Contributors

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Just The Facts (Part Two: Teach Your Children Well)

Last week, I layed out some facts regarding Iraq and the War on Terror for everyone to interpret. I reserved my own interpretations of last week's facts for two reasons. First, I wanted all of you to chime in and discuss the facts in comments so all of us could see how reality changes from person to person. Second, rather than do my usual tirade about Bush Co, I thought it would be fun if I waited until this week for all of you to see how I got the idea for "Just The Facts" and how my favorite new Neocon has interpreted them.

A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine named Ann (named changed for this column) subbed on my co -rec volleyball team. I think Ann is basically a good person at heart but when she says things like "Liberals are destroying this country," she loses me. We got to chatting about my future career as a teacher and she said to me, "You know, Mark, you better be careful about what opinions you give in class because you could get into trouble." I asked her what she meant.......exactly. She told me that I should just stick to the facts. No opinions. Just facts. I got to thinking about how interesting that might be so that's the real reason why I wrote last week's (and this week's) column. Ann, if you are reading this column, how were my facts from last week? You inspired me!

Anyway, I wanted to really try to cover just the basics. No interpretations or long tirades. Facts, only. After I read the facts as they sat there on my blog, particularly #2, I have to say that I got pretty angry. Again. And it's the same anger I have had for the last five years. To me, the facts speak for themselves.

I mean, people, c'mon! It has been five years and we still haven't caught the two men (left) most directly responsible for 9-11? And somehow Bush has the approval of over 50 percent of this country in his War on Terror? I don't get it. It's not just that the Democrats are weak, although that is a part of it.

Maybe the answer lies in how neocons think. Maybe if I really got into their head I could get an answer to this burning question and end my frustrations. That's what I figured last week, anyway, so I decided to ask my favorite new Neocon, Merrill, who I am sure can help us truly understand these simple facts.

Merrill is a regular at the gym I go to. She also works there part time. I've had the occasion to chat with her about many things. One day a while back, the subject of politics came up and I knew right then and there that I was in the presence of a proud Neocon. To her, President Bush was the savior of the United States. She could not understand for the life of her why people were so critical of him and why they were questioning our government. They were all traitors. After all, he was/is protecting our country! She, and her father (who she champions quite often) were both Marines. Anyone who is in the armed forces should be a Republican, she has said. Democrats have always been weak and appeasers. I had a ton of fun that first day we talked as I got to hear about: John Kerry the Traitor, Al Gore the weasel, and Clinton...well, he is the devil incarnate. As all of you can probably tell, Merrill will be a regular guest on Notes.....well, let's just say forever.

Last week, we got to talking about my facts that I posted on the blog. She did not like them. She, along with her father, felt that they were liberally slanted. I had her explain to me how this was so and she did. Here is what she said:

Fact #1: President Bush said the following four things last week: 1. The United States attacked Iraq because we believed they had WMDs. 2. It turns out they didn't. 3. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11. 4. If we leave Iraq, terrorists will gain control of all of the oil.

According to Merrill, Iraq had WMDs and our government is hiding it from us. This is to keep us from worry and to keep us safe. I have to admit I thought our government was hiding them too, at one point, although not for her reasons. I gave up on that theory when I realized how much Bush Co would benefit if it was true. The Democrats would not win an election for the next 50 years.

Merrill also believes that Iraq attacked us on 9-11, not Al Qaeda, and that's why we are at war. When I told her that Osama bin Laden admitted to the attacks, she refuted his importance and said that, like President Bush feels, bin Laden doesn't matter. She did agree that the last item mentioned was true and that, while she acknowledges that Bush said those things, it was actually the liberal media's coverage of the event that took it out of context. When I told her I was watching the whole thing live and that he did say those things and mean them, she said it was just my bias and should really not be so naive.

Fact #2: Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahari, as the heads of Al Qaida, are responsible for the 9-11 attacks. They are both still at large, hiding somewhere in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

At this point in the conversation, I finally got her to admit that bin Laden was a bad guy. She blamed Clinton for letting him get too big. When I informed her that several Republican senators, including Trent Lott and Bill Frist, criticized Clinton for bombing a bin Laden camp in 1998, she said that was a lie. And that I was biased. Since she had served in the Marines, she knew for a fact that our government was always on the trail of evil doers. We may not know it all the time but we should trust that they are after them and protecting us. .

Fact #3:American companies are making money in Iraq.



This fact didn't seem to bother her a wit. Capitalism, to her after all, was the best system in the world. She asked me if I was a communist because I had a problem with American companies making money in Iraq. I told her that I had a problem with financial gain which directly resulted in human suffering and death. She told me that the media likes to show only the bad things coming out of Iraq and not the good things so my information was suspect.

Fact #4: Roughly 2400 US Soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. More have died outside of Iraq as the Armed Forces do not list deaths outside of Iraq, from wounds received in Iraq, as casualties. Fact #5: Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have lost their lives in this ongoing conflict. Many of them have been children.



While she did not doubt the number, she reiterated that the media focuses too much on death and not enough the positive things happening in Iraq. I asked her if she had seen any of the pictures from Iraq of the dead children. She has children herself and I guess I wondered if she felt anything at all for them. She just shrugged and said, "Well, that's war."

