After considering the consequences of Right Thinking Girl's ridiculous position on treason, I've decided that the current popularity of intolerant politics deserves a thoughtful and organized rebuttal. This is not an attack on any people at that blog, but rather a narrow attack upon an idea that I think is wrong on its own merits.
Here is the argument that I see RTG making (you can check the above links to her post and comments to check if I'm getting this right):
| 1. | The definition of the national interest is set in stone and undeniable. Therefore, the nation's enemies are also a set determined by objective, empirical fact. |
| 2. | The inability of a party to realize the goal's created by this set in stone national interest is the fault of those who do not share their priorities, and does not reflect on the validity of the policies / goals. |
| 3. | Resisting the ruling party's definition of the national interest is treason (i.e. providing aid and comfort to the enemy). |
The following are the points I want to make:
Read more...
I am officially giving up on Right Wing Girl. I like the people there, I really do. But I cannot respect somebody who seriously believes this:
...liberals are not patriotic, though they love to say they are, they are treasonous in the most classic, dictionary sense of the word, they would love to see America brought down to the level of, say, Guatamala. They do not love America, they don't want it to do well, and they are actively campaigning for us to lose in Iraq. That is what I mean when I say they are working against our interests.
Can you say "thoughtcrime"? Isn't what defines a political party it's estimation of what the national interest is? Aren't the differences between two political parties going to involve differences in how we view the national interest, by definition? I freely admit that I consider statist philosophies like neoconservatism and modern liberalism to be anti-American in the sense that they have a different vision about where we should go as a nation. But to be a
traitor... implies a disregard for the very existence of the nation at a criminal level... and it simultaneously arrests the need for further exploration of our differences. In other words, why should we try to find common ground when you're a traitor and deserve to be hung? Such talk from intelligent people makes me sad; sad that we've lost the ability to find common ground with each other and work towards a common vision. And then RTG says that she's open minded and I see red.
So, it was nice while it lasted, but my experimental socializing with the red staters has come to an end. I still enjoy a lot of the frequent posters there like Tex, Andy, and RTG - but since so much of the blog is political, I can't participate there without reading mindless Republican demagoguery. And frankly Republicans just tend to piss me off with all their flag waving smugness. When they're real people, they're great - but with so much of their identity invested in the cult of Bush, they just end up becoming platform spouters.
Oh well, there's other fish in the blogosphere.
Read more...
Mexigogue drops the logic on us... why not blow up Iran?
1: It is not ethical to attack someone on the hypothetical premise that they might be thinking about using their weapons against you. We have weapons and we might hypothetically be thinking about attacking our ideological enemies. Does that mean then that it's ethically ok for them to attack us?
What a novel idea!
Whew, what a week. Recovering from Florida has been rough, but I've done it somehow. You can see pics here - just don't bitch about them. I'm a crappy photographer and I know it.
Well, I've been playing a lot of Scrabble lately because my friends Bill and Sara got us addicted to it. Tasha bought the game for me (or her?) for my birthday. But playing with Tasha is so hard... she's such a whiner! I think things will be better now that Tasha finally beat me last night.
Anyway, big weekend of hanging out coming up, and the superbowl, yay.
Ha - if you're wondering where I've been, I've got two words for you:
FLORIDA, BABY!!!
That's right, me and my crew rolled down to Tampa to see Brothers Past in Ybor City, then drove to Ft. Lauderdale to see em again before flying back. Getting back sucked because of flight delays due to the winter storms in the DC area, but it was still pretty cool. Just trying to recover from it all. I'll get pictures up soon.
And if you haven't tasted the Pink Panty Pull Down, you haven't lived life.
So, what's been going on while I've been gone? Did Iraq vote? Is it still even there?
Marion Barry to Teach Chemistry Class
Even though he's kind of an asshole, hat tip to James. I'm just glad I found this before Wil did.
I know a lot of people have argued to me that instead of ripping on Libertarian Girl every chance I get, I should instead ignore her. That way I limit the damage she does to the libertarian movement. But the goal of this blog is to be interesting, not a policy vehicle for the LP. So check out this gem of racism.
The comment section of this post will serve as a sign-up sheet for those of you who are interested in starting an Anti Libertarian Girl Webring. Or maybe we could just egg her or something. I'm open to suggestions.
Hey, check out my friend Andy's band, Communist Bakesale.
Man, they'll give anybody a domain, won't they (a point proven by any given porn site's URL)?
