(Amanda) I've been reading your correspondence back and forth between you and your friend and I'm so sorry that you've been so woefully misinformed. You must watch Fox News or something?? If you need enlightenment, let me know...:)
I don't think anyone would dispute that Saddam was a bad man. That's not what is at issue. What the issue is, is that we were lead to believe that he was an imminent and immediate threat to the US, which has been proven completely false. No WMD, no chemical or biological weapons, no nuclear weapons, no ties to terrorism, just nothing. We were lied to plain and simple and they just keep lying and people just keep believing. When are the people going to get tired of this and say, "hey what gives?" I think that many people just can't face the reality of how corrupt the government of the United States is so they'd just rather bury their heads in the sand and blindly follow this idiot wherever he may lead us. As a side note, I think the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.
(JM) First, the "proof" that Saddam is or was not a threat to the U.S.....you have this in your possession? Please enthrall me with your sources. Everyone, including Clinton himself, admits that Saddam did have WMDs in his possession. The question not answered by 19 U.N. resolutions is...where did they go? Some evidence points to their being dumped in the Euphrates River, other says they were smuggled into Syria. If he did not have them, then why did he refuse to cooperate with the world. If he did have them, then was he not a constant threat? Did he not fund terrorist organizations opposed to the U.S.? You claim "no ties to terrorism"- shall we compare sources? See, here is the problem with those opposed to the Bush plan: they are too certain of their guess work. In other words, which side is it better to err on? Is it better to pretend Saddam was not a threat, be wrong, and thus end up fighting on our own soil? Or is it better to assume the worst, be prepared, and at least have the option of choosing where to fight? Liberals are too sure of their uncertainty. Their hatred for Bush blinds them to the REAL threat. Don't succumb to partisan ideology because it can be delusional.
If you wish to compare corruption of governments, then you are going to be hard pressed to find one less corrupt than the U.S. I know not where this self-loathing of home and country derives, but it does seem to be fashionable these days, and certainly passe'. Lastly, be careful with the name calling- it is the libs who are supposed to be compassionate, remember?
I'll take a handwritten memo over Newsweek any day. A lot of fluff about a "senior Bush administration official", "federal authorities", "officials in Washington".....how about a name? Sound like bunk to me; however, the White House source was impressive. Could it be that Bush is bidding his time until all of the evidence is in? I certainly wouldn't want to jump the gun on this issue.
I will respond to your other email as soon as I can, but you said so many preposterous and erroneous things, that I scarcely know where to begin!
(Amanda) Subject: RE: proof of ties http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
One question for you. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
(JM) I have decided to systematically address all points that you made in the chronology in which you made them- so here it goes…
You say he had WMDs “probably in the distant past”. When I hear that term I think of the Greeks and Romans, not the year 1998. My original question remains unaddressed- what became of them? Do you think Saddam dismantled them out of the goodness of his heart? If they were unaccounted for, then it is prudent to assume that he still has them. Like I said, libs are too sure of their guesswork, and, what is worse, they are too trusting of ruthless monarchs (and equally mistrustful of a Republican). I was not aware that we have “continuously” bombed Iraq for the past 10 years, but if we had, then Clinton is to blame, is he not?
The U.N. inspectors were nothing more than keystone cops, and despite their bungling Saddam still kicked them out- rather uncooperative in my book. You mention other countries, namely U.S. allies, who have also violated U.N. resolutions. I would think that it would be prudent, as with all things, to deal with the worst case first and, since they are allies anyway, worry about lesser cases later. Otherwise, Bush would then be criticized for spreading our forces too thin, right? I personally hold the U.N. in very low esteem, and consider it an irrelevant and ineffectual organization.
You “loathe” Bush, that is clear, and see his policies as “dangerous”. What I see as infinitely more dangerous is the liberal frame of mind that says we ought to inexhaustibly appease ruthless dictators, which invariably will do nothing more than encourage violence against us. What so many Americans do not realize is that we are perceived as weak for this very reason, and thus vulnerable. These leaders know that we cannot stomach even the minutest of causalities, and will pull out of conflict if public opinion turns out of favor with the war, despite how many billions of dollars have already been spent on the endeavor. If you want to point to something truly dangerous, then all you have to do is look at the ramifications that resulted from the Toricelli Principle. Now that was truly stupid and disastrous. Your call for police work against a crime versus military action against an act of war is so ridiculous that I hardly feel a response is merited (as if Saddam would have cooperated with police action- is that for real?).
I have to admit that I am a bit bewildered by your thesis that there is a “role of cooperation in the survival of the fittest.” Please explain further for I am truly intrigued. So you blame the 1998 bombing of Iraq on the “neo-conservatives”? Do you assign any blame to Clinton? The non-partisan claim you have made is waning in my mind.
You have devised a rather elaborate conspiracy theory that claims that Bush “exploited” 9-11 for his own purposes. Tell me, what should he have done? Better yet, if you were the President, what would your response to 9-11 have been? Also, again, I need elaboration on this “agenda of American supremacy” theory. You say Bush is leading us in a “dangerous direction”. I say that Clinton put us there, and Bush is doing the only thing that he can. Consider this: a bully picks on a kid who may even be bigger than he himself, but the kid never fights back. Now tell me, will this inaction dissuade the little bully, or will it encourage him, and others like him, to not only continue bullying, but augment it?! Whether the utopians like it or not, the periodic show of force works, and sends a message that must be sent. Libya has now begun voluntarily dismantling its WMD program, and Iran is now opening up to inspections. Does anyone honestly doubt that this was because of the present state of Saddam Hussein? C’mon, let’s use our heads and get in the game here!
You allude to something that makes me curious. Unless I am mistaken, you are implying that by trying to maintain it’s military supremacy, the U.S. is doing a bad thing. Is that correct, and, if so, then why? Who should have it then? I know, no one, right? Perhaps things were better during the Cold War when there were two super powers. No nation in the history of earth has ever been as righteous with their military as the United States has. Yes, our past is not unalloyed, but whose is? Shall we compare the use of military force throughout history, and see where the U.S.'s policy lies? Do I have to actually point out that we are far more ethical than all of the other major powers of history? Sure, we are presently occupying Iraq temporarily until we can get them on their feet, but we are not taking over anyone or anything in the traditional sense of military conquest.
What do you feel are “the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy”, and what do you feel Bush’s are? When Bush mentions the endurance of freedom, of course he implies our freedom in that claim as well, but what reason do you have to believe that this man is honestly not interested in freedom for others? Does loathing of him cause you to see him as a despot? It has always been my contention that emotion clouds judgment, and who would disagree?
You make an assertion that in a free society the masses determine what freedom and democracy are on an individual basis. Please explain further because this sounds suspiciously like anarchy to me. Besides, why wouldn’t people wish to follow America’s lead? Are we not the best national example of personal freedom and liberties for its citizens? Are we not still a beacon to the oppressed in every corner of the globe? If not, then why are people sacrificing their fortunes and lives just to make it to our shores? We are perceived a the “Great Satan” by a large number of Middle Easterners because, since the age of about two, they have been brainwashed with propaganda to believe that the horrid state of their lives is the result of the West, and not the despicable despots who keep all of the money of the nation for themselves while their people starve. Many of these citizens are illiterate, uneducated, and totally duped- of course they hate us.
Terrorists may never totally disappear, but they may be dissuaded after witnessing the demise of Saddam and his regime. They certainly will not desist if we continue to appease them. This is pure human nature, and common sense. We are already at risk in a dangerous world. Bush is letting it be known that we will not be pushed around. What policy would have been more effective than the one currently being used by the Bush administration? Perhaps if we said “pretty please” to the monarchical monsters, or if we let the U.N. handle things, perhaps we could send Jesse Jackson over there to negotiate peace, wait- I know!- we could beg our back-stabbing allies (who have selfish interests and personal investments with Iraq) to take care of it and look out for us. I too have sympathy for innocent victims, particularly those of 9-11.
Lastly, you claim to be an independent thinker and are very proud of this “novel” type of thinking. I too pride myself for this attribute, and presume many others do as well (so much for novelty). What I don’t understand is why one cannot be a liberal or conservative, or whatever, and still be an independent thinker? It is the ideologues who are the true dopes. What is so wrong with labels anyway? I see them as a practical way of categorizing things. Sure, they do not represent a complete picture, but this is implicit and silly to have to point out. Incidentally, “independent thinker” is also a label, is it not?
Well, I would just like to thank you again for engaging me. It seems so few of us have the ability to make cogent arguments in favor of our stances. So many, it seems, believe things wholeheartedly, and positively cannot articulate why. This is what happens when the heart does the brain's job. How we feel about something is a foolish way to derive an opinion. Opinions ought to be logical, rational, and, above all, educated. I hold little esteem for uneducated opinions, and regard them as immaterial. Wouldn't you agree?
(Amanda) Seriously, how do you defend this??
Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.
The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq "can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at all.
Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked.
In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar intelligence."
Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the intelligence community owes the president [an apoogy] rather than the president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always
a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it."
Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence," and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands to remove such allegations from his speech.
(JM) Before I address the article, I would like to point out that during the early goings, many of the present Democratic Presidential candidates (i.e., Clark, Dean, Kerry, etc.) supported the war because they too admitted that Saddam had W.M.D.s. The point is, if they were mistaken due to a lack of poor info, or whatever, then why can't Bush have been mistaken also? Why is he the mastermind behind a major conspiracy? Everyone, including the leaders of several other nations, believed that Saddam had W.M.D.s. Was it because Bush mislead them? No, more likely it was because, at one point, Saddam's regime did (and probably still does) have them, and Saddam himself would not cooperate with the inspectors. Besides, recently some stockpiles were found. Perhaps not the smoking gun we were looking for, but evidence none-the-less. Now, as for this article...
Consider the source first of all- The New York Times! Could there be a more liberally biased paper in the world?! Show me anywhere in this article where the author makes the point that I just did- many Democrats as well were making the same claim about W.M.D.s and thus supported the war initially, although they are now backtracking as well. However, this is not mentioned- curious. I reiterate an earlier point: would it have been better to give this ruthless monarch the benefit of the doubt (even though he never did deny having W.M.D.s), or would it be more prudent to assume the worst and, after umptine resolutions and being given the middle finger, go in to remove him? How any clear thinking person can argue with the decision to attack Iraq based on this line of reasoning is befuddling. Please show where my rationale is misguided.
(Amanda) It really doesn't matter what the previous administrations or others thought, they didn't act on it. Bush did. So Bush takes the fall. I think he (not him personally, he's too stupid) and his cronies cherry picked the intel. The point is, we DID NOT need to rush to this war. Obviously weapons inspections were working (as evidenced by the lack of WMD). Of course he didn't say he didn't have any, that was his only leverage. As for the New York Times, I don't understand all this hollaring about liberal media, I think none of them are liberal, especially when I see the articles on the 10th page instead of the front like they should be.
(JM) First, I was referring to the present Democratic nominees for President of the United States. I never made any mention of previous administrations. Do you read with your heart (i.e., emotionally) or your brain (i.e., rationally, logically, intellectually)?
Second, where does this belief in Bush's lack of intelligence come from? I realize that S.N.L, and the liberal media that you resist acknowledging poke fun at him all of the time, but what has he done that is so stupid? Do you remember when Clinton mistook the Declaration of Independence for the Gettysburg Address! How about the time that Gore could not distinguish a statue of Washington from Jefferson! Now that is profoundly stupid, especially for a sitting President, or VP. For the leader of our nation to have no sense of history of that nation is amazingly ignorant. Show me the equivalent buffoonery in Bush.
Third, what do you define as rushing? From what I remember it took a long time before the war got under way. Shall we compare our timetables?
Fourth, and this is amazingly illogical in my opinion, how does the lack of evidence PROVE that the inspections were working? If you smell smoke in your kids room, but cannot find the cigarette, then will you walk away if the child says that "it must not exist since you cannot find it!" You must elaborate on the labrynthian pattern of your thinking here because the logic alludes me. Also, what leverage of Saddam's are we speaking of? I would think his best play would be to just admit that he did not have any W.M.D.s, and thus allow the inspectors to come and go as they please without restrictions, such as a mandatory heads-up on where they would soon be inspecting- I always found that fascinating as well.
Fifth, and most important, if you would allow me, and if you are as independently/open minded as you profess, then I would like to give you a source or two that may convince you that a liberal media bias not only exists but runs rampant in America today. Are you willing?
Bushisms?! Really now, you must quit reading these wacko websites and go for primary literature. This site is obviously a haven for Bush-haters.
I reiterate:
"It goes without saying -- or should -- that the Bush administration was not alone in worrying about Saddam's WMDs. Former Vice President Al Gore, for example, noted during a speech in September 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Gore was and is highly critical of Bush's foreign policy, but he didn't doubt for a moment that Saddam was equipped with deadly chemical and biological agents. Nor did Bill Clinton, the United Nations, or even Jacques Chirac.
Even Saddam's own military officers believed there were stockpiles of illegal weapons. In its Page 1 story on Kay's findings, The New York Times noted that while "no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons . . . all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons. `They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said." For those of us who never believed that the case for toppling Saddam depended primarily on his possession of unconventional weapons, the fact that he no longer possessed them changes very little. The war was right and proper because Saddam was a homicidal dictator who ruled with staggering brutality, because he provided support to international terrorists, and because Ba'athist Iraq was a threat to its neighbors."
(Amanda) If countries are able to be attacked because others BELIEVE they're going to invade other countries, then where will that put the U.S.? We have the largest stockpile of weapons in the world as well as the most mobile armed forces. And, based on our international diplomatic techniques at this point, I believe we pose one hell of a risk to others.
The FACT is, the president and his cronies told us we were going to war for a certain reason, that Iraq posed an imminent and immediate threat to the US. Our intelligence may or may not be lacking. We all know now (according to O'Neill) that bush wanted to go into Iraq since he had taken the oval office. Doesn't it stand to reason that bush and company may have skewed the intelligence to given them, to present a favorable outcome? The parents of the dead solders being brought back from Iraq were told their sons/daughters were needed to protect America's interest from WMD. Now no such weapons exist. Don't you think those people are owned an explanation? an apology? You can't give the lame argument that Saddam was a bad man, we all know that, there are several "bad" men in the world, we aren't out attacking them.
You harp on the resolutions, well what about the 88 other countries that are in violation of UN resolutions. Why don't we go bomb Israel, they are in violation of quite a few.
If I know a guy is a millionaire and I don't see him for a while and again see him and he's driving a nice car, I assume he's still a millionaire. Doesn't mean he is. We can't go to wars on assumptions and circumstantial evidence. Get your head out of bush's ass and see what's truly going on. We should at least be SCREAMING for an INDEPENDENT inquiry, but I imagine that would embarrass bush and company quite a bit.
(JM) Can you kindly provide for me one example in our nation's history where we went to war as the aggressor? Also, what more could Bush have done diplomatically? He gave Saddam every chance to cooperate. Do we blame Saddam for being an ass? No! We blame Bush, of course. Again, I do not understand this "blame America first" crowd- just a bunch of spoiled brat idiots who, if they lived any where else in the world for about a year, would be on their hands and knees begging to come back to the U.S. I personally would tell them to "piss off!" The U.S., while not the Garden of Eden as so many utopians would like it to be, is still a beacon of light in a world of darkness. Read What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza and I guarantee it will alter your frame of mind.
Let me ask you this, if it was ever proven that Saddam had his hands on W.M.D.s, would you worry that he would use them? I mean, would you even be concerned...at all? Or are you so confident in the greatness of his benevolence over someone like...oh, let's say...Bush?
Your refusal to capitalize Bush's name only shows me how deep your bias goes and how absurd your claim of neutrality and independence is. Just like your utter refusal to read a column by Bill O'Reilly.