Then I tried a different tactic. I asked her if she was a Christian. She said she was a proud evangelical Christian. I asked her how Jesus would feel about the War in Iraq. She said she didn't know but she did know that our current leadership was filled with good, decent people who just want what is best for our country. They are all good Christians who have been much maligned by liberals and the media who all hate Jesus and want to destroy the United States.

I thought about my conversation with her for the rest of the day. I couldn't help but wonder what happened to her in her life to have such an enormous anti-information filter in place. Was it fear? Was it the unknown? One thing is for sure. For the first time, since I can remember, I did not yell at neocon and call them an idiot. I wanted to but in the end, I just felt profoundly sorry for her. Now, I know most of you will say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's fine, well and good but when her opinion begins to directly effect the welfare of my children by the policies put in place by the people she supports and votes for....well, then I am most definetly not going to leave her alone or any other neocon who goes to the polls with their heads filled with propaganda. I may not yell at them and call them stupid but I will gently remind them of the facts as I see them.

So, I guess my question for all of you is.....are these the facts I should be teaching kids when I start my career in two years? When children and teenagers ask me what happened, what facts do I present them with? The rose colored version of history according to Merrill or what actually has happened? Are my facts distorted?

I remember a conversations I had with Crabmaster not long after 9-11 in which he said that if Bush did not catch bin Laden by the 2004 elections, he would be one term president. That did not happen. Merrill helped me to understand why this did not happen. People believe what they need to believe regardless of the facts. We live in a world of perception, not reality, and that has never been more true than the last six years.

I think that, based on these facts, we are less safe against terrorism than we were before 9-11. We are less safe under Bush and there is no doubt in my mind of this.The people that are running our country, through their myopic greed for wealth and power, have allowed this to happen. We have taken our eye off the ball and those of you out there who disagree with me have the luxury, if I am right, of not having a country left with which to say, "I told you so" when the real shit comes down.

What that real shit is and when it is coming down will be in my next column. This column will be posted on Sept 11, 2006. I am working on a "5th Anniversary of the 9-11 attacks" piece and I want to take my time with it so there will not be a new column until that time. This day also marks the 5th Anniversary of Notes From The Front so I really want to make it a big deal.

Tell your friends and stay tuned!!

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, people like Merrill scare me! I don't feel too sorry for her - but I know what you mean. It's pretty sad that people are so blind.

Anonymous said...

Merrill... lynch.... trying to make joke... can't come up with anything... arrrgggghhh.

Anonymous said...

As I was reading through your article I said to myself that Merril must be very religious. This was before I got to the point where she indicates she is. Only faith can create such strong belief in the face of so many facts to the contrary. Religion does not rely on fact. Ask her if she saw George Bush turn the other cheek.

Anonymous said...

So how is someone saying "Liberals are destroying this country" any different than someone saying "George Bush’s policies are destroying my way of life"? They're both looney.

You want to know why GWB has such high approval ratings on the War on Terror? I can think of a few things (just my opinion here) – the Patriot Act is popular, the NSA program is popular, the tracking of terrorists finances is popular, deal with it. Like I said in the last section of comments – you think a democrat elected in 2008 is actually going to authorize people to stop listening to the conversations of possible terrorists? Not on your life.

Not just "according to Merrill" about the WMD’s...I could post quote after quote from dems (Hillary, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc) and other members of the world community talking about Saddams WMD programs. I won’t bother, you’ve all seen them. So if GWB pointed the gun the guys you vote for certainly helped pull the trigger.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say "Bin Laden doesn’t matter" but even as much as I’d like to see him caught, I do think his capture will simply be symbolic more than anything else at this point in time, seeing as there are probably several thousand people involved in his cause that will be gunning to take his place once he is gone. Kind of shoots down the whole "law enforcement" mentality of fighting the war on terror, doesn’t it?

I’d like you to show me a system that works better than capitalism. You recently went on and on about people working harder for less money...how about those European countries with double digit unemployment, a pension crisis that dwarfs our deficit, and 60% tax rates? Then you have those third world countries where 90% of the population is enslaved in poverty while their leaders live in castles. I’m thankful I live in a capitalist nation.

I don’t even remember saying that about the 2004 election, I probably did though. Guess I wasn’t counting on the democrats nominating a guy who gives the term "empty suit" a bad name to run against GWB. Kerry’s record of original legislation passed in his 20 years in the US Senate – 0. What a leader, what a visionary. I didn’t think they would nominate a guy who said that "Iraq was a central part of the war on terror" in the dem primary and then say "Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror" during the general election.

But since you want to go back in time for old quotes, here are some quotes from Markadelphia from 2003, I can forward you all the original emails if you’d like...
"Find me a list of children that were PURPOSELY AND DELIBERATELY TARGETED by US forces, military or economic forces, to kill. Remember, it has to be a list of actual names of children that were killed with malicious intent....just as the 9/11 attacks were......being that Al Qaeda views all US and the civilized world's civilians as targets (their words not mine.)"

"Iraq, under SH, could have easily caused another 9-11. When this would have happened is open to debate. He was clearly motivated to acquire nukes and would have been a problem for us should he have gotten them.

