Deep Thoughts
Here's a place for fun or interesting tidbits of "news junk".
posted by PolishKitty at 11/14/2004 12:00:00 PM
Oh, just some thoughts and ruminations from a member of the massed huddle.
posted by PolishKitty at 11/14/2004 12:00:00 PM
4 Comments:
Canadians open arms to Americans (CNN)Wow.
"Canada's basic population is much more intelligent, polite and civilized," [Ralph] Appoldt said. "I like their way of government a lot better. Their tax dollars go to helping those who need it, instead of funneling money back up to the wealthy and feeding this huge military-industrial machine."You go, Ralph! Seriously... Go.
One of the neatest parts of the U.S. government is that the people actually have all the power to change it. The House is elected 100% every two years, the Senate gets elected 1/3 every two years, and the President is elected every four years, with an eight year cap! The House represents us all equally, the Senate represents us all quite unequally with the intention to preserve the rights of the few from the whims of the many.
One of the cool attributes of those old Founding Fathers is that they didn't run away when they didn't like their government. They stayed, they talked; they used issues to try to enact change. When they figured out that they weren't going to get what they wanted, they stuck around and had to fight for the rights they decided they should have.
Since I'm 1/4 French-Canadian, I don't have a problem making jabs at my kin, so here's one just for you, Ralph: Those "much more intelligent, polite, and civilized" Canadians have a lot going for them. One is that they don't need to EVER worry about security. The U.S. cares enough about itself, that it worries about security for Canada, too. So, Ralph, while you turn your back to the U.S. and escape to your Utopia of intellectuals in the north, hope that the U.S. doesn't decide one day to turn its back on Canada. Because then your high taxes will get higher, consume the rest of your income (paycheck, dole, whatever), and then you'll no longer be in the happy Socialist Republic of Canada; you'll be in the Communist Republic of Canada. They will need to make an army at that point. And you know what that means: Huge, wealthy military-industrial machines funded by the Government.
Good-bye, Ralph. Or, Adieu, eh?
Al-Qaeda is Not a Terrorist Organization--
Here’s another idea that is not new, but last night it was new to me. I an interview on Meet the Press this morning I saw some ex-CIA, formerly anonymous author who wrote something like my headline in his book, but I haven’t read that book. And I only listened lightly to the interview to count the number of times he referred to Russert as “Sir” (it was a lot). So, this little article is just a composition of my own Brain Droppings (Carlin).
--
“Terrorism is by nature political because it involves the acquisition and use of power for the purpose of forcing others to submit, or agree, to terrorist demands. A terrorist attack, by generating publicity and focusing attention on the organization behind the attack, is designed to create this power. It also fosters an environment of fear and intimidation that the terrorists can manipulate. As a result terrorism’s success is best measured by its ability to attract attention to the terrorists and their cause and by the psychological impact it exerts over a nation and its citizenry. It differs in this respect from conventional warfare, where success is measured by the amount of military assets destroyed, the amount of territory seized, and the number of enemy dead.” (Encarta)
If Al-Qaeda is an organization whose mission is that of actual terrorism, then they aren’t very good at it.A good example of terrorism is the PLO, but more specifically the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel since their uprising in 2000. I think they’re good terrorists because they properly expend their limited resources to effectively put an entire nation into a state of fear. One guy, with hardly any training or education, who straps on a bomb and takes out himself and a few civilians or military people is a decent return on your small investment (uneducated, morally deprived volunteer shows up and needs to be trained only about how to conceal his bomb, and how to make it work). Get three of those guys to pull it off in a week, and you’ve got an excellent terrorist operation.
Al-Qaeda (AQ), on the other hand, seems to be more interested in the big stuff. It’s no doubt that some of their affiliates have smaller ambitions, but I’m focusing more on the real AQ: UBL’s AQ. If they were terrorists, then their cells here in the U.S. would be doing all kinds of small-scale stuff that would put this country into chaos. I can say from personal experience that the “DC Snipers” instilled actual fear in me during their operation, but the attacks on 9/11 distilled rage in my heart directed to them. The Snipers were effective to me personally because I live and work in a place that was within their domain, and every morning when I went to work, I had to walk over a long I-95 overpass. And there were always white box-trucks everywhere. But 9/11 taught us that AQ is more interested in inflicting high numbers of casualties. This may be the only real deviation that AQ takes from the traditional terrorist organizations, but it is an important one. If conventional warfare’s success is based on destroying military assets, seizing territory, and killing the enemy, then AQ is a subscriber to this methodology. We must remember that to AQ, all of us are considered open game, and as such, we all make up their enemy’s army. I’m not making this up; they’ve come right out and said it.
