Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on May 26, 2011, 12:13:34 PM
-
Most of my relatives are liberals. The three children from my oldest brother's marriage are far to the left. One of them posted this on Facebook the other day, to which I just had to respond:
I've just been thinking lately about how being "classy" seems to entail a lot of biting your tongue, and why is that? Who benefits from that? It seems to protect the existing social structure an awful lot... if it's inappropriate to mention something in a straightforward manner, it's kind of hard to have any meaningful discussion or debate about it. I'm thinking of a situation in Korea right now, but it's the same in America. Like here's an example in America-- poverty is something that is so shameful no one wants to admit a) it exists, b) one may be suffering from it, c) it's not just a side effect of an otherwise flawless meritocracy, in which, by necessity, there must be winners and losers. Almost no one talks about the fact that we have an underclass in America, least of all the people who are part of it, because who wants to identify as such (and has the perspective to do so?) Instead, poverty is something to be mocked. "Haha, look at that trailer." Or take a foreign policy/ media example... why is it never mentioned in history books and almost never mentioned in the news that the US funded death squads and propped up brutal dictators in Latin America for decades? Wouldn't it be relevant in a news story about Hugo Chavez to mention some of that as background? But mention that and you risk being branded a socialist or lunatic. I've just been thinking that "being classy" is just another way of saying "being complicit in the political, social and economic oppression of the majority of the world."
I couldn't just let some of this pass, so I posted the following:
"A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally." - Oscar Wilde. Having said that, I feel it necessary to address some of your points, and hope I don't hurt your feelings. You mentioned propping up brutal dictators. While it's true the US did back dictators in South America and elsewhere, the alternatives were often far worse. More to the point, this was during a period (the Cold War) when the US and the USSR were engaged in a very real war with the potential to go hot at any time, and so hot as to almost literally melt the globe. The Cuban Missile Crisis was very real, and very frightening (even more so if you read in depth about it). In the 20th century, the USSR and Communist China slaughtered roughly 120 million of their own people, making Hitler look like an alter boy. Castro, Che Guevera (a bloodthirsty monster whose face doesn't belong on t-shirts), the Khmer Rouge and other communist regimes had body counts that were unimaginable. The Khmer Rouge murdered 25% of Cambodia's population. This is the enemy that the US faced. I'm sure that Guy could tell some interesting stories, if he were allowed to. As for poverty, while we have much to address here in the US, we don't have poverty as it exists in much of the rest of the world. Nobody who wants to eat is starving in the US. The poor in the US live in luxury compared to the way that Grandma and Grandpa lived in the Depression. Many--perhaps most-- people in the US classified as "poor" have TV's, cars, cell phones, and other things that were out of reach (or didn't exist) for the middle class in the 1950's and earlier. As for "oppression" in the rest of the world, how exactly is the US oppressing other peoples? By spilling the blood of our men and women in uniform to protect other peoples from slaughter by their own governments or tribal leaders? The US has given the lives of hundreds of thousands of service men and women to save the lives of millions worldwide in the last hundred years, yet we haven't seized an inch of ground for ourselves. No country in history has done so much to help other countries and taken so little (or nothing) in return. I'm not saying the US is perfect, but we sure try to be.