Again, I want to stress that the deaths of these people are no better or
worse than the deaths of the people on 9/11. My point is: INTENT. Do you believe that GW, Rumsfeld and the rest of the yahoos that run our government now sat around a table and deliberately thought up a plan to kill this family? Did they plan an attack that specifically targeted civilians knowing full well the impact it would have on Iraqi society?"

"If you are going to criticize the US for its wrongdoings, and I believe there is much to criticize, why not stop for a minute and really look at the intentions of both sides? Does our country really intentionally do these things?"

My how fast times change...

So you wanted to yell at them and call them an idiot? By doing that, you will only further the divide between you and her. Just know that when you try to "inform" people of your "facts"...remember this saying...
"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference."

As far as what you should be teaching kids in 2 years, depends on the subject I would think. If a teacher's content includes Algebra, Trig, Geometry, scientific method, Biology, Civil War, American History, Narrative Writing etc. you’ll probably be rolling off a lesson plan book from six years ago, nothing wrong with that. The concepts for those subjects have been the same for hundreds of years. Here is what you should be concerning yourself with - people who understand education realize that what needs to change from year to year is not the content but how the content is taught. An Algebra teacher will teach the same concepts as they did six years ago. However, the way in which they teach it changes from year to year.

IMO, you should never, ever as a teacher pose possible solutions to a problem. If you are going into a classroom to advance an agenda, my prediction is that you will find out the hard way that your personal views and beliefs will get in the way more than anything. Pose the question and let your students do the research to find the possible solutions, then let them debate. This method will allow true learning to occur. That's teaching 101 (correct me if I’m wrong John).

During my college years, I concluded in the latter years that most university professor's have an agenda. Whatever it is, many have one. The worst ones of all are those who try to pollute the minds of 18-22 year olds (who are still very impressionable) with their thoughts, ideas and beliefs. Your views and input are not necessary, what should be required of you is your ability to raise questions that make them re-think their positions, not necessarily to change their position via long, pissed off tirades on a daily basis.

In a variety of other subjects, teachers should adjust how they teach and not what they teach. Knowledge of a subject is a small part of teaching, effectively being able to communicate content so that one can learn is the art of teaching. How you will interpret some of what I am saying here is out of my control but I stand behind my statement that a teacher or professors personal views and beliefs on the subject at hand are irrelevant in a classroom setting. For example, if a students responses to your questions are what you feel to be way off base, it is not your job to correct them. What should be your job is to pose questions that might make them re-think their position while never revealing your personal beliefs (and in the meantime never outright calling them, or anyone for that matter, an idiot).

Anonymous said...

Although Merrill appears to be factually challenged in some respects (the belief that Iraq attacked us on 9/11 is troubling) I don't see any reason to avoid concluding that she's got it right for all the wrong reasons. Her "anti-information" filter isn't making her any more wrong than your disinformation gristmill is making you wrong. Frankly, I don't want either one of you teaching my kids.

I'm sorry, but the fact that any person of faith would accuse somebody else of having an "anti-information" filter is ridiculous to me.

I'll defend Merrill and her position not so much because "everyone is entitled to their opinion" (an argument that is only slightly less grotesque than the the schoolyard bully who, while taunting weaker kids, claims "it's a free country - I can say what I want") but because I have serious doubts about the measuring stick with which you have examined her position. The facts that you presented in your previous posting don't prove your position any more than they prove Merrill's - at least not until this latest posting when you began to apply your interpretation of the facts.

To speak to one point in particular....biased presentation. Stating that "companies are making money off the war in Iraq" is to state a fact. Pure and simple. But if you aim is education, ask yourself what's the motivation for stating the fact? Do history teachers state the same fact when teaching about WWI or WWII? No way, even though the same fact applies to those wars as well. It's not the facts themselves that are biased (I don't believe there's any such thing, actually), but the presentation and utilization certainly can be. As TV superdad Homer Simpson teaches us: "You can facts to prove anything."

Going back to the "right for all the wrong reasons" discussion, is there any wonder why Merrill would think that all military people should vote Republican when, generally speaking, it's a liberal that is going to come up with a statement such as "[having a problem with] financial gain that directly results in human suffering"? Working at cost isn't going to bode well for our armed forces and the companies that supply them, I suspect.

I was pretty stoked to read that an additional luxury that I have (which I didn't even know I had!) is that, if I'm wrong, we won't have a country left. Fortunately when that happens it will make worrying about what Jesus would think of the war in Iraq a moot point. I was really sweating that one.

I know I won't run into you at the polls, but I hope I do run into somebody who feels compelled to instruct me on the facts as they see them, and how the policies I support are affecting the welfare of their children. Telling them that I couldn't care less about their children will feel every bit as good as showing the anti-GWB protesters outside my office building that "we're #1" (With both hands....not safe while you are driving, I suppose.) I reckon that makes me a cold, heartless bastard. I also reckon I'm OK with that.

Mark Ward said...

Crab, right off the bat you list a litany of half truths. I don't see any liberal in charge of or doing anything right now. And, when they were in charge, they never did anything as bad as Bush Co has done. To say that he has NOT screwed things is up is what is looney. I again will point out that if President Gore or Kerry had made the same mistakes, I would be equally as harsh in criticism. I think Lyndon Johnson was an awful President but then again, he had the backing of oil men from Texas. Gee, go figure!

