A lot of people seem to find Kerry’s manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing.
After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but…that’s how intelligent people talk. Carol Kalish spoke much the same way.
See, many people just say whatever’s running through their mind, and the phrases often don’t parse as sentences. Just ask anyone who’s ever had to transcribe an interview. In such case, more often than not, a sentence begins in one place but doesn’t end where it should because the speaker has gone off track.
Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences. When he’s pausing, he’s mentally constructing what he’s going to say so that it will track from beginning to end. He considers his words and then uses them. By contrast, Bush just flails. He starts sentences without a clue where he’s going with them, and oftentimes trails off into confusion or dead ends. What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.
PAD
• 
Russ,
While I agree with most of what you said, part of the reason “intellectuals” (your word) tend not to end up in higher office is that when they run, they lose. Look at Adlai Stevenson — or, for more recent examples, people like Bill Bradley. I think this actually gets back to Peter’s original point, though I wouldn’t put it as strongly as he does. This country has a profound anti-intellectual bias that dates back decades if not longer. As I’ve said before, we’re the only Western nation for whom creationism vs. evolution is even an issue — something which I certainly take as evidence that intelligence (or at least analytical thought) is dismissed as “egghead stuff.”
You are of course right when you say that for a lot of people, it’s easier to criticize than to propose solutions — but just because someone’s not running for office doesn’t mean they’re not putting themselves out there proposing solutions.
TWL
Jerome,
I’m not seeing much to disagree with there — the electorate is certainly screwed up as well.
I think the two go hand in hand. The more our two-party system breaks down and the more we have elections where we really, really want to have “None of These Dorks” listed on the ballot as an option, the more people assume that their opinions and their votes don’t matter and decide that everything is “just politics.”
And again, it gets back to the anti-intellectual bias I was mentioning to Russ. Here, we consider it a good turnout if we have 55% voter participation in an election. In other countries, that would be (and is) laughed at as a pathetic showing. That doesn’t mean every single voter in those other countries is seriously considering the issues, of course — but it certainly suggests that a greater percentage of, say, the Spanish, are doing so than Americans.
TWL
Michael Savage has for years said there should be a 3rd major party. The problem is how does one of the major parties go & play w/ the big two (& i don’t mea DC & Marvel)
Joe
While a third major party would be nice, I’ll keep on arguing that it’s the method of voting that should change.
Preference voting (instant runoff, etc.) is, so far as I understand it, a marvelous tool that can often lead to the birth of viable third parties.
The key thing about is that no vote is really “throwing a vote away”. If your first-choice is a long shot, you can vote for him/her anyway — it just means that if he/she really does come in 10th out of a field of 10, they’re the first to get bumped and have their votes redistributed.
The “is Nader a spoiler?” question would not have been an issue in 2000 under this system. Neither would similar questions about Perot in ’92.
The odds of either major party going along with this change in system, however…
TWL
No, the major parties are pretty well entrenched. The state legislatures have gerrymandered the House districts on both sides so that only about 5% of seats are competetive. Campaign laws are such that if you aren’t in one of the two parties forget about a chance of getting media coverage, or anything resembling a shot at getting on the ballot. At my most cynical, I think that Terry McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie are smoking cigars and laughing at the electorate.
“You guys don’t understand: Part of me is really hoping Bush is reelected.
Why? Because, without exception, every second term presidency in the past fifty years has become overwhelmed by scandal, misdeeds and wrongdoing on every level. Right now Bush still has defenders. If history holds–and considering the multiple debacles already in progress–a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel. Granted, there won’t be much left of the country, but hopefully the Democrats following him can rebuild.
Second term of Bush: Bring it on.
PAD”
So you actually want him to become President again just to see him fail? Do you realize how sadistic that is?
Why the heck would you want to see the leader of our country fail? Even if the man I don’t want to be in office is elected, I sure as heck wouldn’t want to see him fail. That only hurts the country.
Good grief man, you’ve got some issues.
hmmm…
What will it take to get some of you to stop blindly following this administration?
I’ll accept this as a valid question from someone who doesn’t still blindly assume that the vast majority of media is actively controlled and scrip-wrote by right-wingers and as a right-wing information-distribution system.
That disqualifies so many of people.
CJA
I still don’t understand people’s blinding hatred for the French. It makes no sense if one considers that we would likely not be a nation today without their support.
In a way that’s an interesting and almost true consideration.
But at this point I’m having trouble seeing “they” and “their” in such a simple way.
We’re not a nation because of the support of modern-day France nor because of modern-day Frenchmen any more than George Washington has an opinion of Jacque Chirac.
or any more than I hold slaves.
CJA
Besides, if you aren’t one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it’s none of yours or anyone else’s gøddámņ business.
