Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

So, I’ve been getting heckled by this guy I know, Jake [thankfully not in comments, just elsewhere] about making Political Games more diverse in opinion [let’s face it, Justin and I have similar leftist opinions, even if we present them differently]. Of course, by “more diverse”, he meant himself. I really didn’t want to… He’s your typical Bush-worshiping conservative, and I just know he’s gonna bring on the trolls to my posts… but, well, he had a good point… and Justin’s post last night is what convinced me to finally let him. You can read his ugly little rant here.

Please note that though I allow him to post, I will not in any way be responsible for his posts; hell, I disagree 100% on most of them. But I won’t censor him. Or anyone else. So feel free to heckle him :-p

Share This

I stumbled across an article today on a new website called Liberals Only. Now being a liberal myself I was immediately interested. The idea of not having to deal with people that disagree with me is… interesting. I’ve been on my fair share of debate forums, and have engaged in many a heated debate. I don’t actually visit any of these forums anymore because I found it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with people that really just wanted to call me names and let me know how wrong I was… just because I didn’t agree with them. That gets annoying, and I have better things to do than deal with that crap.

So… let’s get back to this website. Anthony Levensalor, the creator of the website says that it is a community for,

“liberals and progressives who want a decent conversation and debate”

One of my first thoughts was that this is going to give everyone on the right an excuse to say: “Oh liberals claim they will fight for your right of free speech, but look at them now.” I know they’ll say it because I’ve heard it a million times. As a “liberal” I believe that I should be better than those at the FreeRepublic. I feel that I should allow everyone to speak their mind. Now if people are going to come on this website and spam it or continually call names and generally be a hateful douche… then your ideas and thoughts won’t get much respect from me because you don’t take the time to respect mine. But I will not ban someone just because they believe something different. I try to question everything, and I shy away from any group or organization that represses dissenting opinions.

Now, some people might say that this is just an effort to eliminate trolls and whatnot from interupting an intelligent reasonable discussion. That seems understandable. But I have one serious problem with this. The creator of the LiberalsOnly site says:

“Liberals Only is dedicated to making this a site for intelligent debate among people intelligent enough to know how to debate.”

Okay. So I understand that you don’t want hateful annoying trolls interupting your discussion, but… to say that you are creating a site for “liberals only” and then say that it’s a place for intelligent “debate”… ummmm, sorry… but… not buying it. First of all, this is making a very bad assumption. He’s presuming that Republicans and other conservatives aren’t intelligent enough for a serious debate. Granted there are some really annoying people out there, but I don’t think this means you should damn everyone with that particular viewpoint just because a few annoying assholes with too much free time like to call you a “commie.” I know some pretty damn smart conservatives, and even though I don’t agree with them, I cannot deny the cold hard truth that a lot of them are probably smarter than I am… at least as far as GPA goes. So I don’t think it’s completely fair to say that conservatives aren’t allowed in because someone might troll. Believe it or not there are liberal trolls out there too.

I mean, it’s only natural for us to be attracted to people that agree with us or respect our ideas. And admittedly I do it too. *gasp* I know… I talk to people that agree with me. Wow. But the difference is that I also talk to people that disagree with me, and when I am confronted with an opposing viewpoint that I do not fully understand I challenge people to prove their point to me. I want people to make me question what I believe, because for me, that is the only way I can make myself a better, more intelligent person. Now I understand why this appeals to some people. It’s nice to have someone say “hey… you’re right,” every once in awhile. But that’s not debate! If I have a conversation where myself and another completely random individual that let’s call “Steve”, and in this conversation “Steve” and I do nothing but say “you’re right, blah blah blah…” Guess what? That’s not a debate! We’re having a discussion, yes. We’re having an intelligent conversation free of hateful comments, yes. But we are not having a debate. But even so, there are many varying viewpoints within the liberal community (which might explain why they can’t ever get shit done). So… that might lead to a debate within the liberal community right? But really, if you are supressing the ideas of many people, than is it really the kind of meaningful debate that it should be? And who gets to decide what’s a liberal idea and what isn’t? Something like socialism is pretty clearly liberal, but not everything is that clearcut. And what about people that hold varying beliefs from the left and the right? Are they kicked out because they aren’t completely liberal?… Okay you get the point.

