Friday, April 4, 2008

Inspired by Hate

First of all, I will not name a certain person that eventually led to this post, as I said I wouldn't any more. But after watchingO'Reilly last night and hearing a Catholic priest defending that unnamed person and Louis Farrakhan, I realized there was a positive aspect to this otherwise annoying episode of Dueling Clips.

And that is this: All these controversies have lade bare the problems with -isms. Racism, sexism, classism, faithism, whatever. And this is a good thing, as both the alternative media and the blogosphere are covering every known aspect (both rational and kooky) and are dragging the mainstream media along for the ride. So we have been discussing all this shit and I have been learning not only what other people think, but how and why they think this. So listening to hate speech has given me new perspectives.

Now I have been expressing frustration with the fact that both political parties are dealing with candidates that are not the best they have to offer. But this has forced me to seek out new political sanctuaries where I can find like-minded people. I discovered the Heritage Foundation, and I have also been checking out the Libertarian Party. With the big government GOP marching in lockstep with the big-government Democrats, I have been forced to forge my political identity outside of the two parties, which has freed me from despising one party over the other. (Okay, it's still a snowball's chance in my pants in the ninth circle of Hell I'd be voting Democrat, but....)

Some of the angriest or stupidest or pissiest comments from liberal bloggers (some of which are really nice otherwise) have given me ideas and inspiration for posts. And those times I've stepped into conservative blogs with ideas that have challenged their preconceived notions have also yielded juicy plaid fruit. Oh, and then there's the comments, from assent to condescension, from reasoned arguments to moonbat attacks, from nine words of wisdom to paragraphs of refutations, I have learned much and laughed more.

So my point: All the arguments, all the hate, all the strife, all the gleaming unadulterated bullshit that I've read, heard, and on rare occasions dished out has made me better. But for it to make me better, I've had to rise above it. I don't take disagreements personally. I stamp on people who produce angry bile. And even when I am passionate about something, I try to have fun, especially with people who disagree with me. So I have only one thing to say:

Mission Accomplished!


Shaw Kenawe said...

Uh-oh! Last time someone said that, the conflict dragged on for 5years!

I agree with you. But I also understand that this type of partisan bickering and yelling and bad behavior has been with the Republic since its inception and is not likely to end. Humans have strong, passionate feeling when it comes to politics, religion and sex.

There is no "make nice" in politics.

Just ask Radical Republican, Charles Sumner. Well actually, you can't. He's dead. But you can google him.

Toad734 said...

Well at least you acknowledge that the Federal Government has actually grown under Bush and that Republicans like to talk small government but they usually end up taking government out of the regulating corporation business and put it into regulating your personal freedoms business. Just because you let S&Ls or Mortgage companies to run wild doesn't mean you have a smaller government nor does that mean deregulating these businesses was a good thing. We do need a government contrary to what the Libertarians say. The Libertarians started off with a good idea but when you read their actual stances no country ever has nor could it ever be a success if they had their way. I mean really, you think making poor people in the projects pay for their 3 kids education would actually work? No those kids would all be illiterate and grow up and would end up robbing you. Brazil’s lack of a welfare system really doesn't work well for them unless you enjoy being pick pocketed by paint huffing homeless children in the largest favela in the world.

Seriously, do a post on how you think a government run by Libertarians would work. Just by doing so you will find that they are not your answer.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: I had to say it, if for no other reason than to torment you and Toad.

I know the anger and the vitriol has been around for a while. You should see what they said about President Washington.

But my point is that you can find good things even in crap. Ask anybody who's had a dog swallow a diamond ring.

Toad: Of course I acknowledge the government growing under Bush, because it did. I do have a personal rule here and that is to be bluntly honest. And I am becoming less a Republican every day.

I actually did spend some time on the Libertarian site looking at potential Presidential candidates. Some seemed reasonable, some seemed to be kooks. I was specifically checking out their stance on the Iraq war, as that is one issue that is an instant dealbreaker. That's the dealbreaker that made it impossible for me to look at Ron Paul seriously.

As I have stated, I am a conservative. I have been looking to the Libertarian party as a home for conservatives that are frustrated with the failures of the GOP and are not burdened with the need to service the crazier demands of your favorite whipping boy, the religious right. But there are still a few too many of the neo-anarchists still running the show over at the LP for me to fully commit to it. But I may vote that way come November.

Actually, I'm hoping that, after 2008, both parties will realign, redefine, and clean out the crap so we can get back to the business of living free.

