Those journalists

[cema]

There is this site: We Are Not Afraid. Its stated purpose is

show the world that we're not afraid of what happened in London, and that the world is a better place without fear.

Then there is this newspaper: New York Times. Some Sarah Boxer...

We're Not Afraid, set up to show solidarity with London, seems to be turning into a place where the haves of the world can show that they're not afraid of the have-nots.

This sounded too much like a rehash of political cliches and did not quite comport with what I had already seen on the site, so I went there again. Here is what I just saw on the site: a young man who survived this attack: "I am not afraid"; an old man: "wasn't afraid when he fought the Blitz and he's not afraid now"; etc, etc. So what do you think I can now say of this Sarah Boxer?

In other news, BBC reportedly stopped calling terrorists terrorists because that would be judgemental.

Comments

[trurle.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that these readers would consider Sarah Boxer to be a courageous intellectual, dispensing words of wisdom and sanity, standing against
a) mechanical popular opinion
b) oppressive government
c) islamophobia
d) contempt for world have-nots
e) something else

Sarah Boxer ... a courageous intellectual

[-kk.livejournal.com]

Still, evidently, she IS afraid :-)

[cema.livejournal.com]

We don't know if she is afraid, but we know she is one of the "have"s. What she has is affluence and a place from which to blabber around. What she does not have is anything useful to say.

[-kk.livejournal.com]

she has ... affluence and a place from which to blabber around

And she is afraid to lose them. She has substituted the real content of the website to what bothers her. Hope her psychoanalist reads her nonsense.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Little hope.