Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Rudity: The New Great American Way
I’m back; newly anonymized and with many things remaining stuck in my craw. One of these is the rudity now experienced everyday across America. Long gone are the days of Miss Manners or even anyone giving an iota about etiquette or respect.
Listen: there is nothing wrong or shameful in respecting others with which one disagrees. Also, please realize that having a difference of opinion does not furnish carte blanche for letting the poo fly.
In January of this year, I received this comment to my Cindy Sheehan post:
“I wish I could say I was sorry to see you have no stamina. I'm not. You are more of the same drivel coming through the AM airwaves. And I thought people who lived in Park City were cool. You are probably lying about that.”
Of course, with impressive bravado, this was posted as a message from “ANONYMOUS”. Wow, now there’s evidence of a strong belief in one’s opinions, eh?
So, I have no stamina. Gee whiz. And I thought a series of life events which I have experienced over the past year had diverted my attention out of personal necessity. Forgive me Father for I have sinned against the church of anonymous followers.
I’m also apparently full of drivel. Gosh, thank you for the constructive dialogue which will most certainly allow for an open exchange of information and astute opinions which may sway readers to an alternative viewpoint. Way to make your case! Quite impressive!
Lastly, I’m a liar. OK, let me frame this. I have uploaded just two posts. I call my blog “Greg’s iPinions”. I have clearly stated that I am giving an OPINION and am not surveying the factual landscape of all politic. Yet ANONYMOUS has drawn a decision that I’m a liar. Quite the conclusion.
Perhaps ANONYMOUS is capable of learning something. If so, ANONYMOUS, pay attention and get help reading the big words if you must:
Paraphrasing Margaret Mead; “Respect for manners is a way of dealing with people you don't agree with or like.”
Monday, September 19, 2005
Just Another Duped Ideologue: Cindy Blogs Again
Drudge Report 9/12/05: “Cindy Sheehan calls for U.S to ‘Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans’”.Good Lord. How pathetic. Let’s talk about ideologues generally and then specifically. First a definition from Merriam-Webster:
Ideologue (variant idealogue): (1) An impractical idealist, theorist; (2) An often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.
Please note the words “impractical” and “blindly partisan”.
Ideologues are often folks who are nothing but mindless sheep being herded; going, doing, and saying what they are told from ideologues higher up the food chain. And they are often too stupid to even realize it. Impractical means it ain’t practical, got it? Blindly partisan means to follow someone else’s lead without thought or self-awareness, which is the bedrock from which zealots like Nazis arise. To top it off, ideologue agendas are purely for the advancement of the self with no regard or concern as to the needs of society.
To understand the fallacy of ideologue logic, consider that hypothetically as long as one ideologue is followed 100%, there’s no problem within the scope of their limited worldview. But what if, like the real world, more than one exists? Only one can be followed and all others will judge society amiss and erroneous. See the conundrum? Each adds nothing and merely establishes negative and unachievable courses of action. In short, ideologues are nothing but loud-mouthed divisive farces (please note the satiric pun on “forces”) that should be ignored.
And I am very tired of them. Worse, I’m tired of the press covering them! The worst scum are ideologues with loads of money, whom people follow simply because of the wealth they can spread. George Soros is the best example of this, but both ends of the spectrum, liberal and conservative, have their fair share of reprobates.
Back to Cindy Sheehan; an ideologue manipulated by an ideologue (Michael Moore). Let’s see what her qualifications are for having the international political voice which the American press has given her. She is a mother and she can camp. Wow, I guess that makes her a political mastermind.
Now let’s dissect Cindy’s blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/a-bright-spot-in-bush-wor_b_7433.html):
“George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.” Cindy, your ignorance of law betrays your extensive background for political analysis I just mentioned. Federal law prohibits the federal government from sending troops into a state; the troops in Louisiana and Mississippi were invited, in writing, by the Governors of those states. Hey, who needs facts anyway? Besides, can we really “occupy” our own country? Back to Cindy’s blog.
“The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don't fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest.” Gee, those pesky facts keep getting in the way. Bush's 2004 budget added 2% more for entitlement programs than Clinton’s last budget. In fact, Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history.
Unfortunately, Cindy is not unique. All ideologues preach ideologies of division and worse, of hate; she just makes for a perfect example. All ideologues, left and right, should just shut the hell up and let the rest of us pound out the daily “hard work” of establishing strategies and programs that advance American society as a whole, within a camaraderie of partnership and unity.
“Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Go With Grace?
AP Wire, July 14, 2005, 9:00 PM: "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as Chief Justice as long as my health permits."And so ends all media speculation as to the retirement plans of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. I guess the press can now take down their emblazoned tents, pack up their kit bag, and prepare for immediate departure to the doorstep of D.C. United States Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts, whom President Bush just announced to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
It is worth noting that the L.A. Times reports that Supreme Court colleagues state that Justice Rehnquist’s illness has not affected his abilities; “…he was fully prepared to discuss and debate the cases that were voted on in the court's private conference each week. Rehnquist led off the discussions, and he was known for running the meetings efficiently. His written opinions were clear and concise.”
That’s nice.
We’ve all heard of the infamous blue shield. Is this a facsimile “marble shield” simply serving to “protect thy own”?
As a physician, I have seen the denial and disbelief many times. Fact: Justice Rehnquist’s health problems have forced absences from the bench and emergent hospitalizations. Fact: He has cancer, and at 80 years of age faces a difficult life challenge regardless of the specific cancerous species. Fact: He is the Chief Justice. Remember, this position carries with it the awesome power and responsibility of leading the judicial branch; one of the three balance powers of our uniquely American government. This ain’t just a sack-boy job down at the local grocery.
Political analyst Dick Morris has stated, "If he has any sense of responsibility to the Republican Party, he has to give George Bush some wiggle room.” Keep in mind, even if Judge Rehnquist considers himself fully capable, we must all wonder how long it will be so. As a confirmed conservative, he needs to consider the timing of his departure and of the nomination process that will eventually replace him. “Who” and “when” this replacement process occurs become very big issues in the Supreme Court Justice game.
Let me be clear, I am not calling for his imminent resignation. To do so would be unfair; I do not know the man personally, I am unaware of his health details, I cannot see into the man’s cognitive processes.
I just hope that Justice Rehnquist does not allow a personal hubris of perceived importance, uniqueness, and immortality to affect his decision to retire, as the ramifications can truly become “larger than life”. I only request that he consider the responsibility of his position to the American people and to our future generations, as his actions in this role can affect our way of life for decades, and likely much longer.
Judge Rehnquist, please choose wisely and with clarity of purpose.
