Mike's America: Trying to fit in (my words)

Mike would prefer that I keep the wordage down over at his blog. (I can appreciate his concern. I do likes to ramble...) I tried to reply to each of his points in one or two short sentences... ...and failed miserably. It's not in my nature. I always feel like I'm leaving the best part or most salient point out. So, I brought my wordy ass here. I'll give Mike a link, and he can pick & choose the points he wants to address, here or there.

Mike sez:
First, just a minor point, but you criticize Rummy for meeting Saddam with a "cheesy grin...looking like he was having such a good time with [Saddam]"

Have you blogged on the Pelosi photos of her smiling with Assad and wearing the veil?

Just looking for consistency here.
----------------------------------------
Keep in mind I'm responding to several comments on your blog, Mike. My mention of Rummy's trip was in furtherance of the conversation between Freedom Now & Art, and was meant to point out to you that Saddam was evil for a very long time before we finally acted. I asked you why you thought that was... (A question to which you did not reply, by the way...)

Were it not for the folks at your blog I was responding to, I would not bring up Rummy's trip, at all... While I thought it was a mistake for Reagan to send him, the only thing about which I disapproved as far as Rummy was concerned was the smile.

That said, I have never spoken in any forum about Pelosi's trip. (This is also the first appearance of Rummy, in any way, shape or form, on my blog.)
==================
Mike: Second, I'm assuming you attend these ANSWER events? On behalf of what group do you attend? Or what cause? If you want to give more details (considering the limitations of space) feel free.
------------------------------------
I attend peace events on behalf of promoting peace, of course. My UU fellowship has a group, and some folks in my old neighborhood started another, which meets at the local library. I have attended ANSWER events with one or the other of those groups, and I've gone to one (or maybe 2) on my own. I was ambivalent about our involvement in Afghanistan (I could appreciate both points of view), so I neither protested nor spoke in favor of our actions there. I am opposed to our actions in Iraq, as you know. I have written letters & whatnot about other conflicts (Darfur, Israel/Palestine) but never attended a demo about them.
==============================

Mike: Third: "It is not that our environmental, peace, and social justice orgs are focusing on US issues to the exclusion of others. It is that they are not focusing on the worst problems in the fields they claim to care about, wherever they may be. Have I got it, now?"

Nyet! It is because these groups are focusing on relatively minor and trivial actions by the U.S. yet ignoring the REAL EVIL which is of much greater magnitude than anything the U.S. is doing.
---------------------------
First first off... The distinction between what I said and what you said seems to be whether the actions are those of the US or not. Let's review:

I said "...not focusing on the worst problems..."
You said "...ignoring the REAL EVIL which is of much greater magnitude..."

I said: (or failed to say, but pretty obviously implied) "they are focusing on lesser problems"
You said "...are focusing on relatively minor and trivial actions..."

To me, they are VERY SIMILAR sentiments. Here is the difference:

I said "...wherever they may be."
You said "...focusing on by the U.S." "...ignoring much greater magnitude than anything the U.S. is doing."

If I'm mistaken, I guess I'm going to need more words from you.
Back to my rebuttal...

First off, "minor & trivial" & "REAL EVIL" are in the minds of the beholder. Second, I still think one does & should have more influence with one's own people & government, and should focus one's actions where they are most likely to affect change. Finally, should deal with the splinter in one's own eye, first. In some cases, you appear to agree. Without going back into the Imus issue, read how you end your blog post on the subject:

"Start by holding yourselves accountable to the same standard of conduct you daily demand of others."

It doesn’t say start with the most evil, or the least trivial... ...or even whether or not the US is involved. It says start at home.
I agree.
===========================
Finally, your last point: It may well be that some of these groups do object to abuses elsewhere. But they seem to reserve their ire for the United States. It wouldn't be too difficult to find examples of where they expressed environmental, human rights or peace concerns for the actions of U.S. allies either.

Harder though to find them protesting, if at all, U.S. enemies.
----------------------------------------------------
I think you're moving the goalposts here, Mike.

We already established that it is more difficult to find interest groups from the right or left protesting against the actions of other countries. One might say that the Minutemen are protesting the actions of Mexico, but then Mexico is not an enemy of the US, either. (That would be a group on the right protesting against an ally of the US.) The few other groups I can think of on the right primarily deal with social issues here in the US. It remains to be seen whether the Eagles will march for other country's soldiers, or against America's enemies. If they do, they will be among the first.

I say American interest groups protest the actions/inactions of our American government because they are the ones most likely to care & perhaps change. (We vote here, we donate here, we educate & therefore affect the attitudes of our fellow citizens here...) That's what I believe, and I think they are wise to do so.

I cannot help that you don't agree with my reasoning, or believe that US interest groups should focus on the issues that you (& yours) find MOST EVIL/least trivial/furthest from criticizing US policies and allies, and "back burner" the issues you (& yours) find least evil/MOST TRIVIAL/closest to criticizing US policies and allies (in whatever combination most suits you). We disagree, and it's possible we always shall.

You have mentioned the plight of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq several times. You obviously care about this issue very deeply. So, what actions did you take to help them? Did you go there? Did you form a group &/or attend a protest on their behalf? Did you write any letters to Saddam? Did you ask your government to intervene on their behalf? Aside using the issue now to club liberals, what did you do to change it?