1) Outraged conservatives who think they’re going to bother me when they announce that they’re going to stop reading my books can forget it. I don’t worry about whether saying what I think is going to cost me money because I don’t put a dollar value on speaking the truth as I see it.
2) I will henceforth be treating some of the more belligerent conservatives in the spirit they’re treating me. Specifically, there seems to be this belief that liberals should just shut up even though they don’t like the way things are. So any conservative postings that I don’t like, I will shut up for them, thus enabling me to practice on their behalf what they preach on mine. Particularly postings that consist mainly of insults pertaining to race, color, creed and national origin.
Back to the snow.
PAD
• 
Jim, there’s two problems I see, although just thinking about it, I can see the counter to my own argument.
Problem one is that for years, the USSR could and did have WMDs, and had the ability to deploy them to US soil. We never invaded. We never attacked. The reason why was MAD (mutually assured destruction…”Do You Want To Play A Game?”) Sure, we could have taken them out, but only at great risk of getting ourselves melted into slag.
Problem two is that Bush didn’t justify his invasion on a potentiality of Saddam having WMDs, or because Saddam wouldn’t stop trying to get/make WMDs, it was because Saddam HAD WMDs, and could delpoy them to neighboring nations with as little as 45 minutes prep time. Essentially, Bush presented as fact that WMDs existed, Saddam had them, and we needed to take them out.
Now, I know arguing against yourself is counter productive, but I can already see how my own cold-war example works against me. 9/11 could be viewed as a “first strike” event, triggering the MAD scenario that stayed our hand against the USSR. In that case, we’ve already suffered the loss of thousands, and if we’re gonna get nuked anyway, may as well as take them with us.
Except, the first strike turned out to be an only strike. There was no follow-up barrage, meaning MAD isn’t coming about.
I guess my point is, if Bush really thought there was a chance that WMDs could have been deployed against our troops, then it was a collossal blunder to launch a ground attack. We have the weapons and technology to seek out and destroy WMD facilities without risking thousands of troops, and while you can’t eliminate all risk, there should have been some indication or statement that lowered that risk to a statistical improbabilty. To do anything else is to put America’s core defense, our military in the way of catastrophic harm. And yes, suffering another 9/11 would be horrific. But losing a good portion of the best trained military in the world would literally open up our borders to, well, Canada, or Mexico.
Ahem.
Jim,
I do agree with your take on Bush that he does have a high standard of morals, and is trying to act true to them. I’ve kinda questioned his religious morals in the past, but that was more of trying to understand him, rather than condeming him. But I also think that his administration, including when he was in Texas, is a My way or Bye way administration. And from what I know of Texas government (my dad lives there, so this is really his opinion), Bush as governer had far less authority and responsibility than Bush as President. So it may very well be that he hasn’t lied, but niether has he made a strenuous effort to discover a large range of facts. I think he does set a condition, and then seek facts to support that condition, to the extent that he ignores facts that suggest that another condition might actually exist.
Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern writes:
“In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS
Bush as governer had far less authority and responsibility than Bush as President.
That is a very accurate statement. The Texas legislature only meets every other year! So there is a world of difference between being the governor of Texas and the President of America. But it is probably as close as you can get (except for perhaps being the governor of a state with a stronger governor position), so I do think it gave him important experience.
Regarding WMD’s, I would love to read a book 20 years from now that does honest interviews with the key players. Something doesn’t add up. That does not have to mean Bush lied, etc. It could be that there is intelligence that is still so sensitive (for real or political reasons) that it has not yet come out. There are things we only learned 20 or 30 years after the Cuban missle crisis, and understandably so. I suspect Bush will, for the most part, be vindicated in his actions BASED ON WHAT HE COULD HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME. But it is possible that he made many blunders. The one option that does not fit the facts (in my opinion) is that he deliberately lied and did things for anything other than a desire to protect and defend America.
Iowa Jim
Jim,
Would you find the idea of Bush not deliberately lying so much as taking a position of…let’s call it “determined ignorance” to be a more plausible explanation for his actions?
That is, he may not have known the intelligence was bad, but he also wasn’t going out of his way to find out. From what I’ve heard of snippets from former intelligence officials and the like, the White House seems to have disregarded a lot of information.
BASED ON WHAT HE COULD HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME.
Jim, you’re ignoring the scenarios again.
Either Saddam had WMD and Bush sent over 100k troops into a situation that could have killed tens of thousands of them in minutes.
Or he didn’t have WMD, and Bush lied to us.
Neither is very pretty, but you seem just as determined to go out of your way to excuse this pathetic war.
