What’s Wrong With America?
Posted by
tgirsch
A Republican friend of mine sent me an e-mail this morning, bemoaning the internet gambling ban that was attached to the port security bill, and making a snide remark along the lines of “Bad Republicans, no mid-term win for you!”
This, frankly, stunned me.
A disastrous war that’s having precisely the opposite of the intended effect, a huge lobbying and corruption scandal, complete and utter disregard for separation of powers and checks and balances, approval of the suspension of long-standing protections like habeus corpus, the legalization of prisoner abuse and possibly even torture, a history of putting political power ahead of national security; all this, and it’s an internet gambling ban that’s the last straw?
What the hell is wrong with this country?
Yeah, I noticed that too. Quite a few conservative poker players are angry. I’ve been mad about other stuff and am mad about this too.
the trouble is, of course, that the only alternative to the Republicans is Democrats. Pick what you want to lose first, i guess.
Comment 10/9/2006
Tgirsch, on the off chance your question was not 100% rhetorical and you are truly perplexed…
It’s about abstraction, immediacy, and proximity. The issues you mentioned are important of course, but on a day-to-day basis, they have little actual impact on an average citizen. On the other hand, if you typically spend several hours a day doing something, and then it is made illegal (or more precisely its illegality is strictly enforced), there is a significant impact on your daily life.
You can disapprove of this, but to not accept it is to deny human nature.
Also, you used the phrase “the last straw”. Think about the origins of that phrase; the implications of that phrase. It’s not about the straw itself. It’s about the straw in combination with all that has come before it.
Comment 10/9/2006
Uncle:
I find it hard to imagine that, on the issues I mentioned, the Democrats would be worse, or even as bad. Hell, ten years ago, I couldn’t have imagined the Republicans being this bad, either.
Ted:
The friend in question doesn’t gamble at all, to my knowledge. The reason this upset him is that he views it as symptomatic of a larger hot-button issue for him, one that gets his attention: “excessive government regulation” (kind of like church & state or obfuscation of science for me, or guns or BSL for SayUncle). That’s why the rhetorical question. The friend in question has been perfectly willing to live with everything else I mentioned, but this really made him mad. If that’s not a gross misalignment of priorities, I don’t know what is.
Comment 10/9/2006
Tolerance comes in many flavors, including tolerance for others’ priorities. While I agree with you on these issues, I understand that others do not agree with me re the war, habeas, executive power, etc. There is a broad spectrum of political opinion in this country. We need to be wary of treating our own opinions as fact or truth. It is just that type of thinking that has enabled the current administration to act unilaterally wrt Iraq. IMHO
Comment 10/9/2006
Would you prefer your friend was still planning to vote Republican?
Comment 10/9/2006
Ted:
There’s a time and a place for compromise, though. Is there no place that you’d draw the line, and say that “this American value should not be compromised?” If someone wouldn’t draw the line at torture, or at suspension of civil liberties without oversight or ability to appeal, then where would they draw the line?
Stormy:
He’s a blue-state Republican, so his vote is irrelevant.
And even if I believed he was going to withhold his vote from the Republican, any happiness I might gain from that is tempered by my knowledge that he’d either abstain or, worse, piss the vote away on a libertarian. 
Comment 10/9/2006
tgirsch, again, you need to realize that the opposition does not view these things the way you do. It’s like anti-abortion people claiming you (and I) support murdering babies. How could we support such a thing? It’s not about compromise, it’s about different perceptions. (I really don’t believe I need to tell you this - you more than most exhibit a tolerant blog disposition.)
Comment 10/9/2006
>then where would they draw the line?
After fifth street, apparently. ;>
Comment 10/9/2006
Ted:
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree. After all, it is generally the people who support the very things I complain about here who tend to be the black-and-white moral absolutists, and tend to vilify “moral relativists” like you and me.
Frankly, it’s a pessimistic picture you’re painting, because if what you’re saying is true, then there can be absolutely no right and wrong whatsoever, but only differing perceptions. I tend to view right and wrong as abstractions more than most, and even I don’t go that far. (And to be clear, my position on right and wrong is that it’s not always black and white, not that right and wrong don’t exist, nor even that right and wrong are never black and white.)
Comment 10/9/2006
“What the **** is wrong with this country?”
Liberals
Comment 10/10/2006
I don’t think my viewpoint is a pessimistic one. I would rephrase what you wrote:
“there can absolutely be no right or wrong” to read:
there can be no absolute right or wrong.
I have a moral framework. Truth be told, it is more strict than most. And I understand that others don’t share it. But that does not make them evil, insane, stupid, weak, or any of the other characteristics that are quickly attached to those with differing opinions, especially here on the blogosphere.
I believe Bush commits a global-sized blunder when he dehumanizes terrorists. By doing so, he diminishes the possibility of eliminating terrorism. On a much smaller scale, when we reflexively attribute a differing opinion to a malfunction in our antagonist’s psyche, not only do we reduce the possibility of changing their position, we forgo the opportunity to re-examine our own position. (Fred’s preceding post being a prime example.) Take it to an extreme, and the US ends up only negotiating with countries that are our allies. (As you might imagine - given that I tied together a post on North Korea and a post on internet gambling - I’m quite proficient at Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
)
Comment 10/10/2006
(Fred’s preceding post being a prime example.)
