|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Oh, Say Can’t You See? |
Current rating: 0 |
by Mark Drolette
Email: mdrolette (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified!) |
12 May 2004
|
|
According to most polls, about 50% of Americans continue to look favorably upon President Bush. For heaven’s sake, why?? For the answer, read on. |
OK, so what’s the deal? Why do polls consistently show that about half of Americans approve of President Bush’s policies? This questions nags many of us on the opposite end of the opinion spectrum, those who find his administration, shall we say, a little less than honorable. We see his repeated justifications for invading Iraq as obviously and lamely false, but that’s only the beginning: his blatant disrespect of the Constitution, stonewalling of investigations, relaxing of regulations that result in the fouling of the environment, ringing up record deficits to shovel billions to the wealthiest Americans, attacks on organized labor--these things (and more) seem, well, rather unseemly. This conclusion is not particularly difficult to reach, yet difficult it remains for millions of our fellow citizens. Why?
One explanation for this apparent mass disconnect from reality could be that the often-referenced polls are wrong. After all, I’ve never been asked by any of the poll people about my view of Bush’s performance, have you? I’ve certainly been interrupted at dinnertime more than once to be queried about my thoughts on yet another school bond (what, $40-plus billion annually is not sufficient to educate California’s kids?) or if a proposed concept for a new TV show sounds good (it never does) or if I’d be interested in purchasing what sounds like a whole butchered steer to stuff into a freezer I don’t have (would you buy a used cow from this man?), but no one’s ever called to probe my thoughts on Bush. I’m sure the more conspiracy-minded among us might suggest that these surveys are rigged, and given the Republican Party’s propensity for dirty tricks, especially during this Rovian era of “push-polling” and other sleazy actions, the idea is certainly not inconceivable. But I have a little more faith than that in Mr. and Mrs. Harris, Gallup, Zogby et al, and I think their numbers (generally) are on the up and up. Now, on the other hand, if Halliburton ever gets into the polling business…
Another possibility for the insistence of a large segment of the population to continue to see Bush through rose-colored glasses is what I euphemistically call “the intelligence factor.” It sounds a little more polite than saying that people who support Bush must be plain stupid. If this theory is accurate, we should all be afraid, very afraid, because it means there are scores of millions of dumb people walking around this country right now with our fates in their hands, and just how does one smarten up a whole nation-sized passel of ignoramuses in time for an election just months away? Though this theory seems like a (near literally) no-brainer -- I mean, come on, you’d have to be a moron not to see what Bush is doing, right?--I don’t buy it. I know at least two otherwise intelligent people (at least, I think they’re intelligent) whom I respect, who think the president is A-OK. If they exist, then there must be others who believe, for whatever unimaginable reason, that Bush is a decent human being and a capable leader (that’s hard to even write). Finally--and maybe this is just my own personal denial—if it is true, then we’re all doomed, and if we’re all destined to go down in flames because of our fellow citizens’ dimwittedness, what’s the point of even caring or trying anymore?
Maybe it’s genetic: Perhaps Bush backers were born with a heretofore unknown W chromosome, biologically predisposing them to vote for and vigorously defend the president; in fact, they may not even be aware of what they’re doing! This makes sense, too, because it would mean that they would be able to disclaim any responsibility for their actions, a cherished gambit of the man they keep supporting. This theory merits more research, but in keeping with the tone of the day set by the administration in which all things scientific are to be disdained, I think I’ll appoint someone with a strictly theological background to look into it and just move on…
It could just be that, at least when it comes to this country’s foreign policy, vast numbers of Americans actually like the idea of blowing up thousands of innocent people with billions of dollars worth of shiny new weapons for the sole reason of securing corporate profits and worldwide American military domination. In the words of Judy Tenuta, “It could happen!” I first came across this idea a few months back on the Internet in a well-written piece by a gentleman whose name escapes me (sorry). It’s an intriguing and disturbing take on why so many Bush/Cheney bumper stickers abound. It also fits in quite nicely with how so many of us, especially males, have been raised to view America: as a land of manifest destiny full of tireless self-starters who never say die and will kill you for your own good should you resist the gospel of democracy we benevolently try very hard to instill in your pathetic, savage breast. I think this mindset caries real currency with the truly manly men among us—you know, the owners of monster trucks and microbial appendages--but I don’t think its adherents really number that many, and in my unscientific view (hey, maybe I could get a job with the Bush administration), it doesn’t account for the core of Bush’s support.