You're right. Democrats will not stop listening to terrorists. But will they continue to tap the phones of non-terrorists in order to: a)gather shit on them for the next election; b)gather shit on them to use in corporate sabotage and spying; and c)identify political subversives and fuck up their lives by....say...calling the IRS or planting child porn on their computers because THAT IS WHAT OUR CURRENT LEADERSHIP IS DOING. These are the same people that learned their trade of trash under Nixon. Critique the Dems all you want for being egotistical, weak, and ineffective but they are not anywhere near these crooks.

I would like you to not be so "content" with the imperfect system of captilism. Yes, other countries have it worse off than us. But does that mean we have to cease trying to be better and give up because this is the best it is going to be? Stay tuned for more on this as I have an actualy column prepared for the future...

Yes, it is true. I said those things you quoted. I was wrong. I mistakenly believed Colin Powell, a man I still respect, when he spoke at the UN. I was duped into believing that Saddam Hussein was going to attack us and I let my fear overide my logic. It won't happen again.

Unlike our President, I can shift with the times. The world is not the same place as it was in 2003. There are so many more facts that have come to light since then that I wonder why you are still defending Bush Co. To stay in the same spot all the time...well it's dangerous. This a complex world we live in and to dilute it down to "standing your ground" gets people killed. We need a leader that is capable dealing with those complex situations and rolling with the times.

And we also need the people of this country to understand this. In our ADD nation, people want a quick, simple answer so they can get back to Madden 2007. There are not an easy answers to complex international issues. If people become more engaged in the process, we will be much better off. And we will elect better leaders.

Anonymous said...

I'm more than a little embarrassed to admit that I completely missed the news stories about government officials being convicted of abusing the wiretap program in the ways you described. In retrospect I guess I should have known that such abuses would finally come to light because it's common knowledge that you cannot trust Republicans with the same sort of power that you can with Democrats.

When are people going to adopt my convention of spelling "Nixon" without the "o", so that his name becomes the 4-letter word that it truly is.

Anonymous said...

Please provide us with links to the stories of which you speak, from a reputable source please. I guess we can throw that whole "innocent until proven guilty" garbage out the window...how convenient.

"Better" is a pretty abstract concept. I’m sure your definition differs from mine. Note that I never said people should "give up"...where did you get that from? I am content with our imperfect system and you’ll be waiting a long time for a "perfect" system to be put in place anywhere on this planet. As Frank Sinatra said..."That's Life".

So you were duped then but now you know the truth. I’m not going to bother looking it up but didn’t you accuse Dick Cheney & Scooter Libby of leaking Valerie Plame’s name not too long ago on this blog? We just found out this week that it was Richard Armitage. Yep, you aren’t letting it happen anymore.

blk said...

It is not at all surprising that conservative Christians choose to believe what they want, and ignore the facts. This is the basis of their core beliefs: do not believe what your eyes tell you, believe what you are told to believe. If you doubt, you are damned.

They choose to portray this as a strength, but it is in reality a weakness. Any person who believes "If I didn't believe in X: 1) My entire world would collapse, 2) Life would not be worth living, 3) I would kill myself" is in serious denial about their own strength of character.

The terrorists have exactly this same mindset. Fanatical devotion to any cause or ideology is ultimately destructive, no matter how well-intentioned it may start out. This is how terrorist leaders convince their followers that it's okay to murder Israeli mothers and children in Tel Aviv restaurants: "Allah said it's okay! You'll go to heaven!" Replace "Allah" with "Jesus" and you have people saying, "It's just war" when they dismiss incidents like American soldiers raping and murdering innocent Iraqis.

But to be fair, there is no doubt that Jesus would condemn our invasion of Iraq. The pope did. Devout Christians are being lied to as much as the rest of us are. They are being used to make guys like Jack Abramoff, Tom De Lay, Bob Ney, etc., rich, while giant oil and pharmaceutical companies gain more control over our daily lives.

The rip-off of Christians by the right was never more blatantly obvious than in the scam that Abramoff and Ralph Reed had going: Abramoff was working for an Indian casino, so he got Reed to mobilize Christians to attack another tribe's casino proposal. This is a rare peek under the hood of the Republican money machine's cynical manipulations.

My conservative friends, this is how the entire Republican party is structured. They have you totally snookered. The Republicans and their corporate masters are robbing this country blind, running into terrible debt, and you're following along in the vain hopes of ending abortion and keeping your guns. But abortion isn't going away, and your guns are safe. So move on to issues that matter.

By blindly supporting leaders who make egregious mistakes and deny the facts as they are, we are in the end hurting the country we love. Whether Bush loses face or not doesn't matter in the long run. But by supporting Bush's corruption and lies, we are delaying the day of reckoning.

The longer Bush continues to do what he's doing, the larger the reaction will be to our foolish misadventures in the Middle East, and the bigger the gaping hole in our budget is going to be. We've already seen that the era of the Big Military is over: in Iraq we are powerless to stop the killing. In Lebanon we saw the all-mighty Israeli military lose to Hezbollah (yeah, Israel lost -- they invaded to get their guys back, and they didn't get their guys back).

The terrorists didn't attack us because they hate freedom. They attacked us because they believe that we are corrupt, and that we are spreading our corruption to their Holy Lands. The actions we took and the manner in which we did them provided the motivation for terrorism. Had we take slightly different actions, or performed them in a way that didn't anger bin Laden, we might not be in the trouble we're in today.

