I had about an hour of blogging time before the morning keynote breakfast (with Howard Dean!). But then I got caught up in reading about the Kos conference in other blogs. So now I’ve got 45 minutes of blogging time.
I met Skippy the Bush Kangaroo yesterday, and I see he is diligently blogging the convention. He links to this Time mag article by Anne Marie Cox that captures the ambiance pretty well. I’d only add that people here are fired up, and in a positive way. There’s some obligatory Bush bashing, of course. But to recall U.S. Grant’s famous military advice, we’ve stopped worrying about what General Lee is going to do, and instead are focused on what we’re going to do.
In some ways this conference has the feel of a retreat. The political world has collapsed into gaudy Las Vegas; whatever’s going on beyond the sober bordering mountains has faded from attention. There’s been some mention of the death of al-Zarqawi (Lindsay Beyerstein, from time to time: “Hey, is Zarqawi still dead?”), but since it’s unlikely this will make any bleeping difference to the insurgency or the activities of the Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias — whoop-dee-doo.
OK, so I’m about out of time (wasted too many minutes trying to think of a more original adjective for Las Vegas than “gaudy”). On to breakfast.
Lindsay’s comment made me snort orange juice. Not as fun as it sounds!
Reminded me of Chevy Chase and… was it “This just in. Franco is still dead!”? Or Charles De Gaulle? 1975 was sooo long ago!
Howard Dean….my hero of a pol! Gosh, Maha, I’m almost two thousand miles away from there, but I swear I can feel the incredible energy coming from that conference. You are all there brightening our future!
Pingback: AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » Left Wing Round-Up
From American Future above:
Some of you may wonder why I invest so much time and effort covering leftists. The reason is simple: I want to expose their reactions to events, using their own words. They are dangerous, irresponsible, and, in many cases, irrational. If they ever gain power (which could happen if the Iraq war drags on and on), there will be a revolution in our foreign policy that will endanger the security and prosperity of the Republic.
This is the very thing I hate about this right/left “war” we’re getting ourselves into. There is such fear on both sides that really is way overblown and unnecessary. This missionary zeal that springs out of both sides makes me crazy.
(Donna, if you want to twit filter this guy and my comment along with it, go ahead. Maybe it’s instructional, though?)
Actually, maybe I should have addressed this to you, maha. You said you might be back today?
Sam,
I, too, regret the right/left war. For what’s it’s worth, it may surprise you to learn that I blame the Republicans for starting it — the Clinton impeachment was partisanship carried to an extreme. Although it’s mostly left unsaid, it seems to me that the left wing of the Democrats and those even further to the left are partially motivated by payback.
Whatever the reasons are for the verbal civil war, I can’t help but be concerned about the reality denial and vindictiveness expressed in many of the quotes in my most recent post and earlier ones on the same topic. Using Haditha as a rationale for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is an example.
Believe me, there’s nothing I’d like more than a meeting of the minds. If you, and others, would like to engage in a conversation to that end, count me in.
Speaking of Ann, please tell me that Ann Coulter wasn’t in Vegas pushing her book. I saw her on The Today Show with Matt Lauer. She is such a bitch. Why was she dressed in a black scoop neck cocktail dress on a morning TV show. Also, she was on Chris Matthews show last Thurs or Friday in an ugly purple v-neck sweater swearing a necklace with a cross!
Hi Marc,
Thanks for thoughtful comments. I agree that much of the venom began during the Clinton impeachment. There was something about it that really went over the top and this in turn radicalized many of the more moderate left. However, I suppose we could go back even further to those (more civilized) days of the Nixon administration. Maybe it’s still related to the Vietnam war. It’s still unresolved to most of us to this day. My youngest has told me that he has to keep reminding himself that the war protests heated up during a Democrat’s administration!
I think there’s a lot of blame to go around and I’ve expressed myself here on this blog, even at the risk of isolating myself from many who have pretty “martial” views of the right. I wouln’t call it “Payback” in the way you might mean. I think it’s based on anger and fear, actually. The left was pretty quiet through much of it, so maybe there’s a delayed reaction, too.
I don’t know if you’ve read any of our recent discussions on religion but, if so, you’ll have seen maha stand up rather gracefully to some blistering attacks from some on the left when she was guest blogger. Some there could not stand the idea that a lefty could believe in God or have sympathy for those with spiritual leanings. She does have principles of moderation. So that’s why I’m here.