Concerning the other countries in violations of resolutions, how many do you feel are as dangerous as Iraq was? Should we honestly be concerned about Israel? Are they a threat to us? And, as for the countries that may actually pose a threat, how many are worse than Iraq was? How many of those dictators tried to kill the President of the U.S. A loyal American, despite his or her politics, would be affronted by such an attempt. Of course, an America hater would see that as no justifiable means to target Iraq. I agree that this alone would not suffice for a cause for war, but it certainly is a valid factor when assessing the threat that they pose.
I agree that there ought to be an independent inquiry, and the Bush administration's resistance does make me suspicious. You have to read, or listen to, What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Mrs. T. and I
(Mrs. T) We have just returned from a vacation in Montana. We have family that live just outside of Bigfork (near Kalispell)--about 40 miles outside of Glacier National Park. We go frequently, because we love the area, but one observable fact that sticks out as obviously as the American flag without its stripes is that there is no one--NO ONE!-- of color. It is as white as Wonder Bread. Even native Americans (mostly Blackfeet) are relatively few. More disturbing than the lack of diversity is that the people I talked to don't see anything abnormal about it, and because of their lack of exposure to other cultures, they become completely bewildered about things that are "different." A major topic of discussion revolved around a family from California that had recently built their retirement home there--and it had a resemblance to Chinese architecture. And they weren't even Chinese! When asked if he doesn't mind that there isn't more diversity in the area, my resident relative replied, "Well, there are already a lot of poor white people here. Why would black people want to live here?" It never occurred to this family member that being black doesn't mean being poor. It seems to me prejudices exist due to lack of exposure to and understanding of cultural diversities.
(JM) Well, you just knew that I could not resist replying to your last email. I still wait, with great anticipation, for a cogent explanation as to reason for the dire need for diversity and specifically why it is so crucial for societies' benefit since many educated people are prejudiced as well (I am reminded of this every time a conservative tries to speak at Bezerkley). Sure, it is interesting, even fascinating, to meet people from other nations and learn about various ways of life. My favorite place on earth is Disney's EPCOT where I walk straight to the portion containing the various countries. Nothing pleases me more, in fact, than to experience a wide array of cultures. Having said that, I must confess a skepticism, and strong concern for the current trend of coerced diversity. There is something artificial and insincere about this new political fad, and even sinister, for forced diversity seems synthetic and pointless. The best diversity is that of a natural sort. Telling people to mingle for their own edification and enlightenment, and stressing to them their bigotry and ignorance for not doing so (i.e., socially pressuring and forcing them) will actually stir resentment and, in the long run, cause them to resist and eventually to dislike one another- the opposite intention. Now that is truly disturbing.
Why ought we to be disturbed by the existence of homogenous societies? Are they taboo now? Does this same disturbed feeling apply to non-white homogenous nations as well? There are many peoples around the globe who are even more ignorant and hateful of outsiders than those in Montana- no, it’s true! For instance, how accepting are the various tribes in Africa of strangers? Does not a white face appear as strange and unwelcome to them? What of the many Asian societies? Are not interracial marriages frowned upon in China, Japan, Korea, etc.? Are Middle Easterners as accepting of foreigners as we? What would one of these men say if his daughter we to marry a "white devil"? It appears to me that prejudice exists all over the world and always has, yet which culture is the most accepting of outsiders? Answer...western culture. Did not slavery exist in every corner of the earth at some point or another and does it not still exist in many places today? Yet democracy and the abolition of slavery were begun by whom? Answer...white westerners. In point of fact, where does slavery exist most prevalently today? Answer...Africa. And did not the Egyptians and Muslims also engage in slavery in their history? Has anyone studied the origins of Liberia? The Native American fallback response is futile and false because it existed among many of their tribes as well.
Lastly, if an assumption is made that black equals poor, then who is to blame for this fallacy? Are we not told that programs such as affirmative action (cute name isn't it?) are absolutely necessary for black success, equal opportunity, and diversity? Honestly, who is truly responsible for this misconception? When Halle Berry does commercials for the M.L.K. Foundation, which imply that segregation would return instantly if funds are not given, does she not reinforce these fears through scare tactics? And am I as a white male entitled to be offended by that commercial and for the assumptions it makes? Also, don’t many minority groups voluntarily and willingly segregate themselves? I do not have the benefit of a sheltered life and from viewing things through rose-colored spectacles atop an ivory tower. Down here in the muck of life, things appear very clearly and I realize that those who see things differently often times do not really see at all.
P.S. Is white no longer a color?
Not absurdity as much as money.
P.S. I admit to striving to be one of those "over-compassionate, over-understanding" people.
I am glad that we allow people to sue for injustice, have heath care for the elderly and indigent, provide food stamps and assistance for the poor, etc., etc., but there is far too much abuse out there. We are tying the hands of the police, doctors, business owners, etc. and we are removing their incentive. I fear that insistent, nonsensical over-compassion and over-understanding of a major minority of persons (often times despicable persons) is hurting the overwhelming majority of people. Even as an anti-religioso I still feel it is silly to make such a fuss about the pledge. When I was in high school I stood quietly and respectfully did not recite it. It would have never occured to me to sue because the majority of people are religious. If in another country, it would never occur to me to sue because a god different from mine was more popularly worshipped- I would respect the beliefs of those whose country I was in. The majority is not always right, but we are to the point now where the minority rule simply because they are louder and more active. Common sense must rule regardless if it is endorsed by the majority or minority. Absurdity rules in America today. What do you think?
endearingly,
JM
(Mrs.T.) Im (sic) afraid even incompetent surgeons pass med school. (Think about some of the students that will graduate with you and get a pharmacy license). I'm glad you got to witness one of the good ones.
(JM) I was fortunate enough to be able to witness open heart surgery today! It was remarkable. I stood just behind the surgeon watching over his shoulder as he explained to me what he was doing. The patient was getting a CABG done. They pulled a vein from his leg and sewed it onto his heart. I was there for the whole thing- from the time they brought in the sedated and drowsy patient, cutting his chest open, performing all of the surgical intricacies, and sewing him back up again. I was mesmerized. These people are real heroes in my opinion. It is such a shame that, in our society, we idolize athletes and rock stars rather than people of consequence, people who really make a difference. Not only that, but then we sue the pants off of them! I heard on the radio this morning about a doctors strike. Lawyers are just waiting outside of the recovery room hoping for the opportunity to cash in, so to speak. It's sickening. Anyway, I apologize for going off on a rant. I merely wanted to share this unique experience.
ta ta, JM
(Mrs. T.) Is this story supposed to make me feel sorry for the 10th man?
(JM) This is the single best tax analogy I've ever seen! I hope this solves the controversy once and for all.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT !
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
I know that pity is reserved for those less fortunate (bums, criminals, crack whores, etc.), and never for the hard working and successful. No, the story is meant to convey the preposterous arguments made by those opposed to tax cuts. I think that this analogy is as concise as any I have ever seen. Any tax cut will benefit those who make more money because the more you make the more the govt. takes. Why should the poor (< $30,000/yr) get a tax break if they hardly pay any income taxes in the first place? Sure, we can get into "loopholes" and "write-offs", but the gist of this issue is demonstrated in that brilliant analogy. I have to work until May before I get to keep MY money! And where does it go?! If it were spent more wisely, then that may be something, but it is squandered to a saddening degree. So...miss me?
(JM) Well, you just knew that I could not resist replying to your last email. I still wait, with great anticipation, for a cogent explanation as to reason for the dire need for diversity and specifically why it is so crucial for societies' benefit since many educated people are prejudiced as well (I am reminded of this every time a conservative tries to speak at Bezerkley). Sure, it is interesting, even fascinating, to meet people from other nations and learn about various ways of life. My favorite place on earth is Disney's EPCOT where I walk straight to the portion containing the various countries. Nothing pleases me more, in fact, than to experience a wide array of cultures. Having said that, I must confess a skepticism, and strong concern for the current trend of coerced diversity. There is something artificial and insincere about this new political fad, and even sinister, for forced diversity seems synthetic and pointless. The best diversity is that of a natural sort. Telling people to mingle for their own edification and enlightenment, and stressing to them their bigotry and ignorance for not doing so (i.e., socially pressuring and forcing them) will actually stir resentment and, in the long run, cause them to resist and eventually to dislike one another- the opposite intention. Now that is truly disturbing.
Why ought we to be disturbed by the existence of homogenous societies? Are they taboo now? Does this same disturbed feeling apply to non-white homogenous nations as well? There are many peoples around the globe who are even more ignorant and hateful of outsiders than those in Montana- no, it’s true! For instance, how accepting are the various tribes in Africa of strangers? Does not a white face appear as strange and unwelcome to them? What of the many Asian societies? Are not interracial marriages frowned upon in China, Japan, Korea, etc.? Are Middle Easterners as accepting of foreigners as we? What would one of these men say if his daughter we to marry a "white devil"? It appears to me that prejudice exists all over the world and always has, yet which culture is the most accepting of outsiders? Answer...western culture. Did not slavery exist in every corner of the earth at some point or another and does it not still exist in many places today? Yet democracy and the abolition of slavery were begun by whom? Answer...white westerners. In point of fact, where does slavery exist most prevalently today? Answer...Africa. And did not the Egyptians and Muslims also engage in slavery in their history? Has anyone studied the origins of Liberia? The Native American fallback response is futile and false because it existed among many of their tribes as well.
Lastly, if an assumption is made that black equals poor, then who is to blame for this fallacy? Are we not told that programs such as affirmative action (cute name isn't it?) are absolutely necessary for black success, equal opportunity, and diversity? Honestly, who is truly responsible for this misconception? When Halle Berry does commercials for the M.L.K. Foundation, which imply that segregation would return instantly if funds are not given, does she not reinforce these fears through scare tactics? And am I as a white male entitled to be offended by that commercial and for the assumptions it makes? Also, don’t many minority groups voluntarily and willingly segregate themselves? I do not have the benefit of a sheltered life and from viewing things through rose-colored spectacles atop an ivory tower. Down here in the muck of life, things appear very clearly and I realize that those who see things differently often times do not really see at all.
P.S. Is white no longer a color?
Not absurdity as much as money.
P.S. I admit to striving to be one of those "over-compassionate, over-understanding" people.
I am glad that we allow people to sue for injustice, have heath care for the elderly and indigent, provide food stamps and assistance for the poor, etc., etc., but there is far too much abuse out there. We are tying the hands of the police, doctors, business owners, etc. and we are removing their incentive. I fear that insistent, nonsensical over-compassion and over-understanding of a major minority of persons (often times despicable persons) is hurting the overwhelming majority of people. Even as an anti-religioso I still feel it is silly to make such a fuss about the pledge. When I was in high school I stood quietly and respectfully did not recite it. It would have never occured to me to sue because the majority of people are religious. If in another country, it would never occur to me to sue because a god different from mine was more popularly worshipped- I would respect the beliefs of those whose country I was in. The majority is not always right, but we are to the point now where the minority rule simply because they are louder and more active. Common sense must rule regardless if it is endorsed by the majority or minority. Absurdity rules in America today. What do you think?
endearingly,
JM
(Mrs.T.) Im (sic) afraid even incompetent surgeons pass med school. (Think about some of the students that will graduate with you and get a pharmacy license). I'm glad you got to witness one of the good ones.
(JM) I was fortunate enough to be able to witness open heart surgery today! It was remarkable. I stood just behind the surgeon watching over his shoulder as he explained to me what he was doing. The patient was getting a CABG done. They pulled a vein from his leg and sewed it onto his heart. I was there for the whole thing- from the time they brought in the sedated and drowsy patient, cutting his chest open, performing all of the surgical intricacies, and sewing him back up again. I was mesmerized. These people are real heroes in my opinion. It is such a shame that, in our society, we idolize athletes and rock stars rather than people of consequence, people who really make a difference. Not only that, but then we sue the pants off of them! I heard on the radio this morning about a doctors strike. Lawyers are just waiting outside of the recovery room hoping for the opportunity to cash in, so to speak. It's sickening. Anyway, I apologize for going off on a rant. I merely wanted to share this unique experience.
ta ta, JM
(Mrs. T.) Is this story supposed to make me feel sorry for the 10th man?
(JM) This is the single best tax analogy I've ever seen! I hope this solves the controversy once and for all.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT !
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
I know that pity is reserved for those less fortunate (bums, criminals, crack whores, etc.), and never for the hard working and successful. No, the story is meant to convey the preposterous arguments made by those opposed to tax cuts. I think that this analogy is as concise as any I have ever seen. Any tax cut will benefit those who make more money because the more you make the more the govt. takes. Why should the poor (< $30,000/yr) get a tax break if they hardly pay any income taxes in the first place? Sure, we can get into "loopholes" and "write-offs", but the gist of this issue is demonstrated in that brilliant analogy. I have to work until May before I get to keep MY money! And where does it go?! If it were spent more wisely, then that may be something, but it is squandered to a saddening degree. So...miss me?
Mel and I
(Mel) Interesting video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
(JM) Exactly, Bush Sr. was wrong in 1994. We should have gone all the way and taken Saddam out. He did not make the same error in judgement twice...did he?
(Mel) So in only your opinion, did the 1994 predictions not come to fruition from 2003 to present, or do you agree only with Cheney and disregard the NIE reports, military & Pentagon assessment, CIA, reporters on the ground, and common sense? If you are in favor of the administration's agenda, then why not enlist rather than writing biased blogs?
(JM) So, unless I enlist then I ought to shut up, is that it? Typical liberal argument...
Biased blog? What is wrong with that? I'm not allowed to express my opinions on my own blog? What ought to enrage you is so called "journalists" who are supposed to be impartial writing with a liberal left wing slant. Of course, as a lib yourself, this doesn't bother you at all does it? However, if they were all conservatives, well then you'd scream bloody murder wouldn't you?
Liberalism is a philosophy based on emotion and feelings. Conservatism is based on logic and rationale. You've chosen your side, and I have chosen mine. What's fair is fair. Peace...
(Mel) "We will be greeted as liberators", "the insurgency is in its last throws", bogus WMD argument, "Mission Accomplished", Abu Ghraib tortures, Guantanamo tortures, C.I.A. secret prisons, "Al Qaeda & Saddam link", "cheap & short war", Harriet Myers, "Heckuva job, Brownie", Alberto Gonzalez's "I don't recall", illegal wiretaps, outing a CIA agent, George Tenet, Cheney contradicts the 9/11 Report, White House, Pentagon, NSA, CIA...., "No Child Left Behind", "My Pet Goat", 1.5 yrs of vacation in 6 years of a presidency, immigration reform (700 mile fence for 2000+ mile border), scientists funded by Exxon Mobil to oppose climate change, media banned from showing images of flag draped coffins...this could go on forever.
Logical and rational, I think not, more like delusional and insane. There's a fine line between logic and ignorance. The game of dividing the country into being either liberal or conservative is kind of dumb. The world should never be seen in black or white...that only generates a simplistic view of how to interpret reality. America needs more intellectuals and fewer arrogant loud-talkers like Dr. Phil & Bill O'Reilly. By no means should you stop writing your blog, but in my opinion the administration needs more people like yourself that support this policy and are willing to simply "put your money where your mouth is".
Rupert Murdoch, FOX News owner: "We tried to shape the agenda" on the war in Iraq.
Choose a side that's not on either side of the great divide.
(JM) Isn't diversity great? Especially coerced diversity. We shouldn't allow people to mingle voluntarily, no no, we must force them to!
DIVERSITY STUDY FINDS THAT ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSIFICATION DESTROYS THE BONDS OF SOCIETY...John Leo
(Mel) Putnum's ideas that new immigrants lack or degrade social capital in society is utterly false because it is due to strong social and familial relations that they survive and learn to navigate the American social and institutional fabric. White society largely exists (generalizing here) as atomized immediate family units, extended family are at arms length at best.
(JM) Uhmmm, black illegitimacy rate is 75%, hello? Illegal immigrants make up a disproportionate number of our federal prison population...hello? There are more black men between the ages 18 to 25 in prison than on the street, hello? Social and family relations??