As a liberal I say, let’s be better than this. There are a lot of conservative websites banning liberals from their forums… hell I just got banned from Stop the ACLU not even 3 or 4 days ago, for doing nothing other than disagreeing with them. But that shouldn’t be what we do. I’m better than that, and as liberals we’re supposed to stand up for the free expression of ideas, not the supression of them.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ~ Avram Noam Chomsky

~Justin

Share This

I was watching this 25 minute video of an Ann Coulter interview today and all I heard was name calling. But there were some things that annoyed me even more. Like… for example… historical inaccuracy and mislabelling… everything. I got so mad at the blatant lies that Coulter was spewing on television that I had to pause the video and take a break. Why get so mad though? Because so many people believe this woman and support her by buying her books and worshipping her like a Republican godess. WAKE UP! She’s not that great. In fact, she’s really quite horrible.

But let’s get into the specifics. Coulter claims that with the war in Iraq we have such a huge insurgency because the public will not stand for civilian casualties. The question was, in hindsight would you have invested $250 billion that the Iraq war cost us into the Iraq war again, or would you invest it in other means of protecting us from terrorism? Coulter said: “I might have invested in more nukes.” Wow. Why the hell would you do that?! I can think of a bazillion other better ways of spending money… and by the way, throwing Ann Coulter’s books into a pile of burning $100 bills is one of the better ways of spending that money, although, perhaps ironicly, buying Coulter’s books to throw into the flaming pit of money… not worth the money. But let’s move on. She then stated that we didn’t buy these much needed nukes because the American public was “unwilling to accept civilian casualties.” Well, it makes me feel a little bit better to be American knowing that the majority of the American people think it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. Ann Coulter seems to disagree. Why? Apparently since the American public doesn’t like to see innocent civilians getting killed, that is the reason the Iraq rebuilding effort is going so poorly. Now if you’re like me you’re thinking… what? Where is she going with this. And if you’re like me, you never saw this coming. Ann compares our war on terror to World War II, and she claims that there were “Werewolves” and insurgents in post-war Germany that were Nazis… … … Now listen carefully. I hate it when people rewrite history. I’m a history major because I love history, and it really gets under my skin when someone just makes sometihng up. Let me say this slowly. Ann Coulter is WRONG. Dead wrong. I know she’s wrong, I’ve heard this claim made by Condi Rice over 3 years ago, and guess what? She’s wrong too. I know she’s wrong. In both Germany and Japan there were no resistance movements what-so-ever. In both countries the majority of the population had been bullied by a ruling militant minority, and most people in those countries weren’t happy with the leaders, and when we destroyed those governments we were able to quickly capture the leaders of the Nazi party to prevent them from organizing resistance, and in Japan any potential resistance fighters left in the top ranks of the military killed themselves because they followed the Bushido (Samurai) code. Coulter would have us believe that there were insurgents that fought us in postwar Germany, and these insugents were few in numbers because we “carpet bombed German cities that we killed so many civilians there were so few insurgents.” That’s… ridiculous. Rewriting history like that is worse than plagerism!! But if you don’t believe me, I figured I would find someone to back me up. Luckily for me, a 30 second google search lead me straight to a site that proves that I am right, and Ann Coulter and Condi Rice are wrong.

Before the end of the war, there had been rumors of possible guerilla war by diehard elements of the Nazi regime after the formal end of hostilities. Yet of all the many problems facing the occupying powers, a guerilla war was not one of them. The “Werewolves” had a scary name but no presence and did not become a serious security issue for the occupation. Instead of any heroic last stands, many Nazi leaders became the butt of bitter jokes as their promises of enduring heroism culminated instead in hundreds of suicides. The length and severity of the Second World War itself combined with the severity of Allied occupation made postwar guerilla resistance a fantasy.

Thank you George Mason University. And to avoid plagerism I’ll cite my source. But back to this historical misrepresentation… no not a misrepresentation, but a “fantasy.” I don’t know how to put it any plainer… Ann Coulter is just plain wrong.

Actually there was a lot more that angered me in this 25 minute interview, but because I am a history buff I was drawn to this particular comment. I did want to address a lot of other things, but I think I have gone on enough for one post. Though I do want to say one last thing. I never really knew Coulter before, never read her stuff, never saw an interview, never really paid her any attention. But after her appearence on CNBC I am absolutely convinced that Ann Coulter has no conscience. She has advocated capet bombing innocent civilians as a viable military strategy to prevent insurgency. That is wrong. I’m stunned that anyone could go on television and get away with that crap. Ann Coulter builds her success on spewing hatred, lies, and misrepresenting everyone that doesn’t exactly conform to her idea of what is right. Ann Coulter… stop, you’re hurting America.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ~ Avram Noam Chomsky

~Justin

Share This

MR. BRADBURY: Well, Senator, I think — as I said in my testimony, obviously the court’s decision does not call into question our ability to hold detainees –

LEAHY: Not my question. The president said very specifically — and he said it to our European allies — he was waiting for the Supreme Court decision and that would tell him whether he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo. In effect, it actually said neither. Where did he get that impression?

