Jack's Blog

Obviously, we think very differently about some things.

I do not trust our politicians. Our Senate is made up of millionaires, and everything they do is meant to benefit themselves and their millionaire buddies. Democrat or Republican, Bush or Clinton or Reagan, it makes no difference. That's what our politicians do.

It's been that way for a long time. But some people can't help themselves: we try to change things. Whether or not we can isn't really the point. We just have to try. To us, it seems the most rational thing to do.

And as for our press, well, whether you're talking about the NYT or Rush Limbaugh, it's mostly propaganda for those millionaires, and it does one very important thing: it gets people like you and me to fight. That takes all the pressure off of the politicians. If we argue and can't agree on anything, for whatever reason, and then maybe end up hating each other and all we each stand for, then who really benefits? Neither you nor I benefit at all, and while we're fighting, the fat cats just keep getting richer and richer.

I agree with you that some of the things on that ZNET Action site are not exactly earth-shakingly useful -- the one you seem to hate the most, for instance, "go somewhere and try to figure out why people like something you don't like," or whatever it is. Well, I worked as a dishwasher, a cook, a landscaper and a stonemason for many years, and maybe some people need to work a manual job and get to know the people around them. I don't know. Everybody's an individual and we're all confused about something or other.

I have one observation to make. I haven't said a single thing about you, not once. I haven't accused you of irrationality, or anything else. And I'm not going to start now. Nobody on that Znet site has said anything about you personally. Yet you say insulting and condescending things, all the while accusing "the left" of being condescending and insulting.

Well, yeah, some of us are, and we don't even know it. I try not to be that way. Some people can't help it. There are people like that everywhere.

If you want people to listen to you, sarcasm isn't going to help at all. Neither is condescension or snideness. And when you complain about the attitude of a group of people while displaying exactly that same attitude, that's not really rational, is it?

By the way, I thought all us Americans were individuals. If we are, then why do you think that everyone should think and act in particular manner, or else they're irrational and clueless? I don't think that's a very individualistic way of thinking!

Chris Daniels, I presume?

Politicians are people, like everyone else. Yes they crave power. Yes they have agendas they try to force on everyone else. But there's good ones and bad ones, talented ones and incompetent ones. Your petulant refusal to acknowledge their real motivations, any nuance in their activities, and the oversimplified writeoff you consider a substitute for insight, renders you totally ineffective.

You can say you're "trying to change things" as many times as you want. It's not true. What you're doing is "trying to disavow things." What you're doing is flailing around, failing to control your own runaway white guilt. I don't doubt that you want to change things. But I think you'd rather nothing changed, than somebody mistakenly thought you were buying into the system. That's how I know you're not about the global community. You're about yourself. You don't want anybody thinking you're not a hardcore radical. If you really cared about the world, you'd be glad to be labeled in any way required, so long as you did something to help. But you're not prepared for that. You just want to say "I'm not down with that!" as loudly as you can, as if anybody needs or cares about your approval.

"it gets people like you and me to fight. That takes all the pressure off of the politicians."

What do you think politicians are, but people like you and me, fighting in a formalized fashion? It's insane to me to watch you get all pissy at politicians for being up on a pedestal that YOU created for them. You seem to think their some sort of different class of person than the rest of us.

And what sort of "pressure" are you going to exert? You've got a vote. That's about all the pressure you've got. Does the NYT somehow take your vote away from you?

"Yet you say insulting and condescending things, all the while accusing "the left" of being condescending and insulting."

You try not to be condescending or insulting? All politicians are evil, greedy bastards? Well, at least you tried, dude.

It's not that I disapprove of condescenscion or insult. I think that shit's GREAT! What I'm saying, is that leftists like to cloak everything in their universal defense of "I'm trying to change things for the better! I'm inclusive and compassionate!" What's so hilarious about the "proposed action" I quoted is, is that it's such a transparent sham. It's basically saying "we know there's something really wrong with red voters, but lets go have lunch near them, so later on, when we're demonizing them as a block, we have some sort of imaginary sociology project to refer to." It's like having a trial where the judge says "ok folks, let's see if this fucking murderer is guilty."