And I am also here because the very “reality denial” and vindictiveness you mention, has been a part of the right since the Clinton days and it hasn’t stopped. Do you know who I’ve felt lately is the most moderate of the rightwing? The military. For whatever reason (maybe I could think of several), many of the military seem quite clearheaded and moderate to me in their expressions of “what needs to be done.” Probably because they are in those life and death situations where there is no room or time for political soul searching. In fact many are somewhat apolitical. They’re having to deal with another kind of soul searching. But keep in mind that there are some military who agree with the left. We can’t discount them, correct?
Anyway, I appreciate what they’re doing. We all do, here on this blog. I think what separates many of us from the right is the idea that we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place and that Bush is a deceiving you-know-what on so many levels that the left has demonized him totally. Many believe that there is no hope, now that we are there, and Haditha is just another reason to pile on top of all the others. (Just so you know, I personally happen to disagree with this latter belief, but I don’t reflect the majority. In fact, I got into a bit of a tussle with one of regulars over this a few posts back.)
I’ve tried to keep the door open to the reasonable on the right and have learned a lot from the experience. I once asked a crabby sounding guy why he hated liberals and he suprised me by saying he used to be one, but he thinks they’ve messed everything up because of radical professors in the colleges who have radicalized a big number of the influential “powers that be” today. And some lefties would agree with him, when they rant about the neocons!
Basically, I just wish we could have an openminded discussion between the two sides and learn more about where our differences come from.
Marc Schulman, what you need to know is that it is absolutely incorrect, not to mention incendiary, to lump people into categories. I am very upset about our country being lied into war, and I am very upset at the incompetence that Katrina exposed, and I am very upset at the irrationality of postures that destroy our constitutional safeguards to ‘make us safe’. Does my enormous concern make me unpatriotic or dangerous? Does my enormous concern take away my patriotism?
If you really would be interested in a meeting of the minds, then you first of all would attend to people’s actual concerns. What you have done instead is to pre-judge by creating a category called ‘leftist’ into which you place folks, then sweepingly attibute what may be said by some to all persons you’ve already placed in your fantasy category. Geez, does it hold then that you, being a ‘rightie’, should be judged by what Ann Coulter just said about the 9/11 widows?
Try leaving off the God game of judging or the Freud game of interpreting if you really want to be in communication with actual people.
I agree, Sam, and my favorite conservative in the entire blogosphere is the very rational and civil Andrew Olmsted, a veteran I can both disagree with and learn from (and sometimes be persuaded by.)
Looks intriguing. Thanks, Kevin. I like what I saw. I’ll be checking in on that one.
Sam,
I just read your comment (#7) and concluded that (1) you and I have kindred (but not identical) souls, and (2) it would be great if you and I and those of our readers who don’t think they have a monopoly on the truth and can write in complete sentences could have an on-going dialogue that would be posted on both of our blogs.
If this strikes you as a good idea, let me know, either here or via email. The next step would be for both of us to propose some ideas as to how to get it started and to reach an agreement.
I hope you will agree. Although I didn’t say so in my previous comment, the attitudes of the far right (as I say at my blog, I consider myself to a right-leaning centrist) annoy me as much as the attitudes of the left. Ideologues of either stripe aren’t my cup f tea.
I look forward to your response.
Donna,
If I could get rid of categories, I would. But what would replace them, given the length limitations of posts and, even more so, of comments? Would it be possible to understand anything without categories? And both the left and the right (there I go again) are guilty of over-generalizing (generalization amounts to categoricalization).
Eliminating interpretation is impossible. You can try to eliminate it by sticking to the facts. The problem is that people disagree as to the facts. These disagreements represent differing interpretations of facts, and what constitutes facts. The only interpretation-free environment is a totalitarian environment, where a combination of fear and brainwashing results in unanimous agreement.
Finally, I don’t think that your concerns make you unpatriotic. Who is unpatriotic? In my view, any American who thinks that the U.S. is responsible for every ill in the world. They may not act on it, but such people have the same mindset as our acknowledged enemies, such as bin Laden and Zawahiri. It’s one thing to disagree over what’s best for America; it’s quite another to believe that the U.S. is the source of all evil.
The defining difference between the left and the right (there I go again) is that there are leftists — but not rightists — who do believe that the U.S. is uniquely evil. The right-wingers, of course, have other complaints.
