|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005 13:42
PM
Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San
Francisco
<< Of course quite a few so-called "anti-war" types are
quite
often something more - "anti-democracy", or "anti-capitalism",
"leftist",
"socialist", communist", or plain old "anti-Republican". >>
And some of them like blueberry pancakes.
Not an answer. You don't generally hide a
predilection for pancakes, whereas the Stop the War group is funded greatly by
folks whose main agenda has nothing to do with the war. That wasn't a very
good attempt at deflection, and I didn't categorize anyone except with respect
to a hidden agenda anyway.
Some of them also like to sunbathe or visit museums. It's foolish to
categorize people into one of two camps. The common practice of the Right to
discuss, bash, trash, etc. so-called "Liberals" is a case in point. What the
hell is a Liberal anyway? People have many varieties/combinations/permutations
of beliefs. If I don't particularly believe in the efficacy of the death
penalty, does that make me a Liberal?
Again, irrelevant.
It's an age-old tactic to create a "bogeyman" a la Goldstein in Orwell's
'1984'. In the 21st century in the US, it's the "Liberals" who are the
bogeyman.
In your case, a Straw man huh?
The Windmeister
Stephen Goodman
<spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote:
Actually
it becomes incumbent upon people who take on the "anti-war" mantle
to
accurately identify their political affiliation(s) so that the public -
the people they're trying to win over to their argument - will know what
the
agenda really is. Of course quite a few so-called "anti-war" types
are
quite often something more - "anti-democracy", or "anti-capitalism",
"leftist", "socialist", communist", or plain old "anti-Republican".
Funny
how this is rarely done. What do such folks have to hide, and why?
Is it
because their actual agenda is known to turn off people who would
otherwise
be hoodwinked effectively into supporting something which, if
they really
thought about it, may be repugnant to them? I've found a
disturbing
tendency on the part of protest movements in the past 15
years or so to be
less concerned with whether they're VIEWED as "right"
than whether they're
actually "right" or not. For me Political
Correctness (spawned during a
particular non-Republican's term) is
nothing more than the outgrowth of
someone else's inane need to oppress
others through imitation
intellectualism and cooked numbers. Individuals
of all kinds and colors
tend to rebel against this when they know what
it actually is, which is most
likely why some items are often blurred a
bit or put under a banner
presenting something "more palatable" and
therefore easier to SELL.
Alas, honesty is still the best policy, and
not just for "someone else". I
suppose I'm some kind of "bigot" for
expressing this opinion. Beware
however - expressing an individual
opinion is usually averse to the
interests of the Left, or for that
matter cults like Scientology.
I was asked to play a London event in
2002 that was initially described to
me as a "gathering of like-minded
people", then it was said to me that it
was "in the interest of peace",
and finally described to me as an "anti-Bush
rally". I persist in the
belief that politics should be peoples' own
business, and I don't care
for GroupThink either. If this makes me a
conservative, then I guess I'm
one of those, but not in all manners. I also
make it a point not to
adhere to stereotypes, or other pre-constructed
expectations. I suppose
doing so could make me a "contrarian", or perhaps
just a non-conformist.
I prefer the latter.
It's a good thing that in San Francisco (and the
rest of the United States
of America) you can't be imprisoned without
trial and put to death just for
expressing an opinion that opposes some
Ayatollah's Fundamentalist Regime.
No, Pat Robertson doesn't even come
close.
Stephen Goodman
* Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
*
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack
*
http://www.medialinenews.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shirkey"
To:
Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005
06:05 AM
Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San
Francisco
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, Larry
wrote:
>
>> You're dead-on, Matthew: this anti-war stuff is
the typical, knee-jerk
>> response of far-left-wing
America-haters.
>
> And thanks for your own knee-jerk response
that does nothing more than
> stereotype all anti-war sentiments as
the "knee jerk responses of
> far-left-wing America-haters." Yep, I'm
glad you took the time to think
> that one through. Personally, I
prefer the anti-war sentiments to the
> pro-war ones. Call me
"crazy"--or "left-wing," or "anti- American,"
> or...(fill in the
blank with your preferred stereotype of the moment).
>
>
Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|