liberals....

[Rob67]

Haven’t been around in awhile (real life happenings tend to put a damper on message boards!) and I see our propaganda machine is still in full swing here. So, here’s a little bit I came across which beautifully explains my distaste for extremes (mostly liberal, but religious right, as well). A little counter to that ridiculous Moore piece that's making so much news.

Enjoy!

Rob

PS. I know some of you will get a big kick out of the title.
_________________________

Why I Hate Liberals

By Brantley Thompson Elkins

There was a story in the news last year about the failures of the Head Start program. You remember Head Start; it was created to give disadvantaged pre-school children a leg up — teach them their ABCs, that sort of thing.

Only it wasn’t doing that. The kids weren’t learning their ABCs, or anything else. Head Start had turned into nothing but a baby sitting service. It was shocking news, but not half as shocking as the reaction from one of the teachers’ unions.

You mustn’t even try to teach these poor children their ABCs, the union people said; they’re too young, too vulnerable. It will destroy their self-esteem; they’ll be traumatized for life. They trotted out alleged studies to back up their argument. But they couldn’t hide the obvious truth: not only had they failed the children, but they were trying to make a virtue of that failure.

I already knew that conservatives didn’t give a **** whether children learned anything, as long as "Under God" was in the Pledge of Allegiance and nasty things like evolution were kept out of textbooks. But now it was clear that liberals didn’t give a **** either, as long as unionized teachers and bureaucrats got big raises and kids learned why Heather has two mommies, even if they couldn’t read the book about Heather.

Bilingual education, founded as a program to teach Spanish-speaking children in their own language only until they could master English, has similarly turned into a program that, effectively, prevents children from learning English and doesn’t do a good job of teaching them anything else. But again, it provides extra jobs for teachers, and the superficial impression that the country is "doing something" for disadvantaged minorities.

That was what welfare programs were supposed to do for the poor, and these seemed to be so essential to their very survival that when welfare reform was imposed in the 1990’s there were fears that millions would be dying of starvation. It didn’t happen, in part because privately funded food banks took up the slack. There are still serious problems with moving the poor back into the "heartless" private economy, especially now, but even when the welfare system was still entrenched, it was hardly a compassionate enterprise.

Some years back, I encountered a homeless woman and her children on the street, begging for help. She told me she’d been burned out of her apartment, and cut off welfare as a result. The welfare office refused to help her find another place to live, she said. She’d have go to some other office clear across town. Well, I gave her some money, but I also got the phone number of her caseworker.

That woman hadn’t been selling me a phony sob story; the caseworker confirmed her account in every detail. The welfare office wasn’t allowed to help her with housing, or even to contact the housing agency on her behalf. So here she was pounding the pavement, begging for help, because one city agency wouldn’t make a ****ing phone call to another city agency. But I’ll bet they had plenty of time to call Dial-A-Joke or porno lines.

Liberals are supposed to be the friends of the poor and oppressed. Maybe they were, once. But many of them today are just social parasites, whose bureaucratic programs and earnest causes are devoted more to securing their own government jobs or making them feel good about themselves than to truly aiding the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, racial and ethnic minorities, gays, whatever, whoever.

When did it happen? Back during the Depression, when unemployment and poverty were far more widespread than today, liberals truly did represent the common man. Those were the days when unions organized major industries like steel mills, automobile plants and coal mines for the first time. Those were the days when John Steinback mythologized the Okies in The Grapes of Wrath and Aaron Copland composed a Fanfare for the Common Man.

Guess what? The steelworkers and autoworkers and miners joined the middle class. They weren’t poor and downtrodden any more. They bought decent homes, new cars, put swimming pools and barbecues in their back yards, watched sitcoms and soap operas on TV. A lot of the Okies ended up as successful farmers or skilled workers in California. They had committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of liberal intellectuals: they had become bourgeois.

