Every now and then, I prove to myself that I have a pyromaniacal side. I like to start fires and watch things burn. Not in the literal sense, of course, but purely in the metaphorical sense.
Yesterday, I started a discussion here, I suppose because I wanted to see what sort of responses I could get and what sort of discussion would ensue. Yes, I know that Michele and most of her readers are fairly Conservative, and I fall on the Progressive side of the political fence. Still, I enjoy a good debate- that is, when I can find one. Clearly, I was looking in the wrong place. From the beginning, the debate turned ugly, and commenters seemed less interested in discussing the issue at hand than tossing gratuitous insults in my direction. One person (who I will not stoop to linking to, but his initials are Jeff Goldstein) seems to lack even the most rudimentary debating skills. Goldstein's idea of making a convincing argument seemed to begin with, end with, and consist only of calling me a "f*****g troll" and telling me to "f**k off." Oh, well then, I guess that settles everything, eh? Goldstein even invited me to his weblog so he could have the pleasure of banning me. Well, I did visit, and there is absolutely nothing there worth wasting a keystroke on. Mental masturbation does not a weblog make.
Oh, and since when does the war in Iraq have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR? When last I checked, most of the people involved in 9.11 were Saudis (one of our closest allies, no?). No one to my knowledge has ever presented a credible argument that links Iraq to 9.11. If you believe otherwise, present a credible argument and leave the name-calling behind- or is that all you have to offer?.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. People who have no argument rarely have anything to resort to BUT name-calling and insults. I am not the arbiter of Ultimate Truth, nor do I claim to have all the answers, but is it too much to expect Conservatives to be able to engage in a reasoned, dispassionate debate? Apparently so. And then they have the balls to refer to Progressives as "wingnuts". Jesus Christ on a go-kart, people, have you looked at yourselves in a mirror lately?
I wasn't expecting to change minds, and no one was going to change mine. Still, is it so unreasonable to expect to have a reasoned, dispassionate discussion of the issues? As if people of different opinions can't occasionally learn something from one another....
Sometimes I grow so weary of the divisiveness that surrounds the discussion of political issues. Perhaps I should just write about more prosaic topics, like why one of the neighborhood cats took a crap on our Sunday paper yesterday morning?
I enjoy the give-and-take of a good debate. Sometimes I really DO learn something from people who think differently. Unfortunately, there are too many trolls out there like Jeff Goldstein- people that are best ignored until they crawl back into their richly-deserved obscurity and mediocrity.
Live and let live is generally a pretty workable philosophy. Those of you who do not agree with my political viewpoint might try keeping that in mind.
I will continue to write about the Progressive point of view and about the travesty that the past 3+ years of the Bush Administration has been. Thinking people need to understand the importance of the choice that faces them come November. Those who vote reflexively and unthinkingly have already made their minds up. Sadly, most of those folks seems to be Bush partisans. There will be no changing their minds, but all we need is one more vote- scratch that, one more ELECTORAL vote than Bush garners. If I can contribute to that result, even minutely, I will happily do so. We deserve better than the mediocrity, the lies, and the deception of George W. Bush.
I greatly enjoy your site. We can live in peace, but it is a struggle given the current administration. Seabrook is a pretty nice place. (I am originally from Pasadena and now reside is Austin.) The scary thing about our current situation is that truth and facts are out there and the neo-cons refute them with a simple, "nu-uh". Bush & Co. say one thing and then do the opposite and rely on our ineptness to hold them accountable.
TEX
A problem with the political blog community, is that many of them are emotional playpens. The Liberal/Conservative blogs often don't offer reasoning, but mostly exist to support each others rants. I concider my self a libertarian, and as such my views are a mix of left and right. With all the political blogs there are very few with reasoned thought.
The Peoples Republic of Seabrook, is a site of reasoned though, and is a pleasurable place to visit, even if the point you are making might be contrary to my beliefs at least I can learn where "the other side" is comming from.
Thanks ...
I stopped reading ASV quite awhile ago not so much because I have a problem with Michele as much as many of her regular commenters. I know I can't speak up without sparking a flamewar so it's not worth the high blood pressure reading it causes me.
Then again, I don't speak up here a lot either, but that's because I don't have much to disagree with.
Jack,
I feel exactly the way you do about the state of public debate. But my views are 180 degrees from yours. I live just up the street in Taylor Lake and would be glad to meet you at Kenny J's to discuss politics over a cup of coffee.
Mike
My sympathies, dude. I admire your spirit for trying.
northstar,
a friend of mine died a few weeks ago; he was a bush supporter extraordinaire.
i don't know whether that, his union job with benefits, or his retirement pension from the army will do any of his survivors any good at all. i do know they've lost a hell of a lot more, with that one man's passing, than this nation would lose if the entire administration, both houses of Congress, and every federal judge out there was Raptured (tm) tomorrow. (Especially if they took the televangelists with them).
i have come to the conclusion that politics is, while the only game for adults, still just a game.
those of us without the kind of money to buy and sell the USSC out of pocket change (big oil, big pharma, etc) are S.O.L. to do anything but vote so we can have the satisfaction of bitching with a clear conscience -- and hope that in the case of such absolutely spectacular failures as the current president, maybe enough people like us will vote to get rid of the guy.
I'm sure you've seen someone advance the following construction tying the WoT to the WoI.
#1) Terrorists will work with whomever is willing to help them attack their enemies, including Israel and America.
#2) Dictators of failed states like Iraq have sufficient wealth and resources to covertly produce and divert 'WMD' to these terrorists. They are also not accountable to anyone, including the UN or IAEA.
#3) The globalized nature of the world means that the disruptive power of terrorist attack is much greater than the actual damage caused in the attack.
#4) Therefore, failed states above an historically 'low' threshold cannot be allowed to threaten regional or global stability. Hence, Afghanistan, Iraq.
You don't consider it "credible" perhaps, but it's certainly internally consistent. In my personal opinion, it is a convenient reduction to require a link between failed, belligerent states and 9/11 to justify humanitarian intervention. I consider this type of proactive smacking of dictators justifiable even if it is in fact executed from strategic motivations.
Deposing dictators and trying to improve the stability of the countries they brutalize seems to me like a case of doing well by doing good. Of course, I surely value different aspects of the Iraq intervention differently than you do. I also probably have a more optimistic view of the situation than you do. There's certainly an interesting discussion regarding the feasibility of humanitarian intervention, but that's probably for another day.
Regarding the link between failed states and the "War on Terror," it seems to me that there is ample proof that dictators and terrorists work together when it suits them. I don't consider the risk to humanity to be acceptable, or ignorable.
There's one fewer dictator, and 25,000,000 people who are no longer brutalized by him. Time was "progressives" called for this sort of thing. Has the UN lowered expectations for humanitarian intervention so low that the "progressive" view is essentially conservative? That is, many progressives seem to support a conception of global order which values the sovereignity of dictators over the suffering of their peoples.
Is this the sort of reasoned discourse you were hoping for? :)
=darwin
PS - The Belmont Club's Three Conjectures provides an interesting thought experiment on the possible responses to a future terrorist WMD attack on America.