In this country even if it is my child I have no rights regarding my son or daughter. The woman in question can have my child killed and I cannot do one thing about it.
Legally I have no rights as such until my offspring is freed from her power.
Between conception and birth a child has no rights at all. The woman has the might and right. Child has neither.
Your empathy has me all weepy inside.
CJA
Legally I have no rights as such until my offspring is freed from her power.
Interesting phrasing. During that same time period, however, one can just as legitimately interpret the pro-life position to say that “the woman in question” has no rights until she is freed from the fetus’s power.
Sounds just as inflammatory either way, doesn’t it?
Of course it’s an awkward question. It’s one of the most awkward questions a woman can ever face. That’s why the pro-choice position is that she is the one with the ultimate power to decide the question, rather than having someone forcing a solution on her.
TWL
My basic position on abortion, until the fetus is “developed” enough to survive outside the womb WITHOUT special life support equipment, it’s not really a baby yet, and is entirely at the discretion of the mother and the skills of any medical personnel that are requested.
Tim: Interesting phrasing. During that same time period, however, one can just as legitimately interpret the pro-life position to say that “the woman in question” has no rights until she is freed from the fetus’s power.
That’s the burden of parenthood to begin with, as I think many of us can vouch for. I can’t fly off and leave my child unsupervised without criminal charges being filed against me. Why is it that the responsibility for the child doesn’t begin until birth?
You’re right that that is the crux of the argument, and why the problem is so tough but I think there’s too much emphasis on abortion as the only alternative. Look at the various pro-life and pro-choice websites (NOW, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life America, etc). Very few of them talk about anything other than abortion in relation to this. Adoption is a footnote at best.
I can’t fly off and leave my child unsupervised without criminal charges being filed against me.
Yes, but you have the ability to leave the child with someone else: a relative, a friend, a sitter. When the fetus is still developing, that ability is null and void for rather obvious reasons.
And I think saying “the responsibility for the child doesn’t begin until birth” is a drastic and ill-chosen misrepresentation of the general pro-choice position. Nobody is suggesting that person X should get an abortion because she worries the kid’s eyes won’t match her nail polish, for heaven’s sake. The overwhelming majority of abortions occur because (a) there is a threat to the mother’s health, (b) the fetus has some sort of abnormality, or (c) the pregnancy was unplanned and the parents are unready (emotionally or financially) of supporting a child at that time.
None of those represents an easy decision, and for you to equate it with jetting off for a vacation is IMO trying to cast all abortions as the acts of irresponsible women who should know better.
(No, I don’t think you’re doing this consciously, Mark — from what I’ve read here, you’re a reasonable person. But that’s the overall effect.)
And I agree with you that other alternatives would be nice (though in cases (a) and (b) above I’m not sure adoption is really relevant). Very, very few people on the pro-choice “side” want to see abortions increased; as the saying goes, “safe, legal, and rare” is the way I, at least, would like to see abortions referred to in an ideal world. Not a default option, but not an unsafe or a criminal one either.
TWL
“Nobody is suggesting that person X should get an abortion because she worries the kid’s eyes won’t match her nail polish, for heaven’s sake.”
But if she does, what then? Or to put this into a real world question–one recent study of abortions in India showed that of 8000 performed, 7999 were on girl fetuses (feti?). This has to do with the insane quest for boys that infests so much of the third world (and is one reason they will always be the third world if they don’t start putting the value of women somewhere above that of a steaming pile of baboon offal).
Now…should that be legal? the same folks who talk about being “pro-choice” have deemed this “gender cleansing” and tried to make it illegal. But how can “pro-choice” mean only “good choices”? Once you decide that there are such things as bad choices that cannot be allowed you lose the right to condemn the hardline pro-lifers who simply draw the cutoff point somewhere else.
But if I saw someone advertising ultrasound as a means of gender selection…dámņ, that would be hard to stomach. Thoughts?
It’s nice to know that PAD is an elistist and a fortune teller. You have no CLUE what anybody is going to say thirty years from now. Nice try though. What is it thats suppose to revulse me? Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet.
If thirty years from now Iraq is similar to Japan, Bush will considered one of the greatest presidents. Not everybody is going to be MLK behind the podium. Most REAL people realize that, elistist dont. Come on PAD I thought YOU were smarter than that.
Abortion for sex-selection purposes is a pretty vile choice (IMO), and seems an awfully cavalier use of a difficult option … but I can’t come out in favor of banning it, since that’s directly at odds with the woman’s right to choose. (This is assuming it’s the woman’s choice in that situation and not the father-to-be’s.)
Ideally, of course, no one would go that route. Somewhat less ideally, I think a sensible route would be to allow that, but have a sufficiently strong educational system in place that few if any people would think of sex-selective abortions as a good idea.