Just as the old-line right-wingers thought nothing could be worse than a Communist (Nowadays, they may be split between secular humanists and Islamic fundamentalists as bêtes noirs.), ivory tower liberals still believe that nothing can be worse than a bourgeois. It is a prejudice that has a long history, going back at least as far as French novelist Gustave Flaubert ("Hatred of the bourgeoisie is the beginning of wisdom.").

Of course, the liberal intelligentsia can argue that its contempt for the working class turned bourgeoisie is well-earned: just look at Archie Bunker. Anyone who thinks there aren’t still a lot of Archie Bunkers out there, even 20 years after All in the Family, must be living on Mars. But there is an obvious element of hypocrisy here: can anyone seriously believe that working class whites were more bigoted in the 1970s or afterwards than they were in the 1930s when they were celebrated in proletarian fiction?

Among European intellectuals, there has long been a contempt for the common people almost as virulent as that of British aristocrats of old. "A tepid mass of flesh scarcely organized into human life," Virginia Woolf called them. But perhaps even more virulent has been the liberal intellectual romanticization of the antisocial and even the criminal as preferable to the bourgeois, which has crossed the ocean in recent decades.

Jean Paul Sartre once wrote a hagiography of Jean Genêt, the thief turned poet and playwright, who had demonstrated his authenticity by "choosing" to be a thief. Without arguing about the literary merits of either writer, let us imagine that Genêt had "chosen" to be a doctor — not a Park Avenue plastic surgeon, mind you, but a doctor dedicated to service of the poor. Would Sartre have canonized him?

More recently, Norman Mailer canonized Jack Henry Abbott, a convicted violent criminal he knew had to be a sensitive intellectual type because he’d regurgitated Mailer’s own ideas in a book. Even after Abbott, paroled in large part because of Mailer’s intervention, murdered an aspiring actor who was waiting tables for a living, Mailer continued to defend his protegé, as if he agreed with Abbott’s assessment that his bourgeois victim’s life was worthless.

Just as conservatives long imposed a double standard for sexual behavior, placing the burden of "immorality" entirely on women, the liberal establishment has imposed a moral double standard as strict as that which once divided nobles and commoners. Imagine how they’d react if a "bourgeois" writer like Stephen King or Dean Koontz murdered his wife in a William Tell stunt. Yet Williams S. Burroughs, a darling of the intelligentsia, did just that -- only his act became part of his heroic literary mythology.

One of the favorite liberal catchphrases during the Vietnam protest era was "ad hoc" -- there were all manner of ad hoc committees and coalitions for this and that. Maybe there was even an Ad Hoc Coalition for a Viable Alternative. But now ad hoc morality seems to be the thing. This is supposedly in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, but what it amounts to is an ad hoc moral absolutism as tendentious as that of the religious right.

Sometimes this is a simple reverse absolutism, as if Hollywood had suddenly decided to make white hats a symbol of evil in Westerns. White people are evil; people of color are good. Men are all testosterone-crazed rapists and murderers; women are all nurturing. Gays are more sensitive than straights. But it gets more complicated in some cases. Anti-Semitism is still evil if it comes from the Right, but understandable if it comes from the Left: hence the Left's acceptance of the John Adams opera The Death of Leon Klinghoffer that characterized Jews as vulgar money-grubbers and implied that Klinghoffer deserved his fate at the hands of Palestinian terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro.

Whites in America owe reparations to blacks for the past crime of slavery; this is no longer even considered a subject for debate on some college campuses, where newspapers have been suppressed for running ads by a right-wing gadfly attacking the idea. Yet present-day slavery in countries like Sudan is no big deal, because it is imposed by Arab Muslims rather than white Christians -- or was American slavery another conspiracy by the Jews? And nobody seems to think that whites in Brazil and other countries that once held Africans in bondage owe reparations.