Her reply wasn't unexpected:
Uncle Dick, my issue in this case was not with the US propping up brutal dictators, but the fact that this is never mentioned in media or in textbooks, even in university courses about Latin American politics. It's simply not mentioned. So anyone who does mention it risks sounding like a conspiracy theorist. How many college educated people do you think even know about it? But to the issue of whether it was right for the US to back them, yes, it's true that this happened within the context of the Cold War. Still, I don't believe ends justify means. While staving off one brutal dictator, you create the next generation of terrorists and engender more hatred of America around the world. Case in point, Osama Bin Laden. Was it expedient to arm him in a proxy war against the Soviets? Sure. Was it wise? I think few would say yes. Regarding poverty, it's true that poverty in America would look laughable to say, a beggar in XYZ developing country. Sure. No one would argue that. But there certainly are plenty of hungry people in America. One problem is, a disproportionate number of them are children. You'd be surprised how easy it is for a child to go hungry in America without anyone noticing. Trust me. Or Google it. But MANY children in America get one meal a day: school lunch. For a look at what it is like to live in poverty in America, check out this blog: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/ It's true, a person could have a TV and live in poverty. Maybe they bought a TV when times were good and had a health crisis or an unexpected child and now are hungry. Maybe they could pawn it and get $2, maybe not. There are lots of old TVs out there. I don't think having a TV means a person is eating enough. As for a car, there are rural places in America with no public transportation, where a car is a necessity for keeping employment. So a person could have a decrepit, old car and still be in poverty. In other countries, cars are not necessary. As for people with cell phones and other luxuries, they are not the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the class of people who were stuck in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and couldn't leave because they didn't have bus fare, didn't know anyone with a car who could drive them, didn't have any money to live off of while in another state, didn't know if they'd have a job when they came back if they left. Everyone was asking, "Why didn't they leave?" Lots of people just didn't understand: they couldn't. As for the US history of oppressing other countries, Google these: the Philippines, Haiti, the Kingdom of Hawaii, the First Nations, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. etc. Just about any South American country would work. Google "School of Americas." You already knew about some of this, obviously. Yes, it's true, America has done a lot of good around the world. Yay, we finally got Osama! I'm glad-- I really am. But we shouldn't have armed and trained him in the first place. I love my country, but I don't love some of the darker chapters of its history that are shrouded in secrecy. If its never discussed, we can never move past it, and we will never be a country that can be fully respected around the world.
But she left out the part about multi-national corporations (liberals have to mention those):
Also, when I was talking about economic/political oppression, I was mainly talking about multi-national corporations.
I was getting tired of this, but gave it one last shot:
Well, Vanessa, where to begin? I don't know why it's not mentioned in textbooks. Given the liberal bias in academia (there is one, and it is liberal, and I hope you're not going to argue that point), I'm surprised that there isn't more information about the US and dictatorial regimes. In South America, the rationale was preventing Castro from expanding his sphere of influence, and having more countries fall to the communists. Again, if you look at the behaviors of communist countries like the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuala, and others, the fear of countries falling into the communist camp wasn't some paranoia akin to fearing them going to Ralph Nader's Green Party; the communists worldwide were a genuine threat. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Che Guevara was lobbying heavily to use the Soviet missiles to nuke NYC. Fortunately, Kruschev was a bit more sane (and savvy, as he milked JFK for everything that Kruschev wanted). This is where the end justifies the means, if the alternative is a worse regime than the current bad regime. The US briefly had good relations with Castro, until Castro and his crew showed they weren't saviors of the Cuban people, nor friends of the US. We backed the Shah in Iran and, when he fell, many in the US thought that Khomeini would be a kind, pious, religious leader. They didn't count on him and his bunch being much more savage than the Shah ever was. We're seeing the same naivete in Egypt and other countries in this "Arab Spring", where some in the US are turning a blind eye to the past of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the MB takes over Egypt, we'll long for the days of Mubarek. The US has never been good at picking the right side in revolutions, not because we don't know what's right, but because the players don't usually lay out their cards for all to see. We have no idea if the Libyan rebels will be better or worse than Ghaddafi. As for "create the next generations of terrorists and engender more hatred of America", they're going to hate us no matter what. Look at Obama's overtures to the regimes in the Middle East. There's nothing he or any other US leader can do to make most of the Arab