[Industrialblog,
September 27, 2004]
What have I become?
I became a Republican today. Renewing my driver's license and up pops a screen asking me if I want to make changes to my voter registration. So I say yes, and I switch my registration from Democrat to Republican.
This is not my beautiful house. This is not beautiful wife. My God. What have I done?
I suppose I'm more machine than man now, twisted and evil.
What have I done it? I don't leave things easily. What happened? Economically, my sense is the New Democrats had a better handle on things than the Republicans, who tend to say the craziest nonsense, like the deficit doesn't matter. Yeah, running up credit card debt doesn't matter, either. Let's just spend and spend and see what happens. Oh, that's the Republicans plan. Yet, despite my agreement with the New Democrats on economic policy, I'm switching.
Why then? Well, I think the Democrats are wrong. About a great. many. things. Two of the most important are federalism, which the Democrats seem to think is a cover for racism. And national security. The cluelessness is rampant on national security.
There was a time, not that long ago, 'cuz I'm not that old, when the Democrats criticized the Republicans for cozying up to dictators. Now the French do that and the Democrats love 'em for it. Go figure.
Oh yeah — I think someone can be pro-life without being anti-women, can have qualms about affirmative action without being racist, can want the cops to arrest and incarcerate criminals and not be a fascist, and someone can want the federal government to butt out of their life without being heartless.
In the fall of 1982, I was at a concert with the mytreacherous lovely girlfriend Karen standing on the crowded field at the old JFK stadium in Philadelphia, listening to The Who. Baba O'Reilly. Long introduction. Power chords. And then the arms started pumping in unison ... a crowd of people with their fists thrusting into the air. And I thought, Nuremberg. This is where the fascists will come from, crowds like this. Saw a similar occurrence only a year earlier at a Bruce Springsteen concert. Made me a little uncomfortable then, too. Years later, so the same thing at a Black 47 concert in Baltimore.
Fascism, if it arrives, will come, not necessarily from the left, but from people who think they are rebelling against fascism. It won't be the nerds, the stockbrokers, or even the skinheads, but the kind of people who think attitude yields truth yet still stand in crowds, overwhelmed by the moment, thrusting their fists in the air.
OK, I'm a little far afield here. In the 22 years since The Who, one constant I have is freedom of conscience. Simply put, the Democrats pester people too much these days with their consciousness-raising efforts, usually related to issues in which they are wrong, for my taste -- and at the same time, the people who claim to be so free-minded can be close-minded and blind, emulating Nuremberg more than they think.
Bush is not a liar. The bad guys are the terrorists, not the neo-cons. Criminals need to go to jail. Housing projects in the city breeds crime. Treating behavior changes the thoughts, not the other way around. Democrats are not superior human beings by virtue of party registration.
There's a reason so many of us -- and I was a very loyal Democrat who never voted Republican until 2000 -- have been leaving the party. The Dems need to get honest about why. I don't think the Dems have been, and I don't hold out much hope for the future. But you know, I'll try to keep an open mind.
This is not my beautiful house. This is not beautiful wife. My God. What have I done?
I suppose I'm more machine than man now, twisted and evil.
What have I done it? I don't leave things easily. What happened? Economically, my sense is the New Democrats had a better handle on things than the Republicans, who tend to say the craziest nonsense, like the deficit doesn't matter. Yeah, running up credit card debt doesn't matter, either. Let's just spend and spend and see what happens. Oh, that's the Republicans plan. Yet, despite my agreement with the New Democrats on economic policy, I'm switching.
Why then? Well, I think the Democrats are wrong. About a great. many. things. Two of the most important are federalism, which the Democrats seem to think is a cover for racism. And national security. The cluelessness is rampant on national security.
There was a time, not that long ago, 'cuz I'm not that old, when the Democrats criticized the Republicans for cozying up to dictators. Now the French do that and the Democrats love 'em for it. Go figure.
Oh yeah — I think someone can be pro-life without being anti-women, can have qualms about affirmative action without being racist, can want the cops to arrest and incarcerate criminals and not be a fascist, and someone can want the federal government to butt out of their life without being heartless.
