Odwalla is nothing; how about about.com?

Below is the text of an email I sent tonight. It is the work of a troubled mind, I admit. I'm not really sure why I wrote, nor am I sure why I am posting it up here. It is a low-minded and nasty attack on one of the proletariat of the new knowledge-based economy, an "about.com" moderator. At this moment I think I can understand why Rousseau wrote about framing that maid or whatever. Sometimes it's nice just to air out the smelly and nasty parts of our souls.

	Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 6:01 AM
Ms. Rosenberg- The following is excerpted from your article titled "Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Over Lockerbie": "Though the flight held passengers from 21 countries, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 hit the United States especially hard. Not only because 189 of the 259 people on board were Americans, but because the bombing shattered America's sense of safety and security. Americans in general felt trodden upon by the unknown danger of terrorism. Though there is no doubt of the horror of this crash, this bomb and its aftermath was just the most recent in a string of similar events. As revenge for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub where two U.S. personnel were killed, President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya's capital Tripoli and the Libyan city of Benghazi in 1986. Some people think that bombing Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for these bombings. In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. aircraft carrier) shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board. There is little doubt that this caused as much horror and sorrow as the explosion on Flight 103. The U.S. government claims that the aircraft carrier mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet. Other people believe that the bombing over Lockerbie was in retaliation for this disaster. Right after the crash, an article in Newsweek stated, '[I]t would be up to George Bush to decide whether, and how, to retaliate' (Jan. 2, 1989, pg. 14). Does the United States have any more right to "retaliate" than do the Arab countries?" First, there is major inconsistency in your titling of the incident: is it a crash, as you call it twice here, or a bombing? While, as you document in other parts of the article, parts of the plane did "crash" into the ground, the incident was eventful, not because of the laws of gravity which would seem to make these crashes inevitable, but because someone bombed the airplane. It is strange that you do not use the word when you are describing the pieces of the jet hitting the ground, but only when its use would seem deceitful: when you evaluate the reasons for the attack. The fact that you only use the word "Crash" when attempting to evaluate the morality of event is strange. Second, I was under the impression that About.com strives to be objective. Indeed, the ethics policy of the site says that objectivity is one of your guiding principles. But your question at the end of the above quotation seems to be unobjective: " Does the United States have any more right to "retaliate" than do the Arab countries?" Ms. Rosenberg, as a long-time customer of about.com (I remember when it was called "The Mining Company"), I find this question to be offensive and unintelligent. One, it seems to group all of the "Arab Countries" into one group. This kind of thought has a long history, as analyzed by Edward Said in his seminal work Orientalism. Do all Arab countries now have the right to retaliate for any alleged crimes committed against the others? This implicit assumption seems simple-minded and racist. Because I am a citizen of the United States, do I now have the right to retaliate for crimes against "the Anglo countries"? Second, putting the word "retaliate" in quote marks is even stranger. Is "retaliation" a concept that doesn't have a defined use? It does, please consult your favored dictionary. Third, I'm not sure that people want an ostensibly objective source to pose these sorts of questions. It is not your job to evaluate questions of right. Instead, people come to about.com to find objective information. Attempting to sound objective by posing a question does not count, especially when you must preface your comparison of the situation with a warning like this: "Though there is no doubt of the horror of this crash, this bomb and its aftermath was just the most recent in a string of similar events". If you write something that needs to be prefaced with a comment such as this, best to erase it. If you are attempting to be objective, that is. Objectivity is not the same as moral relativism, Ms. Rosenberg. As Nietzsche observed, the pursuit of truth is motivated by moral or perhaps supra-moral convictions. If you can't stand by them, then do us all a favor and do not claim to possess them. Reflecting on this email as a whole, I think the last quotation remarkably apt. While there is no doubt of the bad writing of this email, this one is just the most recent in a string of horrendous writing. I apologize, it's late and I'm writing about events that trouble me, morally questionable events. I'm sure you understand. Sincerely, Austin L. C. Thompson

Strange, huh?