Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The American war of life
Been spreadin' my erudite redneck seed regardin' whether the state we are in is a "war" or not, over at Mark Maness's place. Thought I'd bring it all home.
These are thoughts drawn out of the context of the thread in which they first appeared. They also were written in haste, and with some emotions. To see it in context, go here.
Mark started out to reply to this, from me:
I think you take the backbiting and squabbling, which we have ALWAYS endured in our history, much too seriously The differences between some of us and others of us are genuine and cannot be glossed over.... The only few places this country is "desperate" is in these little computer things, and on cable TV. The rest of the land is going merrily on its way.
Mark then proceeded to argue, basically, that the "war on terrorism" should take precedence over pretty much every other issue that divides us -- suggesting that anyone who detracts from the war is arguably aiding and abetting the enemy by drawing attention away from what really matters.
To which I say, in a word, "Bullshit" -- especially since the American war of life --thank you -- is the main thing about which most of us disagree right now, the fighting itself, what it means, and will mean, over here, and how we are behaving, and prosecuting the war, "over there."
Anyhoo, here are some of my random thoughts on various and sundry of the points raised at Mark's place.
We agree that there is a threat.
We disagree that a reasonable response is that everyne should sit down and shut up and do what they're told (Jane Fonda excepted).
I think this nation is strong enough for us to bicker amongst ourselves, as usual, AND deal with the threat. ...
On another hand, the "war on terrorism" is a total misnomer, isn't it? It's just crime, on a grand scale, with a political bent. More like a global KKK than a "war." That's one reason nobody can agree on how to handle it! Keep calling it a "war" and the confusion will continue. We need a new word for what this is. ...
NEVER is the discussion of language, words and their meanings something about which we can get "hung up." ...
If this is war, tell me how we know we've won.
We won't ever know. No eventual victory. No clear defeat. No surrenders. No peace treaty.
It's "war," then, like no other we've ever fought -- and if so, then we need some more words, and rules and thresholds to understand it.
Otherwise, it just goes on and on and on for ever. Like crime. ...
Step 1. Define the finish line. How do we know we've won?
If "permanent war" is our position, then either anarchy or tyranny is inevitable, I think.
What is the end? If it's eradication, fine. Let's have some legislators with the guts to put some bills in the hopper to suspend certain constitutional guarantees, and get the hell after it.
Do it decently and in order -- 'cause that's we need to do to maintain the veneer of civilization. Let the civil libertarians scream and holler, as they should.
Congress passes a constitutional amendment or two. Then go to the states. Do it right.
Then, let's start knocking down mosques. Let's start making those we suspect -- those to whom the constitutional amendments were aimed at -- prove their loyalty. If they fail, out they go -- or to Gitmo they go.
I'm serious. What do you say? But we HAVE to do it following the constitution, especially when changing the constitution.
If it's war, and it's on our own soil, then let's do this thing right.
But quit monkeying around with my rights, and others'. Take them away, using the mechanisms in place. But don't pretend they're not there.
And if we CAN'T, through Congress and the state legislatures, muster the courage it would take to collectively set aside some of our freedoms for the safe of our own safety, then, well, this is a challenge that this experiment in democracy simply can't cope with.
Game over. Start over.
--ER
These are thoughts drawn out of the context of the thread in which they first appeared. They also were written in haste, and with some emotions. To see it in context, go here.
Mark started out to reply to this, from me:
I think you take the backbiting and squabbling, which we have ALWAYS endured in our history, much too seriously The differences between some of us and others of us are genuine and cannot be glossed over.... The only few places this country is "desperate" is in these little computer things, and on cable TV. The rest of the land is going merrily on its way.
Mark then proceeded to argue, basically, that the "war on terrorism" should take precedence over pretty much every other issue that divides us -- suggesting that anyone who detracts from the war is arguably aiding and abetting the enemy by drawing attention away from what really matters.
To which I say, in a word, "Bullshit" -- especially since the American war of life --thank you -- is the main thing about which most of us disagree right now, the fighting itself, what it means, and will mean, over here, and how we are behaving, and prosecuting the war, "over there."
Anyhoo, here are some of my random thoughts on various and sundry of the points raised at Mark's place.
We agree that there is a threat.
We disagree that a reasonable response is that everyne should sit down and shut up and do what they're told (Jane Fonda excepted).