On a different note, I also don’t quite agree with the statement that if you draw the line anywhere you can’t condemn those who draw it elsewhere. Roe v. Wade prescribes limits … but limits that have a significant scientific finding underpinning them (i.e. fetal viability). That particular line has data for backing it up, and I see little to no inconsistency in saying someone else is out of line for wanting to move the line to a location grounded only in their own biases.
TWL
Tim,
Sorry to interrupt your abortion debate, which I will gladly stay OUT of, but just a few responses to your comments about the electorate/elections:
1.) I believe in some countries the reason the voting percentage is so high because they are given cash and/or a vacation if they vote, which is really nothing short of bribery and repulses me.
2.) Our voting percentage as a nation took a huge hit when the voting age was lowered to 18. Our young people are extremely apathetic (as a whole, not all).I hate to generalize, but in this case, it’s really hard to argue with the numbers. A huge reaso for this is lack of civics courses, the coddling of our youth, and a refusal of many of our young people to act like adults until they’re about 30 (or at least 25).
3.) If, with the freedom of choice we have, we do get 55% of the people to the polls, well, great. They, at least, care. Do I wish more people gave a dámņ? Sure. But I would rather my vote not be cancelled by someone who gets upset when the War in Iraq interferes with their soap operas, or people who still don’t know the candidates positions and will only vote because they think Kerry is a Communist or Bush is a Nazi. I would never discourage these people from voting, of course, but I think our nation is better served if they spend Election Day doing something they feel is important and that they will invest thenselves in.
As Jeff Greenfield said once, in response to using guilt and other means to get people to vote”
“If you don’t care, don’t vote.”
4.) And i actually think the “lesser of two evils” charge always being leveled is utter crap. You can find something admirable about just about any candidate if you (in general, not you meaning you, Tim) look.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people take the time to try.
Jerome,
I’m not in favor of bribing people to go to the polls, but I’m not familiar with those assertions. Can you provide a source?
One thing which most countries DO do, however, is make it so that you don’t need to worry about fitting a vote into your work schedule. Election Day is either on a weekend or a national holiday in a lot of countries — and that I completely favor. It would be a statement that we as a country take voting seriously, rather than something you fit in between the evening commute and “American Idol.”
(For the record, I feel the same way about jury duty. The fact that it’s something almost everyone tries to get out of all but guarantees that most juries are made up of the dorks who couldn’t find a way out. Is that really what “a jury of one’s peers” means?)
And even if you can find something admirable about just about any candidate (“Vote Shmerdling: He’s never once had sex with a goat!”), I don’t think that means the “lesser of two evils” charge is nonsense. The overall package for a candidate needs to be admirable, not just one or another item, or else you’re generally voting for X because “well … they’re certainly better than Y.” The admirable bits give you more of a rationalization for doing so, but unless there are a lot of them or a coherent set of them that’s all they are.
TWL
“I also don’t quite agree with the statement that if you draw the line anywhere you can’t condemn those who draw it elsewhere.”
If you draw a line based on “good choices” vs “bad choices”, I think you lose the right to be very critical. At least the straight line pro-lifers would be consistent. now Roe has limits based on facts, not morality, so that’s another thing.
But I note that quite a few feminists suddenly went anti-choice when faced with the reality of female selective abortion. It’s escaped being an issue here because we don’t have the same cultural bias against girl children.
(What if they discopvered a genetic marker that predisposed a person to homosexuality. Would it be ethical to outlaw testing for the marker, since it the only reason to do so would be to use the knowledge to abort the child?)
At least the straight line pro-lifers would be consistent.
Perhaps, but here’s where the old Emerson line about consistency comes in. If you want to insist on absolute down-the-line consistency, the only two permissible positions are (a) abortion at any time, for any reason, right up until labor, or (b) no abortion for any reason even if the mother dies as a result. Yes, they’re both consistent, but I doubt more than 0.01% of the population would find either position particularly human.
I think the arguments need to be consistent, not necessarily the positions.
(What if they discopvered a genetic marker that predisposed a person to homosexuality. Would it be ethical to outlaw testing for the marker, since it the only reason to do so would be to use the knowledge to abort the child?)
I’d go with “no”, mainly because I reject the claim that abortion would be the only reason to do so. I’m not coming up with another reason off the top of my head (unless you want other equally grey areas like “they want to tweak the genes to “cure” the homosexuality”), but I’m fairly certain SF writers in the past 5-10 years have in fact written stories about this issue in ways that *don’t* include abortion.
TWL
But I’d bet that this would be THE issue in the gay community…which brings to mind a frightening yet oddly hilarious scenario where fundamentalist Evangelicals team up with radiacl Queer nation advocates in a “Save the Gay Babies” campaign.
Fortunately I’ll probably be dead before all this happens. (Always look on the bright side, I say.)
