Open bigotry

[steuard]

I'm clearly naive and idealistic, but I continue to be astounded when I see mainstream public figures spewing blatant bigotry and hate and fear. I'm not talking Mel Gibson here: his racist outbursts have generally been publicly condemned by just about everyone (including himself, in a series of increasingly threadbare attempts to apologize). I'm not even talking about the gay marriage debate for the most part: most mainstream opponents of gay rights at least make some attempt to hide their prejudice behind rational-sounding arguments. I'm talking about cases where someone makes overtly bigoted statements and substantial fractions of the public and the media nod and murmur "good point".

I probably see this sort of blatant bigotry most often in discussions of immigration, but the example that's currently making me shake my head in disbelief is the controversy about building a mosque in New York City near the World Trade Center site. Apparently (and yes, I'm sure this is old news), "National Republican leaders, like the former House speaker, Newt Gringrich, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential nominee, assailed the proposal, calling it offensive." Their objection, as far as I can tell, is simply that because the Sept. 11 terrorists were crazy, fanatical Muslims, we shouldn't... er... let any Muslims congregate near the site? Or something?

I'll be honest: I don't even follow the supposed logic here. I have not come up with any way of understanding this position that doesn't boil down to the twin claims that "We think all Muslims are the same" and "Muslims do not deserve full citizenship in this country." The former is based on an egregious logical error. The latter is based on an astounding failure to understand our nation's bedrock principles. And both very openly reflect an unfounded hate for a specific group of people.

I do not comprehend how a mature person with any sense of public decorum would be willing to make this sort of statement repeatedly. I do not comprehend how a mature person can listen to these statements and not immediately think, "Whoa, that's over the line," the same way they do about Mel Gibson. But as noted, I'm naive and idealistic. So you jaded folks out there: how can this possibly be seen as acceptable in a civil society?

Comments

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

I totally disagree, and I can't understand why you wouldn't find it offensive. I don't mean that it is offensive to me - I don't model "offensiveness" based on what bothers me, since I am weird, but on what makes sense to me as bothering lots of other people.

If a clown killed your dad, don't you think it would be inappropriate for someone to bring a clown to the funeral? How about your next birthday? I mean, not all clowns are the same. And all clowns deserve full citizenship in those country, right? What's your problem with clowns - how can you have an unfounded hate for a specific group of people?

Suppose an insane clown posse blew up your school, killing hundreds of children. A new, larger school was built a few miles away. A few years later, someone wants to start a "School of Miming And Clowning" on the deserted site of the tragedy. They point out that their school has no relation to the insane clowns who killed all those kids. Would you have trouble understanding the logic of citizens in your town, many of them parents of kids who were killed in the tragedy, who refused to grant the Mime school a building permit because of the offensiveness of locating the mime school there? To have the school not only be a reminder of those who died, but of those who killed them?

The human brain works in associations. It sees mimes, it thinks clowns. It sees a mosque, it thinks Osama. To put something that will remind most of those who see it of terrorists on the site where the terrorists victims died is a statement of wanting to associate those things. It will be offensive to many. Sure, it could be spun as a positive statement. A peaceful mosque on the site could help remind people that not all Muslims are the same. Over the course of many years, the mime school could help parents get over their hatred of all clowns, even sane ones.

But this Pavlovian disassociation therapy only works because the association leaps so readily to mind. If mimes did not remind parents of clowns, the school would not be offensive - and could not help heal the unfair smear of all clowns. If a mosque did not remind us of the radical Muslims who blew up the WTC, it would not be offensive - and it could not help Americans view Muslims more fairly. If there is no association, then why would anyone care to build a mosque there, where some people are made unhappy by it, when there are so many other spots that don't make people unhappy? If there is an association, then isn't the offensiveness reasonable?

It doesn't mean thinking all Muslims are the same, or thinking Muslims don't deserve full citizenship in the country. It simply means acknowledging the reality of how the human mind works, of what reminds people of what, and of the simple tastelessness of using the site of a horror to remind people (fairly or not) of those who perpetrated the horror. Maybe the tastelessness is worth it for the long-term goal, but you should not be blind to the tastelessness. It's simple courtesy and manners to understand when actions will bother other people, I'm really bad at courtesy and manners, but even I can see why this would bother people, which is the definition of offensiveness.