(Mel) Finally, Putnum's analysis avoids addressing the role and legacy of white racism in this society in driving vulnerable ethnic groups into more insular attitudes towards other ethnic groups. In addition, the right wing cultural attacks on all non-european cultures creates a response from these cultures to champion and declare its own beauty, contribution and right to exist. Remember, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow is Beautiful! :-)
(JM) WTF are you talking about? The only racism that exists to a large extent and is institutionalized in America is that against whites and Asians. Affirmative action, hello? Chinese students with 4.0 GPAs are being turned away from California colleges because there are too many of them!!!! Trent Lott ring a bell?? Uhm...how about O.J. Simpson?! The Duke Lacrosse players, hello? Anyone there?
(Mel) So are you implying you have a problem with diversity, while you are married to a Chinese/Vietnamese woman? Would you rather we go back to the pre-Civil Rights days when everyone was segregated?
(JM) Now this is truly your most stupid argument. So let me get this straight, unless I cow tow to liberal demands and definitions about fairness viz-a-viz race and diversity, then I am a...what was that...pre-Civil Rights devotee? This is lesson one in the liberal handbook. If they disagree with you, then call them a bunch of racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobes...blah, blah, blah...very dull. Yes, I have a problem with FORCED diversity because it is profoundly stupid and harmful. You can't force people to mix who do not want to, and I have news for you, whites are the most willing to mix of all races and Americans of all cultures. You libs need to get your heads out of the clouds, take off those rose colored glasses, come down from your ivory towers, abandon your pie-in-the-sky hair brained schemes, and honestly evaluate your dumb ideas and acknowledge them for the failures that they are. Natural diversity is hunky dory, but don't call me a racist just because I don't succumb to your dumb ass philosophy, which is destroying the country by the way, and has just been proven false by a Harvard study.
It's your side of the isle asking if Obama is black enough...liberals obsessed with race.
(JM sent) Disinformation by Richard Miniter
Do As I Say, Not As I Do by Peter Schweizer
Michael Moore pretends to be impartial...a true "documentarian". Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Dennis Miller...all come out and admit up front that they are conservative. But not Dan Rather, or Katie Couric, or Walter Cronkite, and on and on.
(Mel) I think something is wrong with you...You have one point of view on everything, and you're a part of the crowd that still believes that WMDs are in Iraq and that the world is as old as Genesis. I am totally opposed to reading anything that will influence me to spill your delusional rhetoric. The answer to end racism is to divide the races? You should be embarassed (sic) and then admitted.
(JM) Yep, you'll never read it and you'll forever remain brainwashed. And who the hell said I believed in Genesis? Do you see that? Do you see what just happened there? You made a totally off-the-wall assumption about me being religious simply because I am conservative. You are prejudiced!!! You're the damn BIGOT!!! I caught you! Did you see that? You're busted honey.....Oh yeah, and never read anything that might upset the balance in that delicate mind of yours, after all, you don't want to risk learning that you have been mislead all of this time. That sure would suck, although, better late than never, but you're too single minded to read beyond your cultish propaganda. Too bad...the truth is out there.
(JM) Exactly, Bush Sr. was wrong in 1994. We should have gone all the way and taken Saddam out. He did not make the same error in judgement twice...did he?
(Mel) So in only your opinion, did the 1994 predictions not come to fruition from 2003 to present, or do you agree only with Cheney and disregard the NIE reports, military & Pentagon assessment, CIA, reporters on the ground, and common sense? If you are in favor of the administration's agenda, then why not enlist rather than writing biased blogs?
(JM) So, unless I enlist then I ought to shut up, is that it? Typical liberal argument...
Biased blog? What is wrong with that? I'm not allowed to express my opinions on my own blog? What ought to enrage you is so called "journalists" who are supposed to be impartial writing with a liberal left wing slant. Of course, as a lib yourself, this doesn't bother you at all does it? However, if they were all conservatives, well then you'd scream bloody murder wouldn't you?
Liberalism is a philosophy based on emotion and feelings. Conservatism is based on logic and rationale. You've chosen your side, and I have chosen mine. What's fair is fair. Peace...
(Mel) "We will be greeted as liberators", "the insurgency is in its last throws", bogus WMD argument, "Mission Accomplished", Abu Ghraib tortures, Guantanamo tortures, C.I.A. secret prisons, "Al Qaeda & Saddam link", "cheap & short war", Harriet Myers, "Heckuva job, Brownie", Alberto Gonzalez's "I don't recall", illegal wiretaps, outing a CIA agent, George Tenet, Cheney contradicts the 9/11 Report, White House, Pentagon, NSA, CIA...., "No Child Left Behind", "My Pet Goat", 1.5 yrs of vacation in 6 years of a presidency, immigration reform (700 mile fence for 2000+ mile border), scientists funded by Exxon Mobil to oppose climate change, media banned from showing images of flag draped coffins...this could go on forever.
Logical and rational, I think not, more like delusional and insane. There's a fine line between logic and ignorance. The game of dividing the country into being either liberal or conservative is kind of dumb. The world should never be seen in black or white...that only generates a simplistic view of how to interpret reality. America needs more intellectuals and fewer arrogant loud-talkers like Dr. Phil & Bill O'Reilly. By no means should you stop writing your blog, but in my opinion the administration needs more people like yourself that support this policy and are willing to simply "put your money where your mouth is".
Rupert Murdoch, FOX News owner: "We tried to shape the agenda" on the war in Iraq.
Choose a side that's not on either side of the great divide.
(JM) Isn't diversity great? Especially coerced diversity. We shouldn't allow people to mingle voluntarily, no no, we must force them to!
DIVERSITY STUDY FINDS THAT ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIVERSIFICATION DESTROYS THE BONDS OF SOCIETY...John Leo
(Mel) Putnum's ideas that new immigrants lack or degrade social capital in society is utterly false because it is due to strong social and familial relations that they survive and learn to navigate the American social and institutional fabric. White society largely exists (generalizing here) as atomized immediate family units, extended family are at arms length at best.
(JM) Uhmmm, black illegitimacy rate is 75%, hello? Illegal immigrants make up a disproportionate number of our federal prison population...hello? There are more black men between the ages 18 to 25 in prison than on the street, hello? Social and family relations??
(Mel) Finally, Putnum's analysis avoids addressing the role and legacy of white racism in this society in driving vulnerable ethnic groups into more insular attitudes towards other ethnic groups. In addition, the right wing cultural attacks on all non-european cultures creates a response from these cultures to champion and declare its own beauty, contribution and right to exist. Remember, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow is Beautiful! :-)
(JM) WTF are you talking about? The only racism that exists to a large extent and is institutionalized in America is that against whites and Asians. Affirmative action, hello? Chinese students with 4.0 GPAs are being turned away from California colleges because there are too many of them!!!! Trent Lott ring a bell?? Uhm...how about O.J. Simpson?! The Duke Lacrosse players, hello? Anyone there?
(Mel) So are you implying you have a problem with diversity, while you are married to a Chinese/Vietnamese woman? Would you rather we go back to the pre-Civil Rights days when everyone was segregated?
(JM) Now this is truly your most stupid argument. So let me get this straight, unless I cow tow to liberal demands and definitions about fairness viz-a-viz race and diversity, then I am a...what was that...pre-Civil Rights devotee? This is lesson one in the liberal handbook. If they disagree with you, then call them a bunch of racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobes...blah, blah, blah...very dull. Yes, I have a problem with FORCED diversity because it is profoundly stupid and harmful. You can't force people to mix who do not want to, and I have news for you, whites are the most willing to mix of all races and Americans of all cultures. You libs need to get your heads out of the clouds, take off those rose colored glasses, come down from your ivory towers, abandon your pie-in-the-sky hair brained schemes, and honestly evaluate your dumb ideas and acknowledge them for the failures that they are. Natural diversity is hunky dory, but don't call me a racist just because I don't succumb to your dumb ass philosophy, which is destroying the country by the way, and has just been proven false by a Harvard study.
It's your side of the isle asking if Obama is black enough...liberals obsessed with race.
(JM sent) Disinformation by Richard Miniter
Do As I Say, Not As I Do by Peter Schweizer
Michael Moore pretends to be impartial...a true "documentarian". Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Dennis Miller...all come out and admit up front that they are conservative. But not Dan Rather, or Katie Couric, or Walter Cronkite, and on and on.
(Mel) I think something is wrong with you...You have one point of view on everything, and you're a part of the crowd that still believes that WMDs are in Iraq and that the world is as old as Genesis. I am totally opposed to reading anything that will influence me to spill your delusional rhetoric. The answer to end racism is to divide the races? You should be embarassed (sic) and then admitted.
(JM) Yep, you'll never read it and you'll forever remain brainwashed. And who the hell said I believed in Genesis? Do you see that? Do you see what just happened there? You made a totally off-the-wall assumption about me being religious simply because I am conservative. You are prejudiced!!! You're the damn BIGOT!!! I caught you! Did you see that? You're busted honey.....Oh yeah, and never read anything that might upset the balance in that delicate mind of yours, after all, you don't want to risk learning that you have been mislead all of this time. That sure would suck, although, better late than never, but you're too single minded to read beyond your cultish propaganda. Too bad...the truth is out there.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Gus and I Two
(JM) "'Who am I? I'm under 45 years old, I love the outdoors, I hunt, I am a Republican reformer, I have taken on the Republican Party establishment, I have many children, I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office. Who am I?" Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.
(Russ) Second worst president in the history of the U.S.
(JM) Bush is the worst president? Where do you place Jimmy Carter?
(Russ) Not exactly sure. Mixed bag. On the one hand he established a national energy policy that included conservation, price decontrol, and new technology. Foreign oil imports were reduced by 50% from 1977 to 1982. Most significantly he negotiated the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
On the other hand he bungled the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran along with a failed rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages ensued and he did nothing about the Soviet invasion Afganistan (sic).
So, on the whole, fairly ineffective except for the peace treaty which holds to this day. So, I guess not much for the U.S. but Israel probably has a monument erected somewhere, as they should.
(Russ' response after I send my 'Change' article) Mostly exaggerated hyperbole. How about some reality. ENDLESS WAR!!!
(JM) Just a defense of America, and the institutions that have made it great. Not a perfect nation, of course (it's kinda silly to have to say that), but the best so far.
(Russ) I would love to see the debate (b/w Dinesh D'Souza and Ron Paul). Do you agree with D'Souza's position that "in retrospect the Iraq invasion was a mistake"? Other than that statement I couldn't disagree with him more. We should be careful what we wish for.
(Russ sends) What Does 'Democracy' Mean – Over There? by Patrick J. Buchanan
(JM) No, I prefer where he said (paraphrasing). We can't spread democracy 'everywhere', but we ought to try it 'somewhere.'
You know, I really like Buchanan. He's written 8 books or so, and I'll bet I have at least 5 or 6 of them, but I do not agree with his assessment here.
(Russ) What about it do you disagree with? Do you disagree with history that shows when these people get a chance to vote, they vote in the more radical elements of their society?
(Russ' response to JM sending Ben Stein's Can America Survive Chapter on American Imperialism)
The question is: "Can America Survive"? There are many types of welfare, ie. we the US taxpayers gives away money. On the retail level there are food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare, education and deductions for interest on mortgage expenses among others. On the wholesale level there are corporate loopholes that subsidize big agriculture, oil exploration and tax subsidies for corporations who export jobs among many others. On the planetary level, we provide a security blanket for much of the world, and we spend billions for for everything from military hardware and training, bases, wars, and yes humanitarian efforts. We spend more than we make. You tell me, can America survive? Our big spending ways will end when our masters cease to lend. Don't worry, it won't be long now. As soon as the world no longer wants Treasury Bills, the jig will be up.
(JM) show me the equivalent of this on the right
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-lefts-obscene-hatred-of-the-rest-of-us
(Russ send The New Yorker with Barack and Michelle Obaba in Muslim garb)
[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/07/14/image4257658g.jpg]
(JM) Uhm...The New Yorker is NOT conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker#Politics -- Under the Heading "Politics"
"Traditionally, the magazine's politics have been what could be called liberal and non-partisan. An example of this can be seen in the magazine's coverage of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, led by editorial writer Hendrik Hertzberg and then-political correspondent Philip Gourevitch, when Democrat John Kerry was strongly favored. In its November 1, 2004 issue, the magazine broke with 80 years of precedent and issued a formal endorsement of Kerry in a long editorial, signed "The Editors", which specifically criticized the policies of the Bush administration.[10]"
Try again...
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/07/the-new-yorker–more-liberal-hate-speech/
(Russ) You mean they (The New Yorker) are not biased. If they were a biased liberal mouthpiece, why would they try and take Obama down? Looks fair and balanced to me.
(JM) C'mon...C'mon! It's not our fault if they eat their own. Bottom line...NOT a conservative publication by any stretch of the imagination. Look, we don't do that over here. You wanna know why the left does it, and the right does not? First, although we feel the left to be mean-spirited and terribly misguided, we still see them as Americans...our bretheren. I have pics of left protestors with Bush as a Nazi, where they said "Deport all Republicans" at the Mexican rally a couple of years back...there is real hate on the left...real hate! And I think I understand why...it is simply because they see us not just as wrong headed but evil. Therefore, they represent good, and good can, should, and must do anything to defeat evil in their eyes, even if it requires cheating (Dems. engage in much more election fraud that Repubs), lying (where do I begin?), stealing, whatever. They sleep sound at night fully justified in their deplorable tactics because of 'the greater good.'
(As Russ continues to fail)
(Russ) Sheesh, sensitive bunch those Republican are! They can't even take it when the Lib's make fun of themselves. LOL!!!
(JM) Still looking for a CONSERVATIVE" source...give up, you won't find one. We don't succumb to the same tactics the left does. It's simple...the left lies.
(Russ) Whatever. I didn't look that hard. I didn't think it to be a real problem. How about answering all the points that I make. Didn't know you guys were so sensitive. If you haven't noticed, Rebups are excellent character assassinators.
As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows, a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly. GOP strategists have long appreciated the fact that many voters, particularly in presidential elections, are influenced more by their perceptions of the candidates' characters than by the positions the candidates hold on any particular issue.
In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.
From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.
In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, someone who was willing to do and say anything to be elected president. Gore was also caricatured as a rich elitist and child of privilege who, unlike George W. Bush (???!), was stuck up and out of touch with the concerns of everyday folk.
In 2004, Republicans were able to portray a decorated war hero as an effete, elitist flip-flopper who stood for nothing and lacked the experience and resolve necessary to protect us from terrorists.
The caricatures are slightly different each time, but as sure as the sun rises, the Democratic nominee in 2008 will be subjected to the same kind of relentless assault on his (or her) character. And though it is incredibly early in '08 cycle, it's not hard to predict what form these attacks will take.
Hillary Clinton:
The attacks on Clinton are the easiest to anticipate because she has been subjected to this kind of character assassination for the last decade and a half. She will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000. But there will also undoubtedly be a strong misogynist undercurrent to the attacks. Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president. They'll attempt to play up characteristics that people find more off-putting in women than men; Hillary will be caricatured as shrill, ambitious, and vindictive. They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.
John Edwards:
If John Edwards manages to win the nomination, Republicans will go after his most obvious political asset, his good looks and charm. They'll attempt to feminize him, to caricature him as a pretty boy and prima donna. In fact, they're already doing this. Rush Limbaugh literally cannot mention John Edwards' name without referring to him as "the Breck girl," an insult that has quickly caught on among right-wing bloggers. Limbaugh recently joked that Edwards may become our "first woman president." Ann Coulter's now infamous use of the word "faggot" to describe Edwards was just a variation on this theme. The goal will be to portray Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.
Barack Obama:
It's a little harder to predict how the GOP will choose to caricature Obama. Because he is relatively new to the scene, his negative framing is still in flux. On top of that, Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race--has to be approached delicately by his opponents. While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia, anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.
I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance. They'll attempt to portray Obama as an overly-ambitious neophyte, a man who's all style and no substance. They'll play the race card, but very subtly. They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party. Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.