To put it a little more simply, when somebody wants to come off as a compassionate, inclusive person, and in the process of showing how compassionate and inclusive they are they act all condescending and insulting, it's hilarious.

"If we are, then why do you think that everyone should think and act in particular manner, or else they're irrational and clueless? I don't think that's a very individualistic way of thinking!"

On what basis are you assuming all of this? I don't think people have to act in any particular manner, irrational, clueless or otherwise. If you like being irrational and clueless, go for it. I don't find it appealing, and when people do it where I can see, I often mock them for it.

For example, you said "the people of Iraq deserve to determine their future themselves, with no outside interference." This is clueless. No nation has ever reformed itself without outside interference. Ever. But you think the people of Iraq deserve a circumstance that has never occured? Why do you choose an impossibility as your end goal? The only reason I can imagine, is that you're not the sort of person who ever accomplishes their goals, so you've stopped even bothering to make them attainable. Plus, you're also probably pretty clueless.

In any case, you need to stop pretending like good intentions make you exempt from mockery or judgement. That's especially true when your intentions aren't really good, so much as you just like the appearance of good intentions. If you come across an injured child, bleeding from a gashed artery, and you try to help the child via the power of hugs and drum circles, that kid is going to die, and you're an asshole. You wanted to help? Yeah? Great. Kid's still dead, and you're still irrational and clueless.

You think the media is a distraction. I think the lunactic shrieking out in left field is a distraction. You think it makes sense to disavow the entirity of the only system we've ever had. I think that whether I like Nancy Pelosi or not, she represents a certain percentage of the national consciousness, and to the extent she does, people like her belong in Congress.

Yep, that's my name.

Invective is fine. Some of the best writers ever have been masters of invective, and it can be funny as hell. It doesn't bother me at all.

Attacking the person instead of arguing the idea may sound clever, but really doesn't say anything about the idea. If you're not interested in arguing ideas, then what's the point? If you don't argue ideas, then you're just flapping your gums and making yourself feel good for a little while.

I assume nothing about you. Maybe you're a millionaire, and have something real to gain from what our politicians do. Maybe I'm a millionaire, and am just doing this for kicks or to get laid. Maybe Chris Daniels is a pseudonym. Maybe you live from paycheck to paycheck. Maybe I do, too. Maybe you're a middle-aged Bible-thumping militia wannabe in some IT department in Dayton getting your jollies by pretending to be a tough guy. Maybe you really are a tough guy. Maybe I'm a gay Lyndon LaRouche Libertarian with PhD in economics pretending to be a Trotskyite so I can get into online tussles and have a little fun.

You're right, there are politicians who are decent, sincere, talented, honest and competent individuals. But I don't think there have ever been enough of them, and I doubt there ever will be, under our current system. Most of our politicians aren't much different from one another. They say things that sound kind of different, and that different people will like (that's called "empty populism"); they keep their votes and stay in office; they continue to feather their own nests and fill the pork-barrell. That's exactly how most governments work.

If politicians are people just like you and me, then they should be held accountable, just like you and me. In fact, they should be held even more accountable, because they are supposed to serve the people, right?, and because what they do can screw up the lives of a great many people, and they do, all the time.

If you own a house with a fixed mortgage, aren't in a lot of debt, and don't depend on a lot of cheap gasoline to make a living, then you'll be OK. Maybe you want the economy to tank. If so, you're in luck. I'll be OK, mostly because I've never had a whole hell of a lot to begin with.

The Vietnam war ended in part because politicians began to worry about keeping the votes of the millions of citizens who were against that war. Nobody actually voted to end the war, didn't you know that? Nixon had to cut and run.