Street like us. We're infidels. As for other parts of the world, we're hated for our freedom and prosperity right up until they need something from us. It's just the way it is, and nothing--no amount of contrition or money or warm fuzzies--will change that. You use bin Laden as an example. He wasn't a threat to us then, but did serve a more useful purpose in thwarting the Soviets attempted expansion into Afghanistan, which could have given them a dangerous level of control much of the world's oil supplies. Should we have been surprised when he turned on us? Probably not, although he should have been more closely watched, and should have been taken out in 1994 (hindsight being perfect, and all that). History is replete with "good" governments making deals with the devil. We were allied with the Soviets in WWII after having briefly been their enemies. FDR thought he could trust Stalin. Churchill thought otherwise, and didn't trust Stalin one bit. How else should the situation have been played? Joe Kennedy, father of JFK, was a friend and ally of Hitler. He wasn't alone, as there were many in power in the US who were pro-Nazi, and for all sorts of reasons thought HItler could be trusted. OK, now poverty. Where there are children going hungry in the US, it's not for a lack of food available to them. There are plenty of government and private programs to turn to, provided the parent is willing. I don't mention cars or TV's or cell phones as signs of a denial of poverty, but as a measure of poverty as compared to that of other countries, and as a comparison to the lives of the middle class in the 1960's, 1950's and earlier. Grandma's family was much poorer than most of the poor in the US today, even as her father worked hard, full-time as a miner. Grandpa's mother died when he was 12. He often talked about her having to chop and carry wood to the stove to boil water to wash clothes, and about how hard a life she had. Grandma and Grandpa didn't get a car until they'd been married for quite some time. Grandpa built their first TV. What I'm trying to say is that poverty is to an extent relative. What is "poor" now was commonplace in the 1930's. I am by no means, nor have I ever been, a "my country right or wrong" type. I do, however, wish that the US would be recognized for its merits, not just its faults. Imagine what the world would look like today if not for the actions of the US in the last 100-150 years. Two-thirds of European Jews died in the Holocaust and at the hands of the Soviets.. If not for the US, 100% may have died, along with many others. We take it on the chin from Muslims everywhere, but what other county has sacrificed its young men and women to defend innocent Muslims in Somalia, Serbia, Kuwait, and other hotspots? Certainly not Russia or China, and certainly not Iran or Syria, Al-Queda or Hamas. OK, my soap box is getting worn out. ;)
She wasn't tired, though:
Hm, you've said a lot... I don't really have time to respond to all of this. I think I've already responded to most of what you've already said about the Soviets etc. As far as Che lobbying to bomb NY... I guess one of our own former freedom fighters did that-- Osama. I don't buy the argument that by training death squads to kidnap, torture and kill millions of innocent civilians, we can protect millions of innocent civilians from kidnapping, torture and death. I believe our nation needs the moral authority that comes from not agreeing to deals with the devil. And I'm not sure how the topic got into the Arab Spring, but as far as the Middle East hating us no matter what, that's a pretty racist and stereotypical statement. The Middle East is composed of many diverse countries with different beliefs and opinions. And again, we can't have historical amnesia here. How has the west played a role in the Middle East's conflicts? On poverty, actually, there are not as many government and private programs as there once were. Welfare has been reformed, and benefits can only be received for a maximum of two years. Food banks are low on supplies in these tough times. Yeah, I spent years poor when I was putting myself through college-- eating expired food and ramen every single day for years, taking two-hour bus rides for a six-hour shift, fishing cockroaches out of my cereal in the morning, no TV, no phone but a payphone on the corner, no money to see a doctor, which meant living with bladder infections for months, sleeping only a few hours a night so I could go to school and work 30 hours a week waitressing, etc, etc, etc. You don't have to tell me what poverty means. But I didn't truly feel poor because I was in college, thanks to grants and loans. There are millions of people worse off than I was. No, we're not in a depression. But there is plenty of poverty. Anyway, I think you're missing my whole point in this and taking this as some kind of anti-American rant. What I was actually thinking of that day, as I said, was an issue in Korea, but the principle applies to any country, and I felt it was more fair to use my own country as an example. The problem I was talking about was that there are so many taboo subjects that aren't "classy" to discuss, in any society, anywhere in the world. But what I was saying is that a lot of these taboos seem to protect the status quo, which all too coincidentally protects the interests of a certain class of people. Notice I said "class," not "nationality." As I've said, America has done a lot of good in the world, but we also have to be able to discuss the negative aspects of our society openly without being accused of being trashy or unpatriotic. I believe in an America that is committed to democracy, peace and freedom around the world, and that does not make me anti-American.