Whoever wins the nomination, this is the kind of thing they'll have to look forward to, so I hope the various campaigns are doing what they can now to prepare for it. I also hope that the Democratic candidates can avoid feeding into these particular caricatures as they campaign against each other. As for the rest of us, it's important to spot these caricatures as they're forming and to call out mainstream journalists and fellow liberals when they mindlessly play into them. And that's true whether or not the candidate in question is your preferred candidate.
(JM's response)
(Russ) Whatever. I didn't look that hard. How about answering all the points that I make. Didn't know you guys were so sensitive.
(JM) What was that about "evasion?"
(Russ) As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows..
(JM) Sounds like you're very proud of your political acumen
(Russ) ...a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly
(JM) Yeah, Dems never do that. Obama didn't flat out knowingly lie about Rush Limbaugh and then try to tie him to McCain which is silly since the two have never agreed on the border situation. Besides, if the Repubs. ever lied, they'd be tarred and feathered by the mainstream liberal media. They're out there just waiting for the conservatives to slip up...ready to pounce.
(Russ) In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.
(JM) Oh! Like Barack?!
(Russ) From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.
(JM) By using their own words and votes against them.
(Russ) In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator...
(JM) Maureen Down is an avowed liberal! What are you talking about?
(Russ) She (Hillary) will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000.
(JM) And she's not?!
(Russ) Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president.
(JM) Yeah, that's why they love Palin who we keep hearing is a hair away from the presidency if McCain wins.
(Russ) They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.
(JM) Are you copying and pasting from a lib blog?
(Russ) The goal will be to portray (John) Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.
(JM) Edwards is a scumbag! C'mon...
(Russ) While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia (vis-a-vis Obama), anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.
(JM) No self-respecting conservative plays up the homo thing at all.
(Russ) I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance.
(JM) Supposed?!!! His resume is out there for all to see...talk about kool-aid drinking ideologue.
(Russ) They'll play the race card, but very subtly.
(JM) No! No! No! No Repub or conservative has played this up. Barack himself has!
(Russ) They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party.
(JM) Rev. Wright ring a bell?
(Russ) Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.
(JM) "Goddamn America!" - Rev. Wright; "The U.S. of KKK!" - Rev. Wright
(Russ)
Sleaze is bad but this will destroy America. Phil Gramm, John McCain's economic adviser and future Treasury Secretary if McCain gets elected, legislated the pieces of law that made all this possible. Just another example of John McCains judgment.
Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown."
by David Corn" May 28, 2008 "Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time?"
(JM)
Sure, I'll read it, but David Corn? You dismiss Michelle Malkin, but not this guy?
About David Corn from davidcorn.com
David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine. Prior to that, he was the Washington editor of The Nation magazine for twenty years. He has broken stories on George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh, Enron, the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA leak case, corruption in Iraq, Senator David Vitter, the Pentagon, and assorted Washington players and institutions. (Hmmm!)
He is a Fox News Channel commentator and a contributing editor for CQ.com. His daily blog, www.davidcorn.com, is a CQ.com blog. He also has blogged for HuffingtonPost.com and the "Comment Is Free" site of The Guardian.
He has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, the LA Weekly, the Village Voice, The Independent, Elle, Slate, Salon, TomPaine.com, Alternet.org, and other publications and websites. (!)
He is the co-author (with Michael Isikoff) of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown, 2006), a New York Times bestseller. The New York Times (of course) called the book "fascinating reading" and the most "comprehensive account" of the Bush administration's misleading sales campaign for the war. The Washington Post (ditto) hailed Hubris as a book of "shocking clarity" and compared it favorably to Barbara Tuchman's classic March of Folly. Tom Brokaw of NBC News said, "Hubris is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." (imagine that, Brokaw)
His book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown, 2003) was also a New York Times bestseller. The Washington Post called it "a serious case....[that] ought to be in voters' minds when they cast their ballots. A painstaking indictment."
His first novel, Deep Background, a political thriller, was published by St. Martin's Press in 1999. The Washington Post said it is "brimming with gusto....As clean and steely as an icy Pinot Grigio....[An] exceptional thriller." The Los Angeles Times called it "a slaughterhouse scorcher of a book you don't want to put down" and named it one of the best novels of the year. The New York Times said, "You can either read now or wait to see the movie....Crowded with fictional twists and revelations." The Chicago Tribune noted, "This dark, impressive political thriller...is a top-notch piece of fiction, thoughtful and compelling." PBS anchor Jim Lehrer observed that Deep Background is "a Washington novel with everything. It's a page-turning thriller from first word to last...that brings some of the worst parts of Washington vividly alive." (all liberal papers)
Corn has long been a prominent commentator on television and radio. He was a regular panelist on the weekly television show, Eye On Washington, which was syndicated on PBS stations across the United States. He has appeared on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Fox News Sunday, Washington Week in Review, The McLaughlin Group, Hardball, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, and many other shows. He is a regular on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and To The Point and has contributed commentary to NPR, BBC Radio, and CBC Radio. He often appears on Sky News (of England). He has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs. He has spoken, lectured or debated at many colleges and universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Notre Dame, Yale, Amherst, University of Southern California, American University, and Arkansas State University.
Pretty liberal circles this guy runs in. His regularity on Fox News is a testament to that network I believe.
Liberals at Fox News (not a comprehensive list)....wonder if any one can come up with 'Conservatives on CNN' like this one
Geraldine Ferraro
General West
Jane Hall
David Corn
Geraldo Rivera
Alan Colmes
Susan Estrich
Ed Koch
Juan Williams
Laura Schwartz
Kristen Powers
Bob Beckel
Pat Caddell
Greta Van Susteren
Mara Liason
Mary Anne Marsh
Marvin Kalb
Eleanor Clift
Ellis Henican
Lanny Davis
Howard Wolfson
Dick Morris
(Russ) How is it that you feel you can use any source you like, Michelle Malkin, Ben Stein, etc. (admitted right-wing writers) and I can't use this guy who by your own bio post is obviously a respected and legitimate commentator. Double-standard methinks. Anyway, read it and check his facts with your "sources" for any inaccuracies and educate me, but it seems rather hypocritical to reject it out of hand.
(JM) Wait...let me make sure I have this straight...
1. I send a Michelle Malkin article
2. You dismiss her as a right winger
3. Then you send me a David Corn article
4. I point out the double standard
5. Then you accuse me of hypocrisy
is that about right?
And to answer your question, it's simple...liberals lie.
And why is the 'evasive' label attached to me? I know you didn't read her article, or the attachment about WMDs or Ben Stein's chapter, etc.
Let's do this...read each others stuff (and I do) and then respond to the points specifically made in those attachments...then we'll know if we're reading each other's sources, and not just trying to win the debate with argumentative tactics and gotcha moments. Cool?
(Russ) Not quite. This is my quote. "Michelle Malkin, like all partisans, tells the truth but not the whole truth. For every Michelle Malkin there is a liberal source exposing Republican warts." Contrary to the charge, this is not a dismissal. I did not refute the validity of her article, I just pointed out that the Dem's do not hold a monopoly on sleaze. If you find conflicting information about John McCains economic adviser, I am all ears.
(JM) Like I said, I'll read yours, but please read mine too.
(Russ) How is it that you feel you can use any source you like, Michelle Malkin, Ben Stein, etc. (admitted right-wing writers) and I can't use this guy who by your own bio post is obviously a respected and legitimate commentator. Double-standard methinks. Anyway, read it and check his facts with your "sources" for any inaccuracies and educate me, but it seems rather hypocritical to reject it out of hand.
(Russ' response to 'liberals lie') Ha Ha Ha, yeah, I think it's in the bible somewhere. You have my condolences. This is too easy!
Some examples:
PALIN LIES: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a “bridge to nowhere.”
Another example:
PALIN LIES: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Mike Huckabee uses the Big Lie:
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE LIES: Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.”
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor’s election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
(JM) Yeah, like your "facts" about Condolezza Rice being a "liar," which were written by a former staff member of the Bill Clinton administration! Are you serious?
(Russ) Second worst president in the history of the U.S.
(JM) Bush is the worst president? Where do you place Jimmy Carter?
(Russ) Not exactly sure. Mixed bag. On the one hand he established a national energy policy that included conservation, price decontrol, and new technology. Foreign oil imports were reduced by 50% from 1977 to 1982. Most significantly he negotiated the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
On the other hand he bungled the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran along with a failed rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages ensued and he did nothing about the Soviet invasion Afganistan (sic).
So, on the whole, fairly ineffective except for the peace treaty which holds to this day. So, I guess not much for the U.S. but Israel probably has a monument erected somewhere, as they should.
(Russ' response after I send my 'Change' article) Mostly exaggerated hyperbole. How about some reality. ENDLESS WAR!!!
(JM) Just a defense of America, and the institutions that have made it great. Not a perfect nation, of course (it's kinda silly to have to say that), but the best so far.
(Russ) I would love to see the debate (b/w Dinesh D'Souza and Ron Paul). Do you agree with D'Souza's position that "in retrospect the Iraq invasion was a mistake"? Other than that statement I couldn't disagree with him more. We should be careful what we wish for.
(Russ sends) What Does 'Democracy' Mean – Over There? by Patrick J. Buchanan
(JM) No, I prefer where he said (paraphrasing). We can't spread democracy 'everywhere', but we ought to try it 'somewhere.'
You know, I really like Buchanan. He's written 8 books or so, and I'll bet I have at least 5 or 6 of them, but I do not agree with his assessment here.
(Russ) What about it do you disagree with? Do you disagree with history that shows when these people get a chance to vote, they vote in the more radical elements of their society?
(Russ' response to JM sending Ben Stein's Can America Survive Chapter on American Imperialism)
The question is: "Can America Survive"? There are many types of welfare, ie. we the US taxpayers gives away money. On the retail level there are food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare, education and deductions for interest on mortgage expenses among others. On the wholesale level there are corporate loopholes that subsidize big agriculture, oil exploration and tax subsidies for corporations who export jobs among many others. On the planetary level, we provide a security blanket for much of the world, and we spend billions for for everything from military hardware and training, bases, wars, and yes humanitarian efforts. We spend more than we make. You tell me, can America survive? Our big spending ways will end when our masters cease to lend. Don't worry, it won't be long now. As soon as the world no longer wants Treasury Bills, the jig will be up.
(JM) show me the equivalent of this on the right
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-lefts-obscene-hatred-of-the-rest-of-us
(Russ send The New Yorker with Barack and Michelle Obaba in Muslim garb)
[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/07/14/image4257658g.jpg]
(JM) Uhm...The New Yorker is NOT conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker#Politics -- Under the Heading "Politics"
"Traditionally, the magazine's politics have been what could be called liberal and non-partisan. An example of this can be seen in the magazine's coverage of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, led by editorial writer Hendrik Hertzberg and then-political correspondent Philip Gourevitch, when Democrat John Kerry was strongly favored. In its November 1, 2004 issue, the magazine broke with 80 years of precedent and issued a formal endorsement of Kerry in a long editorial, signed "The Editors", which specifically criticized the policies of the Bush administration.[10]"
Try again...
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/07/the-new-yorker–more-liberal-hate-speech/
(Russ) You mean they (The New Yorker) are not biased. If they were a biased liberal mouthpiece, why would they try and take Obama down? Looks fair and balanced to me.
(JM) C'mon...C'mon! It's not our fault if they eat their own. Bottom line...NOT a conservative publication by any stretch of the imagination. Look, we don't do that over here. You wanna know why the left does it, and the right does not? First, although we feel the left to be mean-spirited and terribly misguided, we still see them as Americans...our bretheren. I have pics of left protestors with Bush as a Nazi, where they said "Deport all Republicans" at the Mexican rally a couple of years back...there is real hate on the left...real hate! And I think I understand why...it is simply because they see us not just as wrong headed but evil. Therefore, they represent good, and good can, should, and must do anything to defeat evil in their eyes, even if it requires cheating (Dems. engage in much more election fraud that Repubs), lying (where do I begin?), stealing, whatever. They sleep sound at night fully justified in their deplorable tactics because of 'the greater good.'
(As Russ continues to fail)
(Russ) Sheesh, sensitive bunch those Republican are! They can't even take it when the Lib's make fun of themselves. LOL!!!
(JM) Still looking for a CONSERVATIVE" source...give up, you won't find one. We don't succumb to the same tactics the left does. It's simple...the left lies.
(Russ) Whatever. I didn't look that hard. I didn't think it to be a real problem. How about answering all the points that I make. Didn't know you guys were so sensitive. If you haven't noticed, Rebups are excellent character assassinators.
As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows, a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly. GOP strategists have long appreciated the fact that many voters, particularly in presidential elections, are influenced more by their perceptions of the candidates' characters than by the positions the candidates hold on any particular issue.
In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.
From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.
In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, someone who was willing to do and say anything to be elected president. Gore was also caricatured as a rich elitist and child of privilege who, unlike George W. Bush (???!), was stuck up and out of touch with the concerns of everyday folk.
In 2004, Republicans were able to portray a decorated war hero as an effete, elitist flip-flopper who stood for nothing and lacked the experience and resolve necessary to protect us from terrorists.
The caricatures are slightly different each time, but as sure as the sun rises, the Democratic nominee in 2008 will be subjected to the same kind of relentless assault on his (or her) character. And though it is incredibly early in '08 cycle, it's not hard to predict what form these attacks will take.
Hillary Clinton:
The attacks on Clinton are the easiest to anticipate because she has been subjected to this kind of character assassination for the last decade and a half. She will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000. But there will also undoubtedly be a strong misogynist undercurrent to the attacks. Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president. They'll attempt to play up characteristics that people find more off-putting in women than men; Hillary will be caricatured as shrill, ambitious, and vindictive. They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.
John Edwards:
If John Edwards manages to win the nomination, Republicans will go after his most obvious political asset, his good looks and charm. They'll attempt to feminize him, to caricature him as a pretty boy and prima donna. In fact, they're already doing this. Rush Limbaugh literally cannot mention John Edwards' name without referring to him as "the Breck girl," an insult that has quickly caught on among right-wing bloggers. Limbaugh recently joked that Edwards may become our "first woman president." Ann Coulter's now infamous use of the word "faggot" to describe Edwards was just a variation on this theme. The goal will be to portray Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.
Barack Obama:
It's a little harder to predict how the GOP will choose to caricature Obama. Because he is relatively new to the scene, his negative framing is still in flux. On top of that, Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race--has to be approached delicately by his opponents. While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia, anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.
I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance. They'll attempt to portray Obama as an overly-ambitious neophyte, a man who's all style and no substance. They'll play the race card, but very subtly. They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party. Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.
Whoever wins the nomination, this is the kind of thing they'll have to look forward to, so I hope the various campaigns are doing what they can now to prepare for it. I also hope that the Democratic candidates can avoid feeding into these particular caricatures as they campaign against each other. As for the rest of us, it's important to spot these caricatures as they're forming and to call out mainstream journalists and fellow liberals when they mindlessly play into them. And that's true whether or not the candidate in question is your preferred candidate.
(JM's response)
(Russ) Whatever. I didn't look that hard. How about answering all the points that I make. Didn't know you guys were so sensitive.
(JM) What was that about "evasion?"
(Russ) As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows..
(JM) Sounds like you're very proud of your political acumen
(Russ) ...a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly
(JM) Yeah, Dems never do that. Obama didn't flat out knowingly lie about Rush Limbaugh and then try to tie him to McCain which is silly since the two have never agreed on the border situation. Besides, if the Repubs. ever lied, they'd be tarred and feathered by the mainstream liberal media. They're out there just waiting for the conservatives to slip up...ready to pounce.
(Russ) In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.
(JM) Oh! Like Barack?!
(Russ) From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.
(JM) By using their own words and votes against them.
(Russ) In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator...
(JM) Maureen Down is an avowed liberal! What are you talking about?
(Russ) She (Hillary) will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000.
(JM) And she's not?!
(Russ) Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president.
