Monday, 30 May 2005
|1429 - I knew he was a frigging leftist America-hater...|
but bluerain proved it, in comments to an entry in youngvanwinkle's LJ. The latter posted an entry pointing out that our servicemen are worthy of our gratitude on this Memorial Day, a sentiment with which I agree - and the former proceeded to slam the very idea.
Of course, this surprises me not in the slightest, ever since he ran me off the Ozy & Millie mailing list for daring to disagree with his political opinions that he kept bringing up in the strip, and for saying that the war in Iraq would be off limits because he wouldn't comment on it in the strip - and then doing so, and refusing to allow other opinions. He's nothing more than a hypocritical leftist America-hater. I used to enjoy O&M, but I can't even look at it any more. (For those of you reading this who are registered to vote in the Ursa Major awards, I would ask that you vote for anything but O&M in the comic strip category. Don't reward him for his blatant hypocrisy.) (Of course, those who claim to blast hypocrisy when the Right engages in it will rush to his defense, since it's acceptable from the Left.)
current mood: shocked
current music: Amboy Dukes - Journey to the Center / Mind
Oh, wow. I had stopped reading his LJ because of the views, but to see this is just... amazing.
You know, my parents just left after stopping by for a quick visit. My father carries scars - the one in his shoulder where the bullet went in and the one that wraps around his side where the surgeons cut him open to get to it. He served this country even before it was really HIS country - he wasn't naturalized until after I was born two years later. He was neither forced into service because of economics nor was he deluded. He served and he served well, as have many of my other family members in various conflicts since then.
It really ticks me off when someone who wouldn't know the meaning of honor and duty rambles on like that - the freedom he has to say such things comes from the sacrifices of our military men and women through the years. Yet he seems to neither acknowledge nor appreciate that fact.
So does him being leftist make it worse or better that he's an america-hater? Or doesn't it actually matter? If it doesn't actually matter, why do you put it? Or do you intend to say that there are no rightist america-haters, in which case I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
On the other hand, many people do join the military for the reasons he mentioned, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. It is after all the way of things, especially in America. No matter: by the end of Basic they know why they're really there, and when they fight and possibly die for their country, that's what they're really doing: fighting and dying for their country.
(Whether their country is sending them to fight and die for the right things is another matter entirely.)
Unfortunately, he doesn't accept your (and my) belief that those folks really are fighting and dying for their country. That's what pissed me off.
There are leftists that do not hate America. There are many that do. His statements place him in that latter camp. He hates America because it does not hew to the leftist line as he devoutly believes it should. There are undoubtedly rightist America-haters, but they do not infest the media and the bastions of popular entertainment the way the leftist ones do.
I'd say all those folks who insist on trying to turn the US into a religious state hate america, or rather the concept of freedom that america was founded on. They seem to be everywhere these days.
I'm not so sure I buy that argument. It's just as likely they believe that America was really founded as a Christian state, and that it should return to being one. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not (and, as you're probably aware, I don't), they do have the right to hold them. If they honestly believe that way, then they only hate America as it has become, not as it should be.
This is different from the Left because the latter believe that America as originally constituted can do no right, and so should be overthrown and replaced by something else.
I disagree with both, and oppose both; I do not, however, ascribe malice to anyone who's acting on honestly held religious beliefs, for to do so would be to deny their right to hold their religion.
I do not, however, ascribe malice to anyone who's acting on honestly held religious beliefs
Including Al Qaeda?
I'm not just being facetious. I *do* ascribe malice to cryptofascist Holocaust-deniers like Pat Buchanan, and the fact that he has a legal right to believe as he does does not change the moral reprehensibility of his beliefs, and I don't see those of his ilk as qualitatively different from the Islamic fundamentalists.
I'm not so sure I buy that argument. It's just as likely they believe that America was really founded as a Christian state, and that it should return to being one.
believes that America was founded as a nation that didn't meddle in the affairs of others, and should be returned to that state. He may express it in some controversial ways, but I don't believe it makes him an "America-hater", a label you're so eager to throw on people because of how easy it makes it for you to draw a line and try to put everyone but
the person you're discussing on your side. That's the lazy way of making your point; can't you do better?
[info]rain_luong believes that America was founded as a nation that didn't meddle in the affairs of others
In which case, he's just as mistaken as those who believe it was founded as a Christian state.
Do you really believe that the United States was originally founded with the motive of building an empire? In fact, the country was originally founded as a confederacy on the principle that not even the individual states should have the power to tell another state what to do. (That was thrown out and a new government formed after they discovered the hard way how impractical a confederacy is in a time of crisis.) Sure, we've now gotten to the point that we have both the power and the desire to tell others what to do with themselves, but that's not where this nation started from, as much as people like to forget.
Do you really believe that the United States was originally founded with the motive of building an empire
Wow. You really have a propensity for going for the strawman right off the bat, don't you?
"The United States was not founded as a nation that didn't meddle in the affairs of others" doesn't even *approach* being the logical equivalent of "The United States was originally founded with the motive of building an empire. So why the transparent pretense of saying that's what I said?
Sure, we've now gotten to the point that we have both the power and the desire to tell others what to do with themselves, but that's not where this nation started from
Except the Indians, right? Or don't the Indian nations count? Mexico? Spain? France? At what point *weren't* we meddling with the affairs of other nations?
It's just as likely they believe that America was really founded as a Christian state
Well, that's why we have the first amendment: the drafting of our founding documents may have been informed by Christian values in some ways, perhaps, but that's not nearly the same as saying that it's a Christian state, especially with the specifically areligious stuff in there.
Thing that bugs me about that the most is his unquestioned assumption that people join the military because they're poor and ignorant and don't have any options.
'cause it's inaccurate. The educational level of our military is rather high, incredibly so when considered in a historical context. Over 80% of enlistees have high school diplomas or GEDs, and many of the rest have trade school diplomas. More than 50% of warrant officers have college educations, and 40% of officers hold advanced degrees.
The condescension that drips from his posts is quite unwarranted. They don't let dumb people maintain helicopters, repair tanks, or anything of that sort. For even the "grunt work" that's done in a modern military, you need to be pretty educated. Even the infantry, historically not the most intellectually demanding role, is different now. The individual infantryman needs to be able to cope with a wealth of information bombarding him from a variety of sources and reach rapid conclusions, and that demands more than just a modicum of intelligence.
The civilians I know have a considerably higher per capita stupidity than the soldiers I know.
I really wish I had the ability to just call someone a bunch of names and then immediately dismiss their viewpoint as unimportant.
Normally I just do the second part by itself.