I think this nation is strong enough for us to bicker amongst ourselves, as usual, AND deal with the threat. ...
On another hand, the "war on terrorism" is a total misnomer, isn't it? It's just crime, on a grand scale, with a political bent. More like a global KKK than a "war." That's one reason nobody can agree on how to handle it! Keep calling it a "war" and the confusion will continue. We need a new word for what this is. ...
NEVER is the discussion of language, words and their meanings something about which we can get "hung up." ...
If this is war, tell me how we know we've won.
We won't ever know. No eventual victory. No clear defeat. No surrenders. No peace treaty.
It's "war," then, like no other we've ever fought -- and if so, then we need some more words, and rules and thresholds to understand it.
Otherwise, it just goes on and on and on for ever. Like crime. ...
Step 1. Define the finish line. How do we know we've won?
If "permanent war" is our position, then either anarchy or tyranny is inevitable, I think.
What is the end? If it's eradication, fine. Let's have some legislators with the guts to put some bills in the hopper to suspend certain constitutional guarantees, and get the hell after it.
Do it decently and in order -- 'cause that's we need to do to maintain the veneer of civilization. Let the civil libertarians scream and holler, as they should.
Congress passes a constitutional amendment or two. Then go to the states. Do it right.
Then, let's start knocking down mosques. Let's start making those we suspect -- those to whom the constitutional amendments were aimed at -- prove their loyalty. If they fail, out they go -- or to Gitmo they go.
I'm serious. What do you say? But we HAVE to do it following the constitution, especially when changing the constitution.
If it's war, and it's on our own soil, then let's do this thing right.
But quit monkeying around with my rights, and others'. Take them away, using the mechanisms in place. But don't pretend they're not there.
And if we CAN'T, through Congress and the state legislatures, muster the courage it would take to collectively set aside some of our freedoms for the safe of our own safety, then, well, this is a challenge that this experiment in democracy simply can't cope with.
Game over. Start over.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Which part, Trix? My rant or Pastor Timothy's total mischaracterization of the concept of "war" that I was talking about and his wrongheaded assessment -- sorry, dude -- of the concept of "absolutes" when applied to the parties?
Mine was an over-the-top rant, an attempt to show, somewhat facetiously, that there is a way to deal with this so-called "war" on our own soil -- by amending the constitution -- that would beat the hell out of the bozos in power now who usually just to try to ignore the damn thing.
I don't know WHAT the pastor has been smokin'. :-)
Mine was an over-the-top rant, an attempt to show, somewhat facetiously, that there is a way to deal with this so-called "war" on our own soil -- by amending the constitution -- that would beat the hell out of the bozos in power now who usually just to try to ignore the damn thing.
I don't know WHAT the pastor has been smokin'. :-)
Mostly it was this:
"There will always be wicked and corrupt men who need to be dealt with. Republicans seem to deal with them better than Democrats. I believe that is so because they deal in absolutes better than Dems."
I understand your facetious writing style, so I "got it." My reaction was to Pastor Timothy.
By the way, can anyone tell me whatever happened to trying to find Osama?
"There will always be wicked and corrupt men who need to be dealt with. Republicans seem to deal with them better than Democrats. I believe that is so because they deal in absolutes better than Dems."
I understand your facetious writing style, so I "got it." My reaction was to Pastor Timothy.
By the way, can anyone tell me whatever happened to trying to find Osama?
Yeah, I like to blew tomator juice through my nose when I saw that. (Turns out tomato juisce is pretty good WITHOUT beer in it! Who knew? ... I was between yard doings.)
Jesus said that we would always have wars and rumors of war, so I'm not sure why the big deal.
This, coming from a pastor??
This, coming from a pastor??
actually, Er, I didn't mean for it to sound like i was suggesting that anyone who detracts from the war is arguably aiding and abetting the enemy by drawing attention away from what really matters.
I didn't mean that at all. I am simply saying that right now I think our most important priority is ending the threat to our safety, as a nation. If you want to call it a crime, fine, call it a crime, but the fact remains, we need to stop it, and we need to pull together for the sake of the future of our country and for our progeny.
It is imperative that we put the more petty of our arguments on the back burner for the time being. specifically whether or not Karl Rove used bad judgement, what Judge Roberts believes and why, etc.
How we accoplish the task of stopping the commission of this monumental crime is another argument entirely.