-
OK, one last time:
"As far as Che lobbying to bomb NY... I guess one of our own former freedom fighters did that-- Osama." We didn't know in the 1980's that Osama would form Al Queda and come after us, any more than we can know if the rebels in Libya will be for or against us. (I commented about Che Guevara because I find it ironic to see his face on t-shirts everywhere when he wanted to nuke the US; maybe we'll have Osama t-shirts soon?). The Afghan/bin Laden situation illustrates one of the difficulties of such covert operations. It's like cops using confidential informants who themselves are criminals. It can come back to bite you. The alternative would be, in many cases, to do nothing, which could be worse. "...but as far as the Middle East hating us no matter what, that's a pretty racist and stereotypical statement. The Middle East is composed of many diverse countries with different beliefs and opinions." It's not racist, Vanessa. We're disliked by the majority of Muslims in every Arab country. Do a search for polls of Arabs and their views of the US. We are not liked. The Koran says that infidels (which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists and everyone other than Muslims) should die. There's no sugar-coating it; that's the way it is, and that's what many in the ME believe, despite the fact that we're in the 21st century. We're in the 21st century, but many of them are not. Look at polls out of Egypt (a modernized Arab country). Over 75% and even over 80% polled still favor stoning women for adultery, cutting off the hands of thieves, getting rid of Israel, and some not-so-nice thoughts about the US. Ah, but what the hell. We're not going to change each others' minds, so why bother? Are you having a good time? That's important, believe me. It's no fun getting old. ;)
Now, her final reply (including telling me not to post any more "racist" comments on her Facebook page. Hmm. I'm a "racist"?
That's just the thing: we didn't know. We need to know. Our government has been tragically uninformed about the Middle East. That's one of the reasons for our failures in the region. The US can't just pump weapons into a region it knows little about. That is one of the main reasons for anti-American sentiment in the region. As for Libya, we do objectively know that a horrible dictator was very close to slaughtering thousands, and we were able to help. Those rebels were begging for the US' help, they want democracy and they are friendly to America. Helping the cause of democracy is probably the best way to spread goodwill toward America, besides the humanitarian issue, which should be our first priority, IMHO. (Of course, there's the uncomfortable issue of why we don't help Bahrain, but that's another issue.) As for the racism. To say "they" hate "us" is racist, first of all. "They," meaning Muslims and Arabs, are a part of America. I don't care to be lumped into an "us" that excludes a "them," being a racial group, religion or anything else. Second, to speak of one racial group as a monolith, with only one way of thinking, is patently racist. News flash: Arabs are individual people with their own thoughts. It's just like how you and I are both white Americans and we don't agree on politics. And it's especially ludicrous in this situation, because you're grouping together cultures as disparate as say, Palestine and Turkey. Furthermore, the Middle East includes many ethnic groups besides Arabs-- Persians, for example. To say that parts of the Middle East are not living in the 21st century shows incredible ignorance and insensitivity. Just because another culture's values are different than yours does not mean that they are inferior. Do you mock the Amish for their lifestyle choices? I don't agree with stoning etc. but that doesn't mean that the entire culture has not advanced in centuries. I am well aware of low approval ratings for America in the Middle East, but it is not appropriate to reference this information in such a hurtful way. I am going to ask you to please not post any more racist comments on my page. Also, maybe you could consider the main reason for the low approval ratings: America backs pretty much any regime in the region, no matter how brutal, as long as it favors us. And no, I don't particularly care for the tone of this debate. It would be different if we knew one another well, but we don't.
You can pick your friends, but not your family.
-
Our government has been tragically uninformed about the Middle East. That's one of the reasons for our failures in the region. The US can't just pump weapons into a region it knows little about. That is one of the main reasons for anti-American sentiment in the region.
Full break. This is a thoughtful statement. It misses the time spent trying to discern the middle east and that all people must act without complete knowledge, but this is good and acknowledges the dangers of getting involved even when our interests are involved.
And then the very next statement:
As for Libya, we do objectively know that a horrible dictator was very close to slaughtering thousands, and we were able to help. Those rebels were begging for the US' help, they want democracy and they are friendly to America. Helping the cause of democracy is probably the best way to spread goodwill toward America, besides the humanitarian issue, which should be our first priority, IMHO.
She completely ignores everything she just said and claims she knows everything to know about Qaddafi and the rebels. Wow. I'm sure she is unable to see it, too.
-
I made the mistake of starting a Facebook page a few years ago. I never posted on mine but it became a hang-out for people I don't know and, frankly, would prefer not to. I am about to "deactivate" mine (Facebook pages are immortal as vampires, can't be killed, you know). In my case I got tired of hearing about how my youngest relatives and their pals couldn't wait for happy hour, just got a new cat, or loved Wheat Thins. Not heavy politics but just as telling. But I think it all fits together...
