Taking A Moment to Ponder
I'm going to take a break from the norm today, both from responding to letters to the editor and, hopefully, being as excruciatingly long-winded as I've been lately. I've been thinking a lot about the response I got from Jason [last name removed at his request] yesterday. Jason is only the second person to whom I've responded to have responded back. The first time, I was simply asked to remove the letter from the blog, which I did. This time, Jason jumped right into the fray. Good for him.
Admittedly, I might have been a little harsh on him at first. I initially found his response late last night, and late at night is not a good time for me to try and walk the line between spirited debate and overzealous ham-fistedness. I'm actually really glad he took the time to post here. He didn't just get angry that I'd responded to his letter, or shy away from the debate. I don't have a lot of patience for people who are so sure of their convictions that they can have those opinions published in the newspaper, but not sure enough to have anyone else critique them. Jason's got a firmer backbone than that, and that, at least, is commendable.
I guess what immediately set me off was Jason's need to label me as just another 'liberal.' I really feel that if one wishes to engage in political discussion, one needs to avoid labeling. Which, of course, I failed to do when I called him a neo-con. Maybe Jason's a member of Greenpeace. Maybe he sends an annual donation to Amnesty International. Maybe he belongs to the ACLU. I don't know. I doubt it, but I don't know.
I'm finding myself torn. On one hand, I really feel that if someone publicly supports the use of torture, or feels intelligent design belongs in biology class, or defends Bush's lying by saying, "Well, Clinton lied too," then that person deserves to be taken to task for it. Those of us who aren't radically aligned with one political extreme or another tend to be too nice, and I'm tired of being nice while they smear rational thought and reason. On the other hand, it's incredibly difficult to engage radicals angrily without resorting to the same undignified tactics. There's also an almost insurmountable divide between the radicals and the centrists; the radicals support a party line, while centrists look at issues. Unfortunately, it would appear that the difference between a radical and a centrist is that a centrist believes that what his party does should be dictated by what is right, while a radical believes that what is right should be dictated by what his party does. The latter is an incredibly dangerous mindset. Republicans should be angry that our party has created a nearly opaque administration with barely any oversight, and Democrats should be angry that their party won't grow a set and present a unified platform.
I really think we, as a society, have been tricked into this "Culture War." I'm a centrist Republican. I'm not a conservative, but I recognize that conservatives act from a sense of responsibility, which is commendable. I'm not a liberal, but I recognize that liberals act from a sense of humanitarianism, which is commendable. Neither group has all the answers, and the cold rationalization of one needs the cautious empathy of the other. The problem is, a whole lot of people have gotten rich by convincing you that your side is 'correct.' It's not. If humans had discovered the perfect system of government, we'd just implement it and be done with it, but we may have to accept that there is no perfect system of government. We've tried leaning too far to the left with socialism. We've tried leaning too far to the right with fascism. Neither option ended up being very appealing. Now, instead of trying to find the right balance, we're letting corporations and lobbyists run our government while we bicker amongst ourselves in a giant national pissing contest. You're never going to get a solid majority of Americans to fully support radical conservative policy, nor will you convince them to fully support radical liberalism. What we should all be able to agree upon, however, is that there is room for everyone, as long as we are focusing on the issues, and not letting our emotional ties to a party line cloud our judgment.
Eh, so much for taking a break from being long-winded. Sorry.
posted by Zafrod at 11:09 AM
5 Comments:
Quit complementing me. I'm just reluctantly trying to help you. I wouldn't mind if you'd stop using my last name, but by looking at the amount of comments you get, nobody is reading this anyway.
Nice picture of Rush, huh? I have it hanging in my garage.
Couple Points:
Every assumption you made about me was wrong (except that I am educated and intelligent)
I don't care what box you checked on your voter registration, you still sound like a liberal. That's because you dmonstrate zero accountability, you make assumptions and treat them as fact(innacurate ones), your a hypocrite(Although you admitted this in your whim about labels), and when you're not labelling, you're just calling names. Sounds like a liberal to me. If I weren't giving examples supported on your own blog, I'd be like a liberal also.