I'm not saying that we should cater to the whims of wackos. But when we do things in foreign countries, we should damn well understand what the reactions are going to be.

Anyone who thinks invaders will be showered with roses should not be in charge of a military operation. Think of the difference between liberating France from the Nazis and invading Germany -- the French greeted us with roses, but the Germans fought us tooth and nail, even though they had that tyrant Hitler leading them. If Saddam equals Hitler, then the same calculations should apply, yes?

But somehow the same men who equated the invasion of Iraq to a cakewalk are still in charge.

In the end you cannot occupy a country that does not want you lording over them, no matter how benign your intentions might be. The United States of America was founded on the very idea that a people must lead themselves.

Yet somehow Bush and his supporters think that we can impose "democracy" on Iraq. Had we started out saying this we might have had a chance. But Bush lied about Saddam's weapons and connection to 9/11. When the Palestinians held free and fair elections Hamas won. But Bush thinks that Hamas is a terrorist organization and rejects them as the leaders of Palestine.

This contradiction is not lost on the Middle East, so Bush has absolutely no credibility there. They perceive us as supporting democracy as long as it gives the results we want. Which means no democracy at all.

Imagine what the King of England thought when America declared independence. The people who declared themselves the leaders of this new country were tax evaders and terrorists. They revolted against their duly appointed government. King George couldn't recognize George Washington as a head of state; Washington should be clamped in irons for leading an illegal revolt that killed thousands of British soldiers!

The problem is, there is no way to win in Iraq. If we leave, Iraq will disintegrate into three parts: Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni, the latter overrun with terrorists. But if we stay, the same thing will happen, except that many more Americans will die in the process.

The only solution is for Bush to admit he lied, apologize to the world, and beg other countries to form a peacekeeping force for Iraq. But this guy will never admit he was wrong, that he lied, even when there's incontrovertible proof -- as there was when he was videotaped being told that the levees would break in New Orleans, yet a few days later he said that no one could have expected the levees could be breached.

So, to avoid the embarrassment of having been dead wrong on Iraq, Bush is going to hang in there, lie some more, and bring up the bogeyman of a Nuclear Iran, hoping to keep his Republican majority in Congress. Meanwhile, Americans are dying daily so that George Bush can save face.

And to encourage Americans to vote Republican, I predict the oil companies will somehow manage to keep the price of gasoline low until election day. How do I know? It's Labor Day and the price of gas didn't go up. They must be skating in hell!

Mark Ward said...

Crab, Richard Armitage? What a laugh. Yeah, I'm sure it was all his fault and Cheney had nothing do with it. Incidently, why don't you share with everyone what position Armitage currently holds?

Oh, but wait. That won't prove anything...just like any facts or sources I present regarding wiretapping will be liberally biased. So why should I bother?

Besides, it looks like BLK beat me to the punch again...and most eloquently, I might add.

Anonymous said...

"So why should I bother".

That's the attitude you should take toward Merrill. That's the attitude I have. Works well.

The post your proof on here that Cheney did it? Post it along with the proof of your other claims in your previous post. Liberally biased sources are better than no sources at all.

Anonymous said...

blk's response is undoubtedly eloquent in one respect...it clearly illustrates the utter lack of humility and respect with which certain elements of both political parties approach the problems facing our country today. Which is unfortunate, because even though several of his conclusions are grossly inaccurate, he does raise valid questions about our country and our politics. As both HMHC and I have said on numerous occasions on this blog, as long as this is the message liberals are bringing to the table, they offer nothing of interest.

A couple of things I didn't understand, and I certainly welcome feedback that helps clarify...

1) "conservative Christians choose to believe what they want"
As opposed to other Christians, whose core faith is apparently much more grounded in fact?

2) It's good to know that I no longer should sweat the abortion and gun issues, because I was really losing sleep over those. But without those issues to chew on, I'm at a loss to know which issues are the ones "that matter". Now that I'm de-snookered I'm feeling a little naked here.

Mark Ward said...

Crab, rather than me do the work on what I KNOW to be true, why don't you go out and research my claims and prove them to be be true? You do a good job of trying to prove that I am wrong most of the time...try it the other way. Start by actually researching the other side and listening to their claims, specifically regarding wiretapping and the leak investigation, and see what you come up with.

PL, I don't think you can equate what the Democrats do with what the conservatives do. It's like comparing a car thief to Charles Manson. The two parties aren't even in the same ballpark. Everything that BLK says is pretty much on the mark. What, exactly, isn't in your opinion and why? I would task you to do the same thing that I have asked Crab to do.

I look at that Neocons are saying everyday and it is nauseating. I know what they stand for (and what their followers wrongly believe they stand for) and I have too much moral fiber and intelligence to accept their point of view. Reality is on my side, after all.

Anonymous said...

Well I'm trying to research your above claims of WHAT OUR CURRENT LEADERSHIP IS DOING and you haven't provided one ounce of evidence supporting the claims you made above. My guess is that you know you shouldn't have said those things in the comments section of an entry dealing with "facts". Back up your claims of "reality being on your side" with regards to your charges above. Still waiting............