Tim,
I actually DO agree with you that Election Day should be a holiday. Granted, this could lead to “Election Day sales” that would have some people in the mall instead of voting, but then those people probably would not have voted anyway.
To me, it would be more important to give people the opportunity to vote for president than to celebrate “Presidents’ Day” or even Columbus Day. And I’m Italian, but I never recall anyone taking either of those holidays very seriously.
Also, I would just like to make a couple more comments about the “lesser of two evils” argument. My point is sometimes I think we have too much of an idealized version of what our leaders should be like. For example, many question kerry’s speaking style, but I have heard others call it “Lincolnesque”. I think that may be accurate. Not everyone can be Bill Clinton, JFK or Ronald Reagan. Bush the Senior was criticized almost as much as his son for his way of speaking.
But
A.) It is easier for us, especially when it comes to politicians, to latch onto simple crtiticisms and, more importantly, BELIEVE them than we do about good qualities.
B.) Instead of really trying to grasp complex issues, we take comfort in simple slogans, so Perot can galvanize people by saying “We just need to get under the hood and fix it”, Clinton can have people gushing by saying “We need to save Social Security first” without knowing how he plans on doing that, and Dubya can campaign by saying that taxpayers have been “overcharged, and it’s time to give them a refund” because a majority of people don’t understand how our annual deficits and accumulated national debt affect them.
It is a chicken-and-egg thing. We need more candidates and especially the media to stop dumbing down the debate, but those who would dare to do that would be tumed out by many, since our citizenry, for the most part, has not been conditioned to understand issues in complex terms.
“Why the heck would you want to see the leader of our country fail? Even if the man I don’t want to be in office is elected, I sure as heck wouldn’t want to see him fail. That only hurts the country.
“Good grief man, you’ve got some issues.”
He has already failed. He has failed on every level. What is astounding is that his supporters don’t see that.
This is a man who wanted to get Saddam Hussein before he got into office. A man with a coterie of Neocons who published papers six, seven years ago advocating invading Iraq.
If 9/11 hadn’t happened, Bush would never have gotten the country to go along with it. The first nine months of his administration was an orgy of incompetence and isolationism run amuck. He was a national joke.
Then the Towers fell.
And Bush exploited it.
Seeing a population suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, he and his handlers ruthlessly and maliciously played upon the fear that seeped from every pore of the American skin. Every major speech he made was designed to exacerbate that fear, to keep Americans frightened and off balance and, most of all, dependent. (Quick! It’s time for another color coded alert!) He steamrolled an Iraq initiative that he never would have managed to push through without 9/11, all the while lying about the threat that Iraq posed. Meanwhile his subordinates angrily dismissed any scenario–even those suggested by top Army brass–that suggested Iraq would do anything other than unilaterally roll over and welcome us with open arms. Realistic calculations of troop numbers required to maintain order were dismissed for lowball estimates that proved to be horrifically wrong.
For years Arab youth has been inculcated into the notion that the United States poses a threat. Thanks to the manipulative actions of George W. Bush, in the eyes of the Arab world, that threat has now been verified. And yet people still believe that Bush is keeping us safe from terrorists (Apparently the WTC, which happened nine months into his watch, didn’t count. Perhaps it was a freebie) and are oblivious to the fact that a new generation of terrorists has been spawned by this calamitous and ill-advised new war.
The question isn’t why do I have issues with Bush. The question is, why in hëll don’t you?
PAD
“It’s nice to know that PAD is an elistist and a fortune teller. You have no CLUE what anybody is going to say thirty years from now.”
A wise man said that there is no future and no present; merely a past that’s endlessly relived. All the abuses of the past–the Vietnam war, abuses in internment camps, the repression of civil rights–they’re all happening right now in one great festival of insanity. It takes neither an elitist nor a fortune teller to see that. It only takes someone with their head buried in the sand not to see it.
“Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet.”
And how many fights as a fighter pilot was Bush actually in?
“If thirty years from now Iraq is similar to Japan, Bush will considered one of the greatest presidents.”
Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they’ll be the same.
PAD
Mr. David,
I try not to get involved with political discussions to much, because, aside from religion, it’s the easiest way to get people riled up. Mention anything about politics, and it’s the equivalent of putting a stick in a hornets nest and stirring it up. You, as well as a few others on here, really tend to take this stuff to heart.
I do have one question though. Why is it that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are blind? You are not the only one to have stated as much, others have posted almost the same thing. Maybe someone has looked at it with a different set of values, or a different way of life, or whatever, and they weighed all the facts, as you have, and they made a decision based off the facts and their life experiences, and for some strange reason, come to the opposite view point as you. Does that make them blind? You’ve asked how people can’t see something. Maybe they do see it, and look at it differently than you. That doesn’t make them blind. It just means they have a different point of view.