A widely held hypothesis for Bush’s alleged popularity goes like this: Because mainstream journalism has failed to investigate numerous wrongdoings by the administration and acted more like a giggly cheerleader than the public’s watchdog since 9/11, people simply don’t have access to opposing views (i.e. the truth) and so end up thinking Bush serving as leader of the free world is actually a good thing. Once folks do get tuned in, they’ll turn the president out. Well, no. Certainly, the traditional press has done a lousy job by failing to ask even simple questions like, “Uh, excuse me, Secretary Powell, did you draw those cartoons of the alleged mobile bioweapons labs yourself?” or “Pardon me, Mr. President, could we actually SEE the proof that Iraq is connected to 9/11?” It’s not true, though, that factual information isn’t and hasn’t been available; it just requires a little effort to dig it out. Yes, if one reads only the Washington Times, there isn’t much critical analysis from which to choose, but then again, who reads the Washington Times (other than maybe a few Moonies)? But with the Internet, unparalleled exposure to literally a world of news can be had with a few clicks. There’s Al-Jazeera, for instance (the articles were a lot easier to read once I discovered its English-language website). Or the Guardian (written mostly in English), or so many others. On cable TV, who couldn’t be a fan of C-SPAN, which actually IS the network that reports and then lets you decide? A lot of pertinent stories can even be found in good old daily newspapers (buried on page A18 usually, but still often there.) The problem isn’t that the news isn’t obtainable; it’s that…
Humans, by nature, are lazy. And most Americans, when it comes to making an effort to inform themselves, are REALLY lazy. This is the main explanation for those head-scratching pro-Bush poll numbers. And the reason for the typical American’s intellectual slothfulness is directly traceable to the way we’ve been raised, imbued with the notion practically from birth that the path to everlasting happiness is by purchasing more useless crap than we’ll ever need. Big Business pretty much targets us the moment we’re pulled from the womb; it’s only a matter of time before some marketing whiz figures out how to run subliminal commercials via ultrasound. Throughout our lifetimes, ungodly sums of money are spent to bombard us with incessant messages to buy, buy, buy, and the less time we think about it, the better. It’s cultural brainwashing, and boy does it ever work; as a result, millions of our fellow citizens have the attention spans of squirrels. (And if you’ve ever tried to teach a small, nervous rodent anything, you know just how challenging that can be.)
The American drug of (non) choice is consumerism, and it affects our entire pace of life. We wolf down fast food, run red lights, and get our “news” as fast as we can. And who presents the news the fastest? That’s right, the right-wing talking heads. They have utterly mastered the technique of the wham-bam, we’re-right-you’re-wrong, ten-second rant. “Here’s your view of the world, listener, now dial 1-800-BIG-DEBT to purchase from our trusted sponsor a dozen speed reading lessons you’ll never use because, well, you don’t read a damn thing!” Who’s got time for newspapers, books, or magazines, anyway? Just a little brush with Rush is enough for so many folks to feel like they’re really informed and to hear how much George Bush loves them, yes he does. Then—off to the mall! Life is too short for egghead activities like consulting varied sources and then making reasoned analyses; why, Wal-Mart’s got a brand new riding mower on sale (never mind I don’t have a lawn)!
So an unfathomable number of Americans, caught up in the all-consuming national pastime of chasing the Great God of Durable Goods, weirdly continue to view Bush in a positive light because they form their opinions of the man based solely on information gleaned from people like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly. Unfortunately, this is akin to seeking advice on government transparency from Dick Cheney, or looking for spiritual enlightenment by reading “Mein Kampf”—it’s just a really bad idea. There’s another angle, too: There undoubtedly now exist many people in this country who, deep in their guts, know that Bush is a dangerous poseur, but can’t bear to admit it because it’s just too damn embarrassing and painful. It’s not easy to say, “Yes, I bought all of that ‘There could be a mushroom cloud over Buffalo any day unless we Americans heroically roll up our sleeves and get rid of Hussein’ garbage; boy, was I duped!” It’s even harder to acknowledge that thousands have died and the world has been made infinitely more unsafe because of unquestioning, jingoistic support for the president’s insane, king-of-the-world fantasies.
So how can millions of Americans, ostrich-like in their approach to obtaining real news, be induced to raise their heads from the disinformational sands? It’ll be tough: The desire to break an addiction must come from within, and the self-righteous high experienced by dittoheads and their kind appears to be quite heady. I mean, obviously there's some sort of appeal in spouting off in favor of oppressing the less-fortunate, killing thousands of people on a whim, dismantling social safety nets, helping the already wealthy transform themselves into bona fide aristocrats, eviscerating democracy via unscrupulous redistricting, and being just plain mean; I'm just not sure what it is, and I'm not a doctor (I don't even play one on TV). Millions of interventions to counter this ubiquitous condition don't seem practical. And in this day of political polarization (that Bush is some uniter, huh?), good old-fashioned logical persuasion doesn't seem like a solution, either. Apparently, we’ll just have to continue speaking the truth loudly and often, and then hope and pray that self-enlightenment comes to enough folks between now and November to make a difference. I say: Remember Judy Tenuta! I also know from personal experience such epiphanies can happen: As hard as this is to admit, I was at one time a registered Republican (I think I was doing a lot of Oxycontin in those days.) There, I’ve said it; the biggest, boniest skeleton in my closet has now seen the light of day. So I know the switch can be made--without surgery even! Let’s just hope it happens to enough Americans soon enough to prevent the special kind of hell that can only be produced by another four years of George Bush in the out-of-control driver’s seat. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Oh, Say Can’t You See? |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 May 2004
|
When you take an intense hatred of the right, mix that with a willingness to believe the lies of the left, and add a sprinkle of pie in the sky idealism into the mix, you end up with the above. The exact same thing happened when Bill was in office...the people who hated the left and believed "everything" that came from the right could not understand why everyone else didn't hate Bill Clinton as much as they did. It'd be nice if someone COULD figure out the "why" on both sides of the coin, but the answer is probably much deeper than just the surface examples that both "haters" offer up. Anyway, I can only answer your questions for me...
>"According to most polls, about 50% of Americans continue to look favorably upon President Bush. For heaven’s sake, why??"
Because any liberally minded alternative to Bush is far worse of a scenerio?
>"Why do polls consistently show that about half of Americans approve of President Bush’s policies? This questions nags many of us on the opposite end of the opinion spectrum, those who find his administration, shall we say, a little less than honorable."
Likewise, those on the "opposite end of the opinion spectrum" found Bill's administration "less than honorable" also...so, what's the point?