If their agenda consisted of instilling fear, and manipulating that fear to further an agenda, then one could properly say that 9/11 scared the entire U.S. – for a while. What they have not done since then is any follow-up on our soil. So, that base fear that most of us felt for a little while has pretty much evaporated, hence all this discussion during the election season about how we’re going about security all wrong, &c. There are so many ways that terrorists could scare this entire nation, with very little cost, that have not been perpetrated. The only reason I can come up with for this lack of follow-through is that they’re looking for the next really big target (lots of people dead).
I do have a theory about why UBL does what he does, so I’ll go into that here.
UBL wants full-scale war between the armies of the West and the armies of the East.My theory is that UBL wants the West galvanized enough to inflict enough pain on the Islamic world, that the Islamic world finally unites under one banner and fights to regain its old empire. He wants G.W. Bush in the Whitehouse. He also wants France, Germany, Russia, and the rest to be aligned with the U.S. I don’t think he cares much that the U.S. invaded Iraq, but I’m sure he’s quite dismayed that this course of action has caused so much friction among the Western powers (classifying France as a power may be stretch in a military sense, but they apparently carry some weight in the E.U.). I wouldn’t be surprised if AQ were to pull of a 9/11-scale attack somewhere in western Europe (probably not the U.K.). UBL needs the West to kiss/hug/make-up in order for this plan to get any traction.
The point of this is that I think it’s wrong to classify AQ simply as a loose-knit band of terrorist organizations with a figurehead who lives in a cave. We need to think of them, in a somewhat abstract sense, as a real army with a scary agenda. The problem here is in the abstraction. Since UBL/AQ isn’t identified with a specific nation-state, we can’t just carpet-nuke the place. But, we can’t just sit here and wait for the next one, either. Senator Kerry was wrong when he envisioned this sort of violence going back to the good-old-days of “nuisance” status. What the U.S. has and is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq are right. We take the war to them. That is a topic for another day.
On another site, some poor sap was whining about losing the election. I like my post so much, I want to repost it here. The original is located here--
champag: You have illustrated perfectly why the Democrats just don't get it. Hang in here with me, because I'm quoting you from your post on 11/4/04 6:43 AM.:
"All the data indicates that Kerry voters are much better educated in general than Bush voters. Not that that's a big surprise."
I don't know what these data are, so I won't bother to dispute them. But if I just take it at face value, I've got this question for you: Does the term "better educated" equal the term "more intelligent"? I suspect your answer is "yes". If so, you may be slightly out of touch with the rest of your countrymen.
"But we really should feel sorry for the uneducated because they are being exploited."
I think it's fair to say that FAR more uneducated people are exploited by Democrats than Republicans. You'd have to be living in a total vacuum to disagree with me on that one.
"They are probably intelligent people who just haven't had an opportunity of learning to think critically and to hear many different ideas other than what they learn in church."
Now that just doesn't make any sense at all. I guess I'm biased on this one because I consider a signal of intelligence the ability to think critically. Being an atheist, I don't get to church very often, but I've been many times (even recently). From the various Protestant churches I've attended to the Roman Catholics, I alway hear the same message: Love your neighbor. Is there a valid, contrasting viewpoint on that message that the churches should be exploring?
"We need to educate these people so that they can cast off the yoke of their oppressors and be free to use their brains to their full capacity."
Wow. Who are the oppressors here? WHO uses their brains to their full capacity? Who are YOU to say that they (we) aren't?
So, now I'll tell you just a couple things about me so you can properly blast me (please do, I love this stuff): I am a Republican; I grew up in Lynchburg with Jerry Falwell's shadow; I still live in Virginia; I am an atheist; I am pro-abortion; I am not anti-gay, nor do I much care about this whole marriage thing; I have a B.A. in History ('95); I am a state employee, computer programmer; I'm married; I have one kid.
