Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, March 27, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 4
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, March 27, 2006 at about 11pm CST
Segment 4
We are having our Spring fund drive. Call in and make a pledge. I shall play some music and take your pledge. I have no engineers or someone to take the phone, so that is what needs to be done. Don't be shy. Call right now at 779-5367 or 779-KEOS or donate securely at www.keos.org.
Over the last few shows I have been mentioning the three web sites dailykos, democratic underground and moveon.org.
Let me read you something from the front page of each of these and tie it in with what I was talking about as far as postmodernist thought.
Wikepeidia says of DailyKos:
Look here for the article.
Now let's look at this. Helen Thomas asks a question and then won't let George Bush answer without interrupting him. Why is that correct behavior? I want you to think about that. Is it correct behavior to ask someone a question and then try to brow beat them into answering it the way you want it answered? The President tried his best to answer, but could not without getting put off his stride by interruptions. I guess it's just me. I want a civilized debate. Helen Thomas and people like her do not. Admittedly Question Time when the Prime Minister of Great Britain is pummeled with questions in the House of Commons is much worse, but still... I find Ms. Thomas' behavior to be wrong.
There is an art form called Fisking where the blogger goes point by point and refutes a post on the net. It doesn't work in radio, so I'm going to talk about the woman's analysis differently.
First she states as fact that the Iraqis are NOT safer now that Saddam has been deposed. Most of the Iraqis on the ground in Baghdad disagree. Saddam was just as likely to pull someone in, torture and kill them for no known reason. People were frightened all the time. The patina of fear was everywhere. I do not doubt that the killings that are going on in Iraq right now are bad, but... Ah, forget that. The woman is attempting the impossible and has succeeded for people who believe that Iraq is a lost cause. Logic in this case is silly.
Her second point is that America is not safer because we are providing a means of recruiting Al Quaeda agents may be a good one, but I don't believe it. The goal in an armed struggle is to produce people who are veterans. By recruiting and then immediately killing off the recruits, they are not helping their cause. On the other hand, the death of these recruits makes it possible to induce a steady stream of young men and women to die for an evil cause. One of our major rationales for being in Iraq is that the more of them who die there, the less can be sent here to kill people in the United States. The big problem is that a new generation of martyrs is growing up. The leadership of Al Quaeda does not much care how many of their children die as long as they get their way. It's been pointed out over and over again that Al Quaeda resembles a death cult. The question that needs to be asked is: After the fall of Afghanistan, was it a good idea to have Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq? I won't know the answer to that question until the documents in Arabic from Saddam's rule are translated and made available. Al Quaeda had always assumed that they would move to Iraq should Afghanistan fall. The problem is that even when that vital information is released, too many people on the Left will ignore the information and just assume it is a lie. Since there are no consequences for ignoring the information, they can afford to do that. Can America afford to ignore the information from Saddam's archives?
Her point that we provoked Saddam into a war is probably idiocy. Saddam was NOT going to come clean. Everything we know about the man says that he is the ultimate postmodernist leader. He lived in his own reality and constantly made decisions based on what he wanted to be true, not what was objectively true. Again, under postmodernist thought you do NOT have to change your opinion about something in the light of new facts. Anyone who believes that Saddam was willing to surrender is insane by my standards, yet large numbers of people on the Left believe that Saddam could be made to come clean.
The statement in the analysis that "This President wanted war, and he used a steady stream of lies to start that war to quench his bloodlust." is crazy by my standards. George Bush is a people person. He finds people infinitely interesting. The concept that he lusted after war is totally weird to me. As he said in his answer to Helen Thomas, no President wants to go to war. For some reason, few on the Left want to believe that of him. By my standards, war in Iraq was a strategic necessity to separate Iran and Syria.
The whole thing about George Bush and Tony Blair provoking Saddam as outlined by the Downing Street memos is kind of strange to me. The money quote to me is: "Bush and Blair were hellbent on launching a war which they knew was in violation of international law. They were determined to lie and deceive the world into thinking Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, that he was an imminent threat." If the United Nations passed resolution 1441 and it said in essence that Saddam had to give up his weapons program or suffer invasion, then how can it be against international law? The entire argument about "Bush lied, people died" has been a problem for me from the beginning. As I have said before, in order to be a lie, you have to know what the truth is. Bush didn't know what the truth was. Saddam's generals didn't know what the truth was. The Germans and French didn't know what the truth was. How can it be a lie? And again, once the documents from the Saddam's archive in Arabic are translated we shall know what the objective truth is. Postmodernist thought will make it impossible for anyone on the DailyKos site to believe this.