>"We see his repeated justifications for invading Iraq as obviously and lamely false..."
That's how SOME people may see it, but average Joe America apparently doesn't. SO, what makes "some people" think they are right and average Joe America is wrong?
>"his blatant disrespect of the Constitution..."
That's pretty rich really, considering that left leaners support those who hate the 2nd Amendment, and who post most of their their ideas on a network that uses a "rating system" to hide messages that they really don't want others to read?
>"...stonewalling of investigations..."
Uh, excuse me, but you MUST be talking about the Clinton Administration here?
>"relaxing of regulations that result in the fouling of the environment..."
For the most part, overboard regulations that cost billions of dollars, put people out of work, and that stifle the economy in exchange for little or no actual gain?
>"...ringing up record deficits..."
No one was too worried about the "deficits" when the Democrats controlled Congress for all those years...now it is a worry? Besides, IF we really believed the numbers put out by the Clinton Administration, Bill almost had the whole thing cleaned up in a few short years, so why sweat it now?
>"...to shovel billions to the wealthiest Americans..."
Class envy? If it weren't for the "wealthiest Americans", there would be no decent paying jobs in this Country at all. In this world, there will always be rich people, and there will always be poor people...thank God that we live in a Nation where individuals can rise above the bottom ladder rung and make a better life for themselves and their families because of the Liberty and Freedom that is America.
>"...attacks on organized labor..."
"Organized labor" has been under attack publically since the populace began to actually believe that they might all be somewhat controlled by the "mob". They also began to lose favor when they revealed that in many cases they would rather see a Company go bankrupt and disappear rather than make concessions that might keep the Company afloat till things picked up. Unions are certainly necessary in some cases, but maybe not in the same way that they have traditionally done business in all cases?
>"...these things (and more) seem, well, rather unseemly."
That's ALL there is? People hate Bush and this is all the reasoning they can come up with for it?
>"This conclusion is not particularly difficult to reach, yet difficult it remains for millions of our fellow citizens. Why?"
Same exact thing that the people on the "opposite end of the opinion spectrum" said a few years ago during the prior Administration?
>"One explanation for this apparent mass disconnect from reality could be that the often-referenced polls are wrong."
Good point. Polls often are wrong.
>"I’ve certainly been interrupted at dinnertime more than once to be queried about my thoughts on yet another school bond (what, $40-plus billion annually is not sufficient to educate California’s kids?)"
Wow, and I thought all left leaners wanted to pour more money down the "education" bottomless pit?
>"...the Republican Party’s propensity for dirty tricks..."
The pot calling the kettle black perhaps?
>"...if Halliburton ever gets into the polling business…"
You mean that "evil" big business that employs much of Joe America. Maybe they need to go away so everyone can be burger flippers and car wash attendants?
>"Another possibility for the insistence of a large segment of the population to continue to see Bush through rose-colored glasses is what I euphemistically call “the intelligence factor.” It sounds a little more polite than saying that people who support Bush must be plain stupid."
Plain old everyday liberalistic conceit on display? Yea, the left is SO MUCH smarter than anyone else...in their own mind anyway. but, that's human nature for the most part, so, we all have that problem to some extent.
>"If this theory is accurate, we should all be afraid, very afraid, because it means there are scores of millions of dumb people walking around this country right now with our fates in their hands..."
Wow, tripping! More "scary" than anything in the Bush Administration might be an idealistic left leaner who "thinks" they are the embodiment of intelligence and everyone else who doesn't agree with them is stupid?
>"...and just how does one smarten up a whole nation-sized passel of ignoramuses in time for an election just months away?"
Ditto.
>"Though this theory seems like a (near literally) no-brainer -- I mean, come on, you’d have to be a moron not to see what Bush is doing, right?--I don’t buy it."
Amazing. Then you probably disagree with most people who will read what you wrote then!
>"I know at least two otherwise intelligent people (at least, I think they’re intelligent) whom I respect, who think the president is A-OK. If they exist, then there must be others who believe, for whatever unimaginable reason, that Bush is a decent human being and a capable leader (that’s hard to even write)."
I know scores of them.
>"Finally--and maybe this is just my own personal denial—if it is true, then we’re all doomed..."
Again, that's exactly what the opposite opinion holders would have said during the Clinton Administration. yet, we all survived it, and we will survive this too.
>"...and if we’re all destined to go down in flames because of our fellow citizens’ dimwittedness, what’s the point of even caring or trying anymore?"
Because this IS America, and we are not communists?
>"Maybe it’s genetic..."
Or not. Maybe, it's that all the people that left leaners THINK are stupid, are really the smart ones?
>"...blowing up thousands of innocent people with billions of dollars worth of shiny new weapons for the sole reason of securing corporate profits and worldwide American military domination..."
If that was the real reasons, you'd have a point. but, it isn't, so you don't.
>"It also fits in quite nicely with how so many of us, especially males, have been raised to view America: as a land of manifest destiny full of tireless self-starters who never say die and will kill you for your own good should you resist the gospel of democracy we benevolently try very hard to instill in your pathetic, savage breast."
You have something against democratic Republic? What's your purposed alternative?
>"I think this mindset caries real currency with the truly manly men among us—you know, the owners of monster trucks and microbial appendages..."
Ah, penis envy too?
>"A widely held hypothesis for Bush’s alleged popularity goes like this: Because mainstream journalism has failed to investigate numerous wrongdoings by the administration and acted more like a giggly cheerleader than the public’s watchdog..."