To me, this is the equivalent of driving down the road and calling anyone who passes you, going faster, a maniac, and the ones you have to pass an idiot.
Steve
Mr. David,
I try not to get involved with political discussions to much, because, aside from religion, it’s the easiest way to get people riled up. Mention anything about politics, and it’s the equivalent of putting a stick in a hornets nest and stirring it up. You, as well as a few others on here, really tend to take this stuff to heart.
I do have one question though. Why is it that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are blind? You are not the only one to have stated as much, others have posted almost the same thing. Maybe someone has looked at it with a different set of values, or a different way of life, or whatever, and they weighed all the facts, as you have, and they made a decision based off the facts and their life experiences, and for some strange reason, come to the opposite view point as you. Does that make them blind? You’ve asked how people can’t see something. Maybe they do see it, and look at it differently than you. That doesn’t make them blind. It just means they have a different point of view.
To me, this is the equivalent of driving down the road and calling anyone who passes you, going faster, a maniac, and the ones you have to pass an idiot.
Steve
If I might have the temerity to answer:
Steve, I’m comfortably certain that Peter disagrees with, for instance, George Will on any number of things, from proper fiscal policy to the relative moral value of the New York Yankees. However, in a recent column (published today in my local paper), Mr. Will reveals that he is not so blind as all that – even he can see that the war in Iraq was started under false pretenses (“We have to destroy those WMDs that Saddam has aimed at us before he can launch them! Oh, wait, there aren’t any…”), and that the course Bush and his cronies are intent on following can lead only to disaster.
The ones Peter refers to as “blind” are the ones who still can’t tell, even after all the evidence has been dumped in their laps, that Dubya’s war is bogus, and his buddies are in it for every dollar they can scrape up (and to hëll with anyone, American or Iraqi, who gets in their way!). This isn’t a mere matter of “disagreement” about subjects in dispute; this is a matter of willful ignorance of freely available information.
Some people considering sacrificing children to “Satan” a good thing, but I still call them morons, don’t you?
I am a self proclaimed fence rider, and as such I get slightly, notice the word slightly, offended at being referred to as blind if I don’t have a problem with the war in Iraq. I was in the desert for the big one, and saw things that most people can’t imagine. What you see on the news is only a glimpse of the whole picture, and it is only the glimpse that the news people, whoever they are, want you to see. So my view of the war was that it was not ALL good, nor ALL bad. It was something that needed to be done, sooner or later. I don’t advocate invasions or standing by and hoping that a group of political heads from all over the world writing down ‘resolutions’ and saying that you’d better follow this or else we’ll write another one, is the right answer. I don’t have the answers. I know enough to know that I don’t have a frickin’ clue about anything. I don’t know how to run a gov’t. I don’t know how to propose to stop someone from committing genocide on his own people. But I do know that what I’ve seen gives me a different point of view on things, and it doesn’t make me blind to things. I know that just because I don’t have an issue with a war, doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with me.
Personally, I thought the reaction of the President after 9/11 was right on the money. I’m not sure all of the actions taken were the correct ones, but I feel that the reaction of the gov’t to the events was correct. I feel that keeping people in fear of another attack was the best thing at the time, because there are to many people who don’t fully comprehend what an attack like that really means. Better to get the masses in a state of paranoia and fear for a time, rather than give false reassurances that everything will be okay. It’s not going to be. Ever again. There is no more sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the events that shape the world around us. So there are going to be a lot of different views on things. Some people are going to want action, others not. The ones that want action aren’t necessarily blind, they just want something different.
I could draw out all kinds of examples here, but I feel that I have gotten my point across.
It’s too easy to sit back and say that you are in the right and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong, blind, or fooling themselves. Marv has cosmic awareness, do you Mr. David?
Steve
I am a self proclaimed fence rider, and as such I get slightly, notice the word slightly, offended at being referred to as blind if I don’t have a problem with the war in Iraq. I was in the desert for the big one, and saw things that most people can’t imagine. What you see on the news is only a glimpse of the whole picture, and it is only the glimpse that the news people, whoever they are, want you to see. So my view of the war was that it was not ALL good, nor ALL bad. It was something that needed to be done, sooner or later. I don’t advocate invasions or standing by and hoping that a group of political heads from all over the world writing down ‘resolutions’ and saying that you’d better follow this or else we’ll write another one, is the right answer. I don’t have the answers. I know enough to know that I don’t have a frickin’ clue about anything. I don’t know how to run a gov’t. I don’t know how to propose to stop someone from committing genocide on his own people. But I do know that what I’ve seen gives me a different point of view on things, and it doesn’t make me blind to things. I know that just because I don’t have an issue with a war, doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with me.