Then I saw [Ann Coulter] on the cover of her book at a discount store. I think she’s pretty hot for a trannie, don’t you?
Now that was below the belt.
– Z
Yes, I’d imagine it is. Unless she’s had it removed, that is… ;-P
‘Have your heard of the writer/artist John Byrne? I’m not saying he’s not wacky, just not far left wacky.’
John Byrne has some antiquated impressions of women and minorities, but that doesn’t mean that he is not a leftist. Look at Sen. Robert KKK Byrd (who, ironically, also has a massive ego.)
There are things we only learned 20 or 30 years after the Cuban missle crisis, and understandably so.
Like Sokolov and the completion of the Shagohod? I’m sorry, I’ve been playing and obsessed with Metal Gear Solid 3 way too much. Sorry. To continue with the over-analyzing of a ficticious alien… Calhoun being Bush-like… when I first heard that, I could see a connection. But after analyzing Calhoun’s behavior and motives, the connection fell apart. I doubt Calhoun would risk other people to meet his own ends. While he would pull together people for a just cause, when it’s just something only HE has a stake in, he goes alone. (He would have resigned from Starfleet to go after his son). To move on to another (but similar) topic: I feel I’m the minority in thinking that the US shouldn’t police the world. I’ve only seen one or 2 people agree with me on that. I’m curious, does anyone else feel that way? Not that you necessarily dis/agree with any political views or leaders, but that there seems to be something wrong with the US making it its sacred and holy duty to impose its worldview on other countries. (Side note, I recall hearing “Manifest Destiny” was the US’ sacred and holy duty to expand itself from one shore to the other).
Jim, I’m going to have to agree with you again…
Ok, the world still here? Good.
The thing is, for Bush to have lied would take a conspiracy/control over those who knew that of an unprecedented kind. And I just don’t think that’s the case. If he truly did lie, and no credible source has come forward to expose that, then he probably was acting from a position of truth. But that does not equal accuracy. If we do get a chance to review this administration in 20 or so years, I would not be surprised at all to see that the administration had access to information that indicated that their case was not as strong as they made it out, but the adminstration decided to discount it. It fits in with the things you hear about how they only want to see information that supports their goals.
I do think that Bush felt it was necessary to go after Iraq to keep the US safe. I also think he was wrong, and that a truly objective observer would not have made the same decision Bush did.
Under that premise, I guess you could look at it this way: Bush’s actions, if applied to the standards of our legal system, would likely allow him to be found guilty of gross negligence in performing his duties as President. Which is all good and well as a theory, but the election proves that most voters either don’t see it that way, or don’t care enough to vote him out.
Hi, long time reader first time poster. It’s proably been mentioned before, but I really have to wonder why would someone come back to a site that contains political views they don’t like and constantly get into shouting matches. Wait I get it these guys must have been “Crossfire” fans.
1Posted by Neil C at January 24, 2005 04:43 AM
Michael Cravens writes:It’s fun to debate, but seriously, it’s an exercise in futility.
Not at all. I don’t post here much, but I read this blog several times a day. Many of the people here on both sides are articulate and well-informed.
And when carefully thought-out arguments are made, I certainly consider them, regardless of political persuasion.
But when obviously intelligent people start rationalizing, rather than presenting a well thought-out argument, it’s a pretty strong alert that that emotions are taking over. If I’m agreeing with said rationalizations, it’s a sign to me that I’d better think things through a bit more clearly first.
Take gay-marriage. Can’t say I strongly opposed it, but I never really liked the concept. After reading arguments for both sides here, I realized I was agreeing with the “shouldn’t be allowed” crowd. But why? How would it weaken my marriage with my wife? I didn’t have a problem with gays, so why gay marriage?
So that sparked a lot of good conversation in our household, at the end of which I (actually we) concluded that, to be consistent, I had to support gay marriage.
Not trying to start a gay-marriage debate, I’m just making the point that these discussions are not a waste of time by any means. I’m sure that for every person posting here, there are ten reading this.
People who engage in juvenile ranting and posturing (you don’t seem to be quite capable of comprehending who you are, but everyone else does) have little effect other than to mildly annoy readers, after which the posts are generally skipped over anyway.
But civil, well-written thoughts are read and listened to.
–it’s funny, but as a gay man, I’m rather ambivalent towards gay marriage. I mean, give me a civil union with all the benefits of marriage and I’ll be fine. I don’t think it’s the correct fight. I think we should be focusing on equality (just as the Civil Rights Movement did) for all.