Toad734 said...

A deal breaker in that you think the war is the best thing ever?

I haven't looked at the Libertarians stance on the war. In that it benefits rich people and stock prices of defense contracters and Oil companies I would guess they would be for it since they think Corporations should run the world. On the flip side, I would think some of them would say that the government is overstepping its boundries and soldiers shouldn't have to go fight in a war that doesn't directly defend the United States. I assume there's some debate there.

Dave Miller said...

Where's your banner?

Patrick M said...

Toad: Since you missed it, here's my comprehensive view on the war.

Based on intel at the time, it appeared to be the right thing to do. In hindsight, it wasn't the best strategery. We did a good thing getting rid of Saddam, but now we have a situation that may leave Iraq worse off than before. Also, the surge was the correct strategy, but it took the Bush administration to long to get there.

Going forward, we are at a point of diminishing returns in Iraq. I would like to see the troops reduced, then pulled out, but not so quickly that the country spirals out of control. I trust the military leaders to get this right, and do not want to see Washington trying to micromanage the war. The key is to leave at a pace that will allow/force the Iraqis to keep their country stable.

So my Iraq war requirement for a candidate: I will not vote for anyone who wants to immediately withdraw the troops without tactical considerations, or expresses that the war was a loss for us before it is over. Ron Paul, both Democrats, and many of the Libertarian candidates do not pass muster in this. But it's not yet November.

Dave: One of my children drew on it so I had to send it out to get it cleaned. Either that, or I didn't want some of my really liberal readers to start a virtual stoning.

Obob said...

conflict hs been always in our nature for politics in the US of A. In fact, democracy cannot flourish unless there are opposing views. Those other "democracies" existed under the rule of such lovers of freedom as Stalin, Mao or RIH Sadaam.
But, we need to express ourselves other than name calling and mock debates. That goes for both sides and the middle.
And we do not need to play nice, respectful yes, but nice no. How boring and droll is that? I double dog dare anyone to disagree with me. And I have seen a student with a bleeding tongue from the frozen flag pole.

Patrick M said...

Obob: You didn't triple dog dare us though. So there!

And you'll hear no disagreement from my part of the world.

Obob said...

fine, Indian burns for the losers

Patrick M said...

so you know, I'll be wearing my sandpaper gloves if I win.

Toad734 said...

Easy on saying that was the best intelligence we had. Cheney and Rumsfeld exploited any piece of evidence, even evidence that could not be corroborate and intelligence which knowingly came from unreliable sources who had routinely lied to British officials. There were plenty of people such as Richard Clark, Joe Wilson and even Colin Powell who either questioned the evidence presented by Cheney and Rumsfeld or supplied evidence to the contrary. Bush told Cheney and Rumsfeld to connect Iraq with 9/11 and they did it any way possible. So to say we were acting on the best intelligence possible is a huge stretch and although Rumsfeld got canned, Cheney should be brought up on charges for what he did. So, if you mean the intelligence the American people were presented with in his speeches then ya, maybe it made since to at least consider going into Iraq but very few in the government believed there was any real threat; at least not people who were in the know. Sure, congress was tricked into voting for the war without knowing the real intelligence but not the administration.

That being said, you also don't want to be there for 100 years like McCain. If that’s the case, it looks like Clinton is your best option. Although neither Obama or Clinton will pull out immediately, I think it’s more likely she will stay longer, just not 100 years.

Patrick M said...

First of all, questions on the intel will come out in the end, and at this point, it's a wait and see.

As for the 100 years, I think McCain was talking about having some troops there that long if necessary, not the entrenched forces we have now. And I have no problem with us keeping a base somewhere in the emptier parts of Iraq. Close to Saudi Arabia. And Kuwait. And really close to Iran. The kind of close that if you piss off a watchtower in Iraq, you piss on Iranian soil.

And you are right. If I had to choose between Hillary and Barack, I'd have to choose Hillary. But that's why there's third party candidates.

Toad734 said...

The problem with that is that a third party vote is a wasted vote. What am I talking about, theres only 2 states in this country where your individual vote actually counts and that's Ohio and Florida.

Don't you know that our bases in the Middle East is why Bin Laden flew those planes into the WTC? That and our lopsided military and monetary support of Israel, a rich nation who uses all that to burn people out of their homes.

Patrick M said...

Hey! I'm in Ohio. And if the eventual Libertarian candidate is ok, I'm seriously considering going that direction.

And yes, I know Bin Laden's rationale. It still does not justify terrorism.