An example of lack of accountability includes criticizing my writing for 100 different things you don't demonstarte yourself in your writing. An example would be answering my original question in my letter of what Bush lied about, and you've had several chances. You took the whole Clinton lying story as bashing Clinton, missing the point, that that's how we handle a president who lies. I think liberals wouldn't actually want to prove their accusations because they wouldn't know how to campaign if they couldn't bash Bush.
The solutions you mentioned, I only heard of one, which was Martha's immediate withdrawal. They had their chance to vote, I think 3 voted for it. I know, he wanted a strike force ready, outside the border, just in case. Where would he put it, Iran, Turkey, Saidi Arabia, that would reduce tensions, wouldn't it.
My solution would be increase troops, close the border (Apaches coverring every 5- 10 miles), go door to door, find them, kill them, and hand over control. Then Leave. My priveleged ass may not be there, but my best friend was, and still is in the Army. I also know a lot of Military, one of which would treat the children and women that had guns shoved you know where and shot for not completing suicide missions. These people learning that someone in the world will make them pay for their actions is a great result, but the point in this war is to establish a democratic state in the Middle East. It's the only way to truly stop terrorism, to show the people of these nations that if they can control their countries, they can prosper, and actually have a life. That's my reason for supporting the war, and has been from the beginning, regardless of what Bush said. Immagine that, someone making a decision on principles and sticking to it, regardless of political polls, winds, popularity, etc.
Finally, the Administration has been clear, they will leave when the government there can stand by it's self securely. They say it all the time.
Quit kidding yourself, you've been infected by all the Kool Aid your drinking, you don't even realize it.
Please remove my last name. I will check back to see what the lie was, and how you can prove it. And don't say it was when he said the same thing as 1000 other people!!!
What's the matter, Jas? Can't take a compliment? I'm just saying you have more nads than the last guy, although wanting your last name removed... well, you didn't mind printing it in the paper, a forum in which you couldn't be publically taken to task. Regardless, done and done.
Anyway, about those labels. I hate using the word hypocrite... it's too...easy. But seriously:
"you make assumptions and treat them as fact(innacurate ones)"
vs.
"I would love to here some sort of solution to today's situation from someone on the left. Instead, you say the same things you've been saying since 2000"
(That's you making an innacurate assumption)
"your a hypocrite(Although you admitted this in your whim about labels)"
vs.
"I, nor probably Rush, have gotten ovet the sell out embarassment of the fraternity antics of Clinton representing our country"
(I realize you probably don't see the hypocracy in a Bush supporter criticizing frat-boy politics, but then, ignorance to hypocracy doesn't excuse it.)
Pot. Kettle. Get over it. It's politics in the 'nauhts, and you're yelling too loud to be heard.
Of course you've only heard one option outside of the neo-con nonsense, Jason... you only listen to right-of-center media. The problem isn't that the Democrats have no ideas, it's that they have too many and can't present a unified front. Even the veterans groups are saying that. There was an excellent interview with the head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paul Reickhoff, on Rachel Maddow this morning, who brought up this exact point. I'm sure you weren't listening though.
Your proposed solution, by the way, is completely impossible given current troop numbers. Are you recommending a draft? I was trying to stay within the realm of political and military reality. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the social realities in Iraq and the insurmountable differences between religious and tribal groups, but there's no way I'm going to go into all that. Go read something by an academic, instead of right-wing claptrap.
Okay, a very abridged list of Bush innacuracies (Is he lying? Is he incompetant? You make the call!):
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam." -9/26/02
Of course, not only can you distinguish them, but they couldn't link them. Something they definitely did not want the American People to know prior to invading Iraq.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." -9/17/03
Still at it, eh George. At this point, the 9/11 Commission had officially declared that such a link did not exist.
"We have dramatically improved our capacity to prevent, and if necessary, respond to a terrorist attack." -7/22/04
This statement came out after the 9/11 Commission gave the nation's attack preparedness a rating of D-.
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." -7/14/03
Of course, he did let the inspectors in. There were over 900 inspections at over 500 sites between November 2002 and March 2003, until the inspectors were forced to leave by military action.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." -6/18/04
Holy geez, Dubya. By 2004, this was a lie. Not even a remote chance this was just an innacuracy. By this point, we actually knew that Saddam and Bin Laden had an adversarial relationship.