[(Anonymous)]

As Nate Silver points, this mosque is neither in/on the WTC site nor it would it even be readily visible from there.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/polls-reporting-on-ground-zero-mosque.html
Hence, your analogy of a mime school on the site of the school destroyed by the crazed clowns is flawed.

[kuddliphish.livejournal.com]

Your analogy is pretty good, and I think it does reflect the thinking of the people objecting to the mosque, but I feel that I should point out that the mosque isn't going to be built at the World Trade Center site. It's going up a few blocks away--in an old Burlington Coat Factory building according to this article--so it's like your clown school is being built down the street from the old school, which isn't quite the same thing as building on the site itself. It makes me wonder just how far away it would have to be to be unoffensive, which is a rather troubling question.

Mostly I think you are right about why people are offended, but that they are also giving in to some of the uglier elements of human nature, and should be questioned rather than supported in their revulsion of all things Muslim. There is also a nasty undercurrent of pure racism to this whole thing. I originally looked up the article above (which is rather old) because it talks about some Egyptian Christians who tried to join a protest of the mosque but were mistaken for Muslims and chased away.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

This analogy leaves out some crucial elements, I think. When the insane clown posse blew up the school some of the kids who were killed were clown kids, and many others were friends and neighbors of clowns. Are you really willing to accept that those grieving clowns should be forbidden from attending the funeral with the rest of their community?

Yes, the human brain works in associations. But every one of us knows how very easy it is for those knee-jerk associations to be flawed, and every one of us recognizes (or should) that such false associations are behind some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I won't for a moment deny that many people immediately associated "Muslim" with "terrorist" after Sept. 11, and I do understand that it may be a struggle for many people to look past that. But it is blindingly obvious that accepting and acting on that association is unethical and unfair. Lots of people have a knee-jerk association between blacks and inner city crime, but our society nevertheless makes it clear that openly racist remarks and actions are unacceptable. (Even Mel Gibson is forced to apologize for them.) Why should we not demand the same level of respect for our Muslim neighbors that we do for our black ones?

So yes, I can understand that some parents of kids killed by the insane clowns will feel discomfort at the thought that a clown college is being built just a few blocks from the site of the tragedy. But I hope that the rational voice in the back of their mind would remind them, often, that their understandable knee-jerk dislike of clowns was irrational and unfair, and that only the Juggalos truly deserved their hatred. And I hope they would do their best not to let that unfounded prejudice emerge into their words and actions. Because the only alternative is for their innocent clown neighbors, also grieving, to be cast out of society for no reason at all. And I don't understand how we could ever find that acceptable.

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

When the insane clown posse blew up the school some of the kids who were killed were clown kids, and many others were friends and neighbors of clowns. Are you really willing to accept that those grieving clowns should be forbidden from attending the funeral with the rest of their community?

No one is saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to grieve. They are saying they shouldn't be allowed to mark the site of the school with a memorial to their religion. This is not forbidding grieving clowns from attending the funeral, it is forbidding them from building a clown school next door. Isn't it just obvious that building a clown school next door is offensive? It baffles me how you can see zero potential for offensiveness.

I won't for a moment deny that many people immediately associated "Muslim" with "terrorist" after Sept. 11, and I do understand that it may be a struggle for many people to look past that. But it is blindingly obvious that accepting and acting on that association is unethical and unfair.

Your original post was not about whether or not the mosque should be built, but whether it was in any way offensive or in any way reasonable to say it was offensive. Perhaps we should acknowledge the offensiveness, decide that the association is false, and do it anyway - I am not disagreeing with that. But that process starts with acknowledging the offensiveness, not pretending it doesn't exist.