In the fall of 1982, I was at a concert with the my
Fascism, if it arrives, will come, not necessarily from the left, but from people who think they are rebelling against fascism. It won't be the nerds, the stockbrokers, or even the skinheads, but the kind of people who think attitude yields truth yet still stand in crowds, overwhelmed by the moment, thrusting their fists in the air.
OK, I'm a little far afield here. In the 22 years since The Who, one constant I have is freedom of conscience. Simply put, the Democrats pester people too much these days with their consciousness-raising efforts, usually related to issues in which they are wrong, for my taste -- and at the same time, the people who claim to be so free-minded can be close-minded and blind, emulating Nuremberg more than they think.
Bush is not a liar. The bad guys are the terrorists, not the neo-cons. Criminals need to go to jail. Housing projects in the city breeds crime. Treating behavior changes the thoughts, not the other way around. Democrats are not superior human beings by virtue of party registration.
There's a reason so many of us -- and I was a very loyal Democrat who never voted Republican until 2000 -- have been leaving the party. The Dems need to get honest about why. I don't think the Dems have been, and I don't hold out much hope for the future. But you know, I'll try to keep an open mind.
Now, maybe we can convince Zell Miller to do the same thing...
By the way, on the whole "Bush is not a liar" thing: I invite you to stroll down memory lane with me into the FOX "News" archives...I suppose we can put a Clintonesque spin on this and call it a "strategic prevarication" or something like that. But then, I guess it all depends on what your definition of "liar" is.
I can only trust you'll turn the same critical eye to your new party that you've turned against old your old party.
IMHO: It seems to me that facism is more born of fear, greed, and division. The politicians that play to those human weaknesses are the ones that will seed facism (if it grows here at all) and I would say they are doing it for their own good, not the good of the people. I doubt the left can do that if it turns relentless on itself as you suggest. I don't think we're going there, but I don't buy the notion that a bunch of kids at a rock concert will lead us to facism. They just want to paaartyyyy. The people that will bring us there are the ones that will follow without question the road that leads to us versus them, engages in dehumanizing the outsiders, and whose sanctions the deprivation of rights of the outsiders.
My point about the partiers is that sentimentality -- unjustified emotion -- is what leads to fascism. First the people become sentimental, then as you said, leaders exploit natural divisions but more importantly the people's willingness to suspend reason. Right now, that's not Americans. The Germans, the French, the Russians ... these are all sentimental peoples that's why their history is so atrocious.
Look for any culture that worships music ... that's the sentimental one, and the one ripe for demagoguery.
Never understimate the evil that people who don't want to think about what they're doing are capable of. None of the Germans knew what was going on in the concentration camps (in a manner of speaking), and the party-lovers, should they go down the road of fascism, won't either.
But willful ignorance of what you're doing — shoving your head up your ass and saying that you don't see anything — does not excuse what you're doing.
Are you stupid(1), rabidly partisan, or just kidding?
(1) If you're actually just mentally retarted, I apologize for the unsympathetic characterization thereof.
By the way, why a republican rather than an indepedent?
Harry is a friend of mine. He's not a troll. He's one of the good guys, really, notwithstanding his liberal tendencies and his belief in my essential wrongitude. Trust me. Harry=Good guy.
Why Republican rather than Independent. Nothing in the middle of the road but white lines and dead armadillos. Ok, seriously, two reasons: (1) It never occurred to me to register independent (2) I want to vote in the primaries.
On a total side note - did any of you get the e-mail about becoming a terrorist? You could just order your missiles etc from the website included in the e-mail. It raised itself to the peak of ugly SPAM.
Semi-related story: 6-months before 9/11 I received an e-mail from an Iranian proposing to be writing a book about biotechnology research and could I help, etc. I almost reported it to the FBI - but there was never any follow-up. I couldn't tell if it was a joke, but my work made it a possibility that it was legit (though quite a long shot).
Amen.
Though I think that we should also maintain skepticism towards centrists, as well.
Yeah, yeah. Maybe Harry = good, but good != smart. That's why many saints were not remarkable for their intellects, and why many geniuses were not saints.
But not everything which is true should be said plainly, so I apologize for causing offense.
Yes, the "no plans on my desk" lie is a weak example, and not even a direct quote from the linked article. Most people would argue that it wasn't really a lie, because no one believed the statement in the first place - or, at least, we believed it to be true only in a strictly literal, technical, Clintonesque sense: the plans were in a drawer in his desk, or on a table to the side of the desk, or on somebody else's desk. But it was still a lie. Saying "Bush is not a liar" is simply a preposterous statement. All humans are liars, politicians more so. Bush is a liar. This is not really an issue. The question is, should he be elected to a second term?