In American Gypsy, a documentary about a king of the gypsies in Spokane, Washington, who had run-ins with the law, there are clips from local newcasts that jokingly suggested recent fires and plane crashes might be the result of a curse he had placed on the city. The Spokane news anchors would have known better than make fun of blacks or Latinos or Asians or Native Americans in such a manner -- they were on the list of those protected by Political Correctness guidelines. But gypsies weren't on the list, so they were fair game.

Too many ordinary Americans believe that they too are fair game. They may not read the academic journals or books, but they can sense the condescension and contempt in which they are held by those who write them off as incurably vulgar and small-minded, or even as incorrigible racists, sexists and homophobes. Today's liberals are addicted to rhetorical overkill over public controversies -- remember how they compared New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to Hitler for attacking an art show he thought was anti-religious? Or how they thought that only a bigot could possibly be offended by a photo of a crucifix in a tank of piss? What if it had been a menorah, or a portrait of Martin Luther King in a tank of piss?

Liberal intellectuals are so alarmed by the rise of the Right that they don't even want to be called liberals any more. There aren't any liberals, in colleges or campaigns; just moderates desperately fighting the neo-Nazi juggernaut. But they themselves helped create the atmosphere for the resurgence of the Right through their elitist alienation from those they once called the masses, and even today they are too obsessed with their self-righteousness and the supposed purity of their political correctness to offer a viable alternative. They hate everyone but themselves, and have thus become hateful to everyone but themselves.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Rob67

Haven’t been around in awhile (real life happenings tend to put a damper on message boards!) and I see our propaganda machine is still in full swing here. So, here’s a little bit I came across which beautifully explains my distaste for extremes (mostly liberal, but religious right, as well). A little counter to that ridiculous Moore piece that's making so much news.

Enjoy!

Rob

PS. I know some of you will get a big kick out of the title.
_________________________

Why I Hate Liberals

Rob, a couple of things:

Have you see the "ridiculous" Moore piece?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you post something with the title "I Hate Liberals?"

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Rob, a couple of things:

Have you see the "ridiculous" Moore piece?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you post something with the title "I Hate Liberals?"

Yes

And

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony)

Rob

[dissention]

I see the beast has returned.

I won't partake in your threads until you actually give us a review of the film, like everyone else has, instead of just calling it "ridiculous." But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

I see the beast has returned.

I won't partake in your threads until you actually give us a review of the film, like everyone else has, instead of just calling it "ridiculous." But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate.

I didn't say I paid to see it and I don't have the energy to waste my day on reviewing it. I will say that Moore is a talented documentary maker and humorous when he wants to be. It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.

And of course I don’t expect you guys to read anything I post, it usually hurts when someone makes a point that hits too close to home. And that is always uncomfortable to deal with. I also don’t expect any responses other then postings of articles from reporters with agendas or the “you suck” variety. This is just a take on the state of liberal extremism and how it has become what it has become. The title is a “tounge in cheek” take on the hateful speech that is used by many extremists, a la: “I hate Bush”.

Every day that Ted Kennedy continues to open his mouth I become a little bit more conservative.

Politics aside, how are you??

[Bella Figura]

dissention says "No, it doesn't. It does the same thing it condemns. It spins things and falsely interprets the Head Start situation." btw, I support Head Start, my in-laws both work for the Grandparents program and I've seen first hand how it helps kids...

but don't you have the feeling that all the media, political animals and even you're religious next door neighbor is "spinning" these days??

all I feel at this point is that I'm being lied to by everyone both liberal and conservative. and that's my only point...article, movie or political debate, I keep most of my opinions to myself as everyone has his own agenda even you dissention... are you really interested in educating/enlightening me or just browbeating me with your opinion, look at your signature and then look at mine

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Rob67

I will say that Moore is a talented documentary maker and humorous when he wants to be. It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.

Name them.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Rob67

Yes

And

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony)

Rob

No, Rob, I don't have a hard time with sarcasm and irony. I employ both frequently. I just have a hard time with the apparent mental limitations of some people who should know better. If you write something titled I hate "blues" and part of your audience is blue, you are immediately gratuitously insulting that part of the audience. If you are making a case against "blues," there are much more intelligent ways of doing so rather than insulting.