WOW again! The EXACT SAME THING the other side claimed about the Clinton Administration!
>"...since 9/11, people simply don’t have access to opposing views..."
Spare me. If the "opposing view" was any more "opposing", the National media would be imprisoned for being a traitor to America.
>"(i.e. the truth)"
See, to the left leaners the "opposing view" is a lie, and to right leaners, the opposite is the case. The truth might be found in the middle of those two extremes perhaps?
>"Certainly, the traditional press has done a lousy job by failing to ask even simple questions like, “Uh, excuse me, Secretary Powell, did you draw those cartoons of the alleged mobile bioweapons labs yourself?” or “Pardon me, Mr. President, could we actually SEE the proof that Iraq is connected to 9/11?”
Ballyhoo.
>"There’s Al-Jazeera, for instance (the articles were a lot easier to read once I discovered its English-language website)."
Oh yea, let's all believe what those who hate America, and who want to murder Americans, have to say...that really shows how intellignet we are!
>"Or the Guardian (written mostly in English), or so many others."
The liberal English? They have done wonders for their Nation, gun crime has doubled in the last 4 years, in a Nation where no one can have guns, and now they are out to ban anything that even looks like a gun too. And if you defend yourself against an attacker and injure him, you will find yourself in court or jail...yea, that's a great Country to look up to for answers...NOT!
>"Humans, by nature, are lazy. And most Americans, when it comes to making an effort to inform themselves, are REALLY lazy."
That's why America is the greatest Nation on earth, the place where the vast majority of anyone else in the world, if asked, would rather live, the place that even the man in Iraq that was "so humiliated" in the photo stated he would like to come to,with his family and live...and on and on and on...
>"...purchasing more useless crap than we’ll ever need."
America, gotta love it! When reading stuff like this, you always have to wonder, why in the world do people who hate America still stay here?
>"Big Business pretty much targets us the moment we’re pulled from the womb; it’s only a matter of time before some marketing whiz figures out how to run subliminal commercials via ultrasound."
Agreed! Commercialism and marketing are way out of hand.
>"Throughout our lifetimes, ungodly sums of money are spent to bombard us with incessant messages to buy, buy, buy, and the less time we think about it, the better. It’s cultural brainwashing, and boy does it ever work; as a result, millions of our fellow citizens have the attention spans of squirrels."
Some truth in that perhaps.
>"The American drug of (non) choice is consumerism, and it affects our entire pace of life."
Some truth in that also.
>"...the right-wing talking heads. They have utterly mastered the technique of the wham-bam, we’re-right-you’re-wrong, ten-second rant."
Left wing talking heads are exactly the same, they just speak out of the other side of their mouths.
>"Just a little brush with Rush is enough for so many folks to feel like they’re really informed and to hear how much George Bush loves them, yes he does. Then—off to the mall!"
But, this IS America isn't it? Isn't it their "right" to be what they want to be, do what they want to do, think what they want to think...?
>"Life is too short for egghead activities like consulting varied sources and then making reasoned analyses..."
BUt they HAVE listened to "reasoned analyses", it's just not the same "analyses" the left listens to.
>"So an unfathomable number of Americans, caught up in the all-consuming national pastime of chasing the Great God of Durable Goods, weirdly continue to view Bush in a positive light because they form their opinions of the man based solely on information gleaned from people like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly."
No different than what many left leaners do also...but they listen to Charlie Rangle and Teddy Kennedy...
>"Unfortunately, this is akin to seeking advice on government transparency from Dick Cheney, or looking for spiritual enlightenment by reading “Mein Kampf”—it’s just a really bad idea."
Ditto.
>"There’s another angle, too: There undoubtedly now exist many people in this country who, deep in their guts, know that Bush is a dangerous poseur..."
Only left leaner idealists who cannot see the real world for what it is because they are blinded by their idealism and hatred.
>"roll up our sleeves and get rid of Hussein’ garbage..."
So, you favored and approved of his reign of terror and offenses against his own people then?
>"...even harder to acknowledge that thousands have died and the world has been made infinitely more unsafe"
No, the world isn't any more "unsafe". In fact, terrorists attacks on innocent people in non war Countries are down. Taking the battle to the homelands of those who want war was one of the smartest moves that Bush has made to date.
>"the president’s insane, king-of-the-world fantasies."
That may be some peoples "take" on the situation, but not most peoples.
>"So how can millions of Americans, ostrich-like in their approach to obtaining real news..."
"Real" being only what YOU happen to believe or want to believe, right? You don't see the problem here do you...
>"...must come from within..."
That's where morality resides, no question about it.
>"...killing thousands of people on a whim, dismantling social safety nets, helping the already wealthy transform themselves into bona fide aristocrats, eviscerating democracy via unscrupulous redistricting, and being just plain mean..."
More hyperbole. But I bet you feel better now that you've let it out.
>"Apparently, we’ll just have to continue speaking the truth loudly and often..."
"Your"..."truth"..., just because it what you happen to want to believe, certainly is not the end all word on "truth", I hope you realize that.
>"and then hope and pray..."
Pray? To whom exactly?
>"...that self-enlightenment comes to enough folks..."
I see. SO left leaners are "self enlightened" and all others are woefully stupid. LOL! What conceit!
>"...between now and November to make a difference."
Come November, when Kerry goes down in flames you mean? I cannot believe that Kerry is the best that the left could find to put forward as a possible President.
>"I was at one time a registered Republican..."
Lots of people run around calling themselves all sorts of things they really aren't. It's akin to calling oneself a car because one happens to be in a garage at the time. Meaningless.