I'll tell you something that really, really surprised me in this election. I also subscribed to this belief that the more people who voted, the better it was for the Democrats. I was happily surprised to see that the opposite was true. I see this whole thing as a very positive indicator that people are becoming more willing to take responsibility for their lives rather than spend it as victims, and demand the government make everything better. We've tried it. Democrats need to realize that "New Deal" and "Great Society" are wholly different ideas. "Great Society" has been tried, to our credit, but it has generally been a failure. You guys need to get past this notion that the Government exists to make your life better. The Government is supposed to exist to make sure that other forces don't get in your way of making your life into whatever you want it to be. Some of our victims are trully victims; they've always been around. We have systems in place to take care of them. Most of our victims perceive themselves that way because either consciously or subconsciously they want to be victims. That's bad.
A continuation of my debate above. The original is here.
--
Chris:
I am happy you engaged! I am more than happy to re-engage. I will be quoting you from your post of 12/20/04; 6:46PM from time to time.
(I don't understand the merit of the links you provided at the top. They're blogs of random liberal opinion mixed with jaded poll data. I do hope most of your sources are outside of that community.)
I'll go ahead and start from the top on this one; a clear disagreement between us on what defines a part of "intelligence".
"I said before:
'They are probably intelligent people who just haven't had an opportunity of learning to think critically and to hear many different ideas other than what they learn in church.'
Obviously my previous statement, which you yourself also quoted, makes it clear that I do not equate a lack of education with a lack of intelligence."I had noted in my previous post that I personally think one of the signal elements of intelligence is this ability to think critically.
"I do think that intelligence does lend itself to critical thinking."And here's where we disagree; I would word it like this:
'I think critical thinking lends itself to intelligence.'
It is a subtle point, but one I thought was worth noting.
I also had initially thought it was interesting that you put the 'lack of critical thinking' idea in the same sentence as the 'what they hear in church' part. Maybe it was just your stream of thought and was a harmless mingling of ideas into a sentence, but maybe not; as illustrated:
"Well, if you've ever watched CBN or TBN.... ...Robertson is still there encouraging his followers to vote for republicans and convincing them that... the war in Iraq is the run-up to the battle of Armagedon and the Apocalypse. Do you, as an avowed atheist, consider this to be an example of critical thinking or political exploitation?"I'll tell you something, Chris, I don't watch CBN or TBN. I don't know personally that Robertson says those things, but I wouldn't doubt it, either. So I'll take that on face value, too. Personally, I think that's all nonsense, and if that swayed some voters to Bush... well, that segment of people would be a fine example of those that don't have that critical thinking gene we're talking about. However, I will submit this: Anyone who spends any time watching networks like that is probably voting Republican no matter what those jokers say.
But I've got one for you: I remember during the campaign Kerry said that Bush had shifted the burden of taxes away from the rich and onto the middle class. Somewhere between his careful wording of that remark, his spin people, and the network news presentation of the speech, one definitely came away with 'Bush raised my taxes'. I know I wasn't the only one who heard it that way because they interviewed a few folks who were lamenting about how Bush had raised their taxes.
We all know, of course, that the tax-cuts were quite literally across-the-board. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax-cut. It really is that simple. Using actual 2001 stats directly from the IRS site (post-tax-cut, you know): The top 50% of taxpayers paid 96% of taxes. The top 5% paid 53%; the top 1% paid 34%. So on this topic, who is being manipulated by whom, and for what end?
This makes for a perfect segway into the heart of your idealism (I think):
"I think that far too many people are victims of other people's claims to freedom."We agree on that!
"Particularly the claim to freedom to have unbridled ownership of capital. Some people are contributing very little wealth to the economy while receiving hugely disproportionate amounts of wealth. And likewise, far too many people are contributing a lot of wealth to the economy but getting very little in return. I think that is unjust, and if people can use the government to change that then they should."You were vague about who is doing what here, but within the context of our messages it is safe to assume that you are saying:
Rich people take a lot of money and give hardly any, while poor (or middle class) people give a lot of money and take hardly any. And by the way, this should be illegal and the government should put a stop to it.This is a good one, so I'm going to parse it out a bit. The first part about the "claim to freedom to have..." is not accurate. It IS a freedom. Read the U.S. Constitution, and remember that it was a document written with the explicit purpose to give an outline of how the Federal Government should be set up, and what power it would have. Those old guys were very specific to point out that they were chartering a government with specific responsibility and reserving the rest to the states. Read the amendments, too. I'm sure you're versed in the old document, but read it again (I recently did, just for fun); it's a good read. While you're at it, read the Declaration. I know it's not law, but old TJ made some good points about pursuing life, liberty, happiness, &c. Remember, those folks actually did have a yoke of oppression.
