When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Monday, November 08, 2004
Just nifty. A reader has written us, urgently requesting we publish his email to "give balance" (1) to this blog. It appears he disagrees with Maureen Dowd's take on our political situation. Here it is, Michael O'Dwyer writing from Monaco:
(published by permission)
(1) Balance. I agree to his request not for the sake of balance, which I think is not required in a blog, but so I can argue with him.
You want balance, read the whacky Right. Try some of these:
Newspapers which contain most of the information available to their readership, must strive for balance, but when sources of information and opinon are nearly limitless anyone can toss his or her thoughts into the marketplace of ideas.
(2)Paid/unpaid. I think it's realtively unimportant whether Maureen Dowd of the NY Times is paid or unpaid, and likewise myself. I posted a small excerpt of her writing because I admire and agree with it.
(3) Mandate. TGhere is no Bush mandate. It seems fairly clear that most Bush voters supported him because of the Iraq war, and not bcause of his domestic agenda. They support a united front during any war, justified or not.
Then another group, far smaller but significant in the calculus of Karl Rove's election strategy, are those 'family values' adherents who think it would be fine if belief in a personal savior were required of all citizens (or if not, just shut up about it and pretend you believe).
Political scientists estimate they number about 20 percent of Bush voters (that's not of the total electorate; in other words, maybe 10-12 percent of the whole electorate). Usually these folks just stay home from elections, but the Republicans addressed their concerns this time by discussing the so-called 'Defense of Marriage' amendment to the Constitution and opposition to abortion at any time for any reason.
Nothing there suggests that the public will support a rape of the environment, which he did not discuss, but plans to proceed with. The only folks who support dismantling Social Security -- which he also did not discuss, but plans to proceed with -- are those who won't need it.
(4) Personal attacks There are certainly people out there who engage in personal attacks but I would hardly call Maureen Dowd (or anyone who writes in the Times) one of them. I considered her piece thoughtful and analytic. As for the general public (us bloggers) I feel the left side of the US political spectrum would be hard-pressed to match the right for pure venom. It does seem that blogging and the proliferation of other opinion channels has produced a higher noise ratio in the political debate here than was customary in the years of big papers. Of course if you want to go back a little to the time when any idiot could and did publish his broadside, I estimate discourse was just as venomous, perhaps more so.
The candidates, however, never challenge one another to duels.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
Our readers write
Just nifty. A reader has written us, urgently requesting we publish his email to "give balance" (1) to this blog. It appears he disagrees with Maureen Dowd's take on our political situation. Here it is, Michael O'Dwyer writing from Monaco:
'Bout the new Bush mandate. Look. Maureen Dowd is a hip cookie & writes well & amusingly. She is paid to do so. Our Friends at Alternate Patriot are in no way uneducated, nor idiots, either. They are not paid. (2)
There are many other anti-Bush folk around. I might include myself amongst them. When a promising young guy commits suicide at the grounds of the WTC as a protest because the result of a national election is to much for him to bear - it's not too kewl. Time passes. America has survived & will survive. Writing in the first person is not to my taste, however I feel I must come out front personally on this matter - to be real.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that George W. Bush is a bloodthirsty person with a cutlass between his teeth, yelling "Death to All - Money Only To Us!" I cannot agree with it. I do not think he is either like that, nor wishes to go down in American nor World History as that. I am not an American citizen. I am therefore speaking out of turn.
I merely suggest that, as Mr. Bush has been mandated by a clear majority of US citizens for a second 4-year mandate, that those of the West Coast & the North-East & their sympathisers, hold off fire for a few weeks. (3)
I do not like to see this. This very aggressive and personal hate campaign. I think it is wrong. It is Your President. You can get the guy on technical things : Education, Healthcare, Taxes, etc. (4)
Please do not forget, something largely air-brushed out these days, that Saddam Hussein was many times begged to quit & to go into Golden Exile. Had he done so, there would have been No Iraki War. Largely, Kerry would have followed the same Foreign Policy. He has said so. Both Kerry & Bush have been quite gracious about this election matter. So have their wives - important, apparently kindly & serious people.
Surely, as American Electors, You can give Your own people a breather ? You are not yet under Euro-Stalinism - America still has a margin of Freedom. :-)
(published by permission)
(1) Balance. I agree to his request not for the sake of balance, which I think is not required in a blog, but so I can argue with him.
You want balance, read the whacky Right. Try some of these:
Newspapers which contain most of the information available to their readership, must strive for balance, but when sources of information and opinon are nearly limitless anyone can toss his or her thoughts into the marketplace of ideas.
(2)Paid/unpaid. I think it's realtively unimportant whether Maureen Dowd of the NY Times is paid or unpaid, and likewise myself. I posted a small excerpt of her writing because I admire and agree with it.
(3) Mandate. TGhere is no Bush mandate. It seems fairly clear that most Bush voters supported him because of the Iraq war, and not bcause of his domestic agenda. They support a united front during any war, justified or not.
Then another group, far smaller but significant in the calculus of Karl Rove's election strategy, are those 'family values' adherents who think it would be fine if belief in a personal savior were required of all citizens (or if not, just shut up about it and pretend you believe).
Political scientists estimate they number about 20 percent of Bush voters (that's not of the total electorate; in other words, maybe 10-12 percent of the whole electorate). Usually these folks just stay home from elections, but the Republicans addressed their concerns this time by discussing the so-called 'Defense of Marriage' amendment to the Constitution and opposition to abortion at any time for any reason.
Nothing there suggests that the public will support a rape of the environment, which he did not discuss, but plans to proceed with. The only folks who support dismantling Social Security -- which he also did not discuss, but plans to proceed with -- are those who won't need it.
(4) Personal attacks There are certainly people out there who engage in personal attacks but I would hardly call Maureen Dowd (or anyone who writes in the Times) one of them. I considered her piece thoughtful and analytic. As for the general public (us bloggers) I feel the left side of the US political spectrum would be hard-pressed to match the right for pure venom. It does seem that blogging and the proliferation of other opinion channels has produced a higher noise ratio in the political debate here than was customary in the years of big papers. Of course if you want to go back a little to the time when any idiot could and did publish his broadside, I estimate discourse was just as venomous, perhaps more so.
The candidates, however, never challenge one another to duels.
Palema
4:34 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|