>"...to prevent the special kind of hell that can only be produced by another four years of George Bush in the out-of-control driver’s seat."
What is "Hell" for left leaners then must be a huge sigh of relief for everyone else? |
|
To NRA4Freedom |
by Mark Drolette
mdrolette (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 May 2004
|
>"According to most polls, about 50% of Americans continue to look favorably upon President Bush. For heaven’s sake, why??"
Because any liberally minded alternative to Bush is far worse of a scenerio?
The prospects of improved international U.S. standing, affordable health care for more Americans, and a cleaner environment frighten you somehow?
>"Why do polls consistently show that about half of Americans approve of President Bush’s policies? This questions nags many of us on the opposite end of the opinion spectrum, those who find his administration, shall we say, a little less than honorable."
Likewise, those on the "opposite end of the opinion spectrum" found Bill's administration "less than honorable" also...so, what's the point?
Sure, Clinton was a sleaze. The point: It’s a matter of degree. Clinton’s obfuscations and schemes never resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents or hundreds of American soldiers because he was engaged in some bizarre, unattainable quest for American global military domination to secure corporate profits.
>"We see his repeated justifications for invading Iraq as obviously and lamely false..."
That's how SOME people may see it, but average Joe America apparently doesn't. SO, what makes "some people" think they are right and average Joe America is wrong?
Anyone, Joe or otherwise, who ignores mountains of well-documented facts and voluminous testimony from credible, well-informed, experienced sources, leaves the realm of opinion and is now just plain, stubbornly wrong—sort of like the current administration.
>"his blatant disrespect of the Constitution..."
That's pretty rich really, considering that left leaners support those who hate the 2nd Amendment, and who post most of their their ideas on a network that uses a "rating system" to hide messages that they really don't want others to read?
Wow, that’s some stereotyping there. I support all of the amendments, including the second. By the way, if you have genuine concern about the Constitution, what’s your take on the “free speech zones” set up whenever Bush or Cheney visit a town, in essence corrals that cut off dissenters from the target(s) of their umbrage while supporters are allowed much closer access? Does this clear violation of First Amendment rights not bother you?
>"...stonewalling of investigations..."
Uh, excuse me, but you MUST be talking about the Clinton Administration here?
I refer to the 9/11, Iraqi war intelligence, and Valerie Plame investigations.
>"relaxing of regulations that result in the fouling of the environment..."
For the most part, overboard regulations that cost billions of dollars, put people out of work, and that stifle the economy in exchange for little or no actual gain?
Those poor corporations. Who cares if asthma and cancer rates are at all-time highs and fish is laced with mercury as long as CEOs still get to buy $6,000 shower curtains?
>"...ringing up record deficits..."
No one was too worried about the "deficits" when the Democrats controlled Congress for all those years...now it is a worry? Besides, IF we really believed the numbers put out by the Clinton Administration, Bill almost had the whole thing cleaned up in a few short years, so why sweat it now?
Large deficits should always be a concern. Mega-gargantua-super-duper-stratospheric deficits created by Bush should be of the utmost concern; they are also undemocratic, since they are a designed end-run to eviscerate entitlement programs (“starve the beast”) with no public input or debate.
>"...to shovel billions to the wealthiest Americans..."
Class envy? If it weren't for the "wealthiest Americans", there would be no decent paying jobs in this Country at all. In this world, there will always be rich people, and there will always be poor people...thank God that we live in a Nation where individuals can rise above the bottom ladder rung and make a better life for themselves and their families because of the Liberty and Freedom that is America.
The American Dream may have been true at one time, but it is quickly slipping into mythology, with stagnant/declining wages, fewer or no benefits, shaky pension funds, and good-paying jobs lost forever or replaced by lower-paying ones.
>"...attacks on organized labor..."
"Organized labor" has been under attack publically since the populace began to actually believe that they might all be somewhat controlled by the "mob". They also began to lose favor when they revealed that in many cases they would rather see a Company go bankrupt and disappear rather than make concessions that might keep the Company afloat till things picked up. Unions are certainly necessary in some cases, but maybe not in the same way that they have traditionally done business in all cases?
Yes, don’t the good old days of no child labor laws, living wages, safety regulations, health benefits, grievance procedures, or protection against being fired on some manager’s whim just make you wistful? Bush must be feeling a little nostalgic himself, for he’s doing his damndest to bring those magical times back.
>"...these things (and more) seem, well, rather unseemly."
That's ALL there is? People hate Bush and this is all the reasoning they can come up with for it?
I was trying to keep the piece at under 10,000 words, but since you asked: President Bush lied about the threat from Iraq and its ties to al-Qaida, lied about the “average” $1083 tax cut, directed the EPA to falsely tell New Yorkers their air was safe a few days after 9/11, refuses to release energy task force records, ordered information about the Medicare bill’s true cost withheld from Congress until after its vote, proposes reclassifying as "manufacturing jobs" fast-food positions to help boost his jobs lost numbers, foisted his much-ballyhooed No Child Left Behind legislation on unwilling states only to stick them with $27 billion in underfunding, promotes himself as tough on terror yet just days AFTER 9/11 slashed by almost two-thirds the FBI’s $1.5 billion emergency anti-terrorism request, sends the military senselessly into harm’s way with high praise while, variously, opposing health insurance benefits for reservists and National Guard members, slashing funds for medical care and housing for military dependents, eliminating access to drug discounts for veterans…there’s more, of course, but I wish not to develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
>"This conclusion is not particularly difficult to reach, yet difficult it remains for millions of our fellow citizens. Why?"