As for the rest of that part, (please forgive my bluntness) you're just wrong. Please tell me how it can be possible that rich people are hoarding almost all of the nation's money, and with the tiny bit they put out get some kind of massive return? How is it possible for those with nothing to give, to give so much? The fact is that this scenario is not only wrong but not possible.
Sure, there are some real fat-cats out there. But they're (usually) not criminals. Where do you think that 34% of the nation's income is coming from? And if they were just hoarding it, they wouldn't be able to own those big, evil companies that make them all that money (and employ almost everyone, directly or otherwise).
I'd like to take what you wrote, with its vaguery, and turn the tables on who is who. I think it's more accurate to say that rich people give A LOT to the government and economy, and receive the same benefit that anyone not on the dole receives from the government (roads, defense, &c.). Meanwhile, those who pay either very small, or (usually) no taxes get tremendous benefit from the government. That is how our system is set up. It just is. I don't see how you can argue with the hard numbers, but I do look forward to it.
When referring to my remark about what the Government should be, you agreed and added: "I think that idea can be summed up in the word 'justice.'"Well, no! Justice has an implicit meaning of "fairness". Remember you parents telling you that life isn't fair? You know that's true. The Government can't turn all those tables, and really should stop trying (just making it worse). Life isn't fair, and you can't legislate-out that inherent nature of the world in any kind of meaningful way.
Now, I'll answer your question:
"My impression is that you are mostly a liberterian and agree with Republican economics more than anything. Just tell me, am I right?"Nope. But it's okay, a lot of people think that about my politics until they bother to delve into them. I like Libertarians in that they read the Constitution very accurately and they pretty much stick to their platform of us having virtually no Federal Government. But I'm a little softer than that. I like most of our social initiatives, though I have problems with some of their various implementations. I do think the Federal Government takes and spends too much on many of the wrong things, but I'm not quite out there as the Libertarians are.
"[Bush] doesn't even support traditional republican ideas."I know. But I'd like you to enumerate them.
"[Bush] is nothing more than a corrupt oil-lobby administration with a talent for manipulation (thanks to Rove) and all of his actions (if one is aware of them) are consistent with that conclusion."Ah, the mud-slinging. That statement is actually quite hollow as it stands. If I may be so bold, I will reword it:
Carl Rove manipulates Bush into nothing more than a corrupt, oil-lobby administration. All of his actions (of which I am NOT aware) are consistent with this conclusion.Still rather hollow, but I prefer it. I would actually like it if it was followed by some facts, or even innuendo.
You have rightfully followed my previous post by making some assumptions about me, and I hope that I have them cleared up. I will now disperse to you what I think your politics are. This is designed for you to correct me later.
You are, first, a died-in-the-wool Marxist. You believe that people do not have a right to make a lot of money, if everyone else isn't also making a lot of money.
Second, you hate how the U.S. economy works.
Third, you believe you know how to fix the world.
Fourth, you believe the majority of voters are not in touch with enough facts. You said "An intelligent person can draw a reasoned conclusion from all the facts available to them, but if the available facts or lacking then even a reasoned conclusion is more likely to be a false one."Fifth, you are SCARED TO DEATH of the televangelists. You're not alone on this one. I've met many more like you. I used to be, also. Then I realized something: Look over the past 25 years or so that we consider the "rise of the Christian Right". Exactly how much of their agenda has been accomplished at the Federal level? My answer is always, "not much", but really I can't think of anything.
(referring to point four)
Chris, I think you're lacking some facts. I really, seriously hope that you don't get all your news from the blogs. Just because someone gets something in print, or on TV, or (especially) on the web, doesn't make it so. I also am a consumer of news, but I do my best to cross-check, find reliable sources, and go to primary sources if possible.
For the record: I listen to NPR everyday to and from work (about an hour each way). My nickname for them is National Communist Radio, but I still contribute, and I listen without heckling, unless they're just really gone off the deep end.
I'm looking forward to your response.
Scott
Post a Comment
<< Home