(JM) Yeah, that's why they love Palin who we keep hearing is a hair away from the presidency if McCain wins.
(Russ) They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.
(JM) Are you copying and pasting from a lib blog?
(Russ) The goal will be to portray (John) Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.
(JM) Edwards is a scumbag! C'mon...
(Russ) While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia (vis-a-vis Obama), anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.
(JM) No self-respecting conservative plays up the homo thing at all.
(Russ) I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance.
(JM) Supposed?!!! His resume is out there for all to see...talk about kool-aid drinking ideologue.
(Russ) They'll play the race card, but very subtly.
(JM) No! No! No! No Repub or conservative has played this up. Barack himself has!
(Russ) They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party.
(JM) Rev. Wright ring a bell?
(Russ) Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.
(JM) "Goddamn America!" - Rev. Wright; "The U.S. of KKK!" - Rev. Wright
(Russ)
Sleaze is bad but this will destroy America. Phil Gramm, John McCain's economic adviser and future Treasury Secretary if McCain gets elected, legislated the pieces of law that made all this possible. Just another example of John McCains judgment.
Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown."
by David Corn" May 28, 2008 "Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time?"
(JM)
Sure, I'll read it, but David Corn? You dismiss Michelle Malkin, but not this guy?
About David Corn from davidcorn.com
David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine. Prior to that, he was the Washington editor of The Nation magazine for twenty years. He has broken stories on George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh, Enron, the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA leak case, corruption in Iraq, Senator David Vitter, the Pentagon, and assorted Washington players and institutions. (Hmmm!)
He is a Fox News Channel commentator and a contributing editor for CQ.com. His daily blog, www.davidcorn.com, is a CQ.com blog. He also has blogged for HuffingtonPost.com and the "Comment Is Free" site of The Guardian.
He has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, the LA Weekly, the Village Voice, The Independent, Elle, Slate, Salon, TomPaine.com, Alternet.org, and other publications and websites. (!)
He is the co-author (with Michael Isikoff) of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown, 2006), a New York Times bestseller. The New York Times (of course) called the book "fascinating reading" and the most "comprehensive account" of the Bush administration's misleading sales campaign for the war. The Washington Post (ditto) hailed Hubris as a book of "shocking clarity" and compared it favorably to Barbara Tuchman's classic March of Folly. Tom Brokaw of NBC News said, "Hubris is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." (imagine that, Brokaw)
His book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown, 2003) was also a New York Times bestseller. The Washington Post called it "a serious case....[that] ought to be in voters' minds when they cast their ballots. A painstaking indictment."
His first novel, Deep Background, a political thriller, was published by St. Martin's Press in 1999. The Washington Post said it is "brimming with gusto....As clean and steely as an icy Pinot Grigio....[An] exceptional thriller." The Los Angeles Times called it "a slaughterhouse scorcher of a book you don't want to put down" and named it one of the best novels of the year. The New York Times said, "You can either read now or wait to see the movie....Crowded with fictional twists and revelations." The Chicago Tribune noted, "This dark, impressive political thriller...is a top-notch piece of fiction, thoughtful and compelling." PBS anchor Jim Lehrer observed that Deep Background is "a Washington novel with everything. It's a page-turning thriller from first word to last...that brings some of the worst parts of Washington vividly alive." (all liberal papers)
Corn has long been a prominent commentator on television and radio. He was a regular panelist on the weekly television show, Eye On Washington, which was syndicated on PBS stations across the United States. He has appeared on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Fox News Sunday, Washington Week in Review, The McLaughlin Group, Hardball, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, and many other shows. He is a regular on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and To The Point and has contributed commentary to NPR, BBC Radio, and CBC Radio. He often appears on Sky News (of England). He has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs. He has spoken, lectured or debated at many colleges and universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Notre Dame, Yale, Amherst, University of Southern California, American University, and Arkansas State University.
Pretty liberal circles this guy runs in. His regularity on Fox News is a testament to that network I believe.
Liberals at Fox News (not a comprehensive list)....wonder if any one can come up with 'Conservatives on CNN' like this one
Geraldine Ferraro
General West
Jane Hall
David Corn
Geraldo Rivera
Alan Colmes
Susan Estrich
Ed Koch
Juan Williams
Laura Schwartz
Kristen Powers
Bob Beckel
Pat Caddell
Greta Van Susteren
Mara Liason
Mary Anne Marsh
Marvin Kalb
Eleanor Clift
Ellis Henican
Lanny Davis
Howard Wolfson
Dick Morris
(Russ) How is it that you feel you can use any source you like, Michelle Malkin, Ben Stein, etc. (admitted right-wing writers) and I can't use this guy who by your own bio post is obviously a respected and legitimate commentator. Double-standard methinks. Anyway, read it and check his facts with your "sources" for any inaccuracies and educate me, but it seems rather hypocritical to reject it out of hand.
(JM) Wait...let me make sure I have this straight...
1. I send a Michelle Malkin article
2. You dismiss her as a right winger
3. Then you send me a David Corn article
4. I point out the double standard
5. Then you accuse me of hypocrisy
is that about right?
And to answer your question, it's simple...liberals lie.
And why is the 'evasive' label attached to me? I know you didn't read her article, or the attachment about WMDs or Ben Stein's chapter, etc.
Let's do this...read each others stuff (and I do) and then respond to the points specifically made in those attachments...then we'll know if we're reading each other's sources, and not just trying to win the debate with argumentative tactics and gotcha moments. Cool?
(Russ) Not quite. This is my quote. "Michelle Malkin, like all partisans, tells the truth but not the whole truth. For every Michelle Malkin there is a liberal source exposing Republican warts." Contrary to the charge, this is not a dismissal. I did not refute the validity of her article, I just pointed out that the Dem's do not hold a monopoly on sleaze. If you find conflicting information about John McCains economic adviser, I am all ears.
(JM) Like I said, I'll read yours, but please read mine too.
(Russ) How is it that you feel you can use any source you like, Michelle Malkin, Ben Stein, etc. (admitted right-wing writers) and I can't use this guy who by your own bio post is obviously a respected and legitimate commentator. Double-standard methinks. Anyway, read it and check his facts with your "sources" for any inaccuracies and educate me, but it seems rather hypocritical to reject it out of hand.
(Russ' response to 'liberals lie') Ha Ha Ha, yeah, I think it's in the bible somewhere. You have my condolences. This is too easy!
Some examples:
PALIN LIES: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a “bridge to nowhere.”
Another example:
PALIN LIES: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Mike Huckabee uses the Big Lie:
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE LIES: Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.”
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor’s election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
(JM) Yeah, like your "facts" about Condolezza Rice being a "liar," which were written by a former staff member of the Bill Clinton administration! Are you serious?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sarah and I
JM sent, Academic Cesspools By Walter E. Williams Wednesday, October 17, 2007
(Auntie) Sounds biased and unbalanced. Where is the other side of this opinion? I have much that I agree with, and much that I disagree with. Could you not find alternative opinions and listen to their arguments too? Come to Princeton to understand more. Auntie will give you a good indoctrination in how to sort the wheat from the chaf and look at disparate arguments from both sides. The world opens up a bit when an understanding of both sides takes place. :-)
(JM) Would love to come some day, but quick question...if say, Hispanic gang crime was escalating in this country and someone wanted to do a documentary on that fact, then would the documentarian have to make time to discuss law-abiding Hispanics? I mean, the point is to discuss Hispanic gang crime.
See what I'm saying? The whole point is to point out liberal bias on college campuses (or is it campi-just kidding). So is the documentarian here supposed to devote half of his movie to non-biased teachers?
love,
JM
(Auntie) I think you're speaking Spanish and I'm speaking French. We will never understand each other. It's like ships passing in the night with no lights on; we're on the same planet,ssssoooooo close -- but just can't quite connect.
The answer to your question is no, the documentary wouldn't have to show both sides. But what I hear you saying is that you -- you, as a person, as a human being -- are just like the documentary: you only see one side. And what I'm saying is, how can you be that way without understanding the other side?
I guess what scares me is that I see people with inflexible opinions as the reason behind wars. Literally. Whole societies have gone to war for thousands of years because they're right and the other side is wrong. And, all I'm saying is, it doesn't have to be that way.
I'm probably making no sense. You'll think differently -- I hope -- as you get older and become wiser. Yep, I'm gonna say that because, you know, it's actually true that your viewpoints about life change as you become old. I'm showing my age. :-)
Love,
auntie
(JM) Sure, as a human being, as an observer of a documentary, or whatever, you must have an open mind. This is what I tell my liberal friends who refuse to listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News. I say, "Sure, Rush is a conservative, and proudly admits it. So? So, just keep that in mind while you're listening to him, but listen." Now, does Rush have to present liberal views on his show? No, of course not. You go to him knowing what you're going to get...conservatism. It is incumbent upon individuals to also go and listen to liberal radio, or watch CNN. This is how you get both sides, not from the same source, which is silly, but from a variety of sources.
I'll tell you one thing, conservatives, on the whole, are much better versed in and willing to listen to liberals and their ideas than vice versa. How well versed are you in conservative sources? How tolerant of them are you? How flexible? When you see Bush's face on TV, or simply hear the name Rush Limbaugh, you retch do you not?
Am I saying that conservatives are more open minded than liberals? You bet I am.
My viewpoints change as I become better informed.
love,
JM
(JM) not to beat a dead horse but...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/19/miserable-provocateur-rails-against-conservative-women-again/
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MnMUEGXJUlk
Sandra Bernhard said something vile no conservative Republican would ever say.
(Auntie) Anyone who watches this kind of stuff should consider the source. I wouldn't stoop to such trash, nor circulate it.
auntie
(JM) Wait...you read the New York Times right? I hear their circulation dropped 80% in the second quarter. Why? Because more and more peole realize that it is not a hard news publication...they have a blatant agenda. Simply- it is a disreputable publication.
Did you even look at those links? Video doesn't lie....
(Auntie) Yes, I looked at the video. Briefly. Very trashy. Again, darling, you are hearing rumors and giving them validity.
(JM) How can you pooh pooh that video? This is indicative of what goes on in the left today. That's where the vitriol is. Also, if you have any damning evidence that my sources are corrupt, then you have to share that with me. I do not want to give credence to dishonest sources. I'd rather know the truth and discard them. So, if you have anything incriminating, then please share it with me.
Also, not sure if you've had time to peruse my conversation with a left leaning friend of mine- Russ (I know you are very busy), but I wrote this in his honor...
A liberal always accuses a conservative of doing the very things that they do. If you send them a conservative source, then they will pooh pooh it as biased. Of course, they do this as they send you their liberal source. If you dare point out the absurd double standard, then they will call you a hypocrite. If you agree to read their source as long as they agree to read yours, then they accuse you of being evasive. If you do read it, and logically and rationally refute it with facts, then they call you an ideologue. By the way, do not expect any sort of honest analysis from the thing that you have asked them to peruse. If, at this point, you protest too much, then they say you are being too sensitive. Once you point out the ridiculous nature of all of this, then they claim to be fed up and no longer wish to correspond with you. Now that is a liberal my friend.
(Auntie) Sounds biased and unbalanced. Where is the other side of this opinion? I have much that I agree with, and much that I disagree with. Could you not find alternative opinions and listen to their arguments too? Come to Princeton to understand more. Auntie will give you a good indoctrination in how to sort the wheat from the chaf and look at disparate arguments from both sides. The world opens up a bit when an understanding of both sides takes place. :-)
(JM) Would love to come some day, but quick question...if say, Hispanic gang crime was escalating in this country and someone wanted to do a documentary on that fact, then would the documentarian have to make time to discuss law-abiding Hispanics? I mean, the point is to discuss Hispanic gang crime.
See what I'm saying? The whole point is to point out liberal bias on college campuses (or is it campi-just kidding). So is the documentarian here supposed to devote half of his movie to non-biased teachers?
love,
JM
(Auntie) I think you're speaking Spanish and I'm speaking French. We will never understand each other. It's like ships passing in the night with no lights on; we're on the same planet,ssssoooooo close -- but just can't quite connect.
The answer to your question is no, the documentary wouldn't have to show both sides. But what I hear you saying is that you -- you, as a person, as a human being -- are just like the documentary: you only see one side. And what I'm saying is, how can you be that way without understanding the other side?
I guess what scares me is that I see people with inflexible opinions as the reason behind wars. Literally. Whole societies have gone to war for thousands of years because they're right and the other side is wrong. And, all I'm saying is, it doesn't have to be that way.
I'm probably making no sense. You'll think differently -- I hope -- as you get older and become wiser. Yep, I'm gonna say that because, you know, it's actually true that your viewpoints about life change as you become old. I'm showing my age. :-)
Love,
auntie
(JM) Sure, as a human being, as an observer of a documentary, or whatever, you must have an open mind. This is what I tell my liberal friends who refuse to listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News. I say, "Sure, Rush is a conservative, and proudly admits it. So? So, just keep that in mind while you're listening to him, but listen." Now, does Rush have to present liberal views on his show? No, of course not. You go to him knowing what you're going to get...conservatism. It is incumbent upon individuals to also go and listen to liberal radio, or watch CNN. This is how you get both sides, not from the same source, which is silly, but from a variety of sources.
I'll tell you one thing, conservatives, on the whole, are much better versed in and willing to listen to liberals and their ideas than vice versa. How well versed are you in conservative sources? How tolerant of them are you? How flexible? When you see Bush's face on TV, or simply hear the name Rush Limbaugh, you retch do you not?
Am I saying that conservatives are more open minded than liberals? You bet I am.
My viewpoints change as I become better informed.
love,
JM
(JM) not to beat a dead horse but...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/19/miserable-provocateur-rails-against-conservative-women-again/
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MnMUEGXJUlk
Sandra Bernhard said something vile no conservative Republican would ever say.
(Auntie) Anyone who watches this kind of stuff should consider the source. I wouldn't stoop to such trash, nor circulate it.
auntie
(JM) Wait...you read the New York Times right? I hear their circulation dropped 80% in the second quarter. Why? Because more and more peole realize that it is not a hard news publication...they have a blatant agenda. Simply- it is a disreputable publication.
Did you even look at those links? Video doesn't lie....
(Auntie) Yes, I looked at the video. Briefly. Very trashy. Again, darling, you are hearing rumors and giving them validity.
(JM) How can you pooh pooh that video? This is indicative of what goes on in the left today. That's where the vitriol is. Also, if you have any damning evidence that my sources are corrupt, then you have to share that with me. I do not want to give credence to dishonest sources. I'd rather know the truth and discard them. So, if you have anything incriminating, then please share it with me.
Also, not sure if you've had time to peruse my conversation with a left leaning friend of mine- Russ (I know you are very busy), but I wrote this in his honor...
A liberal always accuses a conservative of doing the very things that they do. If you send them a conservative source, then they will pooh pooh it as biased. Of course, they do this as they send you their liberal source. If you dare point out the absurd double standard, then they will call you a hypocrite. If you agree to read their source as long as they agree to read yours, then they accuse you of being evasive. If you do read it, and logically and rationally refute it with facts, then they call you an ideologue. By the way, do not expect any sort of honest analysis from the thing that you have asked them to peruse. If, at this point, you protest too much, then they say you are being too sensitive. Once you point out the ridiculous nature of all of this, then they claim to be fed up and no longer wish to correspond with you. Now that is a liberal my friend.
Shaun and I
(JM) My dear friend,
The notion that only Democrats and satirists are attacked is, I feel, incongruous and farcical. I suppose it depends on who the attacker is. If it is the media, then I would say that the Republicans take it on the chin ten-fold over the Democrats despite who holds office (see Trent Lott). Also, look at the stark contrast of how Bush was, and still is being treated for attacking Iraq, versus Clinton when he did it in 1998 using the WMD excuse as well. If we are talking about political science book writers, then I would have to admit that the tide is certainly turning. Conservative book writers are coming out in droves critically analyzing liberal leaders and their policies.