Lots of people have a knee-jerk association between blacks and inner city crime, but our society nevertheless makes it clear that openly racist remarks and actions are unacceptable. (Even Mel Gibson is forced to apologize for them.) Why should we not demand the same level of respect for our Muslim neighbors that we do for our black ones?

Wow, what planet do you live on? Planet Politically Correct, apparently. That you, a scientist, can label an association between blacks and inner city crime, or blacks and crime in general, "knee-jerk", as if it has no statistical basis...makes me very sad at how much brainwashing in denial of reality our society has. There is nothing knee-jerk about blacks committing more crimes than whites. It is a fact. It is an uncomfortable and unpleasant fact. It is a fact that I do not believe we should build our legal policies around. But to pretend it doesn't exist just because you don't like the implications or how it could be used...that's anti-science.

Can't you see how labeling a simple statistical observation with the highly negative emotional loaded word "racist" poisons objective study? I have no problem using the word for *actions*, for *policies* - those have moral content. But to use it for observations? I can hear that you really love Fairness & Equality, but are you sure you love them more than Truth? Or that you can't have both?

[steuard.livejournal.com]

Isn't it just obvious that building a clown school next door is offensive? It baffles me how you can see zero potential for offensiveness.

Hmm. I suspect that part of our disagreement boils down to use of language (and it's very possible that I'm using it improperly). I have, I think, distinguished somehow in my mind between "causes discomfort" and "is offensive". I would never deny that having a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero would make a substantial number of people uncomfortable. I can even see that some of them might feel anger at the idea (all due to precisely the false associations we've been talking about).

But I think that I've for some reason reserved the term "offensive" for cases where (for example) the person causing the offense has done something that requires an apology. (That's a very rough description; I'm still working through my precise usage.) If you've caused an offensive odor, you might want to apologize to others in the room. If you've made an offensive remark, you ought to apologize to the people you're hurt by doing so. But in this case, while I understand that some people may feel very uncomfortable about a mosque being built not far from Ground zero, I think they deserve sympathy and recognition of the reality of their feelings, but I don't think there's anything to apologize for. "Let's work through this together" sounds much more appropriate.

Maybe I need to fix my definitions.

Speaking of offensive, by the way, I find it deeply offensive to see how the large majority of innocent Muslims in this country and around the world have been vilified in our society by people who have fallen prey to this particular false association. I find it remarkably offensive that so many people, including public figures, have allowed themselves to hurt and hate their fellow Americans on the basis of such an easily identified logical error. I find it amazingly offensive that even after all these years, so many people in this country have refused to even consider whether this hate of all Muslims is inappropriate. And I think they owe their Muslim neighbors one hell of an apology.

That you, a scientist, can label an association between blacks and inner city crime, or blacks and crime in general, "knee-jerk", as if it has no statistical basis...makes me very sad at how much brainwashing in denial of reality our society has.

Look, I don't deny that blacks statistically commit more crimes than the population at large. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear: it might have been closer to my intent if I'd said, "Lots of people have a knee-jerk association between all blacks and inner city crime". I'm referring to people who react to that undeniable statistical fact with the unwarranted (and perhaps subconscious) conclusion that every black person they meet is dangerous. (Also, contrary to my reading of your comments, I never called the statistical fact itself "racist".)

My point had very little to do with that, however. In fact, my point is only strengthened as the link between blacks and crime (real and/or perceived) increases. Even though there's a correlation there, and even though many people overgeneralize from it and develop strongly racist attitudes internally, our society makes it clear that overt racism in word or policy is absolutely unacceptable.

I would guess that the average Muslim in the US is considerably less likely to be a terrorist than the average black person is to be a criminal. (The "pervasive threat of terrorism" is vastly overblown.) So why does society see it as acceptable to make overtly anti-Muslim statements and to adopt overtly anti-Muslim policies?

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Fun fact: When normalized for socio-economic level, blacks actually commit *fewer* crimes. Poor people commit crime. A random black person is much more likely to be poor than random white person, and therefore correspondingly more likely commit crime. But not as likely to commit crimes as an equivalently poor white person.