The civil rights movement changed things. Maybe some don't like what changed, and it didn;t change a lot of things, but it changed because of pressure from citizens, not because of voting. You don't understand that politicians respond wne enough people make enough noise.

The only system we've had? You think our system has never changed? Women couldn't vote at one time. Neither could blacks. Read your history, man! The system has changed in the past, and it's changing right now. Political parties have come and gone. Can't you see that?

I'm not against our system per se - I mean democracy - I'm against what unscrupulous liars have done with our system. You're right, we've allowed them to get a way with it. You put them in power just as much as I did. And you seem to believe that the current crop of fumbling idiots are an improvement in some way.

If there's a way to make this system work so everybody has health care, nobody has to worry about getting enough to eat, about their kids getting enough to eat, having a roof over their head, a job, an education, the basics, hell, I'm all for it.

Anybody would help a wounded child by calling an ambulance, applying a tourniquet, whatever it took to help that child survive. Anybody who wouldn't isn't a decent human being. That's the bottom line, right? So what does that say about a politician who thinks torture, not to mention the killing of blameless 2-3 year old kids, is acceptable, if an election comes out of it?

You assume white guilt. How do you know I feel guilty? And what makes you think I'm white?

Maybe some people do feel guilt. I don't feel guilty about things I can't control. But I can want things to change, and I can try to do something, in the hopes that maybe things will change for the better one of these days. Not the way I myself want them to change, but in a rational way that makes sense for everybody, whatever that may be.

I should have been more precise: the official news media in this country (CNN, FOX, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Washinton Times, you name it) disseminate propaganda. Rush Limbaugh and Bill Moyers disseminate propaganda. It's all totally biased, that's the joke of it. Nobody's really telling the truth or being honest. Some people think that's the best way to rule.

Outside interference in the form of invasion, bombing, etc., hasn't happened in Scandinavia for a long, long time (except for during WWII), for a lot of reasons. Outside interference of that kind hasn't happened here in the US for a long time, for a lot of reasons. Outside interference in Iraq, for example, means a military occupation. Again, I should have been more precise.

So long. Take it easy.

"Attacking the person instead of arguing the idea may sound clever, but really doesn't say anything about the idea."

How much more clearly can I attack ideas? I think the idea that the Iraqis could have an election "free from outside interferance" is foolish. I think the idea of political discourse in which all the players are labled and dismissed in the same exact fashion is foolish. I think an ideology based in shame is foolish. I'm all about ideas. I just like to put little slander sprinkles on top.

"I assume nothing about you. Maybe you're a millionaire ... I'm a gay Lyndon LaRouche Libertarian with PhD in economics pretending to be a Trotskyite so I can get into online tussles and have a little fun."

Ok, who cares? I don't really care who you are. What I care about are strings of words. Ideas. When somebody says something that's patently false, particularly if it pertains to a topic that interests me, I will speak about it. Certainly I wonder, on some level, who you are, what you're about, why you say these things, but ultimately it's not about you. Neither of us matter. It's just about "speaking truth to powerlessness" as John Kerry said.

"You're right, there are politicians who are decent, sincere, talented, honest and competent individuals."

Then why did you say that there are not? Am I to understand that you're more interested in bitter invective than in accuracy? What sort of scholarship is that? What sort of voice for change is that?

"If politicians are people just like you and me, then they should be held accountable, just like you and me."

They are. Just ask Tom Daschle. One day he's the minority leader in the Senate. Next day he's looking for a job. Most people don't have to reapply for their job every 4-6 years. What do you want? Public executions for "mass murderers?" Your lunatic demonizations of people aren't real. Do you really not get that?

"You don't understand that politicians respond wne enough people make enough noise."