-
Not to make light of your exchange... It's depressing, even heart-breaking really. They say youth is wasted on the young, so, apparently, is education. The faux idealism of so many still in the thrall of "higher education" has ceased to become disenchanting and has become, frankly, infuriating. There is too much at stake now to tolerate the unction and the arrogance of people who think they know what they really don't. She's right about taboos but wrong about which taboos can't be discussed in America. Who really runs American and for whom is one of those taboos. I know a lot of young people think they're "beyond" all that squabbling we older folks have called our lives, but time will tell how well they manage to deal with what lies ahead.
-
Yeah, I like this line: "As for Libya, we do objectively know that a horrible dictator was very close to slaughtering thousands, and we were able to help."
We knew even more objectively that a dictator in Iraq had already killed hundreds of thousands of innocents there, but my guess is that she doesn't think that we should have "helped".
Of course, she couldn't really bring herself to criticize Che Guevarra, but instead chose to rank him with (or lower) than bin Laden. She didn't say much in reply about China and the USSR, either. I think it's the right-wing dictators she has a problem with.
-
The divide is so deep, so wide. I'll be surprised if it's not unbridgeable. (I mean the country's.)
-
Uncle Dick, my issue in this case was not with the US propping up brutal dictators, but the fact that this is never mentioned in media or in textbooks, even in university courses about Latin American politics. It's simply not mentioned. So anyone who does mention it risks sounding like a conspiracy theorist. How many college educated people do you think even know about it? But to the issue of whether it was right for the US to back them, yes, it's true that this happened within the context of the Cold War. Still, I don't believe ends justify means. While staving off one brutal dictator, you create the next generation of terrorists and engender more hatred of America around the world.
Sounds like a common problem in most people in their 20's.
Frustration with the status-quo in governance, but an incomplete perspective on the source of the problem. She places the blame on the right and sees the left as the bastion of freedom from oppression.
But she doesn't see the two different forms of the same oppression that is peddled by both parties.
She says, above:
1. History is written by the winners.
2. The winners hide their own perceived immoralities.
3. One of those immoralities is the creation of banana republic despots.
4. Government should stay out of that business. And probably many others.
That sounds.... Libertarian.
Not Democrat.
I think she's confused. And she'll get un-confused as she researches more.
-
I think she's confused. And she'll get un-confused as she researches more.
Based on what experience do you think this will occur? I've met PLENTY of people who never get beyond this shallow form of reasoning.
-
They say youth is wasted on the young, so, apparently, is education.
Meh, most are not getting educated, they are getting credentialed.
For those at the top end, they are getting the Establishment Seal of Approval (Ivy League Degree). For those on the bottom, they are getting A Credential of Minimum Literacy and Diligence because employers can no longer give intelligence tests and lawsuits have made references near worthless.
-
Also, glad to know I am not the only one related to nitwits.
-
Also, glad to know I am not the only one related to nitwits.
My cousin (who I like and have fun with) wants to be a sociologist. And yes, he fits the caricature, politically, of a sociologist perfectly.
Also, I have nearly 100 cousins (I'm guessing, might be as few as 70 without including spouses). I'm sure a lot of them are nitwits, but, fortunately, I only know a few of them.
-
Most of them know better than to debate with me. =D
And I don't really bother to debate. Minds are rarely changed. It's just better to defeat them politically.
Spoken as a Libertarian who votes Republican out of pragmatism. Because the liberties the political Right supports leave me more prepared to deal with whatever comes next, than the ones the Left likes to recognize.
You can fight a revolution with money and guns. Not so much with gay marriage and abortion.
-
Meh, most are not getting educated, they are getting credentialed.
For those at the top end, they are getting the Establishment Seal of Approval (Ivy League Degree). For those on the bottom, they are getting A Credential of Minimum Literacy and Diligence because employers can no longer give intelligence tests and lawsuits have made references near worthless.
I should have put education in quotes. Agree. Ain't what it used to be--if it ever was.
-
And I don't really bother to debate. Minds are rarely changed. It's just better to defeat them politically.
I can only read my relatives' drivel for so long, then I have to chime in. Even though it doesn't change minds, other relatives of mine and friends of theirs who are more conservative will post an "atta boy" that maybe galls my liberal relatives a bit.
You'll notice that, when she got frustrated, she took the "racist" route to end the discussion. Classic.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."--Reagan
-
Monkeyleg; I think your relative ought to read something by Richard Miniter. He seems to have managed a pretty decent perspective on A'stan. Including dispelling some myths about Bin Laden.
