Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Andrea Stone, writing for USA Today -11-12-2004 - “Thousands of grieving Palestinians poured into rubble-strewn streets Thursday as the wail of prayers mingled with gunfire and angry chants of revenge to mark the death of Yasser Arafat. . . .
What line of reasoning demands “revenge” for the natural death of a bitter, vicious old terrorist who starved his own people and diverted billions meant for their well-being for himself and family members; who didn’t have the courage, however insane, of the supporters he sent out to destroy themselves in order to kill others? Revenge against whom? Life? In this world, unlike the miserable people whose lives he controlled, he got off easy.
The same issue reports Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the votes [against gay marriage] left gays “troubled and fearful. It’s difficult when people take hostile steps to change the constitution to take away rights we never even had.”
What a strange concept that the act of voting is hostile! What does that make the imposing of an unenumerated right by judicial fiat? What an interesting idea that rights not granted can be taken way!
David Nelson, writing a letter to the editor in that issue, says that “The [Democrat] party needs to lure back Christians and similar groups concerned about the continuing decline of American society.”
Perhaps if the Democrats worked hard to win back the groups they alienated, they wouldn’t have to lure them back. Winning them back might seem more sincere.
Leora Dowling, a university professor in Vermont, told ABC news reporter Dean Schabner that she and her husband are contemplating moving to Italy. “I don’t understand when in our nation’s history being an intellectual, having a questioning, curious mind. . .became bad,” she said. “They’d [evangelicals] rather vote for fetuses and against gays, rather than voting against war, with thousands dead, against guns, which we know kill people.
Professor Dowling, a self-described intellectual with the open mind, knows conclusively that all evangelicals vote against gays, not against gay marriage. They all vote for war, regardless of the reason or cause. And they all vote mindlessly for guns. But because she is an intellectually curious and open-minded person, she knows they’re wrong and she’s right, even when her positions are disproved in academic studies and by empirical evidence. Her intellectual curiosity apparently isn’t deep enough to even question whether all those voters are in fact evangelicals. If my child were her student, I would demand my tuition be returned before she leaves the country.
Canadian commentator Thane Burnett notes in the Ottawa Sun that the idea of unhappy Americans emigrating to Canada has triggered some amusement by its citizens. “As Canadians, you’ll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of American life, while bad-mouthing their way of life.”
I really don’t want to dissuade them from moving away, but how is that different from what they do here as Americans?
What line of reasoning demands “revenge” for the natural death of a bitter, vicious old terrorist who starved his own people and diverted billions meant for their well-being for himself and family members; who didn’t have the courage, however insane, of the supporters he sent out to destroy themselves in order to kill others? Revenge against whom? Life? In this world, unlike the miserable people whose lives he controlled, he got off easy.
The same issue reports Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the votes [against gay marriage] left gays “troubled and fearful. It’s difficult when people take hostile steps to change the constitution to take away rights we never even had.”
What a strange concept that the act of voting is hostile! What does that make the imposing of an unenumerated right by judicial fiat? What an interesting idea that rights not granted can be taken way!
David Nelson, writing a letter to the editor in that issue, says that “The [Democrat] party needs to lure back Christians and similar groups concerned about the continuing decline of American society.”
Perhaps if the Democrats worked hard to win back the groups they alienated, they wouldn’t have to lure them back. Winning them back might seem more sincere.
Leora Dowling, a university professor in Vermont, told ABC news reporter Dean Schabner that she and her husband are contemplating moving to Italy. “I don’t understand when in our nation’s history being an intellectual, having a questioning, curious mind. . .became bad,” she said. “They’d [evangelicals] rather vote for fetuses and against gays, rather than voting against war, with thousands dead, against guns, which we know kill people.
Professor Dowling, a self-described intellectual with the open mind, knows conclusively that all evangelicals vote against gays, not against gay marriage. They all vote for war, regardless of the reason or cause. And they all vote mindlessly for guns. But because she is an intellectually curious and open-minded person, she knows they’re wrong and she’s right, even when her positions are disproved in academic studies and by empirical evidence. Her intellectual curiosity apparently isn’t deep enough to even question whether all those voters are in fact evangelicals. If my child were her student, I would demand my tuition be returned before she leaves the country.
