Saturday, April 21, 2007

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?

6 comments:

Mike's America said...

You say I am moving the goalposts?

You know that old saying "it takes one to know one?"

I'm glad we have cleared up a few things.

-You don't have the slightest clue what to do about problems like Iraq.

-You admit that ANSWER is a communist organization. Harmless? I don't think so. To whom is their allegiance?

I still see you wiffling, waffling, dodging, bobbing and weaving all over the place like a car with bald tires on an ice slicked road.

Did you ever describe what group you were protesting with and what their beliefs and values are?

As for the Marsh Arabs. You'll be happy to know that this area is now beginning it's recovery. After the slaughter of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands and the destruction of that fragile ecosystem in which they live (sort of like the rainforest that Hugo Chavez is cutting a 5,000 mile swath through)they are starting on that long road back.

If you only see news reports of carnage in Iraq, you might not be aware that the province in which the Marsh Arabs live is now fully self governing. Like many parts of Iraq, they no longer live under the constant threat of death from a tyrannical and evil regime.

And what did I do about the problem?

I supported the ONLY force for good that is able and WILLING to oppose evil: The United States and our military.

For all the liberal handwringing about ANY problem around the world can you tell me what YOU have accomplished?

P.S. I don't knock you for being verbose. But as I pointed out, and I did my best to be nice about it, if you REALLY wished to have the widest inclusive dialogue on these issues you have to consider the fact that most people just will not sit there and give their fullest consideration to a comment, or series of comments that approximates 800 words.

I'm trying my best to understand and to offer you my advice on how you might better explain your position.

repsac3 said...

"-You admit that ANSWER is a communist organization. Harmless? I don't think so. To whom is their allegiance?"
-----------------
ANSWER is a coalition of many orgs, both national & international. Their allegiance isn't to any one place. The Party for Socialism and Liberation (one commie group involved) is from America, and believes this country should give up on Capitalism, and become a Communist country. While their allegiance is not to Capitalism, they are not suggesting that America be ruled by any foreign power, either. They want to elect a Communist President.
============

"I still see you wiffling, waffling, dodging, bobbing and weaving all over the place like a car with bald tires on an ice slicked road."
--------------
Example(s), please. Allegations or claims without 'em are almost worthless.
==============

"Did you ever describe what group you were protesting with and what their beliefs and values are?"

First off, did you read all I wrote, or skim?
I did post about the groups in the original post, but this is your first request regarding their beliefs and values.

"My UU fellowship has a group" - UU = Unitarian Universalist (There are many fine sites that can explain UU better than I) - Religious, largely pacifist.

"and some folks in my old neighborhood started another, which meets at the local library."
- (I'm withholding the name of the group to keep my location slightly more private. One scary incident that may've been internet related is enough. It's strictly local, and unaffiliated with any (inter)national org)
- More focused on liberal politics (& therefore more opposed to Republicans). Founded by the guy who later became the head of the county Green party, but welcomes all who're interested (or curious.)
- Formed around the time Reagan was arming the Contras, I think. I recall first noticing the signs in the mid-80's.
- They have done more than the UU group (ironically) about other conflicts. More educational, too. (They meet monthly & sometimes bring in speakers to discuss issues & events, from Israel/Palestine to teaching children cooperative (in place of competitive) games.)

Hope that helps.
===============

"For all the liberal handwringing about ANY problem around the world can you tell me what YOU have accomplished?"
------------------------
I think I've changed some minds about this war. I've tried, anyway. The contacts with my reps in national office (all Dems, except Bush) may've helped stiffen their resolve, too.
Though I cannot say who/what/where for sure, I know that my donations of money, food, clothing, & time have fed/clothed/housed the folks who received them.
I don't know that there is any issue where I can claim complete victory, but the virtue is in the trying. Perhaps one day...
===================

"P.S. I don't knock you for being verbose. But as I pointed out, and I did my best to be nice about it,
------------
You've been quite nice, actually... When I saw the nicknames for Ken & Al, I was concerned. (The day you wish to lose my contributions, reduce me to some bullshit, conversation-killing nickname. I've no time or patience for that kinda crap.) As far as Ken & Al, I'll assume they deserve them, until I know otherwise.
=======
"...if you REALLY wished to have the widest inclusive dialogue on these issues you have to consider the fact that most people just will not sit there and give their fullest consideration to a comment, or series of comments that approximates 800 words.
--------------
I agree as concerns the long, multi-point posts.

But I think folks can pick & choose among the short ones.

And, should I get no replies? I declare victory on the point(s) ((to myself, as no one else is paying attention, anyway)), and move on.

Mike's America said...

"I declare victory on the point(s) ((to myself"

Well that's what being a relativist is all about!

repsac3 said...

"Well that's what being a relativist is all about!"

Bully for you on turning an offhanded remark into a debatable point, but now that you have...

What are you talking about? Relativism has nothing to do with declaring victory because the opposing side doesn't respond, even if it does turn out to be because they're not bothering to listen to or read the arguments they're offered. Why hold the guy who has his head in the debate responsable for the laziness of the other side?

Truth is, I think it's more likely that the opposing side can't come up with a good counter, and when asked about the silence, claims not to've read it, or not to've understood it, or not to've really been interested in the subject in the first place.

Actually, I do believe that the silence does often mean victory...

Reply? (or silence?)

Mike's America said...

I wouldn't mistake silence for agreement.

repsac3 said...

Not agreement, Mike.

Possible victory.

Yes, it could just be boredom or frustration that leads one to stop debating, but it also could be the inability to respond with a consistant, coherant argument in reply.

I don't know about you, but It's the points in a debate I leave unanswered that lead me reflect (& perhaps rethink) my position.

As I say, I don't *know* about you (& everyone else I argue with), but I suspect the same is true where you're (all) concerned.

Besides, why shouldn't I assume the best (that the other party intentionally avoided this or that point because they had no intelligent reply) rather than the worst (they were bored)?

I know I said I wouldn't bring it up, but...
That's what I think happenned with the Imus thing. You made a blog post.

I questioned you on it, in the comment section for that blog post.

You didn't have an intelligent reply, so you claimed you weren't as interested in the subject as I was. (Almost as though I posted about it, rather than you.) It was interesting enough to appear on your blog... ...as long as no one actually read it, & questioned what it said.

There's a lot of points I've raised that you just skim over.

Yeah, maybe they are just bored or whatever...

But that isn't what I walk away thinkin', when a person replies to an argument I make with silence.

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)