Who was not a fighter. At best, a financier.
He was not created by the CIA (a common meme among leftists). Miniter has many CIA associates from the 1980s-90s, none of whom knew who OBL was at the time.
And so on ....
It seems "Vanessa" reads a lot of books that "ignore" what "American death squads" were doing in Central and South America .... which were also ignoring what the Soviet KGB and other communist intelligence/military agencies were doing there .... [tinfoil]
~~As well as the whole Cold War stuff, that is. I lived through that. I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Yeah that was fun. My father (ex navy) had a very level-head; I give him a lot of credit for our family remaining calm at the time.
-
I applaud you for trying.
I tend to stay mute on the topic in real life, and have been known to unfriend people who go on liberal rants.
-
I just hide them. =)
Same as I do with all my annoying teenaged and early twenty-something cousins.
-
I just hide them. =)
Same here. I have three family members on FB who actually bought into the May 21st apocalypse prediction. Their admonitions got tiresome.
-
To say that parts of the Middle East are not living in the 21st century shows incredible ignorance and insensitivity. Just because another culture's values are different than yours does not mean that they are inferior.
So in your eyes, the Saudi Arabian bans on women driving cars, going out by themselves unless swaddled in a chadoor, and holding them responsible for their own rape unless four male witnesses take her side does NOT exemplify a primitive or inferior culture?
And in Iran, chopping off the hands of petty thieves, stoning women for adultery, and killing anyone who chooses to leave Islam is perfectly acceptable to you, and in no sense reflects an inferior set of values?
Really?
-
So in your eyes, the Saudi Arabian bans on women driving cars, going out by themselves unless swaddled in a chadoor, and holding them responsible for their own rape unless four male witnesses take her side does NOT exemplify a primitive or inferior culture?
And in Iran, chopping off the hands of petty thieves, stoning women for adultery, and killing anyone who chooses to leave Islam is perfectly acceptable to you, and in no sense reflects an inferior set of values?
Really?
We must be tolerant of other cultures, and understanding of people's vulnerabilities. At least that's what the feminists say about Islamic culture, and Bill Clinton's serial adultery.
-
One of the benefits of pushing 70 is that I have a first hand experience of the modern world; post WWI. I say WWI because when I became sentient, and began to be aware of my surroundings, at maybe age 10 or so, WWI's end was only 32 years in the past, a shorter time than we are from VietNam as a comparison. Schools taught American exceptionalism for the most part and because of that, we were the bastion of freedom in the world. On balance, we have been much more noble as a people and a nation than not, and we stand head and shoulders above the rest of the world in that regard, with few exceptions.
Having said that:
Your niece's worldly knowledge comes from being educated, probably, in a public school or a liberal private school where they have been trained up by left wing radicals from the 60's and 70's and their protege's. Her church, if she attends one, probably teaches liberal views that on the surface appears good, but upon closer scrutiny is not biblical except as it has been twisted much the same as leftists twist the Constitution. Her parents and the people she has been surrounded by probably don't have a world vision much better than her own. She has no idea of the reality of the last nearly 100 years except through the prism of the aforementioned "educators" and peers.
Unfortunately, you'll never get through to her or your other left wing family members because you don't have any credibility with them. You represent what their whole life experience, education wise, has taught them to disparage. The only way they change is when they go a bit further in life they get struck smack dab in the face with reality and they wake up. It's possible. But sometimes they never change, only get more dogmatic and continue to be like your earlier posting of Ronald Reagan's quote.
By the way, my dad and I were sitting in the living room, him on the couch, me on the floor leaning against the couch and watched TV as the Cuban Missile Crisis began to unfold...
-
Most of us have had too many of these frustrating encounters. A number of people I know have had it with encouraging "debates" that will never really be debates, that lead nowhere but silence and hardened positions. We come from places that are too existentially divergent, from irreconcilable differences. If we're realistic we'll acknowledge that the time for debate is over, that minds are made up, that lines are drawn. Let them go their way without us, if at all possible peacefully.
-
My cousin (who I like and have fun with) wants to be a sociologist. And yes, he fits the caricature, politically, of a sociologist perfectly.
Also, I have nearly 100 cousins (I'm guessing, might be as few as 70 without including spouses). I'm sure a lot of them are nitwits, but, fortunately, I only know a few of them.