NEVER smile at a crocodile!
The right does not want dialog, they want to dominate.
If you doubt this, take a good look around.
erinyes,
You’re far from unique, but your attitude is exactly the problem. Do you think I’m a crocodile? If so, what have I said that caused you to reach this conclusion?
And I am also here because the very “reality denial†and vindictiveness you mention, has been a part of the right since the Clinton days and it hasn’t stopped.
It goes back before Clinton. I’ll never forget how my stomach turned when I first heard Rush Limbaugh in the early 80s. I listened to him for about six months, at first thinking he was kind of funny in a twisted way, but then I understood what his game was. He was sowing hate then, which took root, and had its first chance to organize and work out on the national stage during the Clinton era.
Clinton was no saint, but he was a good president (who wouldn’t want to go back to the 90s instead of the Orwellian hell we’re now in), and the right, led on by demagogues like Limbaugh did everything they could to crucify him, over what was trivia.
What I learned from this, and from many personal encounters with right wingers, is that they only care about winning, and winning at any cost. There are conscientious, principled conservatives who are not like this, and these are folks you can have a conversation with. But sadly, they’ve been pushed aside by the rabid right. And it began at least as far back as Limbaugh.
I agree with comment #13 ..Erinyes….and I would add talk is cheap…actions speak louder than words… they need to clean up the mess they have made.
Count me in on # 13 also.
Ya don’t see any tigers, do ya?… 🙂
Marc, in case you missed it, I responded to your first comment at more length, here.
But what would replace them, given the length limitations of posts and, even more so, of comments?
You can listen to what people of the Left really say, instead of what the straw man leftie in your head says. You can read what people of the Left actually write, instead of what the straw man leftie in your head writes. You can admit that you have no clue what any of us here are about, because you’ve been brainwashed by the Right. And then you could clear your head of the lies you’ve accepted wholesale, and learn what we’re about from us instead of from the brainwashers. You don’t have to agree with us, but it would be nice if your understanding of us weren’t based on lies.
your attitude is exactly the problem.
No, your ignorance is exactly the problem.
You can lurk here if you want to learn, but I’m not a deprogrammer and I don’t need your comments. Goodbye.
A quote from Marc Schulman’s blog:
“Some of you may wonder why I invest so much time and effort covering leftists. The reason is simple: I want to expose their reactions to events, using their own words. They are dangerous, irresponsible, and, in many cases, irrational. If they ever gain power (which could happen if the Iraq war drags on and on), there will be a revolution in our foreign policy that will endanger the security and prosperity of the Republic. Please feel free to use the quotations that I assemble, with or without attribution, in your blogs. We need to get the word out; the more of us who join in this effort, the better. Using their words is likely to be far more effective than engaging in polemics and diatribes. That’s what they do.”
http://americanfuture.net/?p=1801
Good thing he doesn’t engage in polemics and diatribes! The leftist rag he then quotes from? The NYT! The war supporting, WMD reporting NYT! AAARRRRGGGH!
Thanks, maha, for not encouraging his comments at your place.
“Do you think I’m a crocodile/”
Oh, you want me to come closer, check it out? Frankly, I don’t give a damn.
Look, the far right wants us DEAD.
Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage….
All reptiles, spewing venomn and hate.Their lies and propaganda are as shallow as their followers, and I repeat, THEY WANT US DEAD.But if we are killed off (figure of speech), whom will they prey upon?The lesser of the reptiles, of course.
In my line of work, I deal with large reptiles (real ones) on a regular basis. As evidenced by the recent spate of deadly alligator attacks here in Fl, the worst thing to do with reptiles is to feed them, trust they will do no harm, or befriend one. All the while they are sizing you up for a meal.When around large reptiles, it’s best to know where they are at all times and have a clear escape route.
As far as me being unique pal, Randy Neuman’s song “I’m different” is my anthem, and “I’m not goint to play your Goddamned game”.
I see that Maha twitted Marc Schulman. In a way, that leaves this comment hanging in air. Oh, well.
Marc responded to my earlier comment by saying it was impossible to not judgmentally categorize or interpret ‘facts’.
Then he went on to shore up his original strawman-fighting position with these phrases:
1] “Any American who thinks that the US is responsible for every ill in the world” …is unpatriotic. My problem with this statement is that I know no one who holds or expresses that! I wonder if the mirror image, ‘any American who thinks the US is never responsible for any ill in the world”, is to be deemed patriotic [in which case I think the only ‘true’ patriots would have to be, in the rightie world, uncritical black/white thinkers].