Same exact thing that the people on the "opposite end of the opinion spectrum" said a few years ago during the prior Administration?
True, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
>"I’ve certainly been interrupted at dinnertime more than once to be queried about my thoughts on yet another school bond (what, $40-plus billion annually is not sufficient to educate California’s kids?)"
Wow, and I thought all left leaners wanted to pour more money down the "education" bottomless pit?
See, that’s why you shouldn’t pigeon-hole people.
>"...the Republican Party’s propensity for dirty tricks..."
The pot calling the kettle black perhaps?
Please! How about push-polling, comparing Vietnam War hero Max Cleland, who sacrificed limbs for his country, to Osama bin Laden, and mid-term redistricting?
>"...if Halliburton ever gets into the polling business…"
You mean that "evil" big business that employs much of Joe America. Maybe they need to go away so everyone can be burger flippers and car wash attendants?
Halliburton has a history of shady and insider dealings; I was referring to that company specifically in a satirical sense.
>"Another possibility for the insistence of a large segment of the population to continue to see Bush through rose-colored glasses is what I euphemistically call “the intelligence factor.” It sounds a little more polite than saying that people who support Bush must be plain stupid."
Plain old everyday liberalistic conceit on display? Yea, the left is SO MUCH smarter than anyone else...in their own mind anyway. but, that's human nature for the most part, so, we all have that problem to some extent.
As you saw as you read further, I said I did not buy this theory.
>"If this theory is accurate, we should all be afraid, very afraid, because it means there are scores of millions of dumb people walking around this country right now with our fates in their hands..."
Wow, tripping! More "scary" than anything in the Bush Administration might be an idealistic left leaner who "thinks" they are the embodiment of intelligence and everyone else who doesn't agree with them is stupid?
See previous response.
>"...and just how does one smarten up a whole nation-sized passel of ignoramuses in time for an election just months away?"
Ditto.
This is called “humor.”
>"Though this theory seems like a (near literally) no-brainer -- I mean, come on, you’d have to be a moron not to see what Bush is doing, right?--I don’t buy it."
Amazing. Then you probably disagree with most people who will read what you wrote then!
I don’t presume to know the opinions of my readers. I am thankful to receive reasonable comments from across the board as one of my main purposes is to open dialogue to engage in the democratic process, just as we are doing now. So I sincerely thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote and even more, respond.
>"I know at least two otherwise intelligent people (at least, I think they’re intelligent) whom I respect, who think the president is A-OK. If they exist, then there must be others who believe, for whatever unimaginable reason, that Bush is a decent human being and a capable leader (that’s hard to even write)."
I know scores of them.
Wild guess here: Perhaps we hang out with different crowds. How many smart liberals do you know?
"Finally--and maybe this is just my own personal denial—if it is true, then we’re all doomed..."
Again, that's exactly what the opposite opinion holders would have said during the Clinton Administration. yet, we all survived it, and we will survive this too.
Valid point, and I hope you’re right.
>"...and if we’re all destined to go down in flames because of our fellow citizens’ dimwittedness, what’s the point of even caring or trying anymore?"
Because this IS America, and we are not communists?
Well, uh, OK.
>"Maybe it’s genetic..."
Or not. Maybe, it's that all the people that left leaners THINK are stupid, are really the smart ones?
To repeat: I’m not saying those who disagree with me are stupid, just extremely misguided or uninformed.
>"...blowing up thousands of innocent people with billions of dollars worth of shiny new weapons for the sole reason of securing corporate profits and worldwide American military domination..."
If that was the real reasons, you'd have a point. but, it isn't, so you don't.
Actually, it IS the real reason. See http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>"It also fits in quite nicely with how so many of us, especially males, have been raised to view America: as a land of manifest destiny full of tireless self-starters who never say die and will kill you for your own good should you resist the gospel of democracy we benevolently try very hard to instill in your pathetic, savage breast."
You have something against democratic Republic? What's your purposed alternative?
I have quite a lot against gunboat democracy.
>"I think this mindset caries real currency with the truly manly men among us—you know, the owners of monster trucks and microbial appendages..."
Ah, penis envy too?
Ah, I think you missed the point. Not that it’s any of your or anyone else’s business, but I don’t own an oversized vehicle nor have any urge to buy one.
>"A widely held hypothesis for Bush’s alleged popularity goes like this: Because mainstream journalism has failed to investigate numerous wrongdoings by the administration and acted more like a giggly cheerleader than the public’s watchdog..."
WOW again! The EXACT SAME THING the other side claimed about the Clinton Administration!
Well, you’ll have to find someone else to defend the corporate media’s performance over the last decade or two.
>"...since 9/11, people simply don’t have access to opposing views..."
Spare me. If the "opposing view" was any more "opposing", the National media would be imprisoned for being a traitor to America.
This warped view of the corporate media’s bias shows you are reading something into what passes for reporting these days that simply isn’t there. How about the waving American flag in the background on Fox and their “reporters’” insistence on using the charged “we” rather than the neutral “the American military” when reporting on the war? Slightly jingoistic, wouldn’t you say? Or the ever-smaller number of companies, by far most of which have conservative-leaning owners, owning an ever-larger percentage of media outlets, thereby molding the message to a) reflect what the owners believe and b) not report anything too controversial for fear of upsetting their cozy relationships with the White House denizens? Re Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, that paragon of good taste and reasonableness, Michael Savage, etc., tell me: Who are left-leaning counterpoints to these folks? They’re out there, but fewer in number and stature.