At least you know what Republicans stand for, even if you disagree with it. So what was the democrats plan for Iran again??????????? I won't bother asking you to investigate that because Christmas is coming up. I know, just say you're not a democrat again and move on...

I think you're on to something. Please keep promoting this insight wherever you go: Americans are really dumb and the liberals only problem is that they are so extraordinarily brilliant. If you libs can just pretend to be "brain dead" like the Republicans, you will sweep to victory. That is a great strategy...please pursue it.

Anonymous said...

The lack of humility in your last posting, Markadelphia, is truly jarring. I'm sorry, but that's disgusting. And, frankly, a little frightening.

You are tasking me to look into allegations that the wiretapping program was used to spy on political subversives and also, apparently, plant child porn on their PCs? Sounds like fun. Can you get me started with a source that doesn't resemble "ragingliberal.blogspot.com"?

For the record, I mentioned that I believe blk raised some very valid questions in his posting. But what do I think....I mean, what do I KNOW is inaccurate? For starters, the tired old arguments about how Bush lied to start the war in Iraq. How he's lying now. Blah blah blah. I might have thought it would be as tedious for liberals to rehash these arguments as it is for normal people to listen to them, but apparently it never grows old for them. I'm happy to notice that several of the local Democratic candidates seem to be steering clear of using those bogus arguments - while at the same time successfully lambasting the current administration (arguably with just cause). Perhaps the moral fiber and intelligence of which you spoke is better exhibited by them?

Mark Ward said...

PL, I was asking you to research BLK's claims not mine and as for the rest...

My point, Crab, is that I could spend time researching my claims in comments, backing them up and then posting them in comments OR I could spend time writing my next column. The column itself is where I would like to spend most of my time researching whatever topic I am discussing so I choose the latter.

I would suggest, as Ann Coulter does everyday when she reads the "Traitor Times" (aka The New York Times), that you look at what materials are out there reagarding what I said. I don't regret saying anything at all. They are all true, to one degree or another, and if you take the time to see what's out there, you will see that much of what I am saying is dead on. I just spent 10 mintues googling some key words I mentioned (that you have a problem with) and got hits from all over the place including one from the Justice Department. Uh oh. Hope they can't track me now....

I don't know what the Democrat's plan on Iraq is. What is the Republican's plan? There doesn't seem to be a consensus there either. Can't it be America's plan?

Ah yes, the old "libs are elitist snobs who shit on decent folk" argument. I don't consider myself to be "better" than most neocons...just more informed and by extension, more intelligent. A great way to demonstrate how I feel when a neocon starts spouting off a bunch of nonsense would be this:

Imagine Markadelphia going into an Auto Garage and lecturing people about how to replace a transmission. I know next to nothing about cars but, for some bizarre reason, I think I do based on something I read on the Internet about transmissions. I have never replaced one, fixed one, or even seen one and yet my opinion...is it informed or grossly uninformed? Is it even valid?

How the rest of the people in the garage would feel about me is how I feel about neocons when they start in with their "point of view." Sure, they can have it if they want but how can I possibly see a side that is grossly delusional, devoid of facts, and lacks any forward thinking or depth?

It's hard for me, at times, to convey the sum total of my knowledge in the area of politics because we are talking about 26+ years of political study and discourse. If I make an offhand remark about Orwell's 1984 and how our culture is moving in that direction, is it my fault that you have not read the book? For you to then make a comment about how we are nowhere near that world makes your opinion uninformed. So, as someone who seeks to gain knowledge, not erase it, why would I want to look at things from a side that chooses to know less?

In other words, don't take my word for it. Research my side and see what you come with. Try to prove my point and, in the process, you will probably learn something.

Anonymous said...

Anyone that knows you knows that you have plenty of time on your hands to provide us a link or two. I don't have a problem with your "words", I do have a problem with the fact that you won't inform your readers of your sources of the serious claims you just made on here. Why should I "prove your point" when you aren't willing to do that yourself? So tell me, who planted kiddie porn on who's computer? So you are allowed to make allegations of neo-con law-breaking, then it's up to US to prove YOU wrong? What a joke, it doesn't work that way...back up your claims, those are serious allegations. Still waiting...................

You need to know that when someone says "I have too much intelligence to accept another point of view", that comes across as elitist and condescending.

"Delusional" and "lacks forward thinking or depth" are your opinions.

Mark Ward said...

Actually, between working, school, kids etc. I don't really have the time to research things other than for my next column. Still waiting for you to research the other side....

I will never choose to be ignorant so if that makes me elitist, then so be it.

Anonymous said...

You work part time and you don't start school for another week. Those are facts.

Thank you. My point has been proven - you are not willing to tell anyone where you read about those very serious charges of criminal behavior you have leveled against GWB and company. How the hell do you expect anyone to accept them as "fact" when you seem to be hiding the source of your info? I'm not the only one who asked you for your sources. Besides, I don't really feel like googling "NSA abuse kiddie porn" here at work.

Mark Ward said...

Then check it out at home. There are a myriad of sites to look through...so many that posting them here would be redundant. It's not that I think my argument is weak. It's that I know that I would never be able to prove anything to your satisfication and thus is a waste of my time.

If I can't prove to you that Bush Co is doing a horrible job leading this country, what can I prove?