The entire paragraph about the Senate investigation into the prewar intelligence failure is premised on something I don't know anything about. Georgia10 could be right. The President could be stonewalling. I just do not think Bush has been lying. I just think he has made a series of stupid mistakes. Lying to me means that he has malevolent intent. I do not see that. The Left does. People on the Right have started to call this unreasoned hatred, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The last paragraph is reflects the ultimate frustration the base in the Democratic Party has with its leadership. The base wants the government to come to a halt until someone, anyone calls Bush to task for... almost everything. There just isn't much in this country that is wrong that isn't caused by George Bush, up to and including the tsunami in Southeast Asia and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast.
The thing that gets me is that George Bush doesn't need me or anyone to defend his honor. He has been ignoring the screams of the Democratic Party's base from almost the first instant in the White House for a very simple reason. Bush wants to get something done while he is in Washington. The Left wants to... God knows what the Left wants to do. Bush has over the last five years pushed them to come forward with some type of agenda. Nothing has happened. Being against Bush is not a positive agenda. Think about it. The Democratic Party has determined that they can win multiple seats in the fall election by running against Bush. Period. Why does that make sense? The Democrats are saying explicitly "America deserves better than this". Great. What is the agenda? There is none. As I have said before, the Left in this country has failed to achieve the goals they set out to achieve 40 years ago. They only have the belief that their old agenda will work if only we... God knows what. That's the point. Under postmodernist thought no one has to accept that their beliefs are not objectively true. They can ignore inconvenient truths and continue on with policies that either do achieve their stated goals OR are destructive.
I want to close this segment with a thought experiment. If you were not a committed Leftist, would you vote for Democrats based on her assessment of Bush's answers to Helen Thomas' questions? Would you think it was good idea to shut down the Senate in order to force an outcome over a public policy disagreement? Does Georgia10 make a case for voting for the Democratic Party this fall? If you believe any of that, then you have imbibed of postmodernist thought and cannot be reached by any form of reason known to humans. Doesn't that bother you any? There is such a thing as objective reality where there is cause and effect.
I always say that Reality is like a slimy dog that has gone out in the swamp and comes back covered in yuck, expecting you to pet him. If you refuse to pet the slimy dog, then the dog will jump up on you and get all manner of yuck on your clothes. If you still refuse to pet the slimy dog, there is a real possibility that the dog will bite you in the ass. This country is going to have to come to terms with the Reality that the Irreconcilables of radical Islam REALLY mean to take over the world. If we ignore them, then we're going to get bit in the ass.
Segment 4
We are having our Spring fund drive. Call in and make a pledge. I shall play some music and take your pledge. I have no engineers or someone to take the phone, so that is what needs to be done. Don't be shy. Call right now at 779-5367 or 779-KEOS or donate securely at www.keos.org.
Over the last few shows I have been mentioning the three web sites dailykos, democratic underground and moveon.org.
Let me read you something from the front page of each of these and tie it in with what I was talking about as far as postmodernist thought.
Wikepeidia says of DailyKos:
Daily Kos is an American political weblog aimed at Democrats and liberals/progressives. Run by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, a young United States Army veteran, it has an average weekday traffic of 549,000 visits[1], and often reaches over 5 million unique visits in one week. It is arguably the most influential liberal weblog in the United States.From the front page of the dailykos we have an interesting take on the exchange between Helen Thomas of the White House press corp and the President. First a woman with the nom de cyber of Georgia10 quotes the question and answer between the President and Helen Thomas, then does an analysis of what the President's responses mean to her.
Look here for the article.
Now let's look at this. Helen Thomas asks a question and then won't let George Bush answer without interrupting him. Why is that correct behavior? I want you to think about that. Is it correct behavior to ask someone a question and then try to brow beat them into answering it the way you want it answered? The President tried his best to answer, but could not without getting put off his stride by interruptions. I guess it's just me. I want a civilized debate. Helen Thomas and people like her do not. Admittedly Question Time when the Prime Minister of Great Britain is pummeled with questions in the House of Commons is much worse, but still... I find Ms. Thomas' behavior to be wrong.
There is an art form called Fisking where the blogger goes point by point and refutes a post on the net. It doesn't work in radio, so I'm going to talk about the woman's analysis differently.
First she states as fact that the Iraqis are NOT safer now that Saddam has been deposed. Most of the Iraqis on the ground in Baghdad disagree. Saddam was just as likely to pull someone in, torture and kill them for no known reason. People were frightened all the time. The patina of fear was everywhere. I do not doubt that the killings that are going on in Iraq right now are bad, but... Ah, forget that. The woman is attempting the impossible and has succeeded for people who believe that Iraq is a lost cause. Logic in this case is silly.