>"(i.e. the truth)"
See, to the left leaners the "opposing view" is a lie, and to right leaners, the opposite is the case. The truth might be found in the middle of those two extremes perhaps?
“The truth might be found in the middle of those two extremes perhaps?” Excellent point.
>"Certainly, the traditional press has done a lousy job by failing to ask even simple questions like, “Uh, excuse me, Secretary Powell, did you draw those cartoons of the alleged mobile bioweapons labs yourself?” or “Pardon me, Mr. President, could we actually SEE the proof that Iraq is connected to 9/11?”
Ballyhoo.
A new word for me—thanks! My dictionary describes it as “clamor or outcry,” so I’m not sure how you’re using it here.
>"There’s Al-Jazeera, for instance (the articles were a lot easier to read once I discovered its English-language website)."
Oh yea, let's all believe what those who hate America, and who want to murder Americans, have to say...that really shows how intellignet we are!
I believe in reading as many points of view as possible to make an informed decision.
>"Or the Guardian (written mostly in English), or so many others."
The liberal English? They have done wonders for their Nation, gun crime has doubled in the last 4 years, in a Nation where no one can have guns, and now they are out to ban anything that even looks like a gun too. And if you defend yourself against an attacker and injure him, you will find yourself in court or jail...yea, that's a great Country to look up to for answers...NOT!
Re the Guardian: see previous answer. I don’t know much about the Great Britain gun info to which you refer.
>"Humans, by nature, are lazy. And most Americans, when it comes to making an effort to inform themselves, are REALLY lazy."
That's why America is the greatest Nation on earth, the place where the vast majority of anyone else in the world, if asked, would rather live, the place that even the man in Iraq that was "so humiliated" in the photo stated he would like to come to,with his family and live...and on and on and on...
Hmm, the old “greatest Nation on earth” bit. How does one measure that? If that’s your personal opinion, fine. If you’re stating that as fact, you’d better be prepared to present a library full of evidence to back it up, along with proof to show that “the vast majority of [others] in the world, if asked, would rather live [here].”
>"...purchasing more useless crap than we’ll ever need."
America, gotta love it! When reading stuff like this, you always have to wonder, why in the world do people who hate America still stay here?
You are obviously an intelligent person. It’s beneath you to trot out the exceedingly lame and specious “those who don’t like certain things about America must hate it” crap. It’s name-calling and only serves to lower the tone of the debate; please retire it.
>"...the right-wing talking heads. They have utterly mastered the technique of the wham-bam, we’re-right-you’re-wrong, ten-second rant."
Left wing talking heads are exactly the same, they just speak out of the other side of their mouths.
Disagreed, although I haven’t listened to Air America yet, so I don’t know if “wham-bam, we’re-right-you’re-wrong, ten-second rants” are occurring there. If they are and the technique has been utterly mastered by the ranters, I now stand corrected.
>"Just a little brush with Rush is enough for so many folks to feel like they’re really informed and to hear how much George Bush loves them, yes he does. Then—off to the mall!"
But, this IS America isn't it? Isn't it their "right" to be what they want to be, do what they want to do, think what they want to think...?
The point is that if people are ill-informed and more interested in shopping than doing what they can to help America truly live up to American ideals, then this is not a good thing for our country, or the world, for that matter.
>"Life is too short for egghead activities like consulting varied sources and then making reasoned analyses..."
BUt they HAVE listened to "reasoned analyses", it's just not the same "analyses" the left listens to.
This is really the heart of my argument and I disagree strongly. If people really were paying attention to analyses that clearly show the greed (for power and money) and mendaciousness of this administration, impeachment proceedings would be in place for the lot of them (that’s definitely wishful thinking on my part, considering Congress’ composition). War crimes trials, also.
>"So an unfathomable number of Americans, caught up in the all-consuming national pastime of chasing the Great God of Durable Goods, weirdly continue to view Bush in a positive light because they form their opinions of the man based solely on information gleaned from people like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly."
No different than what many left leaners do also...but they listen to Charlie Rangle and Teddy Kennedy...
Rangel’s great. Kennedy does many good things, too.
>"Unfortunately, this is akin to seeking advice on government transparency from Dick Cheney, or looking for spiritual enlightenment by reading “Mein Kampf”—it’s just a really bad idea."
Ditto.
You think that Cheney favors government transparency and Hitler could offer tips on spirituality??
>"There’s another angle, too: There undoubtedly now exist many people in this country who, deep in their guts, know that Bush is a dangerous poseur..."
Only left leaner idealists who cannot see the real world for what it is because they are blinded by their idealism and hatred.
There you go with the hatred thing again. Please stop. You undermine your whole argument (and you make good points) by accusing those who disagree with you as automatically hating, what, their country? Come on. If I hated America (and I assume you’re including me with the hate-America crowd), I’d hardly spend hours composing commentary about what I see as problems with my beloved country of birth and how those things may be corrected to help it closer approach the beautiful ideals for which it is supposed to stand, taking the time posting such thoughts all over the country, and then spending another hour or two responding to folks such as yourself; I’d just go watch the Giants lose again on TV or do something else if I didn’t care or harbored contempt for this nation. I’m sure others who take the time to reasonably converse feel pretty much the same, (including yourself), regardless of the views they hold. Isn’t this America-hating slur the very sort of thing you rail against when you (mistakenly) say I must think that everyone who agrees with me is stupid?
