So why even bother. There is no need. I have better things to do with my life.
Think of the ordinary Americans going about their lives who don't pay much attention to anything. They just assume our government is protecting us and is keeping an eye on terrorists in this country. Common Sense.
And, look, that's exactly what Bush is doing! Great!
But, wait, some people think Bush should be 'in trouble' for doing so? WTF? Are they nuts?
Well, yes. And ordinary Americans agree they're nuts and that this is all politics.
You see I don't have to argue with the crazies and the civil libertarian purists at all because the majority of the American people just roll their eyes and give a dismissive shake of their hand in response to the silliness anyway.
They don't need me to do anything.
And how stupid are we if we think we can rationally argue with BDS sufferers as delusional as some of these people are? Here's a couple quotes from comments I found elsewhere today about the NSA thang. Many posted anonymously. I'm just cuttin' and pastin':
It's been going on for years. Too bad Dubya's gotten so out-of-control he thinks he can make his own rules up. Remember guys; Absolute Power currupts absolutely and Dubya is consumed by it. His impeachment should be a big hoot if it happens. We'll see who sings like a Canary and who screams like a banshee when all is said and done.
and
I mean, the guy basically came on the airwaves and announced, "Yes, I broke the law. Yes, I violated the Constitution. I will break the law again. And what the hell, exactly, are YOU going to do about it?"
and
Never forget that the Bush administration thought America's security would be at risk if Kerry were elected. They wanted this warrantless eavesdropping authority because no judge would ever issue a warrant for the people they wanted to monitor, like George Soros, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, Move-On, and the Democratic National Committee.
Yes, these people have a right to their opinion and a right to voice it. That doesn't mean they have a right to our undivided attention. They don't have a right to consume our mental energies or our time.
When you're sitting on a park bench and someone sits next to you who starts mumbling crazy things do you engage them in conversation? Or do you move to another bench? Or do you engage in a conversation with a friend and completely ignore them?
There are some members of the opposition who are worth engaging, I'm not saying all are not. But it's the crazy ones who come out in droves when they feel an issue has come up where they think they can bash Bush and his supporters. Then they leave the cellars of DU or KOS and wander the pavements of the Blogosphere looking for Cafe's on the Right side of the street where they down a bottle of cheap wine and start ranting.
The issue goes away, and so do they.
Except if they are not ignored, then they may stick around until Last Call.
I find it interesting over at JustOneMinute. There are a lot of regulars from both sides who post over there. But there are some 'crazies' who are mostly silent. Unless a new article from the Times comes out, or one of their favorite bloggers posts something like 'Boy, Rove is in trouble now!' then they come swarming in and dump little pieces of you-know-what all over the comments.
Their little worldviews have gotten a boost, or so they think, and they suddenly get some courage. They can't argue, they can only assert, and if they're ignored they go away again.
Until the next Times article gives them another fix and here they are again.
I'm going to try my best to ignore them all. And if that's somehow politically incorrect, then find me a law that says I can't move to a different park bench.
I'm just sick and tired of the Bush hate.
22 comments:
Well said, Syl.
We should be clear on the concept that, although we value rational discussion and sincere opinion, some folks seek only to disrupt and destroy.
Yeah, I know what you mean; it came home again to me the other day when I followed a link to a site I generally try to avoid, Counterpunch (since I have a limited stomach for moonbattery let alone its more antisemitic incarnations). But I went there to see this article by Gabriel Kolko who, during my misspent youth in the world of academic history, had a reputation for being one of the sharpest of the anti-american lefties.
Academics still take some of his contributions to the interpretation of American history as seriously original, though Kolko was always known to his students and some of his colleagues as something of a nutter - poor saps would come to Toronto to study with the famous man only to find that he was a mix of leftist and arch snob/disciplinarian masquerading as demanding and rigorous intellectual (a mix that is no longer surprising to me, but youngsters were often shocked to find such authoritarianism in a "progressive").
While he was never someone I took a serious interest in, I saw his name the other day and, such is his celebrity among "intellectuals", I went to see what the man is now writing about, expecting at the very least some kind of gymastics on which I might sharpen my teeth.