My boy Sizzle has an interesting "rant" that he posted some days ago about some cockamimey Bloggers Bill of Rights:
What I fail to see though is how bloggers see this as any different from commenting on an article in the newspaper, etc. If you divulge trade secrets of your company or divulge confidential information, why shouldn't your company be able to sue/fire you? Employees need to use supreme discretion in talking about the companies they work for. For instance I will most likely never mention anything about my new job other then the fact I got the job. Why? Because I don't want to risk my job.
To which I replied:
Stop joshing everybody, Matt. You know you ain't got no job.
Sorry guys... he gets back from the welfare office and gets a few drinks in him... and suddenly he thinks he's Mr. Philosophical.
Ladies and gentlemen, presenting:
THE EUROTWINS!
And don't forget Headies McWilliamson...
...and Rude Marissa.
TOO RUDE 4 U!!!!
That was last weekend. That's what winter storms and cabin fever will do to you. But don't worry - we're all in counseling now.
Given the fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq: how can you, on the one hand, support the war in Iraq, and believe this:
I don't see how the words of the Koran have anything to do with "self-government." The more devoutly Islamic the nation, the less self-government it seems to have. Only Turkey has democracy, and they practice a secular form of Islam there. And I don't trust the Islamist AKP party that's now in power there.
So, we're NOT over there to create a democracy in the middle east? So why are we there?
It's even a dumber argument on a pink background.
Wil's post about Social Security reform prompted a memory I had about a story Tasha told me about a while ago. She heard a story on NPR which you can access here. It talks about the projections for Social Security solvency. The Bush admin's reason for drastic and immediate S.S. reform is not entirely based on the actuarial reality of the program (i.e. more people are living longer and drawing benefits longer, and the ration of recipients to taxpayers will sharply decline). Apparently, the S.S. Trustees and the Bush Administration are justifying S.S. reform by projecting an overall grim economic future "starting around the year 2010".
The guest on this NPR story (Harold Myerson of the American Prospect magazine and the Washington Post) wonders:
...what cataclysmic event they expect is going to happen around about the year 2012, that economic growth rates are going to depart from their 140 year pattern, that's not really fully explained, and I would think they owe the American public a better explanation of why they think that's going to occur.
Wow - and on NPR of all places...
I'm still working on a post about Bush's speech yesterday. I want to get my points right, as I think everybody is underestimating what may be a telling event in the evolution of America's agenda. Until then, check out this latest article by Harry Browne:
Over and over, George Bush told us that Saddam Hussein was lying, that he was dragging his feet, that Iraq had dangerous weapons, that Hussein was a threat to the whole world...
Now here we are, over two years later. What have we learned?
Read more...
There's an editorial in the World Tribune about Iraq written by a U.S. soldier in Iraq. I am always interested in hearing the unfiltered and varied opinions of America's finest, and LTC Tim Ryan's piece is an interesting and informed treatment of the war. For instance, Ryan argues the old neocon talking point that the media doesn't pay any attention to their "successes". But the twist he puts on the media's responsibilities is a little overwrought:
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
Now, ignoring his comment questioning the loyalties of war critics, I've no doubt that LTC Ryan wants - even needs - to believe that the job he is doing is of unquestionable moral fiber and integrity. But he seems to believe that, given this fact of moral certitude (the final analysis of which is incomplete, at best IMHO), there is no room for criticism of the policies motivating his mission. And if you don't have his (priviledged) knowledge and vantage point, you can't come to a "correct" conclusion about the success of the war. Is this a valid point?
From the perspective of somebody who sees his mission as a vital, humanitarian one, I can see why he or she would feel that the good works done have been ignored. However, they haven't been ignored because the media wants to withhold this info, I believe. They've been withheld because, in the final analysis, nobody cares. When American boys are dying for a mission that has been shown to be based on utter falsehoods (WMD), the fact that foreigners are benefiting kinda gets overshadowed. I do not think this is the media "twisting the facts" or omitting vital information - this is the media giving the public information it cares about. Sorry, LTC Ryan - your safety is a lot more important to us than a bunch of non-American people getting a well.
After all, LTC Ryan, isn't the primary role of the U.S. Military is to protect America and Americans, not foreigners? When our troops die for the benefit of other people, you'll have a hard time justifying it on that point alone. We don't want Iraq to fail, but you have a different idea of what constitutes "success" than a lot of us do, and "you living" is one element thereof. Obviously, you're in a much better position to volunteer your life for the cause than we are, so this shouldn't surprise you.
Read more...
I updated my post about Libertarian Girl. I also ate a quesadilla. Further bulletins as events warrant.