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

So yes, I can understand that some parents of kids killed by the insane clowns will feel discomfort at the thought that a clown college is being built just a few blocks from the site of the tragedy.

Great! So do you withdraw your observation that you "don't even follow the supposed logic here. I have not come up with any way of understanding this position that doesn't boil down to the twin claims"?

But I hope that the rational voice in the back of their mind would remind them, often, that their understandable knee-jerk dislike of clowns was irrational and unfair

I would hope so too. Although I think you are being unfair. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, and they were motivated by their religion and they were inspired by Bin Laden who is a Muslim religious leader and motivated by his religion. There is a REAL ASSOCIATION between "Muslim" and "terrorist". It is not a strong enough association that we should label all mosques as terrorist, but it is real. Almost all Muslims are not terrorists, but most US-attacking terrorists are Muslims. The data is very noisy (9/11 dominates deaths, and it isn't really fair to count attacks on US troops abroad because those troops are only in Muslim countries), but if you go deeper, beyond deaths, to look at where the terrorist threats are coming from, you see that it is (a small subset of) Muslims who dominate. There are exceptions (McVeigh), but it's a truth.

Because the only alternative is for their innocent clown neighbors, also grieving, to be cast out of society for no reason at all.

Who is casting them out of society? We are just saying they should build their school someplace that isn't rubbing salt into the wound of our recent tragedy. They can build it in town - just not next to the disaster site. Why is that unreasonable or unacceptable? I agree it would be nobler for the community to say "Ok, we are being irrational, we care more about standing for the value of fairness than about minimizing our sadness and anger, so we will let them build next door". I would find that inspiring and wonderful. But I would also find it completely reasonable for them to say "Guys, build somewhere else, we can't handle more sadness and anger, even if it is irrational, we need time to heal."

The sadness and increased pain from the reminder, however irrational, is real too. Your zeal to sacrifice individual pain in the pursuit of nobility worries me. Seems like you associate "belief in statistical realities of race" with "Holocausts and slavery". Well, I associate "only noble society action matters, not individual pain" with "communism, totalitarianism, and the deaths of 100M people at the hands of their own government in the 20th century".

[steuard.livejournal.com]

So do you withdraw your observation that you "don't even follow the supposed logic here. I have not come up with any way of understanding this position that doesn't boil down to the twin claims..."?

Good question. I can see that rational or not, building a mosque there would feel painful to some people. I think we'd both agree that the pain in question is a result of pretty much exactly those "twin claims" of mine, but you may be right that it's very unsympathetic of me not to recognize the reality of their feelings regardless of their cause.

So it's tricky. The feelings are real, but their basis is irrational and hateful and harmful to others. Based on that, I guess I do now see the justification for peoples' objections to the mosque. But I also think that there would be less harm to society as a whole if we found a way of coping with that irrational pain that didn't involve heaping further pain and injustice on the many innocent Muslims among us. And in particular, I still think that mature people have a responsibility to be alert to their own irrationality when they express themselves.

[Hey, this is an important bit:]

You know what? I think I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.

What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem isn't of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (and even threatening and driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to look like Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."

THAT is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I can't accept the word "offensive" in this context). If there is a valid reason for the mosque not to be built near Ground Zero, it MUST be made clear by everyone that even making the request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project.

I think you are being unfair. ... There is a REAL ASSOCIATION between "Muslim" and "terrorist".

I agree, of course, that there is a real association there. But I don't agree that I'm being unfair. The probability that any given Muslim that I meet on the street here in the US is a terrorist is minuscule, almost vanishingly small. So I think that reacting to Sept. 11 by disliking or distrusting all Muslims is absolutely unfair and unfounded. I would not be surprised if even the smallest increment of additional suspicion toward that group that a human being could have would be an overreaction to the probabilities involved (especially if the Muslims in question are long-time US residents). Remember, too, that additional suspicion or dislike has negative consequences for real people. I suspect that the human suffering that it causes may well outweigh any benefit from a greater chance of preventing future terrorist attacks.

Your zeal to sacrifice individual pain in the pursuit of nobility worries me.