Canadian commentator Thane Burnett notes in the Ottawa Sun that the idea of unhappy Americans emigrating to Canada has triggered some amusement by its citizens. “As Canadians, you’ll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of American life, while bad-mouthing their way of life.”
I really don’t want to dissuade them from moving away, but how is that different from what they do here as Americans?
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTIONS, I watched Chris Matthews discuss the returns with some New York Leftie reporter or editor who looked like she was a Halloween costume leftover and had a Dutch name that sounded something like Toofen Evil. Whatever. . . .
But the questions raised, and the discussion of what actually occurred or didn’t occur, got me to thinking. Chris was referring to the standard Red/Blue chart depicting the political spoils of the election, while wondering why the press missed what was going on in the so-called Red states. He speculated that it might be because all the major press reporters and headquarters are located in the so-called Blue states. Toofen Evil felt that the “blue” states were home to the “Progressives” meaning, of course, the Left, where she and her colleagues lived, worked, played, and whatever else they do.
I’m confused!
I thought progress was when the citizens of a nation declared their independence from an unelected ruler and set up a form of limited government that respected individual rights. I thought that progress was when the United States wrote the world’s first Constitution and Bill of Rights, and put it to the vote of its citizens for adoption. I thought that progress was when we alone as a nation fought a bitter Civil War to end slavery, preserve the union and advance the belief that all men are created equal. I thought that progress was when our citizens had the freedom to tinker and build and create the wonders of electrical power and aviation and personal computers for all mankind without government support, intervention, or perhaps suppression. But I guess I’m wrong.
It irks me no end when I hear the Left refer to itself as “Progressive.” It’s one of those terms that has been co-opted like “gay.” The only “progressive” thing about the Left is a progressive diminution of my rights as an individual The Left has always stood for more centralized government, expanding government, more regulation, more laws. All of this comes at the expense of individual freedom. That kind of progress I can do without.
But I’m still confused!
In the military, Red and Blue were used to identify opposing forces in wargaming exercises. Blue forces were the allied defenders of freedom (us), and Red forces were the aggressors intent on overrunning and crushing freedom-loving people and nations (them). It was derived from the terminology of the Cold War and has continued in practice today. The Reds were the Soviet forces and their allies, the forces of totalitarianism and the supremacy of the state over the individual.
Red, the univerally recognized color of the Left. The standard of socialist revolution worldwide. Even the standard of National Socialism (Nazi), the socialism that the Left pretends is something else, was red. Blue, the forces arrayed to oppose the Marxist/Leninist or Fascist ideologies from being imposed on us and our allies, and to preserve the freedoms and rights for which we fought and sacrificed.
Even in our own early history, the Redcoats were the forces of tyranny. Our citizen soldiers wore Blue.
So the map, to my mind, should be just the opposite. “Red” states should be the supporters of the Left, and “blue” states should be supporters of freedom. The left wing fringes of our country in the heavily populated Northeast, Rust Belt Great Lakes states and Pacific West, should be colored red to reflect the true left-wing socialist nature of the majority of the voters who reside there.The huge central portion of the United States should be colored blue.
Right? Wrong, I’m told!
The American elite liberal press decided that the only people who would vote for George W. Bush were. . . Rednecks. Uneducated, southern, bigoted, homophobic, gun toting, Bible spouting, rural.
The liberal press lived among the educated, progressive, secular, enlightened, urbane, sophisticated elite. Only they could save the country from people who believed in a Creator from whence their Rights came, instead of the generosity and largesse of Big Government.
So the states whose electoral votes went to the man the Left “misunderestimated” were declared Red, and the states whose electoral votes went to their “progressive” candidate were declared Blue.