Anonymous said...

"I know that I would never be able to prove anything to your satisfication and thus is a waste of my time."

How does it feel? As if there is anything I could post once I research the "other side" that would prove to you that I'm not "uninformed" with regards to politics. You've made it perfectly clear time and time again on this blog that one has to fall in right in line with your worldview on a number of issues for you to consider them "informed". There seems to be only 1 side to your debate - your side...any interpretation that is reached that differs from your interpretation is considered "uninformed" by you (see above).

Just give us 2 sources. 2 links.

Then again, don't bother. It's to the point where I'm just having fun with you in this thread. You're well aware that I don't seek out validation from anyone else but myself and trying to "prove" to everyone around me how terrible things are going is not very high on my list of priorities.

One thing I have learned though...I've learned a new definition of the word "fact". See below...

Fact = something read on the internet that fits my worldview.

Anonymous said...

Speaking only for myself, I don't want you to prove that Bush Co is doing an awful job. That's largely a subjective evaluation that frankly neither one of us could "prove" to the other. I guess what I'm failing to understand is what your applied knowledge has to do with the history of unfounded and downright ridiculous accusations that are consistently forwarded on this blog. (lying, scandal, abuse of power, even murder.) It's one thing to be intelligent enough to make practical correlations between a hypothetical world and the real world. It's something else completely to speculate such a correlation exists and expect everybody to accept it as unquestioned fact. It's one thing to apply practical knowledge of history, but something else completely to speculate as to history repeating itself and expect everybody else to accept it as unquestioned fact. It's particularly bogus when combined with the fact that, armed only with applied knowledge and not any actual proof (like HMHC, still waiting...), you reject the possibility that you could be wrong. That's an unfortunate attitude to bring to the table and to use as a measuring stick on others. You don't have to like the neocons - and I know you don't. Understanding that not everybody subscribes to your construction of reality might prove useful, however.

Mark Ward said...

But what exactly is my "construction" of reality?

Lying-Cheney said that Iraq, without a doubt, had weapons of mass destruction. He saw the same CIA reports that we did. He lied.

Scandal-Bush almost put the country's ports in the hands of the same country that two 9/11 terrorists came from. If that doesn't qualify as a scandal and ineptitude, I don't know what does.

Abuse of Power-The NSA program has been deemed unconstitutional and in direct violation of FISA by a federal judge.

Murder-Bush Co ordered our troops into Iraq based on a lie. Those troops killed people with cause, no cause, and accidently...basically all three of the main definitions of murder. He (and Cheney and Rumsfeld) are respoinsible for those deaths.

And those are just one example of each....I could go on...um....forever......

To me, PL, these are all facts. To you and Crab, they are spin. Perhaps history will be a little more understanding. And speaking of history...

Crab, it's pretty much common knowledge, now, that J Edgar Hoover tapped the phones of Martin Luther King. There is also mounting evidence that John Lennon was being monitored by the FBI as a subversive...another carry over from the Hoover era. At the time, however, people in the King and Lennon camps were denounced as "kooky" and "paranoid" for thinking that their phones were tapped.

And that's pretty much what is happening now. Most folks around news organizations and the blogsphere know that it's the same group of people running the show now that were up to no good back then. Same people, dude. Can anyone prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Can I? No. So, we are all wackos, I guess.

But it doesn't even take a small mental leap to figure out that Bush Co is trying very hard to have as much power and control over this country as we will let them. And apparently that's a lot because they are pretty getting away with whatever they want.

I think that it cheapens our freedom (and our intelligence) to say, "They can tap my phone if they want. I have nothing to hide. Besides, all they want is the terrorists." It just blows me away that people are that naive and trusting. I am not. Thankfully, Qwest is not.

And to answer your question as to how I feel, I feel fine.

Anonymous said...

Oh I'm well aware of - and quite comfortable with - the distinction between your "facts" and my "spin". You don't need to explain to me the difference. My goal is simply to address the questions from your posting re: the facts, and your other questions re: why people can't see the facts. As long as you continue to have to preface statements with "To me...", "In my opinion...", "From my perspective...", "...as I see them", etc., you are not dealing in fact. Perhaps history will, as you suggest, come to see such statements as fact. Perhaps you are wise beyond your years and have insightfully torn apart the clumsy facade constructed by BushCo. My money is backing the other pony in that race, though. But regardless of who's right, I still wouldn't want you teaching my kids anything (to speak to your initial posting) because your unwavering belief in what you deem to be fact really eliminates any hope for a fruitful discussion.

I have only now recovered from a massive shame spiral caused by my butchering of a quote in a previous posting. So, for my own pride and amusement, I want to repeat - this time correctly - that quote here:
"You can use facts to prove anything", says Homer Simpson.

The point being this - you have a view, and have carefully selected facts to present to support your view. Those facts are devoid of context (i.e. the judge's ruling of the NSA program is hardly the end-all of the legal process) and lack counterpoints. We all do it...you're no different or better than everyone else. As a discriminating owner/consumer of the American Federal Republic, I'm just not understanding why I'm to view what you present as obvious reality as anything more than your construction.

Mark Ward said...

So, now my "ridiculous accusations" are now "carefully selected facts?" At least I am moving up in the world.