Personally, I thought the reaction of the President after 9/11 was right on the money. I’m not sure all of the actions taken were the correct ones, but I feel that the reaction of the gov’t to the events was correct. I feel that keeping people in fear of another attack was the best thing at the time, because there are to many people who don’t fully comprehend what an attack like that really means. Better to get the masses in a state of paranoia and fear for a time, rather than give false reassurances that everything will be okay. It’s not going to be. Ever again. There is no more sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the events that shape the world around us. So there are going to be a lot of different views on things. Some people are going to want action, others not. The ones that want action aren’t necessarily blind, they just want something different.
I could draw out all kinds of examples here, but I feel that I have gotten my point across.
It’s too easy to sit back and say that you are in the right and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong, blind, or fooling themselves. Marv has cosmic awareness, do you Mr. David?
Steve
I don’t want to go all John Byrne and just say “What he said,” but in this case there’s no way to avoid it: It’s what Jonathan said.
Janeane Garafalo opined that, by this point, supporting Bush represents a character flaw. That the only way someone couldn’t admit the Bush presidency is a disaster of global proportions is that they’re simply too stubborn or personally invested to do so. I don’t know that I entirely agree with that assessment, but there’s certainly a grain of truth in it.
PAD
“I am a self proclaimed fence rider, and as such I get slightly, notice the word slightly, offended at being referred to as blind if I don’t have a problem with the war in Iraq. “
See, whereas I get seriously offended when, as is becoming more commonplace, people distort what I say for the sake of attacking it.
Let’s see what I said:
“Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they’ll be the same.”
This cannot be argued with. So instead of trying, let’s transform it into:
“I do have one question though. Why is it that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are blind?”
which instantly becomes snidely expanded upon as:
“It’s too easy to sit back and say that you are in the right and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong, blind, or fooling themselves. Marv has cosmic awareness, do you Mr. David?”
No, but I do have an awareness of what I said, which appears to be more than others have.
I said that only someone with their head buried in the sand cannot see that some of the greatest sins in this country’s history are being replayed right now. That’s true. I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical. That’s true. But why try to deal with true statements when a nice, tidy untrue one (“Peter says anyone who disagrees with him is blind”) is so much more convenient.
This is how distortions thrive. This is how lies surpass the truth. This is how Americans get suckered, and this is how GOP spinmakers convinced everyone that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet and that John Kerry changes his mind on everything (while glossing over Bush’s acclaimed “We shouldn’t be involved in nation building” statement four years ago.) They do it by repeating distortions over and over again (just as you guys did) until everyone remembers the lie instead of the truth.
Shameful.
PAD
Eh?
Did you just edit your last post? I was going to respond that I’m not trying to twist anyone’s words against them. I strongly believe in “Say what you mean and mean what you say” and to me there is a strong sense that people who don’t agree with one another on here tend to call each other blind. Maybe its a way of being civil.
I’ve read a lot of posts on this particular thread, and maybe I got something wrong, but the underlying message that I got, most specifically from you and a couple of others, is “How can you be so blind?”
Steve
Eh?
Did you just edit your last post? I was going to respond that I’m not trying to twist anyone’s words against them. I strongly believe in “Say what you mean and mean what you say” and to me there is a strong sense that people who don’t agree with one another on here tend to call each other blind. Maybe its a way of being civil.
I’ve read a lot of posts on this particular thread, and maybe I got something wrong, but the underlying message that I got, most specifically from you and a couple of others, is “How can you be so blind?”
Steve
AJ said “If thirty years from now Iraq is similar to Japan, Bush will considered one of the greatest presidents.”
PAD answers,
“Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they’ll be the same.”
PAD
Then a few posts later PAD says:
“I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical. That’s true.”
Where do I begin? AJ stated that if Iraq ends up SIMILAR to Japan in 30 years Bush will be a hero. PAD states that you’d have to be blind to the differences in cultures to think that this would happen.
Now if one wants to think that AJ meant that Iraq woud be full of Asians with great taste in animation and a fondness for raw fish, yeah, you’re right. Also, you’re John Byrne.
If one assumes that AJ meant that in 30 years our former enemy might go from a dictatorship to a democratic ally…I don’t think the Iraqi people are culturally doomed not to have any chance of emulating Japan’s success. We will see. Japan and germany were very different culturally and they ended up in similar positions. At any rate that is a highly arguable point. Claiming that one would have to be blind to the facts to think otherwise indicates a rather strong degree of arrogance.
But the second PAD statement doesn’t match the first. Apparently he realized that it didn’t make much sense so he changes it to “I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical.” Which is true of course. It’s just not the same thing as the earlier statement. And he knows it.
I have to wonder how many of the people on this board have any close friends of a significantly different political persuasion than that of their own. When I see the smug condenscending attitudes that some have toward those who dare to come to different conclusions…I sure hope you don’t have to deal with any family members who go to the “other side”. Gonna make for a fun Thansgiving.