You've made some fair points here, and I'm taking them seriously. Still, my limited exposure to the details of this issue don't feel like the objections being raised most loudly are of the respectable sort that you (and now I) have mentioned. If they were, I wouldn't have been triggered by this the way I have been.

[pearmeson.livejournal.com]

"What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not!"

I think that right there is the key. It's one thing to say, "_I_ feel pain because of this thing you want to do (build a mosque)", and quite another to say, "_You_ shouldn't be allowed to do this thing, which you only want to do because you want to hurt me."

One of them regards the Other as human, with understandable human motivations, who can be dealt with through negotiation. The other regards the Other as sub-human, with motivations that can only be ascribed to some evil purpose, who can only be dealt with through force.

There's also a difference between an average citizen saying, "I'd rather they didn't put a mosque there," and a public official or politician saying, "They shouldn't be allowed to put a mosque there." The politicians in this case are deliberately (and cynically) appealing to a mob sentiment to further their own goals. By virtue of their ability to get into the media, they add legitimacy to calls for action against a minority group that would otherwise only be manifest as private prejudices.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

The sadness and increased pain from the reminder, however irrational, is real too.

One more comment (a small one this time!). Don't forget that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too (even if it's based on undeniably real feelings). I don't think I'm solely demanding sacrifice in the name of nobility here: I'm asking that we balance two types of undeniably real pain.

I'll admit that I'm probably being a bit biased in how I treat the two, though. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have a bit more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

I'm calling bullshit. There is also a real association between Irish and terrorist and between Basque and terrorists and between conservative christian and terrorist (ask any abortion clinic) and between southern whites and terrorist (c.f. the KKK etc). Your stated categories have no explanatory power and are therefore racist and shitty (shitty in an objective mathematical sense and racist because you chose the racial category). We seem to only categorize things as terrorism when brown people do them - consider the recent case of a crazy libertarian conservative wacko who flew his plane into a government building to make people who work for the government afraid and to kill some of them too. That was not reported as an act of terrorism. Would it have been reported differently had he been a conservative muslim who was kookily violent and anti-tax?

All of the 9/11 hijackers were muslims, and arabs, and people, and male, and (almost all) Saudi, and all members of the Wahabi sect of islam. Which of these categories has the greatest explanatory power? The way you use the word "muslim" here is the same way people use the word "jewish" when they think all jews are Hasidic jews with funny hats who can't use electrical appliances on Saturdays. "Saudi Arabian" has basically just as much explanatory power as "muslim", while "Wahabi" is best of all and maybe even useful. Why go for the second explanation instead of the first or third? Is there a non-racist reason?

Even more frustratingly, the people who are getting "traumatized" here are mostly (not all - but mostly) people who have *never been* to NYC and *never want to go*. The muslim group in question is from a moderate sect and has been meeting and praying in a nearby building for more than a decade, and now they have gotten enough capital to buy instead of rent. So it's apparently okay if muslims rent property nearby, but not if they own it? This whole controversy is manufactured and stupid. The neighborhood board gave the project the thumbs up. The historical society gave them the thumbs up. The city council rubber-stamped it. The mayor has voiced his support. All their permits are in place, the building will be up to code, the money is ready to be spent, and they are even building an interfaith outreach center. But instead of letting them do this, we should be mean to local people because of a fear that people thousands of miles away might take offense? STUPID. RACIST AND STUPID.

[feuervogel]

There's a church built on the site of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Tim McVeigh was raised Christian (specifically Catholic). Is anyone offended by this, because Christians are terrorists, and we shouldn't build a shrine to their religion on a site they destroyed? Fuck no.

The difference is that the right-wing-nuts are a bunch of bigoted hatemongers and liars.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

The human brain works in associations. It sees mimes, it thinks clowns. It sees a mosque, it thinks Osama.
...
It simply means acknowledging the reality of how the human mind works, of what reminds people of what, and of the simple tastelessness of using the site of a horror to remind people (fairly or not) of those who perpetrated the horror.

