Constructive gadfly
Published on June 16, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

There are some people who will seldom if ever admit they were wrong. Ann Coulter surely would never apologize to the 9/11 widows; the detestable anti-war bloc that demonstrates against families burying their war heroes have no regrets. Gays will not admit they’ve gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority’s sanctity of marriage, rather than to limit their cause to simply equal rights. Liberals refer to Conservatives as fascists while communist is the Conservative call-word for Liberals. George W. true to form of any president would never announce that Iraq was a big mistake. Few Democrats admit the wrong of their vote to go to war. A timetable is construed as "cut and run" while "stay the course" is seen as pure folly. 

Egos driven emotionally by unenlightened presuppositions rarely see the path to self destruction.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: June 16, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 16, 2006
Sadly, I think there'd be more public regret if there were less taking advantage of humility. There's a jurist-like aptitude on the part of history, the press, politicians, anyone to jot down any admission of guilt and then beat people about the head and shoulders with it as often as possible.

If there were reconciliation, or at least humble acknowledgement from the other side, I think you'd see more of what you long to see. So long as the average reaction is: "SEE, I TOLD YOU!! NOW HERE IT AGAIN IN THE VILLAIN'S OWN WORDS!!!" you won't see it very often at all.
on Jun 16, 2006
Sad indeed as Socrates and Jesus can testify. I was, however, gratified that the press and Dems did not take Bush to task when he regretted "bring it on" and "dead or alive" coupled with his admission of not having at the time "sophistication."
on Jun 16, 2006
the detestable anti-war bloc that demonstrates against families burying their war heroes have no regrets


the group to which you refer is definitely detestable. characterizing reverend fred phelps and his approximately 100-member westboro baptist church congregation (80 to 90 of whom are related to each other)as an 'anti-war bloc' or anything BUT a cult ruled by a homophobic racist is grossly inaccurate and an insult to those who oppose the war in iraq and/or all wars.
on Jun 16, 2006
I used "bloc" only to differentiate it [I didn't know it was a cult] from honorable anti-war proponents of which I include myself.
on Jun 16, 2006
The opposite to that also is false humility.  When one is so threatened by the fear of being prideful that they appologize for everything.  A well earned appology, after an admission of error, is something that carries a lot of weight (but as Baker indicated, hard to keep in its frame of reference due to the beating over the head).  But incessant appologies for every imagined offense is tiresome and only cheapens the act itself.
on Jun 16, 2006
nice an article that spreads around the stupidity. Both sides of the aisle suck far as I am concerned, they both have no intrest but themselves.
on Jun 17, 2006
"I used 'bloc' only to differentiate it [I didn't know it was a cult] from honorable anti-war proponents of which I include myself."

Phelps' cult (the only group I know of which demonstrates at soldiers' funerals) is not anti-war; they're anti-gay. They protest soldiers' funerals with their "GOD HATES FAGS" signs because they believe that America's tolerance for gays led to God "punishing" us with 9/11, and that the "War on Terror" is an attempt to fight back against "God's justice".

Speaking of gays and intolerance thereof, how exactly is it that giving gays the right to marry treads on the sanctity of my marriage? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any explanation of how two married guys (or gals) living next door in any way damages the loving bond my wife and I have, or vows we made to each other.
on Jun 17, 2006
When we moved into our present home, the house next door was owned by a gay couple. It was sold a few years ago to a lesbian couple. Both couples have been great neighbors and my wife and I never felt our marriage or relationship was in any way threatened. The argument that people like Dobson put forth breaks down when you get beyond the ethereal concept and deal in reality.

So, I agree that formalizing gay/lesbian relationships as marriages in no way "threatens" heterosexual couples or traditional marriage. The same argument applies to polygamy, however, and to the age of consent issue, both of which are far more problematic in my view. Much tougher to reconcile laissez faire towards those questions and I admit to unease about them.
on Jun 17, 2006
To get back to your original topic, stevendedalus, I believe it's called oversimplification fueled by a voyeuristic media willing to shine the spotlight on the most shrill among us and eager for domestic conflict - stuff that sells.

