Many of us have trouble grasping the obvious truth that the world is painted in gray by consistently perceiving it in black and white. Bloggers are notorious for superimposing their graffiti in bold black and white defacing gray intentions. Many bloggers like to think of themselves as free thinkers, yet unwittingly echo pundits and broadcasters infamous for their lopsided ideologies. No doubt the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have some truth in their respective vitriol, but it is difficult for followers of her to refrain from worshiping her as a their goddess as it is equally for disciples of Moore not to see the halo above his cap; for both are perceived as infallible, obviating sound analysis of these media celebrities and dismissing their votive passion for the melodramatic.
When a blogger unleashes, “conservatives are dim-witted,” is he expostulating all lack intelligent design, or does he mean a or some are? Further, does he imply “dim-witted” on all issues, some or just one? Apparently the pejorative should be avoided altogether or at least expounded on, such as attributing to the right’s inability to think through the ramifications of given issues, leaving the reader unconvinced. “Liberals claim the sole right to the keys of enlightenment,” is the blogger expostulating all liberals preempt conservatives from seeing the light of day, or just some or one on all or in the context of a single issue? Far better to avoid this inverse pejorative without an all embracing explanation. In all fairness, we bloggers are all vulnerable to prefixed values that bias discourse, but the minimal essential should be tempered by open-mindedness.
For instance, when I say staying the course in Iraq is a bad idea, it exposes me to criticism that I think the war itself is a bad idea, which is a valid reaction because, or in spite of, my not bothering to reference older blogs of mine explaining the war was a hoax: to wit, since the war was already in place by Saddam’s violation of the truce signed twelve years earlier, and that Clinton failed by only occasional strategic bombing, and had he pursued the same aggressive strategy as in Kosovo, regime change might have materialized by the populace itself or at least launched a civil war with teeth — such as Gen. Zinni’s Desert Fox strategy — as opposed to the Shia revolt under the first Bush. Even if this scenario did not materialize, at least the regime would have been dramatically weakened and thus ward off the misinformation that led to Bush W’s decision.
The reason I postulate staying the course is wrong-headed is that it will not work. If General Patton had had his way we would still be fighting a war on the way to Moscow. Eisenhower, aware of Napoleon history, sensed that his command had had enough, and that even the greatest generation at home, had enough of Europe and turned to the more immediate cause of the war, Japan. So, too, with Iraq, the command knows full well that the troops there have had their fill of the quagmire, and staying the course means more of the same without the full backing of the administration, Patton style, and would just as soon saddle up and defend only the borders until the Iraqis themselves achieved stabilization. In addition, with the troops relatively out of harm’s way, this would permit our nation to increase resources for homeland security and for coordinating with other countries against the real culprits.
As I said we all come to this electronic sphere with our pre-set values, but at least we should try to explain our positions.
Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 12, 2005.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com