And while I have learned that few readers are impressed by ad hominem attacks, that I must engage with and defeat an opponent's ideas, i have to report to readers of this blog that I look at this perhaps intentionally quick and shallow article and I look in vain for an idea worth serious notice. The truth is, all I see is nihilism. He hates America, but he doesn't really believe in anything else, beyond the inevitability of decline and chaos for which one might forever point fingers; so there is nothing but negativity, and no serious alternative vision to debate. What he is doing is condemning the US for failing to live up to some implicitly utopian dream, though he masks this lost innocence with ambiguous hetoric: "We live in a tragic world and war is considered more virtuous than peace--"
In this article that condemns everything in American foreign policy for a hundred years as utter folly, there simply isn't any realistic judgment of what one might expect from a fallen world, given the inevitability of human conflict.
So it seems nihilism is not simply the province of the Moores but of those the left will hold up, like Counterpunch, as "the leading historian of modern warfare. He is the author of the classic Century of War: Politics, Conflicts and Society Since 1914 and Another Century of War?. He has also written the best history of the Vietnam War".
If such grand claims can be made of a hate-filled nihilist, it is surely just to remind us that we can no longer defer to the idea that the left may be wrong but at least they have a point of view worth debating. No, it is now incumbent on us to stop the name calling, not so as to take "moonbat" ideas seriously, but so as to engage our full attention in constructing a vision of reality to fill the vaccuum left by the utter meaninglessness of today's left, notwithstanding their residual academic fame and fortune.
truepeers
Honestly, I don't understand why we have to 'stop the namecalling'. Surely a vision can be constructed without them, they aren't listening anyway.
It's hubris to think anything will get through to them, especially from the likes of 'us', whom they totally disdain.
I'm perfectly willing to return the favor.
Construct a good enough vision and if they don't get out of the way, sidestep them.
I am beginning to think that the fall of the Soviet Union really did take the heart out of the left. I never subscribed to this view before because I thought that there must be more intellectual substance on the left than a mere belief in a worldly paradise, the golden city on the hill, but perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps it is wiser to leave Heaven in the spiritual domain than to put it in the material world where it is subject to natural decay and history.
Then again, perhaps history has merely moved on. Not that the left is going to go away. With the spread of left governments in South America that continent could soon vie with Africa for sheer hopelessness, bad government, and poverty. But whatever, it seems that we are on some cusp of history and some nations will move into the future while others slide back into the past. These are interesting times and perhaps our giving up on trying to take the left along is simply part of the separation of the future from the past.
Kolko is right. "American foreign policy in the last 100 years" hasn't done a damn thing besides prevent the planet's takeover by fascism, nazism, and communism.
Living in the free world, if it's imprudent to declare for totalitarianism, then nihilism is the default position.
Since the human condition could be seen as a waiting-for-death, nihilism isn't even a difficult sell--and is wonderfully demoralizing.
Mark, I'll give you this: it was a dumb comment, but it's short.
I think he was trying to say that Bush is God.
...the freedom to agitate & propagandize in a free country is of course what Lenin meant by his little bromide that the capitalists will sell him the rope he will hang them with.
Nope, Mark--just disgust with lousy behavior.
Chuck
I am beginning to think that the fall of the Soviet Union really did take the heart out of the left.
Makes sense to me. The world's nations are shifting to gain a new equilibrium after the fall. (With or without Bush there would be dramatic changes and power shifts after such a huge event anyway.) No reason to think the struggle and power plays among various ideological movements wouldn't be affected as well.
The rise of Islamofascism, the flailing about of the Left which no longer has an anchor, and the rise of Conservatism.
These are not just co-incidental.
Great post, Syl.
I have had the experience of arguing to a judge whose mind is already made up. It is not a fun experience, but sometimes a necessary precondition to getting to the next level where I have a better chance.
When you need not go through that experience, why bother.
I would much rather write and argue for those whose minds are not yet made up.
Logic and reason works a lot better with that audience.