There is a substantial difference; however, which exists between said liberals and conservatives, and it is this: liberal writers, such as Al Franken, are vitriolic, acerbic, deceitful, and emotionally driven in their personal attacks. Conservative writers appeal to me because they are driven cerebrally and use facts, stats, logic, and reasoning in their critical analyses. You are correct when you state that this is the way of things and no one really likes it, especially the common folk. We all must decide which side we wish to place ourselves on in this debacle because it reflects upon us. I am very comfortable where I am.
With all of the respect and esteem of friendship,
JM
(Shaun) How come everyone that disagrees with your Republican heroes is always labeled the "liberal bias" whatever? While I understand your sense of frustration that you and your right-wing fellows feel of always being picked on, what about addressing the topics of Bush and Chaney's (sic) oil connections and their takeover of Iraq, which, didn't this all start over getting Bin-Laden? Then, because we couldn't find him, our focus shifted to Saddam and getting rid of weapons (of which we still haven't found any) then to "freeing" the people of Iraq, who from what I have read and heard don't really want us there in the first place. I thought Imperialism went out a long time ago.
I could be wrong, but your die-hard Republican friends seem to complain a lot of being picked on and satirized, but feel that's it's okay to spend billions of our tax dollars on destroying then rebuilding a country that didn't ask for the United States Democracy way of life. I may not want to live there myself, but is it right for the US to force it's views and policies on other countries? Especially when other world powers are not in agreeance (sic)? If we truly want a Global Economy, which should in turn be beneficial for all countries, especially the US, I'm pretty sure just taking over other countries is not the way to do it. By acting like the United States of the World, we just reinforce the negative stereotype that other countries see us as instead of being a team player for the benefit of all society, not just rich republicans.. Why don't we look at the broader issues here instead of worrying whether someone got interviewed fairly or satirized in a book.
(JM) I was impressed with the passion that you responded with. I have many points to make, but cannot delve very deeply right now, but will once I return (I have a 12 hour shift Wed.). First, I am uncomfortable with the allegiance you place me in with the Republicans. True, I am a conservative in political philosophy, but take great pains not to be a blind ideologue devoted to a single party and every thing that it stands for. There are differences that I have with the Republican party such as amnesty for illegal immigrants, pushing religion in public schools and other federal and state institutions, Bush's allocation of taxpayer dollars to religious institutions under the guise of charity, and I could go on. So referring to my "Republican heroes" is misleading. I favor conservative writers and thinkers and also the few conservative Democrats that exist. I strongly disfavor liberal philosophy, and honestly see it as harmful. Incidentally, the charge that I see anyone who disagrees with my political philosophy as biased is silly. Have you read or heard the Bill O'Reilly interview on NPR? You really ought to. If that does not convince you that there is a liberal bias in the media, then nothing ever will. NPR is not an organization that competes in the marketplace like so many radio talk shows do. They are largely funded by you, me, and other taxpayers, and they have a bias! We are funding propaganda! This should ruffle the feathers of everyone, even leftists.
Now, you make several points about the Iraqi war that I hear over and over from the liberal leaders in our country, and from many of my friends who are mostly liberal (believe it or not!). Bush did it for the oil. The WMD case was a lie. The U.S. is imperialistic and a bully. The Iraqi people do not want us there. These arguments can be rebuked only if those who hold them are willing to hear the other side (i.e., exposing oneself to a variety of media outlets including Fox News). A general truth that I have come to discover is that (and this is generally speaking) liberals do not wish to hear the other side, presumably because it offends their delicate sensibilities, and thus only speak to one another, thereby reinforcing a mutually held belief. I personally prefer to discuss, civilly of course, issues with those holding opposing beliefs because the goal is truth. Truth cannot be found by talking to like-minded individuals only. Therefore, whenever I see someone I know make a gruesome facial contortion at the mere mention of Rush Limbaugh's name (for example), then I know that they are completely closed off and hindered in their pursuit of verity. If Rush, or whomever, is a nutcase, then why not rebuke his arguments logically and rationally? Why call him dirty names like a child? The answer, apparently, is that "it is not worth the effort and it offends me anyway". I could factually and logically demolish Al Franken in this manner quite easily.
One other problem that I notice commonly in my personal interactions with people who lean toward the left, and I do not mean to be insulting, is that they are ignorant of the topics many times. They have very strong convictions on issues about which they know very little. Here emotion forms and rules their held opinions, and not thought or education. That may sound extremely condescending, but I believe it to be true for the most part. For instance, I have heard that up to 70% of the Iraqi people not only are glad that we are there, but do not want us to leave right now. This came out a couple of weeks ago, I believe. Of course, some media outlets will not display certain news, and that is where media bias comes in- an issue that I hold on the highest level of importance. War is a crucial issue, of course, but are we to neglect other important issues? How taxpayer dollars are spent is a concern not only regarding the war.
Exposing media bias plainly, for all who care to examine the evidence, is not an important thing to do? This neglect will allow the perpetrators to get away with more shenanigans. Now, if you believe that the Iraqi people are not happy to be rid of Hussein, and that we are pushing our democratic way of life on a people who do not want it and are "taking over" other countries, then there really is nothing more that I can say. I will answer your question, however, as to whether or not the U.S. ought to "force its views and policies on other countries" despite not having the okay from many nations, although many did give it as well. If a ruthless dictator (and everyone agrees on that) is killing his own people by the droves as well as funding terrorist organizations, and his sons are raping the local school girls by the dozens, etc., etc., then I certainly believe that removing them by force and setting up a democracy or, preferably a republic, is the right thing to do. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 using the same arguments that Bush did. Where was the media then? Many of my friends had no idea that this even happened until I told them! Anyone who thinks that WMDs do not exist, even though Clinton himself still believes it, ought to take a sip out of the Euphrates River (a stolen joke).
Incidentally, if I distorted a picture of your face and repeatedly called you a pathological LIAR, would you think I was being funny and satirical? If you were a liar, then I would do it in a serious manner, not as a joke. There is something of a culture war going on in this country right now that deserves our attention and inspection. Lastly, the phrase "rich Republicans" again demonstrates a deeply ingrained erroneous belief. The four richest Senators in Congress right now are all Democrats (just heard it today- you won't hear that on CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC). I have attached an article from my column writing days that addresses common misnomers if you care to peruse it, among others.
I fear that my response will stir up heated passions within you and cause deep resentment toward me. I hope this will not be the case. We ought to be willing to respectfully disagree on topics, and not evade discussing them but rather embrace an exchange of ideas that will, in the long run, benefit us both. You will forever be my dearest friend, an I will always have the deepest regards of friendship toward you.
yours truly,
JM
(JM) On another topic, an elderly woman told me the other day, as I was ringing up her prescription, that she gets many of her meds from Canada and wished that our govt. would help senior citizens pay for their meds (many of my customers admit that they receive their meds from Canada-I am opposed for a few reasons). I then asked her if she was in favor of socialized medicine. “No!, No!” she replied, “I just wish the govt. would give us an allowance to purchase our medications.” I bit my tongue. These are the same sort of people who exclaim, “it won’t cost the taxpayers at all, the government will pay for it.” It is lamentable how many have no idea how the basic functions of our systems work, whether it is taxes, government, legal, insurance, or what have you.
I recently got a call from a friend of mine who loves to engage me on various topics (I do not transition well, in case you haven’t noticed). This time it was the Iraqi conflict. She was angry with Bush, feels the war was unjustified, and made many of the points that you presented to me earlier, and others before then. I mentioned a few things that I felt she may have been unaware of such as the 180 degree turnaround of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite Muslim cleric, who not so long ago was spewing venom at the U.S. and is now pro-U.S. and anti-Saddam (this was a News-Press article I read in the 11/10 edition). He said that “the Iraqi people love and intend no harm to you (the U.S. and its troops),” and that he hoped Saddam would burn in hell. The attacks that we all hear so much about are apparently caused by a minority group of Sunni Muslims. I then mentioned the 10/14 article, which I had told you about, where a Gallup poll showed that 71% of Baghdad residents want U.S. troops to stay longer. I also spoke of the recent news that Bush has sped up the training of the Iraqi army and police (the third time now), as well as the transfer of power to the Iraqi government (from 3 years now to 18 months). Rumsfeld himself said that the answer is more Iraqi troops not U.S. troops.
She then expressed her indignation at the loss of life over there (400 troops and counting). The question I posed to her was, “What price are we willing to pay for freedom since freedom does not come for free?” Each loss is tragic, of course, as it is in every war. If our enemies know that we have not the stomach for casualties, then we are very vulnerable, are we not? We pulled out of Vietnam for the same reason (where we had 12 to 1 casualties vs. Iraq), among others, and left the Southern Vietnamese to fend for themselves. Then what happened? The North invaded and slaughtered them. If we pull out now, then not only will the Iraqi people pay a heavy toll, but no country will ever trust us to watch their back ever again. I’ll bet we lose more people in a single week due to gang wars in L.A. and elsewhere. There is more chaos in the streets of this country every time the L.A. Lakers win the NBA Championship or Michigan wins a college football game. Our celebrations wreak more havoc than these guerillas do.
She then said that the war was unjustified in the first place and that Bush seemed to have no definitive plan for ending it. I told her that the example that the U.S. presents to the world is one worthy of emulation as is evidenced by the fact that so many people from other lands go to such extremes to come to our shores. Free democratic elections, as well as many other aspects of our form of government, are things that ought to be shared with and spread to other countries, especially monarchial ones. After all, how would anyone ever know that the Iraqi’s, or any other people under despotic rule, desire liberation vis-a-vis a new form of government when they are executed for merely voicing this opinion? As far as this demand for a definitive plan is concerned, I posed a question to her regarding the nonexistence of a definitive plan for the eventual ending to the War on Drugs or War on Crime, for example. There will never be an end to the spending of taxpayer dollars for these endeavors, as well as dozens of others, yet no demand for an end to them reverberates in the media.
Well, you can plainly see how many of my friends (mostly from St. Louis) and I love to engage one another, and I feel that this is key. As long as it’s civil and thoughtful, then it sharpens us all and provides many various viewpoints and knowledge for all who are involved. Some are hesitant to participate because they are weary of confrontation, but I try to assure them that this is merely an exchange of ideas between educated adults and to avoid it due to hyper-sensibilities would be foolish. These are issues that affect us all. To avoid them is to avoid reality and whoever partakes in that endeavor loses all respect. To quote Elie Wiesel, “There is one right I would not grant anyone and that is the right to be indifferent.” How about Mary Poole, “To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains.”? Or, better yet, Thomas Macaulay, “Men (and women) are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.” By the end of the talk, she thanked me for my input and said she’d collate it.
Well, I will free you now. “Upon the whole, I think this is enough for one letter. If I am not weary of writing, I am sure you must be of reading such incoherent rattle. I will not persecute you so severely in the future, if I can help it; and I now salute you with unchanged affections and respect.”
your friend,
JM
(JM) I must begin by apologizing for flooding your email account with so many messages. I know that the school year is coming near the end and you must be extremely busy. The attachments are yours to peruse at your leisure. Please, feel free to send me any that you deem worthy of inspection. I crave various points of view, and greatly value your input and remarks (I really do).
What are the three of you doing next weekend? I may actually have time to relax and pay a visit. It seems I have been working overtime almost every week lately; this week another 12 hours OT. The extra cash is an incentive, but Uncle Sam takes an entire third of it. I think the government ought to set up a web site which lists every single purchase made so that we, the taxpayers, can see for ourselves precisely what we are getting for our money. This will also prevent the loss of a trillion dollars that no one could account for earlier this year, and still cannot account for. It irks me to think that our money is spent with reckless abandon, and no regard for frugality. Again, enough on this subject.
Well, time to get ready for work. I'll give you a call if it slows down. We are in the middle of snowbird season right now, and it is often a bit busy.
your friend,
JM
(Shaun) While I can see the point of this book, and may agree with some of the conjectures proposed, these views seem to be one-sided and with an agenda attached to them. Not all schools are like the ones cited. Not all heterogeneous grouping is bad. (We had it when we were in middle school. I personally do not wish to have this grouping, but to say it is completely bad is erroneous.) Plus, why is it always the schools fault? Where does society, namely parents, come in? Why have we been raising a generation of "give it to me, for free, now?" Certainly there some faults with public education. How can one hope to educate the masses and "leave no child behind" when schools are just too big to handle the growing inadequacy amongst the current generation? This will be the first generation to do worse than their parents. Is this public education's fault? Or are there larger societal issues that must be faced first? There is no easy answer, I just get my feathers ruffled when people try to blame school's for everything. What has happened to personal responsibility?
(JM) I believe it is both. I believe that parenting is the number one problem in this country right now, and that it is responsible for a great many of our ills. You hit the nail on the head when you say that personable responsibility is on the wane. However, I also see the public education system as a debacle that is seemingly beyond repair and recovery, and I'll probably not grieve upon its demise. The downfall could probably be traced to many things, but my opinion is that it is primarily when discipline was taken out of the schools (i.e. forbidding paddling, flunking, and other forms of punishment and discipline- ostensibly for the purpose of protecting kids' fragile feelings and precarious confidence). We coddle kids to the point where their skin is translucent beyond belief, and can basically tell a teacher to go fuck them self to their face without any fear of punishment, or at least substantial punishment. I recoil in horror when my father tells me stories from his days at Suncoast Elementary.
Look at who wins the national spelling bees every year- the home-schooled kids. Kim and I are thinking of putting Pearl and Lily into a charter school rather than the public school that Pearl is presently in (Gateway). I would appreciate your opinions and input in this matter. Pearl tells me that she cannot learn a thing because the kids misbehave so much. Apparently the teacher writes the word "RECESS" on the board and erases a letter each time the class gets out of hand; they seldom have recess. This method seems ineffectual and foolish to me. Kids ought to be singled out for their misbehavior. That is the best way to dissuade them. Of course, many sensitiviosos wince at that very idea. They insist that we have to protect kids' self-esteem, etc.
Well, I am running a little long on this rant. I really have to begin closing up now.
yours truly,
JM
(Shaun) Okay, see, part of this is crap. I know that doesn't sound incredibly intelligent, but this Dan Lips obviously has an agenda at hand. I agree; I am sure money is wasted in public schools. We're human, how could it not be? But to encourage less spending is ludicrous. I might feel different if the lottery money actually went to schools. The fact is that with the creation of the Florida Lottery, spending was cut. The money from the lottery replaces money from other sources of funding. It's not additional money, it's the same that has always been there, with one exception: We are needing more schools at all elementary, middle, and high school levels; the schools we do have are getting larger and larger which results in their increased needs; and our public school populations are changing at an exceedingly fast rate, rendering comparisons to "days of old" moot. Strapping schools and teachers down to every last cent is not an encouraging thought for those involved, especially when compared to other professions who earn considerably more.
Yes, I know, I know, we chose our profession and knew the pay was small in comparison, however, to "fight the good fight" truly and honestly for all students is an undertaking that need not be stressed by an already stressed budget. I know I stand from I a biased point-of-view, however, like my dad always said, "You can't do the job if you don't have the tools." I can tell you honestly that most public schools do not have all the proper tools at their disposal to do a proper job of educating today's youth. They are trying, but failing short because they have to "think and spend creatively" which results in thinking, "Hmm, what can we cut out of education so we can meet this year's budget," which by the way is usually less from the previous year.
And then! School Choice is nonsense. If your neighborhood is that bad, then do something about it and fix it. Just because your conditions are not the same as someone else's, why should you cost the district - I think it was over two million dollars - in additional busing? You shouldn't. I believe in personal responsibility and that concept seems to be missing from today's reality. I feel bad for those students that have to go to labeled "bad or failing" schools. Isn't that a great motivational term for those students already behind and without as many privileges? You're already stupid and you're going to go to this bad and stupid school, but you should come out ready to be a positive and productive citizen, perhaps even go to college. It just isn't going to happen for an overwhelming majority. A great deal of these students do not see a way out of their current conditions and going to a labeled good and passing school is not going to shed some miraculous light on the subject for them.
