Well, sure, but it’s also an allegory for everyone sent to prison for using marijuana by politicians who somehow manage to care more about other things than about smashing the life of some nice person who never hurt anyone; and an allegory for the public response to 9/11/2001. Et cetera. If story events only allegorized one insanity at a time, the story would have to be three times as long to make the same set of points.
Harry had read the Daily Prophet that morning. The headline had been “MAD MUGGLEBORN TRIES TO END ANCIENT LINE” and the rest of the paper had been the same. When Harry was nine years old the IRA had blown up a British barracks, and he’d watched on TV as all the politicians contested to see who could be the most loudly outraged. And the thought had occurred to Harry—even then, before he’d known much about psychology—that it looked like everyone was competing to see who could be most angry, and nobody would’ve been allowed to suggest that anyone was being too angry, even if they’d just proposed the saturation nuclear bombing of Ireland. He’d been struck, even then, by an essential emptiness in the indignation of politicians—though he hadn’t had the words to describe it, at that age—a sense that they were trying to score cheap points by hitting at the same safe target as everyone else.
As for the following:
And I disagree, it’s not much of a marijuana allegory. Marijuana users aren’t even accused of harming people.
It’s not an Amanda Knox allegory either, then, as the person that Knox was accused of killing wasn’t the last scion of an aristocratic house.
I think you’re perhaps misusing the word “allegory” to mean “applicability”, the thing that Tolkien also complained about in regards to people reading things into his work… Allegory pretty much demands pretty much everything to be a 1-to-1 mapping to something else, like the events and characters of Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. Applicability just means that you can apply the lessons of the story to real world events...
9/11: Honestly, the response to 9/11 was astoundingly restrained, all things considered. I didn’t get that vibe from it at all. The war was fought in surprisingly subtle fashion, and most of the commentary was about things like “Let’s not blame Islam for this”.
Marijuana: I meant that line to be somewhat snarky ;)
9/11: Honestly, the response to 9/11 was astoundingly restrained, all things considered.
The response was two major wars that lasted a decade, and atleast one of them against a country completely unconnected to the 9/11 attacks.
If that was restrained, then so was the Noble Houses’ response to the attempted attack by a mudblood against House Malfoy. After all they could have been launching counterattacks against anyone who ever befriended Hermione, or against Hermione’s family.
Indeed at least Malfoy thought Hermione involved. The people who excused the Iraq war by referring to 9/11 don’t even have as much an excuse.
Iraq was hardly a “response to 9/11”. It’d been a festering sore of American foreign policy for over a decade, and(idiotic public perception aside) it wasn’t sold as a response to 9/11.
That’s untrue. I quote from the Iraq Resolution, the document passed by Congress declaring war:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
I estimate that around half of the clauses in the preamble, which were official justifications given by the US for the war, deal with international terrorism, of which around a half mention al-Qaeda or 9/11.
Also, more broadly, do you really think we would have invaded Iraq without the hyper-jinoistic atmosphere caused by 9/11? (Remember, Bush campaigned in 1999 as an isolationist, who wanted to end Clintonian nationbuilding.)
“At the outset of the war, the U.S. Congress and public opinion supported the notion that the Iraq War was part of the global war on terror. The 2002 Congressional resolution authorising military force against Iraq cited the U.S. determination to “prosecute the war on terrorism”, and in April 2003, one month after the invasion, a poll found that 77% of Americans agreed that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terror”
So, yeah, the war on Iraq was very much a response to 9/11, in the sense of being sold as being part of the same “global war on terror” that was supposedly launched in response to 9/11.
The 9/11 reference makes more sense if you’ve read “when none dare urge restraint.” It’s about how people constantly said we should be stronger against terror (punish hermione) and nobody suggested that we just rebuild and not go to war.