Tony
I’ve read several posts that mention how “odd” it is that someone would stop reading a book by a writer who’s politics differ from theirs.
It’s incredibly easy for me to imagine (and I’ve never done that).
The fact is it boils down to protest. By not buying someone’s work, you’re not supporting them. You don’t agree with their politics, so you don’t give them your money.
It may not be the most *logical* argument–since as people have pointed out, a good writer doesn’t let his politics invade his stories–but it is one nonetheless.
Tony wrote…
It may not be the most *logical* argument–since as people have pointed out, a good writer doesn’t let his politics invade his stories–but it is one nonetheless.
That’s true, and I think most people here are critical of it because it is illogical, particularly because PAD doesn’t turn his work into political propaganda. If every book he wrote came out like a mid-70s issue of Green Arrow, a boycott might be pretty reasonable.
On another note, I applaud your taking the time to consider and debate the gay marriage argument. It’s always good to see someone who is willing to think critically about their own views, and (my goodness!) even change their mind.
As for the “civil unions” argument, while that would be a step in the right direction, I don’t feel that it’s enough. If it’s going to have all the benefits of marriage (including, in some cases, religious approval – the United Church of Canada, to name one, decided to sanction same-sex marriages last year), why would you call it something else? In my opinion, that whole line of thought smacks of “separate but equal” policies.
And yes, I realize that it’s not quite the same thing, so there’s no need to point that out. The ideas are highly similar in principle, though.
Separate but equal? I don’t know, I kind of think that’s exactly what it is. Basically, if by allowing civil unions, and they contain rights of inheritance, survivorship, medical rights, health insurance sharing, adoptive and custody rights, and pretty much all the other trappings of marraige, why call it something else except to exclude some class from sharing in a little “hetero club?”
And it raises the question, will civil unions only be available to same sex couples, or can male-female pairs enter into them as well? And what is going to be the criteria to obtain one? Civil marraige calls for consenting adults, or parental approval in some cases, a few witnesses, and an administrative fee. It’s relatively simple.
Posted by: John Rearden
John Byrne has some antiquated impressions of women and minorities, but that doesn’t mean that he is not a leftist. Look at Sen. Robert KKK Byrd (who, ironically, also has a massive ego.)
Wrong.
JB Quote:
“The Right Wing is not automatically synonymous
with the Republican party. I don’t agree with much of what the Right Wing expounds, and I consider myself a pretty Right Wing kinda guy!”
kingbobb wrote…
Separate but equal? I don’t know, I kind of think that’s exactly what it is.
I do too, but I figured that if I didn’t throw in a disclaimer, someone would start talking about the inferior water fountains mentioned in the definition I linked to. Sure, “civil unions” don’t have anything functionally wrong with them, but the very act of denying an equal title to homosexuals implies that their unions are inferior to “real marriage.”
How about these other examples of separate but equal?
Support President Bush, get allowed to attend his public appearances. Oppose President Bush, and get relegated to a “free speech zone” 2 miles off the parade route, fenced in, and guarded by police that are more than happy to mace you if you try to leave?
Ok, that last bit is a slight exaggeration, but still, the point, I think, is that for a President claiming to be a “uniter, not a divider,” he’s sure going out of his way to divide people into distinct groups.
Your point is correct, but I wish I could say that sort of thing happens only in the U.S. Unfortunately, that happens to protestors just about everywhere nowadays, which is one of two reasons I don’t think protesting is effective any more.
“Echoing anti-Semitic tracts of the Czarist era, the letter’s authors accuse Jews of working against the interests of the countries where they live and of monopolizing power worldwide. They say the United States “has become an instrument for achieving the global aims of Judaism.”
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that PAD doesn’t feel that George Bush is being “an instrument for achieving the global aims of Judaism”
Furthermore if someone could fill me in on the sinister goals of the jewish people that I seem to have missed….
hmm there are no HTML tags to indicate sarcasm. there should be!!!
For those of you who still think gay marriage is a recent development:
http://www.ashe-prem.org/five/duffy.shtml
Yeah, so? Jesus only professed love, and God only wants people’s souls to re-join him in heaven. The problem with gay marriages here in America is that they don’t produce any children that we can send to war. Duh!
Back to the original topic, PAD, I thought you might want to know youare not alone with your troll problem. Would that be a troll infestation?)From http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ at 1:59 on January 27:
Many Progressive bloggers have been noticing a recent increase in “trolls” — right-wingers showing up and disrupting the comments. The recent trolls also seem more sophisticated. Whatever the reason for the increase, I’m not going to let them disrupt Seeing the Forest.