The problem is in society. We need a massive restructuring of what is important in this country to bring about a change for the better for all citizens. This would require people to be responsible for their own actions and earn those privileges handed to those who have worked hard for them before them. If you choose not to, then you should not expect that someone else is going to do it for you. I hear this everyday, and it's sad. No motivation, no self-worth, no concept that they are and should be held accountable for their actions. I think we should help people out, but there comes a point where the individual steps in and takes possession of their life.
But to quote Mr. Miller "...but I rant." So I will stop here. Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. It felt good to write it down. Have a great night.
Shaun
(Shaun) I have only been in this district a short time and from what I have seen, school choice is a bunch of *&$%. I have not seen how it benefits anybody except bureaucrats in that it makes it look like they actually want to help out schools. Instead of always blaming and trying to "fix" the public school system why don't we work on helping parents be Parents and people being decent and responsible citizens. Can public schools help make this happen? Sure they can. Is change needed in public schools? Of course, change is almost always beneficial. But radical swings of the pendulum in the shape of programs forcing schools this way and that does nothing but stress-out those in already working hard in the field of education. Schools can't fix society without help on the homefront.
(JM) You know, my father gets a monthly journal called Education Reporter, which he gives to me after he’s finished with it. There is some really interesting stuff going on out there in the world of education. The Minnesota Virtual Academy, which began in Nov. 2002, provides online learning programs for home-schooled kids. Apparently it has the teachers unions up there in an uproar. In St. Louis, where I went to Rx school, Vashon High, after spending $40 million, is an unmitigated failure. There are rampant fights, habitual absenteeism, violence against teachers & staff, etc. Yet the outcry for more funds rages on. Apparently, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a pretty reliable think tank that researches and studies these issues. According to them, less than half of U.S. public high school grads are ready for college! Wow. Now parents in Nashville must fill out permission slips in order for their kids to be placed on the honor roll. It seems the parents of the dumb, sorry- cerebrally challenged, kids have been complaining. A new study by the American Enterprise Institute concluded that federal spending on education under Tile I has failed to produce any significant increase in test scores. A Florida teacher’s union boss is headed to prison for charging $650,00 in luxuries to union accounts. Nice! These are only a few of the stories that I found captivating. What's new on your end?
Anyway, feel free to stop by the store here sometime when you guys are in town, and tell your parents that they can get their scripts filled here (if they have any). I’ll take good care of them, and get their rxs filled in about 10 minutes. Kim used to tell me that Walgreen had a wait time usually of an hour or two. Incidentally, she has crossed over and has just begun working for Publix now. She’ll be an assistant mgr., like me, but in Naples. It’s quite a drive, but a blessing when one considers the grunts she had to put up with at the Lehigh Walgreen. Anyway, gotta run. Let’s get together!
JM
P.S. I’m sorry I don’t call. I’m just not a fan of the phone…never was really.
Chilling for thee, but not for me by Jonah Goldberg was sent to Shaun February 11, 2005
(Shaun) This is what happens when we have too many rights and freedoms. We no longer have anything to work for, no common good, so we attack each other. It's really rather ridiculous, but it will only get worse before it gets better. Every (for lack of a better word) stupid attack on free-thought like this brings us ever closer to a Brave New World. If you haven't read the book, do so. I'm not saying that our generation will necessarily see that world come to fruition, but it will happen. Our society does not want to be free and equal. If we were, what would we have to fight over? Or maybe that's the point.
(JM) Well, my friend, you were the only one who responded to me, and I’m glad that you did. As you read this you may ask what have you gotten yourself into, but my hope is that you relish the merit of the discussion instead. My point was to see if anyone, many of whom I emailed being college professors and friends of mine, could give me any sort of sensible explanation or argument as to why this massive discrepancy exists between these two men (Larry Summers and Ward Churchill) and the way that they are treated, not only by their peers, but by others as well. Any intellectually honest person has to wonder why one man is castigated, and the other glorified, especially when the glorified one said things of a much more vile and disturbing nature. In any case, as in most cases, I received no cogent explanation; like Mr. Goldberg said in his article, “…some subjects are simply taboo even among serious scholars.”
It does seem that there is a lack of, and even a positive defiance to, engaging in civil discourse and intellectual debate, and this trend continues to worsen. This is more odd when concerning educators and academics. Have you encountered this intellectual snobbery in your daily discourses? Incidentally, did you ever get a chance to listen to that Adams/Jefferson CD that I made for you? There were two friends who had considerable differences of opinion on political, and other matters, but who could always maintain their respect for one another and their friendship while debating issues, especially in their retirement years. True, they did not talk for 12 years after Adams lost the presidency, but this was due to the poor judgment of Jefferson. Anyway, I digress! I don’t mean to go on and on, but I long for someone to correspond with and to engage me in stimulating conversation.
I have only a few questions for you, mainly for clarification. What constitutes an attack? It’s just that I hear that word used so often that I wonder if it is not used too loosely at times. I have been accused of “attacking” when all I was doing, in my mind anyway, was challenging another’s assumptions, holding them accountable for something they said, responding to a challenge, or merely disagreeing with them. Also, to whom were you referring? - the speech of these two professors, or those who spoke out against them?
It could be argued that these two men are being unfairly treated solely for exercising their freedom of speech, but does this mean that they should be free from the consequences of their speech? Like you said, we have too much freedom and too many rights in this country, and I agree with you. You can’t say “bomb” on a plane, or even joke about one. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. You can use hate speech for the purpose of provoking violence. You can’t use vulgarity in public, technically. Now, Churchill said some pretty preposterous and offensive things. Is he free to do so? Well, it depends, doesn’t it? Can he teach this stuff in his classroom and not expect to be fired? Can any of us tell our boss or customers to “f--- off”, and expect to be protected from losing our jobs? Can any of us use a racial slur and not be reprimanded for doing so? Of course not, and neither should he. What do you think about some of the things he said? What about Summers?
I was admittedly surprised by your first sentence, and isn’t this one of the main points of Huxley’s book? – that one day our freedoms will be dissolved for the sake of social harmony, for the good of society, for a utopian “World State”? - one that makes present day totalitarian states look democratic. This book, it seems to me, is an approbation of concepts such as: less government, republicanism, agrarianism, family unity and values, childhood innocence, reasoned analysis and debate, the study of history, Christian values, the sanctity of marriage, etc.; and a reprobation of class warfare, promiscuity, elicit drug use and addiction, welfare, world unity, scare tactics, the Village philosophy, censorship, conformity, etc. Not that I agree wholeheartedly with what Huxley condemns or condones, but I am sure that you are aware of which way I lean.
According to 1984 we were supposed to all be governed by Big Brother, and the power of the state was going to dominate the lives of individuals through cultural conditioning. I admit that I am skeptical of alarmist conspiracy theories. It is the same impulse that drives Jehovah Witnesses to unrelentingly proclaim the second coming as being ‘right around the corner’. I think of these people as Mel Gibson’s character in Conspiracy Theory. Your reference to Huxley’s book also makes me wonder what your opinion on stem cell research is.
I am intrigued and somewhat perplexed by your notion that “our society does not want to be free and equal.” Please feel free to explain further so that I may better understand what you mean. The race pimps, as Bill Cosby refers to them, in this country do come to mind. These people, while portraying themselves as arbiters of racial equality and freedom, do all they can to fester the fires of hatred and intolerance. Why? – self-interest. What would they do if racism ceased to exist (an impossibility in my opinion)? They’d be powerless, and would have to actually work for an honest living, rather than off of the hatred of their supporters. I would agree with you in this regard. Also, I am not sure we all ought to be free and equal; an equally vexing statement perhaps.
Anyway, I have gone on too long! I apologize for this imposition. I do look forward to hearing what you think, however.
Till then, your friend,
JM
The notion that only Democrats and satirists are attacked is, I feel, incongruous and farcical. I suppose it depends on who the attacker is. If it is the media, then I would say that the Republicans take it on the chin ten-fold over the Democrats despite who holds office (see Trent Lott). Also, look at the stark contrast of how Bush was, and still is being treated for attacking Iraq, versus Clinton when he did it in 1998 using the WMD excuse as well. If we are talking about political science book writers, then I would have to admit that the tide is certainly turning. Conservative book writers are coming out in droves critically analyzing liberal leaders and their policies.
There is a substantial difference; however, which exists between said liberals and conservatives, and it is this: liberal writers, such as Al Franken, are vitriolic, acerbic, deceitful, and emotionally driven in their personal attacks. Conservative writers appeal to me because they are driven cerebrally and use facts, stats, logic, and reasoning in their critical analyses. You are correct when you state that this is the way of things and no one really likes it, especially the common folk. We all must decide which side we wish to place ourselves on in this debacle because it reflects upon us. I am very comfortable where I am.
With all of the respect and esteem of friendship,
JM
(Shaun) How come everyone that disagrees with your Republican heroes is always labeled the "liberal bias" whatever? While I understand your sense of frustration that you and your right-wing fellows feel of always being picked on, what about addressing the topics of Bush and Chaney's (sic) oil connections and their takeover of Iraq, which, didn't this all start over getting Bin-Laden? Then, because we couldn't find him, our focus shifted to Saddam and getting rid of weapons (of which we still haven't found any) then to "freeing" the people of Iraq, who from what I have read and heard don't really want us there in the first place. I thought Imperialism went out a long time ago.
I could be wrong, but your die-hard Republican friends seem to complain a lot of being picked on and satirized, but feel that's it's okay to spend billions of our tax dollars on destroying then rebuilding a country that didn't ask for the United States Democracy way of life. I may not want to live there myself, but is it right for the US to force it's views and policies on other countries? Especially when other world powers are not in agreeance (sic)? If we truly want a Global Economy, which should in turn be beneficial for all countries, especially the US, I'm pretty sure just taking over other countries is not the way to do it. By acting like the United States of the World, we just reinforce the negative stereotype that other countries see us as instead of being a team player for the benefit of all society, not just rich republicans.. Why don't we look at the broader issues here instead of worrying whether someone got interviewed fairly or satirized in a book.
(JM) I was impressed with the passion that you responded with. I have many points to make, but cannot delve very deeply right now, but will once I return (I have a 12 hour shift Wed.). First, I am uncomfortable with the allegiance you place me in with the Republicans. True, I am a conservative in political philosophy, but take great pains not to be a blind ideologue devoted to a single party and every thing that it stands for. There are differences that I have with the Republican party such as amnesty for illegal immigrants, pushing religion in public schools and other federal and state institutions, Bush's allocation of taxpayer dollars to religious institutions under the guise of charity, and I could go on. So referring to my "Republican heroes" is misleading. I favor conservative writers and thinkers and also the few conservative Democrats that exist. I strongly disfavor liberal philosophy, and honestly see it as harmful. Incidentally, the charge that I see anyone who disagrees with my political philosophy as biased is silly. Have you read or heard the Bill O'Reilly interview on NPR? You really ought to. If that does not convince you that there is a liberal bias in the media, then nothing ever will. NPR is not an organization that competes in the marketplace like so many radio talk shows do. They are largely funded by you, me, and other taxpayers, and they have a bias! We are funding propaganda! This should ruffle the feathers of everyone, even leftists.
Now, you make several points about the Iraqi war that I hear over and over from the liberal leaders in our country, and from many of my friends who are mostly liberal (believe it or not!). Bush did it for the oil. The WMD case was a lie. The U.S. is imperialistic and a bully. The Iraqi people do not want us there. These arguments can be rebuked only if those who hold them are willing to hear the other side (i.e., exposing oneself to a variety of media outlets including Fox News). A general truth that I have come to discover is that (and this is generally speaking) liberals do not wish to hear the other side, presumably because it offends their delicate sensibilities, and thus only speak to one another, thereby reinforcing a mutually held belief. I personally prefer to discuss, civilly of course, issues with those holding opposing beliefs because the goal is truth. Truth cannot be found by talking to like-minded individuals only. Therefore, whenever I see someone I know make a gruesome facial contortion at the mere mention of Rush Limbaugh's name (for example), then I know that they are completely closed off and hindered in their pursuit of verity. If Rush, or whomever, is a nutcase, then why not rebuke his arguments logically and rationally? Why call him dirty names like a child? The answer, apparently, is that "it is not worth the effort and it offends me anyway". I could factually and logically demolish Al Franken in this manner quite easily.
One other problem that I notice commonly in my personal interactions with people who lean toward the left, and I do not mean to be insulting, is that they are ignorant of the topics many times. They have very strong convictions on issues about which they know very little. Here emotion forms and rules their held opinions, and not thought or education. That may sound extremely condescending, but I believe it to be true for the most part. For instance, I have heard that up to 70% of the Iraqi people not only are glad that we are there, but do not want us to leave right now. This came out a couple of weeks ago, I believe. Of course, some media outlets will not display certain news, and that is where media bias comes in- an issue that I hold on the highest level of importance. War is a crucial issue, of course, but are we to neglect other important issues? How taxpayer dollars are spent is a concern not only regarding the war.
Exposing media bias plainly, for all who care to examine the evidence, is not an important thing to do? This neglect will allow the perpetrators to get away with more shenanigans. Now, if you believe that the Iraqi people are not happy to be rid of Hussein, and that we are pushing our democratic way of life on a people who do not want it and are "taking over" other countries, then there really is nothing more that I can say. I will answer your question, however, as to whether or not the U.S. ought to "force its views and policies on other countries" despite not having the okay from many nations, although many did give it as well. If a ruthless dictator (and everyone agrees on that) is killing his own people by the droves as well as funding terrorist organizations, and his sons are raping the local school girls by the dozens, etc., etc., then I certainly believe that removing them by force and setting up a democracy or, preferably a republic, is the right thing to do. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 using the same arguments that Bush did. Where was the media then? Many of my friends had no idea that this even happened until I told them! Anyone who thinks that WMDs do not exist, even though Clinton himself still believes it, ought to take a sip out of the Euphrates River (a stolen joke).
Incidentally, if I distorted a picture of your face and repeatedly called you a pathological LIAR, would you think I was being funny and satirical? If you were a liar, then I would do it in a serious manner, not as a joke. There is something of a culture war going on in this country right now that deserves our attention and inspection. Lastly, the phrase "rich Republicans" again demonstrates a deeply ingrained erroneous belief. The four richest Senators in Congress right now are all Democrats (just heard it today- you won't hear that on CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC). I have attached an article from my column writing days that addresses common misnomers if you care to peruse it, among others.
I fear that my response will stir up heated passions within you and cause deep resentment toward me. I hope this will not be the case. We ought to be willing to respectfully disagree on topics, and not evade discussing them but rather embrace an exchange of ideas that will, in the long run, benefit us both. You will forever be my dearest friend, an I will always have the deepest regards of friendship toward you.
yours truly,
JM
(JM) On another topic, an elderly woman told me the other day, as I was ringing up her prescription, that she gets many of her meds from Canada and wished that our govt. would help senior citizens pay for their meds (many of my customers admit that they receive their meds from Canada-I am opposed for a few reasons). I then asked her if she was in favor of socialized medicine. “No!, No!” she replied, “I just wish the govt. would give us an allowance to purchase our medications.” I bit my tongue. These are the same sort of people who exclaim, “it won’t cost the taxpayers at all, the government will pay for it.” It is lamentable how many have no idea how the basic functions of our systems work, whether it is taxes, government, legal, insurance, or what have you.
I recently got a call from a friend of mine who loves to engage me on various topics (I do not transition well, in case you haven’t noticed). This time it was the Iraqi conflict. She was angry with Bush, feels the war was unjustified, and made many of the points that you presented to me earlier, and others before then. I mentioned a few things that I felt she may have been unaware of such as the 180 degree turnaround of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite Muslim cleric, who not so long ago was spewing venom at the U.S. and is now pro-U.S. and anti-Saddam (this was a News-Press article I read in the 11/10 edition). He said that “the Iraqi people love and intend no harm to you (the U.S. and its troops),” and that he hoped Saddam would burn in hell. The attacks that we all hear so much about are apparently caused by a minority group of Sunni Muslims. I then mentioned the 10/14 article, which I had told you about, where a Gallup poll showed that 71% of Baghdad residents want U.S. troops to stay longer. I also spoke of the recent news that Bush has sped up the training of the Iraqi army and police (the third time now), as well as the transfer of power to the Iraqi government (from 3 years now to 18 months). Rumsfeld himself said that the answer is more Iraqi troops not U.S. troops.