Rednecks? Bluebloods? Did the press consider the possibility of association with aristocracy or dynasty when they co-opted the color blue to represent their ideology?
The trouble is (and Chris fell into this trap of the media’s making) that the blue and red colors reflect the winner-take-all nature of the electoral college construction. The electoral college was designed to ensure that the States retained power in choosing the executive, and that populous regions couldn't overwhelm the rest of the nation. For those who need to be reminded, our country is a Republic. It doesn’t really reflect the demographics of these regions of the nation. But Chris’s question would imply that the country is sharply divided into “blue” and “red.”
Unfortunately, at least for Chris and the Toofen Evil “progressives” it got worse. The national breakdown by county published in the election analysis edition of Newsweek shows far more red than blue. It must have been really demoralizing to see all those “blue” states showing more Red Counties than Blue! No wonder there are so many on the Left reportedly seeking counseling for post-election trauma!
But just when I thought I had it figured out, that spokesperson of intellectuals everywhere, Michael Moore, stepped in to clarify the situation. He portrayed a red-and-blue map whereby the “blue” states aligned themselves with the “progressive” nation of Canada, and left the “red” states to stew for themselves in “Jesusland.” I guess he flunked geography before he dropped out of college.
If the US and Canada were to realign themselves into two nations along geopolitical lines, the map would likely be far different than the one he displayed. The US left coast and British Columbia might align, but the oil, mining, timber, farming and ranching interests of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, and Yukon would more likely align with their “red” counterparts south of the current border. And while Ontario might join with the “blue” states that it borders, there’s a good chance that Quebec will declare itself independent of both nations and perhaps take Newfoundland and Labrador with it. That leaves the “blue” New England states’ neighbors, the Maritimes, improvished by Canada’s leftist central government, which has regulated that region’s economy into stagnation.
Red and Blue, Blue and Red. In fact, it’s neither. It’s varying shades. Not one single state had 100% of its popular vote going to either candidate. Not New York, not California, not Wyoming, not South Dakota. Even the most rabid voters didn’t exceed 75% of any state’s population, left or right. They should be somewhere in between the extremes of black and white. They should be grey, more grey, or less grey.
That would be more graphic to those of us who aren’t sophisticated enough to understand political concepts like the French word “nuance” (the art of communicating what you mean by not saying it) like our more urbane, educated, blue brothers and sisters. But that wouldn’t look good on color TV.
I suppose that wouldn’t be progressive.
But the questions raised, and the discussion of what actually occurred or didn’t occur, got me to thinking. Chris was referring to the standard Red/Blue chart depicting the political spoils of the election, while wondering why the press missed what was going on in the so-called Red states. He speculated that it might be because all the major press reporters and headquarters are located in the so-called Blue states. Toofen Evil felt that the “blue” states were home to the “Progressives” meaning, of course, the Left, where she and her colleagues lived, worked, played, and whatever else they do.
I’m confused!
I thought progress was when the citizens of a nation declared their independence from an unelected ruler and set up a form of limited government that respected individual rights. I thought that progress was when the United States wrote the world’s first Constitution and Bill of Rights, and put it to the vote of its citizens for adoption. I thought that progress was when we alone as a nation fought a bitter Civil War to end slavery, preserve the union and advance the belief that all men are created equal. I thought that progress was when our citizens had the freedom to tinker and build and create the wonders of electrical power and aviation and personal computers for all mankind without government support, intervention, or perhaps suppression. But I guess I’m wrong.
It irks me no end when I hear the Left refer to itself as “Progressive.” It’s one of those terms that has been co-opted like “gay.” The only “progressive” thing about the Left is a progressive diminution of my rights as an individual The Left has always stood for more centralized government, expanding government, more regulation, more laws. All of this comes at the expense of individual freedom. That kind of progress I can do without.
But I’m still confused!
In the military, Red and Blue were used to identify opposing forces in wargaming exercises. Blue forces were the allied defenders of freedom (us), and Red forces were the aggressors intent on overrunning and crushing freedom-loving people and nations (them). It was derived from the terminology of the Cold War and has continued in practice today. The Reds were the Soviet forces and their allies, the forces of totalitarianism and the supremacy of the state over the individual.