BRADBURY: Well –

LEAHY: The president’s not a lawyer. You are. The Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?

BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas, and I –

LEAHY: Well, where’d he get the idea?

BRADBURY: Obviously — the Hamdan decision, Senator, does implicitly recognize that we’re in a war, that the president’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole — the whole case was about –

LEAHY: I don’t think the president was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm. He was saying that this was going to tell him whether he could keep Guantanamo open or not. Afterward, he said it said he could.

BRADBURY: Well, it’s –

LEAHY: Was the president right or was he wrong?

BRADBURY: It’s under the Law of War that we –

LEAHY: Was the president right or wrong?

BRADBURY: — the president is always right, Senator.

VIDEO

Wow… always right? I struggle to think of anything I think he didn’t do wrong.

“When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” ~ Richard Nixon

Some people forget the President’s job is to enforce the laws not make them [Edit by Steve: or break them].

~Justin

Share This

For those not in the know, incumbent Connecticut Senator and former VP- and Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman (D) is facing a primary challenge from local businessman Ned Lamont, who’s also been involved with state and local politics. I’m sure most of you shrugged indifferently, nodded and thought “go Ned”, or perhaps even wished Joe some luck in his reelection campaign, but not really caring. After all, primary challenges happen a lot, they’re no big deal… except….

Except that the Beltway press and the Lieberman campaign have literally snapped. Between Joe and The New Republic, supporters of Ned Lamont are vicious ideologue blogofascists who wish to purge the Democratic party of all those who voted for the Iraqi war, and Republicans who want to take down a popular, well-liked Senator. If you’re as confused as I am, I don’t blame you. It’s been a bumpy, rocky ride. And there are plenty of good rhetorical takedowns on these ridiculous “talking points” [or lies, whatever you want to call them]. But Justin asked me online this afternoon, “When was the last time an incumbent was beaten in the primaries anyway?” I had no idea. More to the point, I hadn’t read anything about that. So after a little googling which lead me to Wikipedia’s entry for the 1930 Senate elections, I started looking at all the years between then and the present. I have to admit, I was surprised. Between 1930 and 1980, there were a grand total of 4 years in which an incumbent did NOT lose a primary. 1956, 58, 60, and 76. Out of 26 elections, 22 had an incumbent Senator losing a primary. Since then, the trend has become much, much rarer. In fact, since 1980 [or over 12 elections for the math-impaired], there have only been 3 primary-challenger victories: Carol-Moseley Braun (D-IL) in 1992, current Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) in 1996, and current Senator John Sununu (R-NH) in 2002. Here’s a quick link to the 92 results; just manipulate the year in the url to navigate.

Anyway, I thought that might be interesting to a few people.

Share This

Why can’t people ever learn? I am absolutely convinced that 30 years from now we’ll be looking back on the days that people had to fight their government for the right to be married. 30 years from now it will be like looking back at the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s. We’ll look back and think… goddamn we were foolish… why did we think we were better than them? Why did we think we deserved anything more? Let’s not make ourselves look foolish anymore. Let’s treat everyone equally, and with love, respect, and understanding… not just tolerence. Let’s go beyond tolerence to total acceptance.

“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.” ~ Voltaire

~Justin

Share This

I am so sick of hearing that the New York Times is comprimising national security. Hogwash! People point the the classified nature of the programs that were exposed. However it seems that no one on the right has considered the possiblity that those programs were classified because of their questionably legal status. You can’t just slap a national security argument onto this and expect me to believe you. I have not heard one person explain to me how the programs that were revealled in the NYT comprimise national security. I really want to know. All I’ve heard is: “It’s national security, we’re at war.” Give me a real answer. One that you used some small part of your brain to figure out… not just the same tired old rhetoric you regurgitate from FOX News.

And if the White House didn’t want judicial oversight in the first place when they were tapping our phones, they really don’t want an ACLU lawsuit challenging the government’s domestic wiretapping program to go to court. The US Justice Department asked federal judges to throw out the case citing that it would risk national security. Now… what’s more likely? The lawsuit would endanger national security? Or the lawsuit would make the White House look even worse and they really don’t need any bad PR. The Bush Administration invoked the “state-secrets privilege.” That means they don’t want it to go to court because it would comprimise national security. Let’s hope the judges are a little smarter than that. This is absolutely ridiculous. It’s amazing how soon we forget about the Pentagon Papers.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” ~ Voltaire

~Justin

Share This