I’ve examined my own position quite often, and I come up with the same answer — Liberals are liars and as nutty as a fruitcake.
Comment 10/10/2006
I’m sure your methodology was quite scientific. Thanks Fred.
Comment 10/11/2006
Dan Says:
October 11th, 2006
I’m sure your methodology was quite scientific. Thanks Fred.
Fred: My method certainly beats the “If I hate Bush enough, I can tell any lie I want” method.
Comment 10/11/2006
You know what Fred? I’m getting sick and tired of your accusations of “lying.” You throw around the word “lie” so often, and in such unwarranted situations, that I’m beginning to wonder if you even know what it means. You just seemingly call any statement you disagree with (or don’t have the intellectual integrity to deal with honestly) a “lie.”
Webster defines “to lie” as “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.” So the next time you want to accuse someone of “lying,” you’d better be ready to demonstrate that the statement is demonstrably untrue, and to make a good case that the person making the statement knew it was untrue. Until then, shut the hell up.
Comment 10/11/2006
Alex Trebeck: Truth, your category please.
Truth: Whacko far left liberal blogs, for $500, Alex.
Alex Trebeck: “What’s Wrong With America?”
Truth: uhh….. What sort of post are you guaranteed to find on a liberal blog?
Alex Trebeck: Truth, You’re RIGHT again!
Comment 10/11/2006
I find liberals can’t think beyond the corners of their tight little boxes. They make the assumption - more often than not - that anyone who disagrees with them has to be the cold-hearted opposition. Not always true. Take my case: I tend to vote republican because I believe in smaller government. Obviously, the Republicans who hold power now don’t believe in the same thing. What To Do? Vote Democratic? They have the solution: More Government, More Taxes, lame ideas.
I guess Libertarian is the way to go.
Comment 10/12/2006
Tg: “Webster defines “to lie” as “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.”
Fred: That is rich. Thanks for the laugh. I suppose that you libs will finally admit that Bush did not lie about Iraq. I’m tired of you wicked haters lying about Bush.
Liberals are a bunch of liars. If you are tired of being called a liar, then don’t lie.
Comment 10/12/2006
Fred:
If you are tired of being called a liar, then don’t lie.
See, there you go again. Where, exactly, have I lied? Find any statement I’ve made here that can honestly be classified as a lie. Not an error, not hyperbole, not sarcasm, but a bald-faced lie. Go ahead, I’ll wait…
Truth is, YOU are the liar. You falsely accuse others of lying when they have not done so. You don’t even bother to defend yourself when called on this.
Comment 10/12/2006
Alex Trebeck: Tgirsch, your category please
Tgirsch: I’ll take “Commenters whose comments are devoid of substance” for $100, Alex.
Alex: This commenter contrives a lame-ass Jeopardy spoof.
Tgirsch: Who is The Truth?
Alex: Correct.
Tgirsch: “Commenters whose comments are devoid of substance” for $200.
Alex: This commenter is best known for asking “why liberals lie so much” but never identifying any specific lie.
Tgirsch: Who is Fred?
Alex: Correct!
Tgirsch: “Commenters whose comments are devoid of substance” for $300.
Alex: This group of commenters faces a Sisyphian task.
Tgirsch: What are Commenters who try to seriously engage Fred or The Truth?
Alex: Correct!
Comment 10/12/2006
this thread has obviously degenerated into a dead-end ‘you are’;'am not!’ farce.
Comment 10/12/2006
Alex: This commenter is best known for asking “why liberals lie so much” but never identifying any specific lie.
Fred: A specific lie doesn’t need to be identified since when I answer that way it is because the whole post I’m responding to is a lie. It would be redundant to repeat the lies.
Comment 10/12/2006
Tgirsch
I got the daily double on mine giving me $1000.
“I’ll take “Commenters whose comments are devoid of substance” for $100, Alex.”
Ahhh… you failed to see the substance and I know why. The reason you don’t see the substance is because you are so easily willing to piss on America. Posts like yours are the reason liberals rightfully have a reputation for being anti-American. Regardless of liberal philosophy, there is no shame in being proud of America. A proper posting would be something along the lines of “What is right with America”. You don’t have time or room in your silly blog for me to answer that question. Look at your answer…”Republicans”. LOL. Your post should read “What is wrong with Republicans” and then you can bring up the same old tired unsupported, or completely skewed, crap that you usually do while trying, in most cases, to make something out of nothing. Get on board, my friend, and stop knocking America.
You should stick to lame-ass Jeopardy.
Comment 10/12/2006
Fred: My method certainly beats the “If I hate Bush enough, I can tell any lie I want” method.
What exactly is your basis for comparison? How is your methodology superior? Are you sure that “If I hate Bush enough, I can tell any lie I want” is the methodology of all liberals? Is there are reason that you think this is our particular methodology?
You probably haven’t thought this through, you are too closed minded.
Comment 10/16/2006