Warning to Conservatives: This is a very Progressive blog. Enter at your own risk.
The problem with gay marriages here in America is that they don’t produce any children that we can send to war. Duh!
I’ve wondered for a while why the people who oppose gay marriage “because there isn’t the possibility of having a child” are fine with hetersexual couples who choost not to have kids. It seems like the same kind of situation.
Karen Wrote:
Warning to Conservatives: This is a very Progressive blog. Enter at your own risk.
Why are Liberals so afraid of calling themselves Liberals anymore? They start using the term “progressive”? I guess it’s the negative connotation “liberal” has with the general public. I see the forest fine, it’s the liberals hiding behind “progressive” trees.
It’s kinda like how the right-wingers gave up the word “privatization” in raltion to Social Security in exchange for “choice.” It’s an awkward fit, though, since they take the opposite side of the fence on the same word coupled with Abortion (or “Reproductive Rights” as the left-wingers call it).
And again, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” don’t mean anything if you don’t use the dictionary definitions of them. If you did, you’d have to admit that the BushJr. administration is far more liberal than the worst Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy have ever proposed.
“I’ve wondered for a while why the people who oppose gay marriage “because there isn’t the possibility of having a child” are fine with hetersexual couples who choost not to have kids. It seems like the same kind of situation.”
Because they don’t have to sit up late at night fearing that somewhere a hetero couple without kids might be taking it up the butt.
Ha, my flawed logic strikes again!!!!!!
Why are Liberals so afraid of calling themselves Liberals anymore?
This would be the first I’ve heard of it.
Although, it’s downright pathetic that conservatives have turned “liberal” into a dirty word.
PAD,
On the slightly tangental topic of trolls, there’s an article in today’s Detroit Free Press about a “honeypot” computer program for dealing with people who spam weblogs.
http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwendland28e_20050128.htm
Thought you might like to see it.
Rick
“It may not be the most *logical* argument–since as people have pointed out, a good writer doesn’t let his politics invade his stories–but it is one nonetheless”
It doesn’t bother me if people start boycotting an author for his opinion if they admit that it’s senseless and illogical. It’s when they pretend it makes sense and is perfectly reasonable that it bugs me.
PAD
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
Although, it’s downright pathetic that conservatives have turned “liberal” into a dirty word.
…or liberals turned it into a dirty word all by themselves. What makes it more pathetic is liberals making it more of a dirty word by hiding from it.
Eirc!
>>Although, it’s downright pathetic that conservatives have turned “liberal” into a dirty word.
>…or liberals turned it into a dirty word all by themselves. What makes it more pathetic is liberals making it more of a dirty word by hiding from it.
So does that make the continual generakizing that seems typical in these discussions even more outrageous than all of the above?
Fred
…or liberals turned it into a dirty word all by themselves.
Umm, ok.
Too bad neocons have taken the word “conservative” and run with it too… all the way off a rather large cliff.
What makes it more pathetic is liberals making it more of a dirty word by hiding from it.
Like I said, this si the first I’ve heard of anybody hiding from it.
Frankly, I consider that just “parisan” propoganda like what’s coming from the crap-filled mouths of conservative Republicans in the White House.
It sort of makes me glad to be in Canada, where “Liberal” is the name of the ruling party. I don’t know how/when it became some sort of 4-letter word down there…it’s really bizarre.
I don’t know how/when it became some sort of 4-letter word down there…it’s really bizarre.
When conservatives stopped being conservatives and became something else. This happened with Reagan.
I mean, really… this country is really in serious role-reversal mode right now.
Craig says:
Why are Liberals so afraid of calling themselves Liberals anymore?
This would be the first I’ve heard of it.
Although, it’s downright pathetic that conservatives have turned “liberal” into a dirty word.”
“Frankly, I consider that just “parisan” propoganda like what’s coming from the crap-filled mouths of conservative Republicans in the White House.”
If you are believe that “liberal” has “been turned into a dirty word” then you can certainly see why some might shy away from it.
The idea that “liberal” is a dirty word comes mostly from liberal politicians who insist that they are “moderates”, whereas conservatives tend to embrace the label. So any discussion of Clinton or Kerry will almost inevitably have one of their supporters chirp in with “actually, he wasn’t as much of a liberal as the republicans tried to make him out to be”, like liberal was the equivalent of “child molester” or “cat vivisectionist”.
The word will be reclaimed when liberal politicians not named Ted Kennedy are willing to loudly proclaim themselves liberals. Why John Kerry didn’t do so is a mystery–apparently he also bought all that “parison propoganda” from the crap filled republicans. Which may be why they are still in the White House.