People can have any viewpoint they want based on the facts as they see them. An example of this would be that I view a convicted child molester as a scumbag. That is a fact. Other people may view that child molester as a troubled invidual who was never given a fair shake. And that maybe, since the kid was 10, was advanced in maturity so it was ok. That is a bizarre and warped perception that has nothing to do with fact. Do you see my point?

We let our biases interpret facts for us. You say I do that. So any action that Bush Co takes, that is negatively perceived by me, is now in doubt as to whether or not it acutally happened? I have every confidence that you, Crab, and I would not be having this discussion if President Gore or Kerry had ordered wiretaps on Trent Lott. Or had used them for other purposes. I really don't see either one of you so quick to rally to the defense of a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

BLK, you made some great points about leaders, why they try to stay in power, this country and perceptions of our actions around the world. thanks for the post.

Mark, Merril sounds like a pretty scarily mis-informed person. I wouldn't blame it on anything specific, like religion, but I do wonder how anyone could still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and the other things she said.

In general, is this what blogs are like? Taking shots at each other, name calling and little critical debate about what's going on? It seems like the same arguments go on again and again.

Unfortunately, the real issue may be that America is slipping back into apathy and neutrality after the Cold War. Most Americans don't care about what happens around the world ("Why do "they" hate us?") because we're isolated and it doesn't affect us much, or so we think.

Most, if not all, issues are not as clear cut as invading a country and wrapping up operations within a few months. Isolating the Palestinians, Iran and North Korea has certainly not gotten the US what we want from those countries. We should be talking to them directly in order to make progress with them. However, our foreign policy reflects our citizens' apathy and isolation. We don't know anything, as citizens, about Iraq or its culture or people, so a few well-motivitated personalities get us involved in a quagmire. The issues aren't simple, but the answers we're coming up with are.

Read Fiasco by Tom Ricks to get an idea what went wrong with the invasion of Iraq. We need to stop talking about a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and talk about a plan, with our international allies, about how to make Iraq peaceful and a plan to keep it on track. Involving Syria and Iran in those discussions would go a long way to resolution. A two year plan with specific goals for working with tribal leaders, getting people employed, oil flowing again, stemming corruption, etc. capped by an exit strategy is a way to define what at what point we've decided we won or lost before we leave.

Mark Ward said...

Adam,

Blogs can be like this. Most of all Crab and PL like to bate me and I play along to make them think that they have gotten my goat.

You have some good points. Iraq does need a plan. It seems that right now, we have no plan, except
the usual line of propaganda. We need to bring in people who are very savy in the region to get the plan going. If President Bush is serious about getting Iraq to work, he should lay out this plan to the American public. Most people in this country are against the war and it could go a long way for him if he made some kind of an effort to explain to all of us a new policy that would help.

Given his track record for admitting failure, I seriously doubt this would happen. I also doubt that we would get any kind of cooperation from some of the countries you mentioned. They simply cannot be trusted

Mark Ward said...

One more thing, I hope you stick around, Adam. I have enjoyed your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

"I play along to make them think that they have gotten my goat."

Oh please.

Anonymous said...

Markadelphia, obviously I'm once again lacking in my ability to convey my point. Clearly a failing of mine. I couldn't care less if you think GWB is a lying murderer who molests collies. I'll lose zero hours of sleep if everybody else arounds me thinks the same. It's not important to me if you think a child molester is a scumbag who deserves a bullet in the head or if you think that person has an illness and deserves our sympathy and help. I'll gladly acknowledge, discuss, and hopefully reconcile those differences with you just for the sport of it and/or because they are clearly related to issues such as who we elect. But all of that is unrelated to a scenario where you tell people it is a fact that the molester is a scumbag and that anybody who thinks differently is willfully ignorant, a slave to propaganda, or just flat-out wrong. What is actually fact in your example - that the person is a child molester - does not support your position any more than it does the other. To hold others accountable to a measuring stick based entirely on your perception is zealotry at its finest, and that's the issue to which I'm speaking. And, from what I'm reading, so too is HMHC.

We let our biases interpret facts for us. Thank you for reiterating my very point.

If you go back and review postings of mine for the past few years you will consistently find that it's not a case of me being quick to defend GWB or other Repubs as much as it's a case of me being quick to defend people (almost always GWB and repubs, since the accusations are reserved almost exclusively for them) against accusations that are based solely on perception and not fact. As far as I'm concerned, we absolutely would be having this discussion if the only source of information for accusing President Gore or Kerry of illegally using wiretaps was neocon.blogspot.com, or if somebody was trying to show Truman was a murderer, profiteer, and worst President in history because he manufactured a war in Korea and sent 30,000+ troops to their demise. A person could quite readily come up with facts to prove that viewpoint. But to do so, and to approach that issue without regard for the other (some would argue "historically accurate") viewpoint, all the while shoveling crap like "Truman used the bogeyman of Communism to line his pockets" (read every posting by blk, and every statement released by Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi,... for comparable statements) it makes for a very fruitless situation.

In the end, I'll continue to call you on every generalized, inaccurate statement about conservatives being ignorant or not accepting facts, but not because I hope or care to change your mind.

Anonymous said...

In it something is. Thanks for the help in this question, I too consider, that the easier the better ?

Anonymous said...

It is remarkable, very good message