By the way, I despise hyperbole. Someday I'm going to write an essay on the "hyperbole defense" being employed by radical clerics like Jimmy Swaggart and Pat Robertson to explain away their more outrageous statements.
As for the question of being stupid, rabidly partisan, or just kidding...well, "rabidly partisan" is a bit of a subjective term, yes? And, unlike Bill, I am a registered Independent, so my partisanship is automatically in question. (I almost changed that registration to Republican before the primaries so I could support moderate Republican Arlen Spector against his more radical Republican challenger.) And to the extent that mutual enlightenment can be achieved through humor, I'm always kidding a little. As for my stupidity, I'll let that speak for itself, like I always have.
So you're just talking about the ultra-pedantic sense in which everyone who says, "I'm going to the bathroom" but actually is going to a room which only has a toilet and no bath tub is a liar? I.e. a barely meaningful even-in-academia sense?
No, Bush is not a liar, and no, all humans are not liars.
You also misunderstood what the administration said in your linked article, which was dated May 2002. Then the quote is from Rumsfeld, not Bush, and there's not a lot of context for us to draw inferences from about his alleged deceptive state of mind.
Nonetheless, here's a quick analysis based on the little, and off-topic, info you have submitted: There are plans and then there are plans. The invasion wasn't until a year later -- and the military no doubt created military plans during that time. There may have been plans on a desk that they didn't like, hence, no plans. He may have been talking about intentions, as is "we don't intend to invade Iraq" now while diplomatic solutions were sought -- diplomatic channels that were sabotaged by the Hussein-supplying French. So, Rumseld wasn't lying, he was stressing that the administration intends to let the diplomatic channels work, which the administration proceedd to do by repeatedly going before the U.N. So Rumsfeld wasn't lying.
Anyway, everyone else isn't a liar.
But I understand post-perjury/impeachment that Democrats are left with only "we're all liars" as a defense against their behavior. I think it's an easier analysis -- the Democrats dishonored themselves defending Clinton, and they now find themselves wondering why they have so little credibility. It's also one reason, Harry, why I don't consider credible any accusation a partisan Democrat brings that Bush is a liar. Democrats have no honorable place to stand to make such an accusation, having defended perjury and especially electoral fraud in Florida. Their answer that "we're all snakes" doesn't wash. We're not all snakes. Speak for yourself.
But hey, you called yourself a liar in your generalization, didn't you? If you are, why should I believe you?
OK, enough whacking you around...Have a nice day.
Now I'm a Democrat, I didn't support Clinton's obvious lying, and I didn't vote for him twice. However, I was dead set against using impeachment because Clinton because they lie was trivial in its context when compared the serious uses of impeachment. You may disagree with me (it is all just opinion), but the impeachment procedure was almost wholly (? a word) a political act. IMHO: That dubious use of impeachment politicized it as a tool to defend our democracy. (I'm sure Chris will just say "nonsense").
No doubt our interpretation of Bush as a liar is completely colored by our personal views. To me, Bush is a lying SOB arising from his willingness to do anything to get his way. I would submit that our interpretations of Bush actions versus his words arise from our views. Pointing fingers at Democrats won't change my mind about it.
SG
Actually, I thought that impeachment for lying to congress under oath is just fine, though it didn't make sense to me why on earth the question ever came up to congress in the first place. I'm all for letting the president be blown by whomever he wants, as long as it's on his own time, because the president is just a man who's in charge of the country, no more.
If Bill Clinton had a habbit of giving cunnilingus to donkeys, I don't see why anyone but his wife should care. However, if for some reason it does come up, he should not lie about it to congress under oath.
However, I didn't follow the whole impeachment thing much at all. Clinton's sins — even in lying to congress — were of no great consequence since the subject was so irrelevant. He still should have been evicted for purjery, but I suspect that whoever originated the questioning before congress was being awfully petty.
And of course those of us who think that Bush told the truth see whether he was lying in a different light than those who think that he was wrong; only the latter group can debate whether he knew what he was saying was wrong.