I think you have some good points here--the clown analogy was clever and insightful. However there is a certain irony here that I think I must point out. Change out the names and particular details and keep the structure of what you're saying the same, and the basic point you're making sounds very similar to what might dub a doctrine of political correctness. That is, the anti-libertarian position that public policy should be used to counteract irrational pyschology, rather than just expecting people to act rationally on their own.

I'm a little unclear on one thing though. Are you actually suggesting that the practice of Islam (in groups at least) be banned within a certain radius of ground zero? Or are you just saying that it should be allowed, but that it represents bad taste? Hopefully the latter, which I suppose is not really the same as what I'm comparing it to. However it still seems somewhat at odds to me with your views on other things... where you seem to expect a high degree of rationality out of people.

Also--while the clown analogy is pretty clever... it's not perfect. A more perfect analogy would be trying to ban atheists from a region where say, a group of radical communists had attacked someone. A lot of idiot rightwingers associate atheism with communism, and therefore to them atheists are offensive because it reminds them of people like Joseph Stalin. I guess I can understand this, but it also really pisses me off and I wish they would just educate themselves. And I would never go along with a measure that sought to ban some activity based on such an irrational association.

Another (non-perfect) example would be trying to ban Christian churches because of nearby actions of the KKK. Why is this non-perfect? The terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 have no more connection with mainstream Islam than the KKK does to mainstream Christianity. The difference in this case is just that people in America are more aware of the internal differences between different Christian sects whereas they are pretty oblivious to cultures outside of what they are familiar with. So they tend to lump all types of Islam together under one giant umbrella. This is also the place where I think the clown analogy isn't perfect... because in the 9/11-Muslim case we're talking about a much more irrational association than just "one clown reminds me of another clown" or "mime reminds me of clown". Instead, we're talking about an association based on cultural ignorance.

[feuervogel]

Did you know there's already a bunch of churches, synagogues, and even a *gasp* mosque within 5 blocks of Ground Zero? No, really. St Peter's is nearby. The only reason the outcry started was because some people wanted to build a new thing.

And the bigoted jerkwads want to incite fear and hate.

[stereotype441.livejournal.com]

Someone at a software conference I went to a few years ago made this observation:

Every decision everyone makes is because of emotion. Sometimes the emotion is "I love facts". Which makes it seem like the decision was made because of facts. But was still made because of emotion.

It applies to all decisions, too; not just decisions about what to do, but also decisions about what to say, and even decisions about what to believe. It's been my experience that responsible, mature people, who show a history of behaving logically and rationally, even paragons of rationality such as you, me, and patrissimo, will discard logic and reason when facing an emotion more powerful than their love of logic and reason. And the scary thing is, when that happens, they won't even notice that the logic and reason are missing.

I agree with you that it should be ok for muslims to build a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero. But speaking for myself, I don't think it's because I'm more logical and rational than the people who oppose it. It's because of a variety of differences between my emotional motivations and theirs. For example:
- I dislike all organized religion. Since I live in a country full of religious people, I long ago learned to feel comfortable around religious folks. I don't feel an "us vs. them" antagonism toward people who don't share my beliefs. Many Christians do.
- I was far away from New York when the 9/11 attacks took place. I never felt that my home or my job was threatened by it.
- I didn't know anyone who was killed in the attacks.
- Four days after the attacks I went to my brother's wedding. At a time when many Americans were alone and afraid, I was surrounded by friends and family and reveling in the enjoyment of life.
- I don't follow mainstream media very much, so my life returned to normal far faster than those who watch the news every night. I didn't even see footage of the attacks until months after they happened.
- I am a person who is regularly and unfairly discriminated against because of a life choice I've made. This makes me feel a lot of compassion for others who experience similarly unfair discrimination, such as American muslims.
- I was raised in a stable and secure household in an affluent suburb. I never felt attacked in my home or my town. In my life, strangers have by and large been trustworthy. So even a terrible event like the 9/11 attacks doesn't trigger the same level of primal, all-consuming fear for me that it triggered for some people.

And, of course:
- I love facts.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

These are all really good points. Thanks for sharing them.