...and another thing....
Y'know, if there's anything worse than a blowhard on the internet, it's two blowhards arguing over the internet. I fail to understand this, really. It happens all the time, to me. Now, I know why: I'm pretty opinionated, and I'm willing to state my opinion. For people who don't have a strong opinion on whatever the topic is, at hand, there's no need to respond. That leaves just people with a strong opinion. If somebody has a strong opinion, on something I've got a strong opinion about, there's still no need for comment: all they'd say is "Yup". So, that leaves just people who have a strong opinion, but disagree with me. Fair enough, I guess, but why bother? Do they really think that it's going to be anything more than they make their case, then I make mine? Do they think I've got some kind of audience? Do they think that they have some kind of audience? It just seems useless to argue, in this format.
Now, face-to-face, where points can be delivered and received, that's different. I get into those discussions all the time, and it's no problem. But this "arguing over the internet"? It's more like angry letters to the editor; you're only going to make yourself look like even more of a crank. I much prefer just putting my opinion out there, and if you get something out of that, hey, great for you, and if not, I'm easy enough to ignore. I mean, most likely, if you're reading this, you sought me out. You followed a link, you went out of your way to read these words. So, you could just as easily go back (and how much do you want to bet that this is exactly what 99% of people who stumble on here do?).
But, lately, I'm getting static on every forum I go to. Not on my blog, mind you, just in forums, bulletin boards, and in my email inbox. Seriously, If I'm that far gone, do you really think that calling me names will do any good? Sheesh.
Oh well. I must be doing something right, when the liberals are claiming I'm a raving conservative, whilst the conservatives are calling me a pinko!
Comments
Well, as a former desert rat, I guess I'm more a "boy of summer", but I'm learning to enjoy winter. Allergies prevent me from enjoying spring. Fall is pretty good, though.
More to what I think your point is: yeah, I reckon that if you still can follow a party line, straight, you must be dizzy. George Bush sold out the goldwater conservatives, just like Bill Clinton sold out the Reagan democrats, just like Hilary is selling out Yankee liberals, just like Pat buchanon sold out southern conservatives. Men of character are hard to find, and women aren't even allowed to portray characters.
Seriously, I voted for Perot, Nader, heck, I'll vote for Donald trump if he runs third party. The two mainstream parties have really become one: either one is the other's "loyal opposition". For some reason, a fair number of folks can't seem to understand that I really mean that.
The original revolution was over something less important than the issues facing us today. The biggest problem is the masses. They have lost their courage and their will for truth and justice. I think too many are content having others make all their decisions for them Its sad. I think our once great country is doomed to mediocrity.
As a former hardcore member of the RSA, the question of "the masses" is always an interesting one, to me. How to reconcile my deep-seated belief in power being placed in the hands of "the people" with the rather obvious short-comings of the electorate, at large?
Near as i can figure it: it's different things with different people. Some folks appear to feel overwhelmed. They'd care, but it all seems to be too much for them. Others have narrowed their focus to simply what's right in front of them. I gotta admit, such thinking holds a certain appeal: the idea of "acting locally" makes politics a far more practical affair. But, I can't let the big picture slide, either. Which brings me to the third and, I believe, largest group of the unenviable "masses" : folks who are either willfully, or unwittingly ignorant.
As an example: Obama's recent comments about Pakistan raised a fuss, and made him an unacceptable candidate in my eyes. Part of the reason was something i've yet to see as front page news, anywhere: simultaneously, arrangements are being made for Musharraf to meet with Bhutto, in an effort to redefine Pakistan, and arrangements are being made to make India a more nuclear state. Clearly, there are some long-term foreign policy designs going on, involving Pakistan, India, and the US. If more people were aware of this, how many would support Obama's "whether they like it or not" policy stance with Musharraf?
It's also like this: right now, Tehran is FIGHTING Al Qaeda. That's right: they have their own problems with the Wahabbists: thirty of their people are being held hostage by Al Qaeda operatives. Meanwhile, tehran has the capability to help train Shi-ia in Iraq. The US has a natural ally in Iran: we want a un-united Arab world, and that dovetails with Iran's plans. Certainly, in order to make friends with Iran, we'd have to give up some friends in Saudi, but I think Iran is the better long-term choice: they aren't the ones who are giving aid to the radical sunnis who are the primary issue in terms of the US and Terrorism. Still, the average American just knows "Hey, aren't them Eye-ranians them crazy sort of muslims? Ain't they, like, part of Al Qaeda?"
I don't see anything as "black and white". Of course Iran is currently led by a cabal of radical Shi'ites, and their figurehead is an Israel-baiting holocaust denier, with a nice little laundry list of human rights violations. But, the same could be said (minus the shi'ite part) of every other part of our allies in the Middle East. Heck, we still like Turkey, and they're just begging for the chance to go after Kurdistan. Likewise, in Saudi, they still rabidly HATE the Jews. So, even though Iran is questionable, morally, and ethically speaking, I still say the Strategic interests are paramount.
Now, I ask you: do you think they're ready to discuss THAT on the nightly news? A solution to the Iraq problem that doesn't involve us just cutting and running, nor does it involve us discovering whole new meanings for the word "quagmire"? But, ignorance is winning.
On top of that, I hold that it was an out-and-out moral failure that put Bush into Office the second time. Now, having read a few of your posts, I expect you might have some issues with that, but bear in mind that I've had quite a few moral failings of my own. All I'm saying is that, at that point, most of us really knew that he wasn't a truly Good man, yet we decided to blind ourselves, because we didn't want to face the whole host of uncomfortable truths that would follow if we didn't support his whole "stay the course" whitewash. What I'm saying is that sometimes otherwise good people make bad choices.
Well, that was longer than I expected. Hope it made a little sense, anyway....
Congress voted and approved building the border fence, at least 800 feet and to date they have completed 13 feet, no thanks to Bush. While not protecting the border as he should, instead people are still entering our country at a tremendous rate. Not all of these people are Mexicans, many are gangsters, drug dealers and the unsuspecting 'terrorists'. Now, Bush promotes the war, but allows Terrorists to enter the country. I cannot accept that scenario and I am offended Bush expects people to die for the cause, when he is undoing any good they are making over there by compromising security here. Rather than being a Republican, I am more just a plain old conservative who respects the Federalist papers. So, I tend to be Libertarian to a point.
As far as the nightly news, they should all have their mouths duct taped until they are willing to speak the truth.