"They're not going to develop [an Islamic extremist government in Iraq]. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment." -2/13/04
That's not a lie... oh, but wait...
"I haven't had any extensive conversations with [Chalabi]...I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq." -6/1/04
Wow. Now that's just a COMPLETE lie. Not only did "somebody" walk into Bush's office and discuss what Chalabi planned, but it was Chalabi himself.
"That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values." -5/24/04 (about Abu Ghraib)
Sounds great, until it leaked out that the okay to use torture methods had crossed Bush's desk. You can say (wrongly) that Bush had the right to okay torture, but in stements like these, he blamed it on renegade soldiers. An absolute disgrace.
"[It is] going to be up for cities and states to make those decisions [about gay marriage]." -5/2/00
Of course, we all know that Bush quickly changed his mind after the election and proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Did he lie, or did he 'flip-flop?' Either way, he's incompetant!
Okay, seriously, I could do this all night. But it's late and I want to get to bed. It's irrelevant. You're going to read those innaccuracies, some of which are obviously blatant lies, and excuse him for all of them. Remember, science has proven that by doing so, you're triggering your brain's pleasure centers. It's fun to excuse presidential misinformation!
Anyway, off to remove your last name. Thanks for trying to "help" me, bust since you're under the misconception that only liberals are opposed to this administration, and since the latest Time poll put Bush's approval rating at 40%, I guess the liberals all have you outnumbered. No hope for me, eh? =)
(Oh, and about readership of this blog... well, I can actually see how many hits it gets. I'm going to quote you here, okay?
"you make assumptions and treat them as fact(innacurate ones)"
You remember how you found this site, right Jason? You were Googling yourself. Go ahead and Google "Jason [Your Last Name]" right now. See how this site is the first to come up? Those are listed in order of relevance and popularity.
Pot. Kettle. Yeah. =) )
Hey jason,
After reading this....
"I don't care what box you checked on your voter registration, you still sound like a liberal. That's because you dmonstrate zero accountability, you make assumptions and treat them as fact(innacurate ones), your a hypocrite(Although you admitted this in your whim about labels), and when you're not labelling, you're just calling names. Sounds like a liberal to me."
I can check off the box of "pompous assclown" for you. Don't worry, I won't compliment you either.
Unfortunately, they are role models for those who choose to follow their example.
Critics are tough aren't they? Just remeber the immortal words of Woodrow Wilson.
"Want to make enemies? Just try to change something."
Keep demanding change. It's the easiest way to identify the enemies of progress.
Oh, I'm not ultimately worried about Jason. I was, after all, the original critic of his work... though I do appreciate the support. =)
I'm basically trying to model for him the foundation for responsible critical response, which generally involves responding to the actual criticism, especially direct inquiries. I'm not sure he gets it, as he's spent all his column inches assuring me that I'm dodging his questions, so hasn't had a chance to answer the very direct challenge I presented him in my orginal critique. Some people just can't take a hint.
Maybe if I tried responding to everything he punctuated with a question mark...
No, Jason, it's not a good picture of Rush. He looks like a used car salesman, only without the innate trustworthiness. That's why I chose it, although to be fair, he uses it as a cover shot.
I contend that asking if I will continue to whine and be irrelevant is a loaded question, since I don't believe I'm either. Serious political debate isn't 'whining', Jason, and 'irrelevant' is just a word social conservatives use for people whose ideas frighten them. Truly irrelevant groups do not make up 49% of the voting population, unless you learned statistics from a neo-con.
... hmmmm. That's it. I covered every question... even the rhetorical ones.
AS- I hesitate to give direct support to your statement, but if your pencil is dull, there's a sharpener in the corner. Thanks for saying what, hypothetically, other people might have been thinking.
ka- Name-calling is only an undignified tactic when employed by those dirty, knuckle-dragging, shit-for-brains, cock smoking liberals.
forty- At this point, I don't want MORE change, because all the change in the past 5 years has been completely batshit. But if Jason's goal was to shut me up... well, he needed to use better sentence structure.
Post a Comment
<< Home