The wealth disparities--the result of political systems more than anything else by far--when suddenly overlaid by the communications revolution, may've made terrorism all-but-inevitable.
But, what Bush is trying to make clear, it is not the wealth disparities that are the root, it is the political systems which create those wealth disparities, that are the root.
The international left, being the reciprocal of truth, wishes to halt the exploration somewhere above the root--at the result level, rather than at the actual root-cause level. Which is why it tries so hard to co-opt "root-causes".
Because, of course, it's at the root that it is wrong--and it knows it.
Reason carries a report and link to an important World Bank document here: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb121605.shtml
It concludes that what matters most by far for third-world development is the rule of law and education.
Long ago and far away, there used to be a liberal movement populated by people whose fervent hope was the end of kleptocracies and dictatorships in the third world, the introduction of respect for the rule of law, and widespread access to education.
somewhere along the line, however, those voices became replaced by those of shrill, rent-seeking parasites, whose dyspeptic world view is built on narcissim and resentment.
i agree with syl that it's pointless trying to reason with such people - they need professional help (which they can pay for themselves). however, it would be good, i think, to be able to connect with those whose voices they have silenced. they remain of good conscience.
on a practical level, for example, i would have no problem in banning the resident troll here because the input merely pollutes and distorts the discussion. and while i understand the desire not to adopt the tactics of the opposition by silencing criticism, it is important to consider that many thoughtful and intelligent people that might contribute valid observations from different political viewpoints simply will not engage in a discussion that is made so vitriolic by dealing with rabid nonsense from a troll. (Some of which will inevitably flow in 'response' to this comment, masquerading as input.)
Great Post vnjagvet.
I think the closed mind issue is right on point. As I've moved around in the blogosphere, I see this over and over. From - "it doesn't matter what you post I know I'm right" to "Just because the law says he is allowed doesn't mean Bush didn't break the law. I don't trust your posts form government sites" (That one was actually said to me).
Of course, the other side will say the same about the right.
But in the long run facts, study, and investigation win out. It's like Alen Specter jumping in without any background and saying, "We can't condone it." I bet he's wishing now that he had studied what was going on before he spoke.
PowerLine aptly characterizes the present situation as "The MSM and the Democrats have over-reached..." I think that is exactly what has happened. Our tolerance has been pushed to the limit and has run out, the line has been drawn, and the country will divide pro and con as positions harden. The question is: have the Dems bet all their money on a losing hand? I think so myself. In any case, things should become clear over the next few months. It will be interesting to watch what happens as the polling results come in.
I wish it was that simple, Syl. But this kind of attitude and rhethoric does not come only from a handful of fringe nut cases. The same sentiments are repeated over and over again by people in positions of influence within the media, the universities, and the government.
They came within a few score thousand votes of getting their way in the last election. And they are redoubling their efforts for '06.
But I'm very tired of it myself.
flenser--amen--you have said what is my nightmare, too.
Which segues into Wile E. Coyote, who despite being repeatedly smashed, crushed, flattened and deracinated, always pops back, no smarter than before but otherwise none the worse for wear.
Life imitates art imitating life, alas.
Chuck Jones was one of the bringers of light.
The MSM and the Democrats have over-reached...
Was that a post from our department of redundancy department?
I saw an interesting exchange this morning. Between Russert and Katie Couric...about the NSA business.
Russert spoke a little about it then Katie said (paraphrase): Is this going to end up just as some background fight between lawyers? I know civil liberties are very important but we also don't want another terrorist attack.
Russert's face seemed very pained to me and he just said, 'I know'.
I'm sure I was projecting, but it seemed to me Russert understood that this was very sticky and he wished the whole damned thing had never come up.
Mark
Everything you said has meaning only to people who think just like you do. And you are a very small minority in this country.
The American people expect our government to keep us safe. That is the bottom line.
The Democrats are standing in the way with a huge STOP sign. They are the impeachable ones.
Peter,
That would explain why the Slimes ran with the "Bush using program approved by Carter to spy on American citizens like a dictator" story. The loathsome cowboy's doing well again--time to Watergate him.
Post a Comment