“Did you just edit your last post?”
Yes, because I posted one lengthy message discussing people being blind and then realized that I’d fallen prey to that exact mindset: Defending not what I said, but what people said I’d said. So I went back and deleted a chunk of it.
“I’ve read a lot of posts on this particular thread, and maybe I got something wrong, but the underlying message that I got, most specifically from you and a couple of others, is “How can you be so blind?”
First, this is a message board, not an underlying message board. Subtext is in my fiction, not my posts. Second, you’ve just admitted to doing what I said you were doing: Taking your interpretation of what I said, pretending I said it (in this case, even ascribing quotes to it) and then discussing the interpretation. It’s sloppy argumentation. Unfortunately, it’s not only epidemic in this country, but Presidential elections are starting to turn on it. Smith says “A”,” Jones comes back and says, “You said ‘B’,” Smith replies “I didn’t say ‘B’!” But the problem is that he has to repeat “B” in order to address the lie, and all people remember is “B” because it’s reiterated.
As I said, no wonder over a period of months the RAM (Republic Attack Machine) manages to convince Americans of untruths so thoroughly. The “Peter says everyone who disagrees with him is blind” lie required only 45 minutes to take root here. And that wasn’t even organized. This entire exchange, right here, offers intriguing insight into the steering and manipulation of the electorate.
PAD
Perhaps we should say instead, please take the blinders off? I wrote about people blindly following this administration. Even staunch Republicans are up in arms about the doings of the people in power. Listen to John McCain for a view from the right. Criticism of those in government, when their interests outweigh the country’s, is a moral imperative. And when we talk about those who blindly follow, we are talking about the people who believe this administration can do no wrong. They have made major mistakes. The deficit. The environment. Education bills not fully funded. Job losses. Etc. But some on this thread continue to argue that we are just bashing Bush when we point these out. We are bashing his policies. Which are making life worse for most people in this country. When you adore someone who is not working in your best interests, this is blindness, not simply a difference of opinion.
“But the second PAD statement doesn’t match the first. Apparently he realized that it didn’t make much sense so he changes it to “I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical.” Which is true of course. It’s just not the same thing as the earlier statement. And he knows it.”
No, it’s the same. One’s just a restatement of the other. I stand by both. Now if you want to endlessly try and split hairs and pick them apart on that basis, knock yourself out, but the sentiment remains: Iraq and Japan will not be similar in thirty years, and anyone who thinks they will be is blind to vast cultural differences between the two (which is now a THIRD way of saying the same thing).
For the most mild of starters, we didn’t storm into Japan, capture the Emperor and drag him away. The Japanese emperor voluntarily lay aside his claims to divinity and urged his countrymen to cooperate in the rebuilding. The only people in Iraq urging the people to cooperate with America are Iraqi exiles who are perceived as being in America’s pocket. In Japan, a house was built upon a foundation of concrete. In Iraq, we’re on a foundation of sand. Iraqis have thousands upon thousands of years of enmity toward EACH OTHER, much less us. Comparing Iraq and Japan isn’t just comparing apples and oranges. It’s comparing apples and milk shakes.
Saying that *if* Iraq is like Japan thirty years from now, then Bush will be remembered as great, is ridiculous, because it requires a pie-in-the-sky view of Iraq that is blind to the historical circumstances that made the Japan rebuilding possible.
Oh, and by the way…the rebuilding of Japan came as a result of a “World” war. Not a “United States” war.
PAD
I supported attacking Afghanistan, did not support attacking Iraq. Bush’s inarticulateness hurts him in the respect that it appears that he had insufficient reasons to attack Iraq, and that his inability to articulate very well makes it appear that he has not thought things through very well. All he can do is repeat things like “stay the course” like a mantra, which is not enough to convince me that we really should stay the course.
Mr. David,
I really had no intention of angering you. If it did, I apologize. I was looking for an answer, got one (not quite what I wanted), and seemed to stir up the hornets a bit myself. I suppose I couldn’t get anywhere near it myself without a few stings, no matter how careful I tried to be.
Steve
Mr. David,
I really had no intention of angering you. If it did, I apologize. I was looking for an answer, got one (not quite what I wanted), and seemed to stir up the hornets a bit myself. I suppose I couldn’t get anywhere near it myself without a few stings, no matter how careful I tried to be.
Steve
Didn’t Japan actually lunch an attack on United States property bacvk in WWII? Don’t recall Iraq doing doing that even recently…
I have to wonder how many of the people on this board have any close friends of a significantly different political persuasion than that of their own.
Close friends? No — probably in part because most people I’ve run into of a significantly different political persuasion also have tastes sufficiently different enough in other arenas that there’s not much basis for an initial friendship.
Relatives? Oh, yes, most certainly.