2] the problem is, Marc says, “to believe that the US is the source of all evil”. Again, I know no one who believes or states this! [I think this kind of sweeping statement, as well as anyone who would believe such (Marc gave no source here) belies a lack of maturity]
3] the defining difference, Marc says is, “There are leftists who do believe that the US is uniquely evil”.
On this last point, I have to say I agree with that phrase in a way Marc may not have intended when he used that phrase. Any evil outcomes arising from US behavior in the world do have singular uniqueness. ……. The wielding of sole super-power requires a commensurate unique responsibility to not increase harm in the world, let alone future harm to our own country. Think of the analogy of the superiorly-powered bullying parent beating on small kids. Of course, we would and should hold the physically bigger and supposedly adult parent to account for harm done.
Hey, Marc, parents aren’t perfect, nor is the US perfect. It does behoove us to fine-tune our understanding, to study any ways in which our foreign and military policies may have done serious harm, and to be patriotic enough and adult enough to allow for course corrections.
The quickest cure for fear is to lash out, but the lashing out may bring consequences upon our American children’s heads as well as harm to innocents abroad. To really see all of that is what I care to grapple with and to bring to open discussion.
For what its worth, I agree with Sam that many folks on different sides of issues have good intent. I think the problem lies more in not knowing how to successfully dialog than it does in patriots vs unpatriots. ‘Wanting to dominate’ is a fall-back function of truly being ignorant about how to disagree and still communicate. Successful communication does involve a step that, if skipped, increases the problem…… the step of really listening first to be sure you have understood just what the other said, and taking into account the human frailty of struggling with language in a world fast-paced with handy-dandy memes.
For what its worth, I agree with Sam that many folks on different sides of issues have good intent. I think the problem lies more in not knowing how to successfully dialog than it does in patriots vs unpatriots. ‘Wanting to dominate’ is a fall-back function of truly being ignorant about how to disagree and still communicate. Successful communication does involve a step that, if skipped, increases the problem…… the step of really listening first to be sure you have understood just what the other said, and taking into account the human frailty of struggling with language in a world fast-paced with handy-dandy memes.
Donna – I thought this was a very excellent statement.
I had no access to a computer from my last post to this one and I can see that much has gone on in the meantime!
I’d like to apologize for having been the one to engage in this dialogue with Marc without consideration for the others on this blog – and you especially, Donna, since this was your own post! I feel as though I had invited in someone whom you might have considered an unwelcome guest and I hope my name isn’t “Mud.” However, it is just this sort of dialogue for which I have a great interest (and patience) and so I have to decided to leave you all (again) and “do my own thing” before I cause anymore damage.
I thank you for the many interesting life lessons learned while over here at maha’s blog.
I’m especially proud of our last experience over at UT’s. I think maha did an outstanding job and I felt satisfied with my part in it as well. I took a nom de guerre over there as Reb because I wanted to support maha, but didn’t want to embarrass her if I posted something stupid as a “regular.” (I have been curious to know if some of you might have posted, too.)
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed and learned much from you folks over here. Best wishes to you all.
‘Wanting to dominate’ is a fall-back function of truly being ignorant about how to disagree and still communicate.
Or it can be a means of allowing the reader to do their own analysis. I can apprreciate the challenge of a articulating an idea, but sometimes, less is more.
Sam, are you there? First, this was Maha’s own post, not mine. Two, I think it was just fine that you engaged Marc in trying to dialog. That really does seem to be something very important to do to help begin to cure the the impasse and inanities of divisiveness, and I applaud you for having engaged exactly as you did. Your name is not ‘mud’ and you owe no one an apology for your particular way of engaging..
Having said that, I do respect Maha’s site and her preferences for commentary. When I read Marc Shulman’s first post and link, I felt angry that he dumped that anti-left stuff on her site while she was away at the YearlyKos gathering, especially as he was being snide about the gathering itself, the very gathering we were all excited about. His initial post seemed like trying to sneak in and steal our good feelings and sense of purpose. You did succeed in getting him off that direct attack business.
Anyway, ‘good on you’ and the best to you wherever you engage, but I hope you stick around on this site, too.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Righties Being Wrong