The idea that “liberal” is a dirty word comes mostly from liberal politicians who insist that they are “moderates”, whereas conservatives tend to embrace the label.
I don’t see that, myself. I am more than willing to proclaim myself as liberal – although I am registered independent.
No, I see it more as a situation of it being more 9/11 fallout: you’re with us or against us, you’re for the war or you’re unpatriotic (regardless of whether you support our troops.
And since liberals likely aren’t supporting Bush, they’re enemies of the US, unpatriotic, and going to Hëll. The Bush Administration has painted such a picture. That is why “liberal” is becoming a four-letter word.
Liberal has always been a dirty word to many people long before Bush. I was well into my twenties before I first heard anyone claim themselves proud of their liberalism and that in 92 when the Clintons were coming into power.
If you look at many of the old comics, it was always good vs evil, conservative vs. liberal.
“No, I see it more as a situation of it being more 9/11 fallout: you’re with us or against us, you’re for the war or you’re unpatriotic (regardless of whether you support our troops.”
I think you’re just plain wrong about this one. The reluctance of politicians to call themselves liberal (with a few exceptions–Ted kennedy, Paul Wellstone) began way before 9/11.
Reagan, for example, called himself a conservative at every opportunity. His opponents did not take the opportunity to do them same with liberal. And, as I’ve pointed out, the defense that many democrats give to their candidates is that they are NOT as liberal as the republicans make them out to be–as though liberal was something to flee from.
“I don’t see that, myself. I am more than willing to proclaim myself as liberal – although I am registered independent”
Which is to your credit. But then, you aren’t running for office. Aparently most who do have made the determionation that the liberal label is not a major vote getter in much of the country.
Reagan, for example, called himself a conservative at every opportunity.
And yet, Republicans haven’t been truly conservatives since Reagan.
Small government, anyone?
Aparently most who do have made the determionation that the liberal label is not a major vote getter in much of the country.
And for that I’d blame the fact that this country is a bunch of god-fearing hypocrits.
Small government, anyone?
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider “small government” to mean? And do you allow that what you consider “small government” and what a conservative considers “small government” may not even close?
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider “small government” to mean?
Small government is what the conservatives used to preach, up and including the states having rights over the federal government.
How times have changed, however, when you have the feds constantly trying to overrule the states: on marriage, on the right to die, and more.
How times have changed, however, when you have the feds constantly trying to overrule the states: on marriage, on the right to die, and more.
Yeah, yeah, and Liberals used to want federal “Standards” controlling everything, but now they’re talking about “states rights”.
I don’t think any one side can lord it over the other in this instance. Both sides are guilty for trying to get the federal government to strong arm people when it suits their purpose and crying foul when it doesn’t. And many conservatives have always argued that the federal government can do somethings better than the states such as national defense and trade policies.
A perfect example of the “liberal as a dirty word” meme this morning, albeit from an unlikely source:
TIM RUSSERT: “Some Democrats and many Republicans believe that Howard Dean is too liberal to be chairman of the Democratic Party. Do you agree?”
SEN. KERRY: “No, I don’t agree with that. I think, in fact, if you look at Howard’s record as a governor, he was a strong balance-the-budget governor. He was conservative on a lot of issues. And I think that’s part of what happens in campaigns. You get these stamps and broad brushes that aren’t exactly accurate.”
Amazing. Confronted with a perfect opportunity to proclaim the value of the liberal ideology, Kerry instead claims that Dean is conservative. And that this is a good thing. Ladies and gentlemen of the Democratic Party, I give you your candidate for president.
An intriguing comment, Bill, given that earlier this month you claimed I was being way too hard on Kerry. (I am still planning to answer that long piece eventually — I just have no idea when time will permit.)
That said, I partly agree with him in this case — Dean *isn’t* as liberal as the media portrait of him suggests. What he is, at least in my book, is an unashamed truth-teller — and that’s what I think we need more than anything. (The broad strokes of your critique, however, I agree with.)
Now, as far as reclaiming the term “liberal”, I think I agree with both sides of this argument. Democratic candidates have let the word “liberal” be demonized for far too long, and it’s both absurd and really quite sad at this point.
TWL
Tim,
I look forward to your reply on that old piece.
And I’m beginning to think that Kerry may have been as bad as you made him out to be. Given his performance of the last few weeks, his stock has fallen tremendously in my book. He is obviously planning to run again in 2008 but I can’t imagine that the Democrats are too impressed with what he’s been showing lately.