You don't understand that politicians respond when people make enough VALID noise. The civil rights movement was based in fundamental truth, and sought a real, tangible, relatively attainable outcome. Modern protests, while often very loud and impassioned, have no such basis in real morality or practicality. In a nation founded upon freedom, the idea that people should be corraled based upon racial lines is foreign. That is legitimate, and can't be ignored. "Nooooo, BUSH! Nooooooo! You... Cheater! Liar! Noooooo! Noooo to whatever!" That's just retarded shrieking, and demands to be ignored. Even then, you've got people like Barbara Boxer and Corrine Brown, in government, taking it far more seriously than it deserves.

The problem is quite simple. When 9-11 happened, a lot of people felt like they needed to do something. In a bipartisan system, quite often the manifestation is "fight the other party." And so, people line up and yell "NOOOO BUSH." They don't really know why, they don't really have a point, they just want to have an "action proposal" and then go spin their wheels until the business of it makes them feel less shame, and less fear.

Your version of this isn't partisan, it's just fringe. Instead of "Noooo Bush," you went with "Noooo Everything!" It's actually TWICE as stupid as the mainstream idiots, cause not only is it motivated by us vs. them idiocy, but it's not even participating in the actual system.

"And you seem to believe that the current crop of fumbling idiots are an improvement in some way."

I do? I don't believe they're fumbling idiots. I also don't think they're an improvement, per se. I certainly prefer their mindset to others that have been in office. I certainly think they're a good fit for the times they find themselves in. I haven't really reserved judgement on them. I've only recently started trying to really judge Clinton's presidency.

The simple fact is that Bush's policies are beginning to work as promised. Democracies, sham or otherwise, are beginning to spring up all over the middle east. Israel and Palestine are closer to peace than they have been in decades. Syria is pulling out of Lebanon after decades of scoffing at UN resolutions. And all poeple can say is "NOOOOO BUSH! HE BOTCHED! HE FUMBLE!" Did he? You still so sure?

Of course you are. Clinton's a mass murderer. And you're irrelevant. Who cares what you say? Iraqis voted. Afghanis voted. Saudis voted. Egyptians will vote. That's what Bush's policy brought about. I know how much you radicals hate baby steps. But the people with non-retarded ideas know that baby steps are the safest way to move.

"So what does that say about a politician who thinks torture, not to mention the killing of blameless 2-3 year old kids, is acceptable, if an election comes out of it?"

What does it say that you've created such a fantastic version of reality? How do you expect me to trust in your ability to identify a bleeding child or a phone or an ambulance, when you're so beholden to your need to decry and denounce everything? How do I know you won't look at a bleeding child and say "this is just the filthy offspring of privilege, I will never pick up an RFID chip laden mind-control device, just to call a med-truck, so it can stuff the pockets of the Pharma-Thieves with taxpayers money! YIIIIIIARGH!" Of course, you'd never leave a bleeding child to die... But what evidence have you given me that you know what a bleeding child looks like, or admit to seeing one when you did?

"You assume white guilt. How do you know I feel guilty? And what makes you think I'm white?"

You're obviously guilty, and you don't have to be white to be motivated by white guilt. Perhaps "American guilt" is a better term. Regardless, you're clearly motivated by guilt, and the desire to assuage it.

"Nobody's really telling the truth or being honest."

Or maybe everyone's telling the truth? Maybe everyone is just saying what they think makes the most sense?

No, you're probably right, they're ALL lying, and you're the last honest man out there. I can see now that I need your help. Maybe there's an irrelevant internet author you could point me to? Yiiiiargh!

"Outside interference in Iraq, for example, means a military occupation. Again, I should have been more precise."

I know what you wanted it to mean. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You don't get to just want things into reality. Outside interferance actually means things like "foreign nationals acting as organizers of carbombings and murders meant to scare Iraqis away from the polls." It means things like "Iranian money and weapons flowing in to support one political part over another." It means things like "Syria allowing foreign nationals into Iraq to conduct car bombings on Iraqi citizens." Iraq is just one big ball of "outside interference." No matter how hard you try to ignore reality, the US Military is actually the closest thing to interference prevention that the Iraqi people have.