Letters to the Editor
-
Wow,
It's all I can say after reading Barone's claptrap and Glenn's intelligent dismissal.
My favorite part of the whole debate is how fools like Barone employ one of the worst types of analytical miscues we schooled in liberal academia are disabused of within week two: monolithic thinking.
The "left" and the "right" are no more clearly defined than "gay" or "straight". One can pull any number of extreme examples of either of those polarities, but it proves nothing about the majority in between who are a complex mass of REAL PEOPLE.
I especially enjoy Barone's baffling reliance on the British Christian anti-slavery movement as an example somehow of how horrible any American would be to criticize our foreign policy. Uhhhh. Who exactly were those brave and righteous Britons fighting against but their leading countrymen who cared only for the expansion of empire? Weren't they "blaming" Britain first?
Which brings me to my final observation: people like Barone seem incapable of understanding the most basic concept of those endowed with great power, that is, that it comes with great responsibility to act in the best interests of humanity, not simply the interests of a handful of wealthy power-brokers.
I don't "blame" America when I criticize it's actions, I'm simply turning to the most powerful and therefore responsible government in the world today and asking it to act accordingly. It's like these neo-cons want all the power without any of the responsibility.
I suppose the next time a tragedy like Darfur occurs, I should "blame" Guatemala first? Or how about South Korea? Latvia perhaps?
-
re: 2 excellent points from this thread....
Jim:
You can't change other people; you can only change yourself, the way you react to others, the way you deal with others."
PD: Those who complain that we point out America's faults but ignore those of our enemies miss the point completely. We focus on America because as Americans, that's the one place where what we say might actually make a difference.
Oh brother, is there some magic word we have not uttered to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Abracadabra?
Unilateral peace is possible only by surrender. The idea that you or someone else have such persuasive powers to make the totalitarians of the world give up their power is not only arrogant, but dangerous fantasy.
Michael: Maybe a concerted effort should be made to counter the right-wing claims on "America," "Americans," etc. They clearly DON'T speak for a majority of US citizens.
PD: Can't be said oftem enough. America means all of us and there's no one on this planet who can take away MY claim to be a loyal American.
In keeping with Glenn’s point that argument by anecdote is specious…. Who exactly has taken away you claim to be an American? Nobody. The upside to this post is that I can pull it out and skewer such drivel. Do some hoisting with a handy petard. Heh.
-
Nice try, shooter242
Except neither point is really relevant, is it?
The United States ISN'T threatened with imminent invasion or destruction, and so all talk of "unilateral surrender" is at best immature if not outrightly ignorant.
As to all this talk about who is or isn't a "real" American these days, you clearly fail to appreciate how the clowns on your side of the aisle operate. But then, given you're from New Jersey (and thus, barely human in comparison to the rest of us) I shouldn't be surprised there.
Keep trying, son. You might just hit a real point worth discussing someday.
-
argument by anecdote
The examples in Update II are not really argument by anecdote, IMO.
It's something else. Malkin and Johnson are using those pictures to suggest liberals are violent/anti-American/"moonbat" thugs. Yet why are the people in the picture in any way representative of liberals? One could just as (in)correctly say that "liberals" are neo-nazis because the commenters at Stormfront are opposed to the war in Iraq. Malkin and Johnson are conflating "liberals" with a thuggish element for the purposes of demonizing liberals; this is not intentional, but a consequence of Malkin's dogmatic ideology, i.e. "liberals" hate America. She fills in the blank according to that, kinda like how creationists say that Hitler was an evolutionist.
-
Framing
Having been through a politics class in which we studied framing in the last presidential election, I see this being used constantly by everyone. In most cases it is dishonest on both sides because partial facts are taken and then used to construct a statement about groups or topics. I love what Glenn does here in taking apart these frames and backing it up with further facts. We need much more of this in the media, instead of their going ahead with these partial constructions.
In the case of the LGF pictures in update II, the frame is made that all protesters in Portland hate soldiers and the USA itself. They do this by taking these pictures of what I assume to be Anarchists and use it to paint the whole protest giving the partial picture. I am sure that the MSM would be happy to pick up on this and just run with it, making people here in the Protland area look like we are all Anarchists. We have an obligation to hold the media and anyone's feet to the fire to deconstruct these frames and set the record straight.
-
So I live in Portland...
And I happen to know, from eyewitness accounts, that the anarchists pictured on LGF were literally the only 5 people with signs that said things like that.
Out of over 10,000 protesters.
Give me a freakin' break.
-
America by Any Other Name...
As obvious as it may be, and as trite as it may seem, there are as many "Americas" as there are individuals, both citizens and non-citizens. Fortunately, there is some overlap, a common denominator. Nevertheless, there's a constant temptation to insist that one's own unique perspective should be the Greatest Common Denominator, to the point sometimes of petulantly insisting that it in fact is.
It's an effective tactic to unseat the seemingly calm certitude of one's opponents if you simply insist, against all reason, that they are simply deluded. Any truly useful public point is easily lost in such argumentation. But to care about that loss, one has to care about principle, and not about one's own pet world-view that's designed to get the personal rewards one seeks, even at the expense of truth and sincerity.
Many in the struggle to claim America for their own cause lose sight of integrity and simply don't care so long as they are getting theirs; their... whatever: wealth, power, good music, fine dining, influence, vast properties, being in the group that steers the ship (for now), etc. It can be maddening to attempt to somehow influence such insanity (entering into the disease ward even to heal can result in the healer acquiring the same illness). It's just something to keep in mind when commenting on the absurdities that abound.
To restate it differently, when dealing with individuals who simply don't care whether or not you like them, or whether or not you agree with them, or even whether their point of view conforms with principles of truth, it's easy to become insistent, to the point of loosing one's self, that they agree or see the error of their ways. To change such a "fanatic" is unlikely ever to happen, no matter how just, sincere, or truthful one tries honestly to be.