When I see the smug condenscending attitudes that some have toward those who dare to come to different conclusions…I sure hope you don’t have to deal with any family members who go to the “other side”.
Leaving aside the fact that this is perhaps a touch condescending itself … in that particular case the solution is fairly easy.
I do, for example, have friends of a significantly different religious faith than mine (to wit, they have one). Both couples are aware the difference of opinion exists, and as a result we tread a little more lightly around that topic than we might if we were around those of “like mind.”
Similarly, politics tends not to come up at family gatherings where we know it would only cause grief. When it does, there’s generally an attempt to focus on the areas of commonality rather than differences. Not the same tone I’d use at a rally, no — but the tone I use in my classroom is certainly different than the tone I’d use at an SF convention. (Well … most of the time, anyway. The AP kids tend to bring out some overlap.)
We all wear different hats at different times, at least if we pretend to have any social graces at all. I don’t think it’s especially valid to look at writing here and extrapolate out to the rest of anyone’s life.
TWL
“Didn’t Japan actually lunch an attack on United States property bacvk in WWII?”
Well, it was more like breakfast-time than lunch, really… 😉
If one assumes that AJ meant that in 30 years our former enemy might go from a dictatorship to a democratic ally…I don’t think the Iraqi people are culturally doomed not to have any chance of emulating Japan’s success.
However, I think we are doing quite a job of dooming it ourselves, with these incompetent bøøbš in charge.
A quick, orderly exchange of power, with little disruption would have been the best chance of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq.
Given our blunders with consistent disruptions in power and utilities through the early part of this year, the fractured political situation, the constant insurgencies (which I suspect are part of an orchestrated counter movement by Sadaam’s underlings who waited until now), the large number of mistaken detainments of Iraqui civilians (up to 90% according to the Red Cross) and the lack of leadership and training that allowed the abuse of some of those civilians, I have a very hard time seeing that Iraq in 30 years time will become a US ally like Japan.
If you want to say that “Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they’ll be the same.” is the same as “you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical.” well, ok. Others can judge for themselves, the words are just a few clicks above.
I might suggest though, that if you really want us to be sympathetic to the way the Republican Attack Machine twists your words you ought to be a little more careful. AJ talks about two countries ending up “similar” and you talk about them being “the same”. Two different words, two different meanings.
“For the most mild of starters, we didn’t storm into Japan, capture the Emperor and drag him away. The Japanese emperor voluntarily lay aside his claims to divinity and urged his countrymen to cooperate in the rebuilding.”
True. We also burned them to the ground and dropped two nuclear bombs on them. Japan was destroyed to a degree that the Iraqis will never have to face even a fraction of.
One could argue that this lack of destruction may work against us–Hitler didn’t give us his blessing but germany also was pacified, so maybe it can be argued that to make the peace work you need to make the war as brutal as possible. But I’d prefer we try this approach.
One can also point out that the Iraqi people never considered Sadam a god. few were willing to give their lives for him, as opposed to the suicidal courage of the japanese soldier. At any rate we will be handing him over to their tender mercies in a few months. I rather doubt that he will get the Hirohito treatment from his beloved countrymen.
“The only people in Iraq urging the people to cooperate with America are Iraqi exiles who are perceived as being in America’s pocket.”
That isn’t true. Many Iraqis are working with the coalition. Few have joined up with the insurgents. The AP is reporting that “about 1,000 people, including a few women in black veils, marched through the streets of Najaf on Tuesday to urge radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers to leave the city.”
I’ve seen articles on Iraqis doing all kinds of things with the coalition. What is your source that only the exiles are urging cooperation?
“Iraqis have thousands upon thousands of years of enmity toward EACH OTHER, much less us. Comparing Iraq and Japan isn’t just comparing apples and oranges. It’s comparing apples and milk shakes.”
Japan has thousands and thousands of years of enmity, war, and atrocity against its neighbors. It’s history is a fascinating but highly bloodstained one.
At any rate, your claims to the contrary, a reasonable argument can be made that decades from now Iraq will stand among the civilized democratic nations. You may not be receptive to the idea, you may prefer to think anyone who thinks otherwise blind to the facts. Hey–in the end you may even be right!
“Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet.”
And how many fights as a fighter pilot was Bush actually in?
That was a really ignorant response. You have many but this one was really ignorant.
What does how many fights he has been in have to do with his intelligence?
Maybe you,Peter Allen David, are questioning the intelligence of the wrong people!
It just occured to me that to believe that only the exiles are urging support for the coalition requires one to totally ignore the Kurds, who have been supporting us before, during, and after the war.
I have to wonder how many of the people on this board have any close friends of a significantly different political persuasion than that of their own.
As it turns out, I have quite a few. And what happens is that we have civil disagreements…but sure as hëll don’t treat each other with contempt..and sometimes…we change each others’ opinions on things.