use your regular strategy to shirk it.
nope. that shit doesn’t fly here at the IDIOT. you accept my offer or decline it — none of this in between pretend shit that merely serves as fog in which you may run away with your tail between you legs in such a way that maybe some people won’t be able to see your tail (and that it’s between your legs).
accept or decline, sir. now is the time. if you accept, your first step is to defend the “begs the question” claim. the second step is to pick one, isolated subject (not a general “i win, you’ve lost” claim that i’m supposed to defend against). now. do it. no more baloney. accept or decline, then if you accept, keep it tight — starting with the “begs the question” claim defense.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:43
“the US misbehaved, and it got its ass kicked”
The US misbehaved
Therefore it got its ass kicked
You are assuming that the US misbehaved and that this misbehavior was the reason why we were attacked on 9/11.
You beg the question–i.e., you are assuming the truth of a statement (the US “misbehaved”) that I have refuted directly.
I really can’t put it any simpler for you.
And if you don’t get it this time, then I truly do plan on bolting.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:44
And by the way, when you use words like “faggot”, you do yourself no great favors.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:50
unless you tell me otherwise, i will accept that that’s your entire defense of the “begs the question” claim.
now which single, isolated (not general) subject would you like me to defend? pick one explicitly; i’m not going to assume. if it’s to be the “begs the question” subject (ooooh — pretty please!), then state so.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:51
Are you fucking with me?
April 30th, 2005 at 01:54
You win, champ.
April 30th, 2005 at 01:59
05:42
“just please deal with the “begs the question” claim, then pick whatever you want me to defend.”
02:36
“all i require is that you defend your claim of “begs the question”, and then pick which single subject you want me to defend (that one or another).”
…
“if you accept, your first step is to defend the “begs the question” claim. the second step is to pick one, isolated subject…”
02:50
“now which single, isolated (not general) subject would you like me to defend? pick one explicitly; i’m not going to assume. if it’s to be the “begs the question” subject (ooooh — pretty please!), then state so.”
===
if more clarity is possible, i confess i’m not able to deliver it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 21:29
Maggie Gyllenhaal has her head up her ass, just like her brother