Take the "stay the course" vs "cut & run" argument as an example.

Setting an unconditional timetable for withdrawal, even a soft timetable, would send several messages, depending on the recipients.

To the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who yearn for the success of the fledgling government, not to mention a peaceful future, it would say, "Oops, we broke your country. Sorry 'bout that, but we don't really have the time to help you fix it. Lotsa luck, though. We'll be thinkin' of ya." That message would, imho, do more to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment in the region than any other thing we could possibly do - the resentment would be overwhelming.

To international terrorist groups, it would say, "OK, guys. You can have your propaganda victory." If you think our being there is a good recruiting tool for them, just wait until they "win" & "drive the evil satan out of Iraq." They might then succeed in establishing a theocracy out of the political rubble, not to mention a safe haven from which to operate and further destabilize the region.

To, and on behalf of, the American public, it would say, "We no longer care what happens to the countries of the Middle East. We're weary of hearing day after day in our own media about how horrible we are as a nation." The media have been polling people to death since the war began with poll after poll showing "declining support" for the war. The polls themselves are oversimplified question sets, the responses to which are then overanalyzed and trumpeted by whoever they favor as if they were fact - I just have no faith they mean anything.

Opponents of our presence in Iraq shamelessly oversimplify "stay the course" as folly (to use your term) - as if that means we're just standing around spinning our wheels, our troops nothing more than the duck targets in a county-fair shooting gallery with the terrorists collecting giant teddy bears by the boatload.

Opponents of setting a timetable shamelessly oversimplify it as "cut & run" - I freely admit that - but the reason it resonates is that it succinctly conveys the essential truth of the matter. I could live with, and in fact favor, a conditional plan for troop reductions in Iraq. But that's what we already have de facto. That's why the calls for setting a timetable are an oversimplification and are a political play to a domestic audience.

I'm speaking now of the current reality - pre-war justification arguments are moot, just in case anyone wants to pointlessly rehash any of that.
on Jun 17, 2006
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, June 17, 2006


I'm speaking now of the current reality - pre-war justification arguments are moot, just in case anyone wants to pointlessly rehash any of that.


too often that's what it degenerates to, Where's the WMD"S, Bush lied, blah blah blah, we need to keep in mind the REALITY we are fighting for not just a way of life but for life itself.
on Jun 18, 2006
Hey steven> should I even bother responding to your articles? I have been even handed and am still ignored.
on Jun 18, 2006
endless self promotion for the stations delivering this crap as news




One of our local stations has just started a new promotion where the anchors "promise" that when they say a story is "next" it really is "next" - that's how bad it's gotten. I'm with you on being sick of the pathetic cult of local news personalities. Our newspapers & billboard companies would go broke if it weren't for the "our newsreader is better than your newsreader" wars. And thank God we have our own local news reporter live, on-the-scene at the Boise turd-rollin' championships.

Case you can't tell, I hate local TV news, even though I'm well-acquainted with one our local anchors, who happens to be a very decent guy.
on Jun 20, 2006
Speaking of gays and intolerance thereof, how exactly is it that giving gays the right to marry treads on the sanctity of my marriage? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any explanation of how two married guys (or gals) living next door in any way damages the loving bond my wife and I have, or vows we made to each other.


Good point, but then you don't seem to get uptight over private lifestyles; unfortunately too many do.
on Jun 20, 2006
"Oops, we broke your country. Sorry 'bout that, but we don't really have the time to help you fix it. Lotsa luck, though. We'll be thinkin' of ya."
True, but one could counterargue "Dammit, we got rid of your tyrant and his sons who were even worse and all the damned deck of cards!--what the hell more do you want form us?"
on Jun 20, 2006
Hey steven> should I even bother responding to your articles? I have been even handed and am still ignored.
Not ignored, simply speechless over your moderation! 
2 Pages1 2