Her second point is that America is not safer because we are providing a means of recruiting Al Quaeda agents may be a good one, but I don't believe it. The goal in an armed struggle is to produce people who are veterans. By recruiting and then immediately killing off the recruits, they are not helping their cause. On the other hand, the death of these recruits makes it possible to induce a steady stream of young men and women to die for an evil cause. One of our major rationales for being in Iraq is that the more of them who die there, the less can be sent here to kill people in the United States. The big problem is that a new generation of martyrs is growing up. The leadership of Al Quaeda does not much care how many of their children die as long as they get their way. It's been pointed out over and over again that Al Quaeda resembles a death cult. The question that needs to be asked is: After the fall of Afghanistan, was it a good idea to have Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq? I won't know the answer to that question until the documents in Arabic from Saddam's rule are translated and made available. Al Quaeda had always assumed that they would move to Iraq should Afghanistan fall. The problem is that even when that vital information is released, too many people on the Left will ignore the information and just assume it is a lie. Since there are no consequences for ignoring the information, they can afford to do that. Can America afford to ignore the information from Saddam's archives?
Her point that we provoked Saddam into a war is probably idiocy. Saddam was NOT going to come clean. Everything we know about the man says that he is the ultimate postmodernist leader. He lived in his own reality and constantly made decisions based on what he wanted to be true, not what was objectively true. Again, under postmodernist thought you do NOT have to change your opinion about something in the light of new facts. Anyone who believes that Saddam was willing to surrender is insane by my standards, yet large numbers of people on the Left believe that Saddam could be made to come clean.
The statement in the analysis that "This President wanted war, and he used a steady stream of lies to start that war to quench his bloodlust." is crazy by my standards. George Bush is a people person. He finds people infinitely interesting. The concept that he lusted after war is totally weird to me. As he said in his answer to Helen Thomas, no President wants to go to war. For some reason, few on the Left want to believe that of him. By my standards, war in Iraq was a strategic necessity to separate Iran and Syria.
The whole thing about George Bush and Tony Blair provoking Saddam as outlined by the Downing Street memos is kind of strange to me. The money quote to me is: "Bush and Blair were hellbent on launching a war which they knew was in violation of international law. They were determined to lie and deceive the world into thinking Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, that he was an imminent threat." If the United Nations passed resolution 1441 and it said in essence that Saddam had to give up his weapons program or suffer invasion, then how can it be against international law? The entire argument about "Bush lied, people died" has been a problem for me from the beginning. As I have said before, in order to be a lie, you have to know what the truth is. Bush didn't know what the truth was. Saddam's generals didn't know what the truth was. The Germans and French didn't know what the truth was. How can it be a lie? And again, once the documents from the Saddam's archive in Arabic are translated we shall know what the objective truth is. Postmodernist thought will make it impossible for anyone on the DailyKos site to believe this.
The entire paragraph about the Senate investigation into the prewar intelligence failure is premised on something I don't know anything about. Georgia10 could be right. The President could be stonewalling. I just do not think Bush has been lying. I just think he has made a series of stupid mistakes. Lying to me means that he has malevolent intent. I do not see that. The Left does. People on the Right have started to call this unreasoned hatred, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The last paragraph is reflects the ultimate frustration the base in the Democratic Party has with its leadership. The base wants the government to come to a halt until someone, anyone calls Bush to task for... almost everything. There just isn't much in this country that is wrong that isn't caused by George Bush, up to and including the tsunami in Southeast Asia and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast.
The thing that gets me is that George Bush doesn't need me or anyone to defend his honor. He has been ignoring the screams of the Democratic Party's base from almost the first instant in the White House for a very simple reason. Bush wants to get something done while he is in Washington. The Left wants to... God knows what the Left wants to do. Bush has over the last five years pushed them to come forward with some type of agenda. Nothing has happened. Being against Bush is not a positive agenda. Think about it. The Democratic Party has determined that they can win multiple seats in the fall election by running against Bush. Period. Why does that make sense? The Democrats are saying explicitly "America deserves better than this". Great. What is the agenda? There is none. As I have said before, the Left in this country has failed to achieve the goals they set out to achieve 40 years ago. They only have the belief that their old agenda will work if only we... God knows what. That's the point. Under postmodernist thought no one has to accept that their beliefs are not objectively true. They can ignore inconvenient truths and continue on with policies that either do achieve their stated goals OR are destructive.
I want to close this segment with a thought experiment. If you were not a committed Leftist, would you vote for Democrats based on her assessment of Bush's answers to Helen Thomas' questions? Would you think it was good idea to shut down the Senate in order to force an outcome over a public policy disagreement? Does Georgia10 make a case for voting for the Democratic Party this fall? If you believe any of that, then you have imbibed of postmodernist thought and cannot be reached by any form of reason known to humans. Doesn't that bother you any? There is such a thing as objective reality where there is cause and effect.
I always say that Reality is like a slimy dog that has gone out in the swamp and comes back covered in yuck, expecting you to pet him. If you refuse to pet the slimy dog, then the dog will jump up on you and get all manner of yuck on your clothes. If you still refuse to pet the slimy dog, there is a real possibility that the dog will bite you in the ass. This country is going to have to come to terms with the Reality that the Irreconcilables of radical Islam REALLY mean to take over the world. If we ignore them, then we're going to get bit in the ass.
posted by aRandomTexan at
5:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home