I didn't mean that at all. I am simply saying that right now I think our most important priority is ending the threat to our safety, as a nation. If you want to call it a crime, fine, call it a crime, but the fact remains, we need to stop it, and we need to pull together for the sake of the future of our country and for our progeny.
It is imperative that we put the more petty of our arguments on the back burner for the time being. specifically whether or not Karl Rove used bad judgement, what Judge Roberts believes and why, etc.
How we accoplish the task of stopping the commission of this monumental crime is another argument entirely.
A guy goes in a bar and gets really drunk and starts to walk home. Every 2 steps he falls.
So he is 2 steps away from his doorway and he falls in. Then he tries to walk up the stairs quietly and get in bed.
In the morning his wife gets up before him and says "Were you drinking last night?"
He asks, "how did you know?"
She says "you left your wheelchair at the bar"
So he is 2 steps away from his doorway and he falls in. Then he tries to walk up the stairs quietly and get in bed.
In the morning his wife gets up before him and says "Were you drinking last night?"
He asks, "how did you know?"
She says "you left your wheelchair at the bar"
OK. Yer talking about "war" in general, which we will always have, yes.
But I'm talking about the present "war on terrorism" and whether or not we will always have IT with us. If yes, then we should call it something other than a war, because even the 100 Years War eventually came to an end.
As for your opinion on absolutes and the parties, yer entitled to yer thinkin' on that, of course. But it really depends on the topic, I think.
On the other hand, if you mean Repubs are more likely than Dems to make up their minds, and hold onto their opinions, even in the face of new information and evidence, well, then, yer right. Dems do tend to think, and rethink, and think some more, come to a conclusion, but then open a topic up again as new information and evidence becomes available, recast questions, come up with new answers, and change their positions.
Somebody tell me which is bad: Holding onto a position because it's familiar and comfortable, or taking the very uncomfortable and threatening route of constantly questioning, thinking and drawing conclusions -- and changing your mind? Which one is "thinking," actually?
BTW, since God was on both sides of the War of Northern Aggression (judging by the piety and Christian commitment exhibited by leaders and the rank-and-file on both sides), you might ought to at least know who yer kin were for when it comes up on the Other Side of Jordan. Might make for some good table conversation at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.) ;-)
But I'm talking about the present "war on terrorism" and whether or not we will always have IT with us. If yes, then we should call it something other than a war, because even the 100 Years War eventually came to an end.
As for your opinion on absolutes and the parties, yer entitled to yer thinkin' on that, of course. But it really depends on the topic, I think.
On the other hand, if you mean Repubs are more likely than Dems to make up their minds, and hold onto their opinions, even in the face of new information and evidence, well, then, yer right. Dems do tend to think, and rethink, and think some more, come to a conclusion, but then open a topic up again as new information and evidence becomes available, recast questions, come up with new answers, and change their positions.
Somebody tell me which is bad: Holding onto a position because it's familiar and comfortable, or taking the very uncomfortable and threatening route of constantly questioning, thinking and drawing conclusions -- and changing your mind? Which one is "thinking," actually?
BTW, since God was on both sides of the War of Northern Aggression (judging by the piety and Christian commitment exhibited by leaders and the rank-and-file on both sides), you might ought to at least know who yer kin were for when it comes up on the Other Side of Jordan. Might make for some good table conversation at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.) ;-)
Mark, re: "specifically whether or not Karl Rove used bad judgement, what Judge Roberts believes and why, etc."
The fact that you concider these petty, shows that you really ARE out in the left field bleachers. For God's sake, if the basic believability of the president and his top man, and if the world view of a Supreme Court nominee are petty, well, I really don't know what to say, other than, you are so wrong it makes me want to spit.
Holy s---! Quit being so "humble and uneducated," as you like to describe yourself, and get a damn education. (Touche for the smart-ass whiskey remark at Tech's place). Strained :-)
Post a Comment
The fact that you concider these petty, shows that you really ARE out in the left field bleachers. For God's sake, if the basic believability of the president and his top man, and if the world view of a Supreme Court nominee are petty, well, I really don't know what to say, other than, you are so wrong it makes me want to spit.
Holy s---! Quit being so "humble and uneducated," as you like to describe yourself, and get a damn education. (Touche for the smart-ass whiskey remark at Tech's place). Strained :-)
<< Home