Hey now. I'm a Justice major, criminology is sociology.
You just think your science is better than my science, that makes you a scientologist!
=D
-
Maybe neither one is science, ever consider that?
-
Uncle Dick, my issue in this case was not with the US propping up brutal dictators, but the fact that this is never mentioned in media or in textbooks, even in university courses about Latin American politics. It's simply not mentioned.
It was taught in the freshman-level survey course in American history, at the U of MO-St. Louis. Of course, my prof was a head-case from Berkeley that made sure to mention as much negative about the U.S. as she possibly could...
Monkeyleg; I think your relative ought to read something by Richard Miniter. He seems to have managed a pretty decent perspective on A'stan. Including dispelling some myths about Bin Laden.
Who was not a fighter. At best, a financier.
He was not created by the CIA (a common meme among leftists). Miniter has many CIA associates from the 1980s-90s, none of whom knew who OBL was at the time.
And so on ....
That fits with what I've read about OBL. There seems to be a telephone game that goes like this: "America aided the anti-Soviet Muj," "America aided the anti-Soviet Muj, which OBL also sponsored," "America ran the whole anti-Soviet Muj operation and recruited and paid OBL and pretty much founded al-Qaeda."
-
There are two continuums of American history. One is the one most people live in, working, saving, investing, creating, paying taxes, etc. The second is the one inhabited by our State Dept., the CIA, and various entities, both group and individual, so "black" we can only detect them by a moral spectrometer. Is it any wonder that American history sounds like theater of the absurd? If this sounds a bit like The Matrix, it's because...well, you're not supposed to know. Just turn on American Idol and enjoy.
-
Unfortunately, you'll never get through to her or your other left wing family members because you don't have any credibility with them. You represent what their whole life experience, education wise, has taught them to disparage. The only way they change is when they go a bit further in life they get struck smack dab in the face with reality and they wake up. It's possible. But sometimes they never change, only get more dogmatic and continue to be like your earlier posting of Ronald Reagan's quote.
That's a very insightful comment.
-
My eyes glazed over about halfway through due to the small font and my short attention sp... LOOK, A SQUIRREL!!! -- where was I? Oh yeah, you're a racist.
-
Folks, in this exchange of messages, we're seeing an American tragedy unfolding. No small thing here. This alienation of American generations is going to be the death knell of America. It is going to end very badly. People we care about are going to get hurt. I hope to God we all wake up.
-
Folks, in this exchange of messages, we're seeing an American tragedy unfolding. No small thing here. This alienation of American generations is going to be the death knell of America. It is going to end very badly. People we care about are going to get hurt. I hope to God we all wake up.
Maybe just safe passage corridors like there were for West Berlin between the coasts and urban enclaves is a more realistic hope...
-
Maybe neither one is science, ever consider that?
See? Scientologism is rampant. You with your "objective facts" and "physical properties" and all.
=D
-
Don't worry, you are helping to support several faculty members and their entitled children. It's a good thing you're doing. =D
If you use some of that cool, tactical crime gear--Dexter-type stuff--I'll take it all back. :lol:
-
Racist, she keeps using that word, I do not think it means what she think it means.
-
"Racist" is just a mental glottal stop, meaning I can stop thinking now, this isn't going right.
-
Racist, she keeps using that word, I do not think it means what she think it means.
It sure doesn't mean what it did back in the 1960's, when racism was in your face in many places in the north as well as the south. It's still around, alive and kicking everywhere in the world, not just here.
For liberals, though, it's become a way of ending the argument when all else fails. Use the "racism" card, and nothing the other party says is valid after that point, because he is, after all, a racist.
When you can point to parts of the Koran that deal very harshly with infidels, or look at polling by Zogby and others in the middle east that address attitudes toward the US, there's nothing "racist" about saying that many in the Middle East hate us and always will.
-
For liberals, though, it's become a way of ending the argument when all else fails. Use the "racism" card, and nothing the other party says is valid after that point, because he is, after all, a racist.
Racist!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCMKPtNEAto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCMKPtNEAto)
-
That about describes it, ramis. :D
-
That about describes it, ramis. :D
neo-confederate...
-
Do you know how she found out all his terrible stuff that they do not teach in school? I suspect it was "mentioned" in class.