>"roll up our sleeves and get rid of Hussein’ garbage..."
So, you favored and approved of his reign of terror and offenses against his own people then?
You misread this, but I’ll respond to what you wrote anyway: False dichotomy. Because I am against the Iraq war doesn’t mean I approve of Hussein’s barbarity. This is another lame argument that should be put to rest.
>"...even harder to acknowledge that thousands have died and the world has been made infinitely more unsafe"
No, the world isn't any more "unsafe". In fact, terrorists attacks on innocent people in non war Countries are down. Taking the battle to the homelands of those who want war was one of the smartest moves that Bush has made to date.
“In fact, terrorists attacks on innocent people in non war Countries are down.” Did you ask the folks in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey et al how they feel about that? Or how about Iraqis? The U.S. launched an unjustified, illegal, immoral, unprovoked attack on their country that has killed thousands of their countrymen; THAT’S not terrorism? Re “taking the battle to the homelands of those who want war”: I was and am completely behind the war in Afghanistan because of the documented connection of al-Qaida to 9/11 and the Taliban’s harboring of them and refusal to give them up when warned to do so. But if you believe that Iraq had any connection to 9/11 or al-Qaida, then I have given you far, far too much credit. Iraq was a defenseless, toothless nation that threatened the U.S. not one whit, and the only connection that country has with al-Qaida is the one it has now because of Bush’s decision to attack it and turn it into the biggest terrorist magnet and al-Qaida recruiting and training ground on the face of the earth.
>"the president’s insane, king-of-the-world fantasies."
That may be some peoples "take" on the situation, but not most peoples.
How do you know that’s not most people’s take on it?
>"So how can millions of Americans, ostrich-like in their approach to obtaining real news..."
"Real" being only what YOU happen to believe or want to believe, right? You don't see the problem here do you...
The article contains 2,000 or so words on how I view the problem.
>"...killing thousands of people on a whim, dismantling social safety nets, helping the already wealthy transform themselves into bona fide aristocrats, eviscerating democracy via unscrupulous redistricting, and being just plain mean..."
More hyperbole. But I bet you feel better now that you've let it out.
What part(s) do you disagree with and why?
>"Apparently, we’ll just have to continue speaking the truth loudly and often..."
"Your"..."truth"..., just because it what you happen to want to believe, certainly is not the end all word on "truth", I hope you realize that.
Some truths should be easier to see than others, for sure. And yes, I realize I am the not the arbiter of truth in the universe.
>"and then hope and pray..."
Pray? To whom exactly?
To whomever or whatever it is that people choose to pray. I assume you are not implying that those who lean left are somehow automatically devoid of all spirituality, are you?
>"...that self-enlightenment comes to enough folks..."
I see. SO left leaners are "self enlightened" and all others are woefully stupid. LOL! What conceit!
I’ve already addressed the “stupid” thing enough. Do I think that people who don’t view Bush as incompetent, scheming, and dangerous are missing something very important and thus hope for their enlightenment in that regard? Absolutely.
>"...between now and November to make a difference."
Come November, when Kerry goes down in flames you mean? I cannot believe that Kerry is the best that the left could find to put forward as a possible President.
Ain’t that the truth.
>"I was at one time a registered Republican..."
Lots of people run around calling themselves all sorts of things they really aren't. It's akin to calling oneself a car because one happens to be in a garage at the time. Meaningless.
Novel analogy, I must say.
>"...to prevent the special kind of hell that can only be produced by another four years of George Bush in the out-of-control driver’s seat."
What is "Hell" for left leaners then must be a huge sigh of relief for everyone else?
If so, I’m even more thankful I don’t buy the heaven and hell concept. Hey, thanks for reading and writing—keep ‘em coming! |
|
Re: Oh, Say Can’t You See? |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 May 2004
|
Mark,
You question why 50% of the American people continue to favor Bush. Perhaps I can help.
10. We have'nt had a repeat of 9-11.
9. He does what he says he is going to do.
8. He knows what the meaning of is, is.
7. Tax Cuts Tax Cuts Tax Cuts
6. He has Honor (See Websters for Definition)
5. Our troops support him overwhelmingly.
4. Moms are more concerned about Muslim terrorists than they are about soccer.
3. Over 600,000 jobs in the last two quarters clearly show we are leaving the Clinton/Gore recession.
2. His policies let us keep more of our hard earned dollars to spend on what we need, not what you guys refuse to pay for.
1. There is no semen stained dress in the Oval Office.
That about sums it up. Anymore questions, feel free to ask.
Jack |
|
For Jack |
by Mark Drolette
mdrolette (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 5
13 May 2004
|
Jack,
10. That’s good, since it wouldn’t look too great to have two such atrocities happen on his watch.
9. Whether it makes sense or not.
8. Yes, but can he pronounce it (“is,” that is)?
7. For the wealthy For the wealthy For the wealthy
6. If he has Honor, it must be the name of one of his maids, and does Laura know?
5. Where’s your proof? And even if it is true, it wouldn’t surprise me since a majority of them also believed, at least before the war and maybe still, that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to 9/11 and al-Qaida. Now who do you suppose put that silly idea into their heads?
4. I’m also more concerned about flossing my teeth than washing my car, but so what?
3. Only a tried and true Bush apologist could even suggest the economy is better under Bush than it was under Clinton, or someone taking Oxycontin.
2. Who are “you guys” and what do they refuse to pay for?
1. If this is your top reason for supporting Bush and his policies, it’s no wonder this country is in seriously bad shape.
Mark |
|