The marajuana is a reference to Amanda Knox. She was convicted based on the theory that she killed her roommate in a fit of REEFER MADNESS. Less Wrong, armed with some logic and the sword of Bayes, made a write up called Amanda Knox, how an hour on the internet beats a year in the courtroom, and figured out the likelyhood for her guilt. We had a you be the jury and later a post mortem, and mostly considered her innocent when the court (and world) said she was guilty.
They’re both strong inspirations for the recent arc.
Well, sure, but it’s also an allegory for everyone sent to prison for using marijuana by politicians who somehow manage to care more about other things than about smashing the life of some nice person who never hurt anyone; and an allegory for the public response to 9/11/2001. Et cetera. If story events only allegorized one insanity at a time, the story would have to be three times as long to make the same set of points.
Which public response to 9/11 would that be? I’d wager you’re not referring to the “outpouring of grief, sympathy, and CNN ratings” thing here.
And I disagree, it’s not much of a marijuana allegory. Marijuana users aren’t even accused of harming people.
Something like the following?
As for the following:
It’s not an Amanda Knox allegory either, then, as the person that Knox was accused of killing wasn’t the last scion of an aristocratic house.
I think you’re perhaps misusing the word “allegory” to mean “applicability”, the thing that Tolkien also complained about in regards to people reading things into his work… Allegory pretty much demands pretty much everything to be a 1-to-1 mapping to something else, like the events and characters of Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. Applicability just means that you can apply the lessons of the story to real world events...
Was that an accurate description of the British reaction?
9/11: Honestly, the response to 9/11 was astoundingly restrained, all things considered. I didn’t get that vibe from it at all. The war was fought in surprisingly subtle fashion, and most of the commentary was about things like “Let’s not blame Islam for this”.
Marijuana: I meant that line to be somewhat snarky ;)
The response was two major wars that lasted a decade, and atleast one of them against a country completely unconnected to the 9/11 attacks.
If that was restrained, then so was the Noble Houses’ response to the attempted attack by a mudblood against House Malfoy. After all they could have been launching counterattacks against anyone who ever befriended Hermione, or against Hermione’s family.
Indeed at least Malfoy thought Hermione involved. The people who excused the Iraq war by referring to 9/11 don’t even have as much an excuse.
Iraq was hardly a “response to 9/11”. It’d been a festering sore of American foreign policy for over a decade, and(idiotic public perception aside) it wasn’t sold as a response to 9/11.
That’s untrue. I quote from the Iraq Resolution, the document passed by Congress declaring war:
I estimate that around half of the clauses in the preamble, which were official justifications given by the US for the war, deal with international terrorism, of which around a half mention al-Qaeda or 9/11.
Also, more broadly, do you really think we would have invaded Iraq without the hyper-jinoistic atmosphere caused by 9/11? (Remember, Bush campaigned in 1999 as an isolationist, who wanted to end Clintonian nationbuilding.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_and_U.S._Global_War_on_Terror
“At the outset of the war, the U.S. Congress and public opinion supported the notion that the Iraq War was part of the global war on terror. The 2002 Congressional resolution authorising military force against Iraq cited the U.S. determination to “prosecute the war on terrorism”, and in April 2003, one month after the invasion, a poll found that 77% of Americans agreed that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terror”
So, yeah, the war on Iraq was very much a response to 9/11, in the sense of being sold as being part of the same “global war on terror” that was supposedly launched in response to 9/11.
The 9/11 reference makes more sense if you’ve read “when none dare urge restraint.” It’s about how people constantly said we should be stronger against terror (punish hermione) and nobody suggested that we just rebuild and not go to war.
The marajuana is a reference to Amanda Knox. She was convicted based on the theory that she killed her roommate in a fit of REEFER MADNESS. Less Wrong, armed with some logic and the sword of Bayes, made a write up called Amanda Knox, how an hour on the internet beats a year in the courtroom, and figured out the likelyhood for her guilt. We had a you be the jury and later a post mortem, and mostly considered her innocent when the court (and world) said she was guilty.
They’re both strong inspirations for the recent arc.