Google

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Ionic, Doric or Corinthian?

Marie Jon', the person who founded PeoplePolitical.org responded to my last post stating that she was aware of the problem and that it would be corrected as soon as her web developer returned. (He suffered a family tragedy, and I wish him the best.) She then gave me links to two articles explaining her political philosophy. This first one was written by her:

Very Bad Politics

The Fifth Column/Marie Jon'

June 11-12, 2005 - With each passing day, the Democrats prove once again that they are primarily interested in furthering their efforts to hurt the President of the United States. In doing so they seem totally indifferent to the fact that such efforts hurt America period!

Who can argue that Democrats are continuing to politicize a war on terror that took our troops to Afghanistan and ultimately to Iraq, or that this politicization is not only making the war more difficult for those troops, but also emboldening America’s enemies to continue the fight worldwide?

There are two relationships between the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror: (1) Despite a lack of corroborating evidence, the administration (sometimes implicitly and sometimes through the corner of their mouth) incorrectly claimed a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers; and (2) the invasion of Iraq has been of inestimable value to al-Qaeda in the recruitment and training of new terrorists.
Our country is in no way immune to further attacks that could conceivably end up being far worse than 9/11.
Absolutely, which is why we should have continued the hunt for Bin Laden and other top ranking al-Qaeda operatives, instead of diverting resources from this goal to the unrelated invasion of Iraq.
Yet as a country we are clearly weakened by our internal divisions. And this is because the Democrats regularly display their unfounded opposition to the war, in an effort to exploit it for political gain.
The internal divisions to which you refer are more commonly known as the democratic process, and (as noted above) opposition to the war is hardly unfounded.
Much has been written about the far-left beliefs of the modern Democrat political leadership. Their ideologies are based in a heartfelt disdain for such time-honored values as patriotism and traditional morality. Their words are insulting, stinging and just plain nasty and disrespectful.
The Democratic political leadership is hardly monolithic. Similar to the Republican leadership, different Democratic politicians act for different reasons. Speaking for myself however, I do not consider it to be patriotic to lie to the country, and its military personnel, in order to send our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen into a war of choice.

Howard Dean says much about the Democrat National Committee, which he chairs. I do my share of reading and listening. With each new attack on the war effort, and with each new effort to sidetrack the country from the necessary work of winning that war, less doubt is left in the minds of the American people as to where the far left is coming from.

The liberals who dominate the Democrat party have no new or worthwhile ideas for the betterment of this country. On virtually every occasion presented to them, they simply do and say anything they think they need to say in order to sway their base constituents.

Base constituents don’t need swaying. That’s why they’re considered base constituents. The group that either party tries to sway is the swing voters.
Do they really think the country could be made safer, or its best interests served, by hurling constant accusations that the president “deliberately misled” or “lied to the American people? Such allegations prove that they believe they are lofty thinkers and are somehow intellectually and morally superior to those who recognize the mortal threat facing America, and the need to forcibly confront it. They may believe they are good Americans, but history conclusively proves that in the long run, the country has little to gain, and much to risk, from the proliferation of such thinking.
When an action by the administration reduces the security of the American people, and leads to the unnecessary deaths of our military personnel, pointing out that the administration not only is responsible for that action, but also lied in order to convince us that that action was mandatory is the patriotic duty of every American. Hoping that the government would think twice and act honestly before sending our military into harm’s way is not lofty thought, it’s a moral necessity.
I am the average Jane that lives next door, who sees America not from the standpoint of lofty intellectuals, but according to the long-standing principles of virtue and truth on which the country was based. I express what I do understand.
Making pleas to anti-intellectualism? Do you feel that your argument is so weak that it cannot stand on its own feet?

I understand that America is in big trouble politically and in other areas, such as its crumbling social environment. Politically, the Democrats have engaged in efforts on these fronts that do not improve things, but consistently work to aggravate virtually every one these dangerous conditions. To put it bluntly, they couldn’t be doing a worse job of dealing with these problems, if they had actually taken to being seditious.

Who can honestly argue that by focusing on problems with America’s military efforts, they are actually undermining our security in the war on terror. They diminish America’s standing among foreign leaders, both friend and foe, by constantly showing their disrespect for the man America elected into office.

You might want to re-consider your wording in these paragraphs. They are murky at best. Perhaps it would be useful if you were to have a fellow-traveler with editing experience blue pencil them.
Democrats in high positions have expressed nothing short of hostility while speaking about this president. Can the morale of America’s enemies be anything but boosted by such actions?
A vibrant opposition party is a necessary part of any fully functioning democratic government. Are you suggesting that we should surrender our democratic ideals because of the reaction of terrorists?
Some claim to be Christians and loyal patriots, but their words lead you to believe otherwise. Were their actions consistent with their words, they would be working in harmony with President Bush for the betterment of this country. Yet on every occasion, they seem to be dedicated to doing quite the opposite. Their acts and their deeds are willfully planned to be disruptive. It used to be that, in a time of war, such actions would be branded as “sedition.” That type of behavior ultimately hurts you and me, the average Joe and Jane and our families.
When the actions of the President not only do not better the country, but in fact increase the potential for harm to befall it, then it is the duty of loyal patriots to oppose those actions.
As I plan for my future, I must consider the political alternatives available to me from a standpoint of what will make the country freer, stronger, safer, and more prosperous as the years go by. From everything I have observed among the present-day Democrat leadership, none of their key players have an interest in what is best for America, and thus, none of them are worthy of my vote.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Yosef said...

What's up dude? I was Googling Marie to find some funny stuff about her (or maybe not about her but that I could say was about her) to report back to Sadly, No!

If you're who I think you are at S,N!, don't worry, I won't tell anyone. And judging from your posts about Marie, you are who I think you are. Damn that sounds stupid.

Later, dude!

9:42 PM  
Blogger Tresy said...

When it comes to fisking someone like this who accuses Democrats of aiding the enemy, you really shouldn't pass up the chance to rub their faces in Plamegate. Or Rumsfeld's supply of WMDs to Saddam, or our tacit support of his gassing of the Kurds. Etc.

But the sad thing is that we really don't get anywhere by ridiculing these people, easy and deserved as it is. It only winds up reinforcing their conviction that we are indeed an unlikeable bunch of people with point-headed ideas and contempt for their values. We have to somehow get it through to these people that we really want the best for them, that we don't want their lives held hostage to their lack of health insurance, that we want them to be able to retire with some modicum of dignity, that we don't want their drinking water poisoned, that we don't their sons and daughters sent to die for no good reason, that we don't want our nation's finances ransacked, and so on.

These are really uncontroversial issues that somehow the other side has managed to blind folks like Marie to, most effectively through replacing discussion of issues with discussion of pseudoreligious values. I don't know how to cut through that Gorgian knot. But ridicule is not like to accomplish it, even when it is well done and even fairly polite.

10:48 AM  
Blogger pansauce said...

I don't know how to cut through that Gorgian knot. But ridicule is not like to accomplish it, even when it is well done and even fairly polite.

In all of the political arguments that I've made through out my life, I can only state for certain that I've changed one person's mind about one issue at one time.

We were discussing gays, and I made the point that homophobia often reflects an internal fear that the phobic himself might be gay. He went and thought about it for a week or so, then came back and told me I was right.

Of course he's still firmly a Republican, but at least he's not homophobic anymore.

No, I don't think that fisking (or other less obsessive-compulsive forms of critiquing) is going to change the mind of someone like Marie, but maybe the knowledge that her piece will be subject to this level of scrutiny will cause her to think twice the next time she try's to develop an argument. Truely, a course in basic logic should be mandatory for all high school students.

8:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home