Be that is it may, this three-name, pompous, butt-chewing, probably bow-tied, hate-spewing mental defector who says he hates liberals? F--- him.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Be that is it may, this three-name, pompous, butt-chewing, probably bow-tied, hate-spewing mental defector who says he hates liberals? F--- him.

I don't think Tucker Carlson wrote that article, but I get your drift.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Rob67

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony)

Yeah, right... the liberals around here have always had a hard time with sarcasm and irony.....

Originally Posted by dissention

But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate.

Hey Dissention- as Rob has stated sooo many times, he doesn't hate liberals. How's that for sarcasm??

Originally Posted by Rob67

It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.

Michael Moore has stated repeatedly that the movie is an op-ed piece, and should mainly be viewed as his personal opinion. I looked at most of his conjecture as just that. However, the facts presented are very, very powerful and very, very true. My favorite is when Powell and Rice both state unequivocally that Iraq did not possess WMD's, had no viable military power and basically was not a threat to other nations.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, some of the humor used in it is ridiculous like when he used an ice cream truck to broadcast the Patriot Act to the people in Congress when everyone knows no member of Congress read all Acts they sign because there is not enough time to do that Yet, MM makes a mockery of them for it and does this to sell the film.

I am not saying he has no right to do this and that his use is not effective - he does and it is. I am just saying I think some of takes away from the journalistic integrity of the film, but he readily admits he was not going for journalistic integrity. So, even though my point is academic, it does not negate the fact that some of the film is ridiculous in that it uses xany humor to ridicule.

I am just commenting on his style.

Of course, the idea that members of congress read everything they vote on is ridiculous. However, the Patriot Act radically changed the powers of government. You would think congress would have deliberated all the various items in the bill for a LEAST a week or two, if not months. Moore's over-the-top style was definitely needed, considering congress's complete idiocy with regard to the Patriot Act (jeez, I hate the name of that bill- nothing could be further from the truth!)

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

How interesting. You think using an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act to congressmen is ridiculous. But you don't think a system in which a law that contradicts the Bill of Rights passed by people who didn't read what they were voting on is ridiculous. Yes, Jason, I know that these guys can't possibly read everything. But a law that annuls some of what's in the Bill of Righs? Surely you're not that forgiving.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by dissention

Sorry, I'm hundreds of miles from Pittsburgh, so I can't hear it going off.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Hey Dissention- as Rob has stated sooo many times, he doesn't hate liberals. How's that for sarcasm??

Michael Moore has stated repeatedly that the movie is an op-ed piece, and should mainly be viewed as his personal opinion. I looked at most of his conjecture as just that. However, the facts presented are very, very powerful and very, very true. My favorite is when Powell and Rice both state unequivocally that Iraq did not possess WMD's, had no viable military power and basically was not a threat to other nations.

But the problem is...Moore and others have short-term memory. Moore conviently forgets to include some of these soundbites and speeches. Every politician lies and flips positions...*sigh*...I'll post this again...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Bella Figura]

just to state, I like Michael Moore and I have seen his movie but Rob's article makes some good points. At this juncture, regular people can no longer define themselves within either political spectrum be it liberal or conservative.

"and you think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still ****in' peasants as far as I can see" Working Class Hero, John Lennon


"my first mistake was to smile at you" Stevie Nicks

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

just to state, I like Michael Moore and I have seen his movie but Rob's article makes some good points.

No, it doesn't. It does the same thing it condemns. It spins things and falsely interprets the Head Start situation.

The fact is, posting that kind of op-ed is going to draw a lot of fire from liberals. It insults them, that's why Rob posted it. To get our goats and rile us up. But I see it for what it is: a poorly-informed piece of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The writer is not going to convince liberals of anyhting, neither is Rob.

But you're right about being liberal or conservative, there is no in-between.