David Galernter has some harsh but necessary words for the idiotarian academicians who think that we just need to "understand" why they hate us.

And along those lines, here's how UC Santa Cruz is going to commemorate the occasion. Read the CVs of the professors at the teach-in, and then read this:

Participants will be invited to write thoughts and wishes on a strip of colored cloth and "weave" their comments into a large "loom" structure, creating a commemorative tapestry. UCSC firefighter Mike Quinton will preside over the tolling of a ceremonial Indonesian gong, and violinist Michelle Witt will perform during the weaving ceremony.

Let those of us who can, give thanks that our children are not enrolled there.

All the peaceniks from the 60's had to go somewhere...so they all got doctorate degrees and became firmly ensconced in academia, where they can make a nice living and do not much of anything other than hear themselves talk and publish a journal article maybe twice a year.

He was a professor in the humanities (although not at Yale, where I teach); he said, The right approach to the events of 9/11 is to try to understand just why those people hate us so much, or words to the effect.

While I sympathize somewhat with the author and the implied intellectual egoism (Why I have the answer right here! Shucks, you just need to "understand" them!) is embarrassing. However, the mental leap that one has to take to go from that ivory tower attitude to supposed apologist rhetoric is unseemly and irrational. After all, I don't see how you can go from stupid professor A to stupid professor A shaking hands with his sister's killer without a lot of irrelevant brain noise and knee-jerking in between.

Would this humanities professor shake hands with a man who had just murdered his sister? An extreme example, obviously, but useful in clarifying the problem. If the answer is yes, he would be displaying (at least) monstrous callousness.

The rest of the article is enjoyable and cathartic, but it has nothing to do with the original idiot who kicked it all off.

In a way though, that professor was right. It may not be possible to understand why someone hates you. Maybe they had a understandable reason, maybe not. However, you can understand how they operate, where they hide, how to fight them, and how to weaken and destroy them. If there is injustice that drives the hate and gives them strength, then you can understand that too and fight it. These are rational steps in any fight. While I remain concerned about some of G. W. Bush's priorities and goals, he has performed well under the circumstances.

The article was pure, unadulterated idiocy. Apparently some people think that ignorance is better than knowledge. These people are fools. A basic element of any strategy should be to know your enemy.

Here's how the word "idiotarian" seems to be used in this and many other blogs: If we have a strong negative reaction to another person's opinion then we call him an idiot. That saves us the trouble of actually thinking.

I guess that "anti-idiotarian" and "idiotarian" are just two different ways to say "idiot". (It's like the words "flammable" and "inflammable".)

For a thoughtful discussion of why worrying about people hating us might be counterproductive, see Eugene Volokh http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_09_01_volokh_archive.html#85419464
He manages to shoot down the idea without calling anyone an idiot.

Of course, maybe the point of blogs is not actually to discuss things intelligently (maybe Eugene is confused on this point), but to affirm exactly which group of idiots each of us belongs to.

'I guess that "anti-idiotarian" and "idiotarian" are just two different ways to say "idiot".'

Well, no -- here's how I read it, for what it's worth since I didn't coin either term:

An idiot is someone who is obtuse or stupid without any discernible excuse.

An idiotarian is someone who seems to think idiots should be in charge.

An anti-idiotarian is simply someone who doesn't believe idiots should be in charge.

I make no warranties as to the accuracy of the preceding. I may have read it on a cereal box somewhere.

Kevin,

Exactly who has come out in favor of putting idiots in charge? Only an idiot would think that he has taken a stand by calling himself "anti-idiotarian".

Did I miss something? What's objectionable about the commemoration ceremony at UCSC?

Call me a proud but curious Slug who doesn't understand how the story mentioned in the first paragraph is at all linked to the summary in the second paragraph.

"Exactly who has come out in favor of putting idiots in charge?"

I said "seems to think" idiots should be in charge.

Please go back and review the lessons under "Reading Comprehension". Thank you.

The disagreements in the comments above stem
from the fact that Gelertner is not objecting
to the literal words he quotes but to
the *connotations* of the word "understand".

The French proverb says "tout comprendre s'est
tout pardonner": "to understand all is to forgive
all". So, one connotation is that the
attackers are as right, relatively, from their
point of view as we are from ours - it is
just a clash of civilizations, you know -
hence, Gelertner's hand-shaking metaphor.

But there is another, and far more sinister,
sense that some vocal people have put into the words "we must understand why they hate us so".

It is this: since people hate us so much, we
must have done something really hateful: our
"arrogance", our "bullying", our callous indifference to the world poor, or to Palestinians, or to the environment,
or our supposed support for 3d-world
dictators - these are the "root causes".

Hence, according to this point of view,
*we* must repent and mend our ways;
*we* are the real bad guys of 9/11/1.

Recently even the Prime Minister of Canada
expressed such sentiments...

Under this second interpretation, the
loathsome criminals of 9/11/1, and their
bloodthirsty admirers in the "Arab street",
and other Yankee-hating "streets" of the globe,
are not merely transformed into honorable adversaries in a "clash of civilizations" whom we must "understand".

No: they become our righteous judges,
teaching us a moral lesson that we must take to heart and kiss the rod...

jw,

Nicely put.