Red, the univerally recognized color of the Left. The standard of socialist revolution worldwide. Even the standard of National Socialism (Nazi), the socialism that the Left pretends is something else, was red. Blue, the forces arrayed to oppose the Marxist/Leninist or Fascist ideologies from being imposed on us and our allies, and to preserve the freedoms and rights for which we fought and sacrificed.
Even in our own early history, the Redcoats were the forces of tyranny. Our citizen soldiers wore Blue.
So the map, to my mind, should be just the opposite. “Red” states should be the supporters of the Left, and “blue” states should be supporters of freedom. The left wing fringes of our country in the heavily populated Northeast, Rust Belt Great Lakes states and Pacific West, should be colored red to reflect the true left-wing socialist nature of the majority of the voters who reside there.The huge central portion of the United States should be colored blue.
Right? Wrong, I’m told!
The American elite liberal press decided that the only people who would vote for George W. Bush were. . . Rednecks. Uneducated, southern, bigoted, homophobic, gun toting, Bible spouting, rural.
The liberal press lived among the educated, progressive, secular, enlightened, urbane, sophisticated elite. Only they could save the country from people who believed in a Creator from whence their Rights came, instead of the generosity and largesse of Big Government.
So the states whose electoral votes went to the man the Left “misunderestimated” were declared Red, and the states whose electoral votes went to their “progressive” candidate were declared Blue.
Rednecks? Bluebloods? Did the press consider the possibility of association with aristocracy or dynasty when they co-opted the color blue to represent their ideology?
The trouble is (and Chris fell into this trap of the media’s making) that the blue and red colors reflect the winner-take-all nature of the electoral college construction. The electoral college was designed to ensure that the States retained power in choosing the executive, and that populous regions couldn't overwhelm the rest of the nation. For those who need to be reminded, our country is a Republic. It doesn’t really reflect the demographics of these regions of the nation. But Chris’s question would imply that the country is sharply divided into “blue” and “red.”
Unfortunately, at least for Chris and the Toofen Evil “progressives” it got worse. The national breakdown by county published in the election analysis edition of Newsweek shows far more red than blue. It must have been really demoralizing to see all those “blue” states showing more Red Counties than Blue! No wonder there are so many on the Left reportedly seeking counseling for post-election trauma!
But just when I thought I had it figured out, that spokesperson of intellectuals everywhere, Michael Moore, stepped in to clarify the situation. He portrayed a red-and-blue map whereby the “blue” states aligned themselves with the “progressive” nation of Canada, and left the “red” states to stew for themselves in “Jesusland.” I guess he flunked geography before he dropped out of college.
If the US and Canada were to realign themselves into two nations along geopolitical lines, the map would likely be far different than the one he displayed. The US left coast and British Columbia might align, but the oil, mining, timber, farming and ranching interests of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, and Yukon would more likely align with their “red” counterparts south of the current border. And while Ontario might join with the “blue” states that it borders, there’s a good chance that Quebec will declare itself independent of both nations and perhaps take Newfoundland and Labrador with it. That leaves the “blue” New England states’ neighbors, the Maritimes, improvished by Canada’s leftist central government, which has regulated that region’s economy into stagnation.
Red and Blue, Blue and Red. In fact, it’s neither. It’s varying shades. Not one single state had 100% of its popular vote going to either candidate. Not New York, not California, not Wyoming, not South Dakota. Even the most rabid voters didn’t exceed 75% of any state’s population, left or right. They should be somewhere in between the extremes of black and white. They should be grey, more grey, or less grey.
That would be more graphic to those of us who aren’t sophisticated enough to understand political concepts like the French word “nuance” (the art of communicating what you mean by not saying it) like our more urbane, educated, blue brothers and sisters. But that wouldn’t look good on color TV.
I suppose that wouldn’t be progressive.