She then expressed her indignation at the loss of life over there (400 troops and counting). The question I posed to her was, “What price are we willing to pay for freedom since freedom does not come for free?” Each loss is tragic, of course, as it is in every war. If our enemies know that we have not the stomach for casualties, then we are very vulnerable, are we not? We pulled out of Vietnam for the same reason (where we had 12 to 1 casualties vs. Iraq), among others, and left the Southern Vietnamese to fend for themselves. Then what happened? The North invaded and slaughtered them. If we pull out now, then not only will the Iraqi people pay a heavy toll, but no country will ever trust us to watch their back ever again. I’ll bet we lose more people in a single week due to gang wars in L.A. and elsewhere. There is more chaos in the streets of this country every time the L.A. Lakers win the NBA Championship or Michigan wins a college football game. Our celebrations wreak more havoc than these guerillas do.
She then said that the war was unjustified in the first place and that Bush seemed to have no definitive plan for ending it. I told her that the example that the U.S. presents to the world is one worthy of emulation as is evidenced by the fact that so many people from other lands go to such extremes to come to our shores. Free democratic elections, as well as many other aspects of our form of government, are things that ought to be shared with and spread to other countries, especially monarchial ones. After all, how would anyone ever know that the Iraqi’s, or any other people under despotic rule, desire liberation vis-a-vis a new form of government when they are executed for merely voicing this opinion? As far as this demand for a definitive plan is concerned, I posed a question to her regarding the nonexistence of a definitive plan for the eventual ending to the War on Drugs or War on Crime, for example. There will never be an end to the spending of taxpayer dollars for these endeavors, as well as dozens of others, yet no demand for an end to them reverberates in the media.
Well, you can plainly see how many of my friends (mostly from St. Louis) and I love to engage one another, and I feel that this is key. As long as it’s civil and thoughtful, then it sharpens us all and provides many various viewpoints and knowledge for all who are involved. Some are hesitant to participate because they are weary of confrontation, but I try to assure them that this is merely an exchange of ideas between educated adults and to avoid it due to hyper-sensibilities would be foolish. These are issues that affect us all. To avoid them is to avoid reality and whoever partakes in that endeavor loses all respect. To quote Elie Wiesel, “There is one right I would not grant anyone and that is the right to be indifferent.” How about Mary Poole, “To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains.”? Or, better yet, Thomas Macaulay, “Men (and women) are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.” By the end of the talk, she thanked me for my input and said she’d collate it.
Well, I will free you now. “Upon the whole, I think this is enough for one letter. If I am not weary of writing, I am sure you must be of reading such incoherent rattle. I will not persecute you so severely in the future, if I can help it; and I now salute you with unchanged affections and respect.”
your friend,
JM
(JM) I must begin by apologizing for flooding your email account with so many messages. I know that the school year is coming near the end and you must be extremely busy. The attachments are yours to peruse at your leisure. Please, feel free to send me any that you deem worthy of inspection. I crave various points of view, and greatly value your input and remarks (I really do).
What are the three of you doing next weekend? I may actually have time to relax and pay a visit. It seems I have been working overtime almost every week lately; this week another 12 hours OT. The extra cash is an incentive, but Uncle Sam takes an entire third of it. I think the government ought to set up a web site which lists every single purchase made so that we, the taxpayers, can see for ourselves precisely what we are getting for our money. This will also prevent the loss of a trillion dollars that no one could account for earlier this year, and still cannot account for. It irks me to think that our money is spent with reckless abandon, and no regard for frugality. Again, enough on this subject.
Well, time to get ready for work. I'll give you a call if it slows down. We are in the middle of snowbird season right now, and it is often a bit busy.
your friend,
JM
(Shaun) While I can see the point of this book, and may agree with some of the conjectures proposed, these views seem to be one-sided and with an agenda attached to them. Not all schools are like the ones cited. Not all heterogeneous grouping is bad. (We had it when we were in middle school. I personally do not wish to have this grouping, but to say it is completely bad is erroneous.) Plus, why is it always the schools fault? Where does society, namely parents, come in? Why have we been raising a generation of "give it to me, for free, now?" Certainly there some faults with public education. How can one hope to educate the masses and "leave no child behind" when schools are just too big to handle the growing inadequacy amongst the current generation? This will be the first generation to do worse than their parents. Is this public education's fault? Or are there larger societal issues that must be faced first? There is no easy answer, I just get my feathers ruffled when people try to blame school's for everything. What has happened to personal responsibility?
(JM) I believe it is both. I believe that parenting is the number one problem in this country right now, and that it is responsible for a great many of our ills. You hit the nail on the head when you say that personable responsibility is on the wane. However, I also see the public education system as a debacle that is seemingly beyond repair and recovery, and I'll probably not grieve upon its demise. The downfall could probably be traced to many things, but my opinion is that it is primarily when discipline was taken out of the schools (i.e. forbidding paddling, flunking, and other forms of punishment and discipline- ostensibly for the purpose of protecting kids' fragile feelings and precarious confidence). We coddle kids to the point where their skin is translucent beyond belief, and can basically tell a teacher to go fuck them self to their face without any fear of punishment, or at least substantial punishment. I recoil in horror when my father tells me stories from his days at Suncoast Elementary.
Look at who wins the national spelling bees every year- the home-schooled kids. Kim and I are thinking of putting Pearl and Lily into a charter school rather than the public school that Pearl is presently in (Gateway). I would appreciate your opinions and input in this matter. Pearl tells me that she cannot learn a thing because the kids misbehave so much. Apparently the teacher writes the word "RECESS" on the board and erases a letter each time the class gets out of hand; they seldom have recess. This method seems ineffectual and foolish to me. Kids ought to be singled out for their misbehavior. That is the best way to dissuade them. Of course, many sensitiviosos wince at that very idea. They insist that we have to protect kids' self-esteem, etc.
Well, I am running a little long on this rant. I really have to begin closing up now.
yours truly,
JM
(Shaun) Okay, see, part of this is crap. I know that doesn't sound incredibly intelligent, but this Dan Lips obviously has an agenda at hand. I agree; I am sure money is wasted in public schools. We're human, how could it not be? But to encourage less spending is ludicrous. I might feel different if the lottery money actually went to schools. The fact is that with the creation of the Florida Lottery, spending was cut. The money from the lottery replaces money from other sources of funding. It's not additional money, it's the same that has always been there, with one exception: We are needing more schools at all elementary, middle, and high school levels; the schools we do have are getting larger and larger which results in their increased needs; and our public school populations are changing at an exceedingly fast rate, rendering comparisons to "days of old" moot. Strapping schools and teachers down to every last cent is not an encouraging thought for those involved, especially when compared to other professions who earn considerably more.
Yes, I know, I know, we chose our profession and knew the pay was small in comparison, however, to "fight the good fight" truly and honestly for all students is an undertaking that need not be stressed by an already stressed budget. I know I stand from I a biased point-of-view, however, like my dad always said, "You can't do the job if you don't have the tools." I can tell you honestly that most public schools do not have all the proper tools at their disposal to do a proper job of educating today's youth. They are trying, but failing short because they have to "think and spend creatively" which results in thinking, "Hmm, what can we cut out of education so we can meet this year's budget," which by the way is usually less from the previous year.
And then! School Choice is nonsense. If your neighborhood is that bad, then do something about it and fix it. Just because your conditions are not the same as someone else's, why should you cost the district - I think it was over two million dollars - in additional busing? You shouldn't. I believe in personal responsibility and that concept seems to be missing from today's reality. I feel bad for those students that have to go to labeled "bad or failing" schools. Isn't that a great motivational term for those students already behind and without as many privileges? You're already stupid and you're going to go to this bad and stupid school, but you should come out ready to be a positive and productive citizen, perhaps even go to college. It just isn't going to happen for an overwhelming majority. A great deal of these students do not see a way out of their current conditions and going to a labeled good and passing school is not going to shed some miraculous light on the subject for them.
The problem is in society. We need a massive restructuring of what is important in this country to bring about a change for the better for all citizens. This would require people to be responsible for their own actions and earn those privileges handed to those who have worked hard for them before them. If you choose not to, then you should not expect that someone else is going to do it for you. I hear this everyday, and it's sad. No motivation, no self-worth, no concept that they are and should be held accountable for their actions. I think we should help people out, but there comes a point where the individual steps in and takes possession of their life.
But to quote Mr. Miller "...but I rant." So I will stop here. Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. It felt good to write it down. Have a great night.
Shaun
(Shaun) I have only been in this district a short time and from what I have seen, school choice is a bunch of *&$%. I have not seen how it benefits anybody except bureaucrats in that it makes it look like they actually want to help out schools. Instead of always blaming and trying to "fix" the public school system why don't we work on helping parents be Parents and people being decent and responsible citizens. Can public schools help make this happen? Sure they can. Is change needed in public schools? Of course, change is almost always beneficial. But radical swings of the pendulum in the shape of programs forcing schools this way and that does nothing but stress-out those in already working hard in the field of education. Schools can't fix society without help on the homefront.
(JM) You know, my father gets a monthly journal called Education Reporter, which he gives to me after he’s finished with it. There is some really interesting stuff going on out there in the world of education. The Minnesota Virtual Academy, which began in Nov. 2002, provides online learning programs for home-schooled kids. Apparently it has the teachers unions up there in an uproar. In St. Louis, where I went to Rx school, Vashon High, after spending $40 million, is an unmitigated failure. There are rampant fights, habitual absenteeism, violence against teachers & staff, etc. Yet the outcry for more funds rages on. Apparently, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a pretty reliable think tank that researches and studies these issues. According to them, less than half of U.S. public high school grads are ready for college! Wow. Now parents in Nashville must fill out permission slips in order for their kids to be placed on the honor roll. It seems the parents of the dumb, sorry- cerebrally challenged, kids have been complaining. A new study by the American Enterprise Institute concluded that federal spending on education under Tile I has failed to produce any significant increase in test scores. A Florida teacher’s union boss is headed to prison for charging $650,00 in luxuries to union accounts. Nice! These are only a few of the stories that I found captivating. What's new on your end?
Anyway, feel free to stop by the store here sometime when you guys are in town, and tell your parents that they can get their scripts filled here (if they have any). I’ll take good care of them, and get their rxs filled in about 10 minutes. Kim used to tell me that Walgreen had a wait time usually of an hour or two. Incidentally, she has crossed over and has just begun working for Publix now. She’ll be an assistant mgr., like me, but in Naples. It’s quite a drive, but a blessing when one considers the grunts she had to put up with at the Lehigh Walgreen. Anyway, gotta run. Let’s get together!
JM
P.S. I’m sorry I don’t call. I’m just not a fan of the phone…never was really.
Chilling for thee, but not for me by Jonah Goldberg was sent to Shaun February 11, 2005
(Shaun) This is what happens when we have too many rights and freedoms. We no longer have anything to work for, no common good, so we attack each other. It's really rather ridiculous, but it will only get worse before it gets better. Every (for lack of a better word) stupid attack on free-thought like this brings us ever closer to a Brave New World. If you haven't read the book, do so. I'm not saying that our generation will necessarily see that world come to fruition, but it will happen. Our society does not want to be free and equal. If we were, what would we have to fight over? Or maybe that's the point.
(JM) Well, my friend, you were the only one who responded to me, and I’m glad that you did. As you read this you may ask what have you gotten yourself into, but my hope is that you relish the merit of the discussion instead. My point was to see if anyone, many of whom I emailed being college professors and friends of mine, could give me any sort of sensible explanation or argument as to why this massive discrepancy exists between these two men (Larry Summers and Ward Churchill) and the way that they are treated, not only by their peers, but by others as well. Any intellectually honest person has to wonder why one man is castigated, and the other glorified, especially when the glorified one said things of a much more vile and disturbing nature. In any case, as in most cases, I received no cogent explanation; like Mr. Goldberg said in his article, “…some subjects are simply taboo even among serious scholars.”
It does seem that there is a lack of, and even a positive defiance to, engaging in civil discourse and intellectual debate, and this trend continues to worsen. This is more odd when concerning educators and academics. Have you encountered this intellectual snobbery in your daily discourses? Incidentally, did you ever get a chance to listen to that Adams/Jefferson CD that I made for you? There were two friends who had considerable differences of opinion on political, and other matters, but who could always maintain their respect for one another and their friendship while debating issues, especially in their retirement years. True, they did not talk for 12 years after Adams lost the presidency, but this was due to the poor judgment of Jefferson. Anyway, I digress! I don’t mean to go on and on, but I long for someone to correspond with and to engage me in stimulating conversation.
I have only a few questions for you, mainly for clarification. What constitutes an attack? It’s just that I hear that word used so often that I wonder if it is not used too loosely at times. I have been accused of “attacking” when all I was doing, in my mind anyway, was challenging another’s assumptions, holding them accountable for something they said, responding to a challenge, or merely disagreeing with them. Also, to whom were you referring? - the speech of these two professors, or those who spoke out against them?
It could be argued that these two men are being unfairly treated solely for exercising their freedom of speech, but does this mean that they should be free from the consequences of their speech? Like you said, we have too much freedom and too many rights in this country, and I agree with you. You can’t say “bomb” on a plane, or even joke about one. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. You can use hate speech for the purpose of provoking violence. You can’t use vulgarity in public, technically. Now, Churchill said some pretty preposterous and offensive things. Is he free to do so? Well, it depends, doesn’t it? Can he teach this stuff in his classroom and not expect to be fired? Can any of us tell our boss or customers to “f--- off”, and expect to be protected from losing our jobs? Can any of us use a racial slur and not be reprimanded for doing so? Of course not, and neither should he. What do you think about some of the things he said? What about Summers?
I was admittedly surprised by your first sentence, and isn’t this one of the main points of Huxley’s book? – that one day our freedoms will be dissolved for the sake of social harmony, for the good of society, for a utopian “World State”? - one that makes present day totalitarian states look democratic. This book, it seems to me, is an approbation of concepts such as: less government, republicanism, agrarianism, family unity and values, childhood innocence, reasoned analysis and debate, the study of history, Christian values, the sanctity of marriage, etc.; and a reprobation of class warfare, promiscuity, elicit drug use and addiction, welfare, world unity, scare tactics, the Village philosophy, censorship, conformity, etc. Not that I agree wholeheartedly with what Huxley condemns or condones, but I am sure that you are aware of which way I lean.
According to 1984 we were supposed to all be governed by Big Brother, and the power of the state was going to dominate the lives of individuals through cultural conditioning. I admit that I am skeptical of alarmist conspiracy theories. It is the same impulse that drives Jehovah Witnesses to unrelentingly proclaim the second coming as being ‘right around the corner’. I think of these people as Mel Gibson’s character in Conspiracy Theory. Your reference to Huxley’s book also makes me wonder what your opinion on stem cell research is.
I am intrigued and somewhat perplexed by your notion that “our society does not want to be free and equal.” Please feel free to explain further so that I may better understand what you mean. The race pimps, as Bill Cosby refers to them, in this country do come to mind. These people, while portraying themselves as arbiters of racial equality and freedom, do all they can to fester the fires of hatred and intolerance. Why? – self-interest. What would they do if racism ceased to exist (an impossibility in my opinion)? They’d be powerless, and would have to actually work for an honest living, rather than off of the hatred of their supporters. I would agree with you in this regard. Also, I am not sure we all ought to be free and equal; an equally vexing statement perhaps.
Anyway, I have gone on too long! I apologize for this imposition. I do look forward to hearing what you think, however.
Till then, your friend,
JM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
