The following is from an email I
sent in response to a close friend who is my diametric opposite politically.
This makes for some lively emails, which neither one of us generally takes much
personally.
I've left her anonymous.
My friend:
I know you understand that when I
take something you send me, pounce on it, tear it apart, and demonstrate the
spurious, specious, agenda-driven, blinders-navigated, narrow-minded garbage
that it is… I know that when I do this to something you send me, you understand
that I'm not attacking you, and not blasting you, my friend of so many years,
when I blast to shreds the essay itself.
Let me underscore that again, while
I load some heavy shells into this anti-bu||sh!t (pardon me) gun of mine. Love
you dearly, my friend, okay? Now let me switch off the safeties – and this is
as close as I'll ever get to slapping an NRA seal over my Buck Fush
bumper-sticker.
(As far as I can tell, this essay was written
by a commentator named Craig Smith, and appeared in the New York Times
on November 20 of last year. Since then, someone's tinkered with the text. I'll
strike out in red what doesn't belong, and restore in green what was excised…
and in highlighted yellow, I'll correct the deficiencies in grammar,
punctuation, and spelling. If someone wants to make some kind of point, with me
as the audience, they had better have solid command of this language, or they
lose even more credibility.)
I
must say first and clearly that while I can't endorse Mr. Smith's sweeping
declamation whole hog, I do concur with the essence, which is indeed carried in
that term, "spoiled brats".
But first off: if a magazine employs
someone whom Mr. Smith finds less than favorable, does that make the magazine
of less worth? Don't we want our journals to be balanced and fair? This would
mean that – besides reporting the facts as accurately as possible – they employ
a range of voices that will address issues of the readers' concern from more
than one angle.
Smith falls into the easy, lazy trap
of inductive reasoning, if I read him correctly. Given a poll whose results
seem to indicate dissatisfaction in two-thirds of the American populace with
their president and the country's direction, he starts laying out (mostly) the
many good things we do indeed have in our country, and condescendingly suggests
that poll says the populace has lost sight of these things.
Skip the pre-analysis; let's have a
look at the poll itself. Smith is not specific, but it's likely that the poll
to which he refers is one referenced in an article by Marcus
Mabry at MSNBC.com on Veterans' Day, November 11.
A note at the end of the article clarifies further: "The NEWSWEEK poll, conducted
Nov. 9-10, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In
conducting the poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International
interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older." I'm
inclined to think such a small number – roughly just three-tenths of one
percent of the total US population – is not a wide and deep enough swath for
Craig Smith to build his soapbox on. And I might add: polls aren't
"true" or "false", Mr. Smith; any more than a thermometer
says that the temperature IS. Well of course it is! But is the air outside
cold, or hot? How much? Likewise a poll presents its own kind of degrees
(pardon the pun) of measure. There will always be a segment of the population
satisfied, and another segment dissatisfied, with whatever issue is being
focused on. What percentage are where today?, the poll asks. So if this is the
poll that got Mr. Craig to rail against us spoiled brats – an appellation with
which I certainly concur, I must repeat! – he has either accidentally or
deliberately misrepresented a key number, something the not-as-dubious-as-I
wouldn't bother to double-check on.
To quote Mabry's MSNBC article: "Presented with a list of
factors that may have contributed to the Democrats' success [in
the midterm election], …67 percent [of
Americans] cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled
government spending and the deficit".
Shame on you, Mr. Smith: no matter
how I squint and fiddle with the font sizes, I can't get this to say that we
Americans are "are unhappy with the direction the country is headed". It is not a general malaise
or untargeted dissatisfaction, sir; it quite specifically points at Republican
accomplishments… and/or clear lack thereof.
Let's just kindly assume that Smith
simply skimmed the Newsweek article, and
is no more than a sloppy journalist… rather than someone working specifically
to draw people's attention away from the blamed
party: the administration, and the Republican (former) majority in Congress.
Let me go on, then, with the
remainder of what Mr. Craig has to say, after springboarding from his seemingly
misread poll.
We are indeed "[t]he most blessed people in the
world", and
for nearly all the reasons Smith lays out, and then some. But I submit that
most of us aren't whining and
complaining, and weren't back in November either – rather, at the election we
used a key democratic right (that's a small-D "democratic") and sent
many bad-record office-holders packing.
We do take so much of what we have
here for granted – and I speak as someone who saw with his own eyes the
Communist guard towers on the East/West-German border during the Cold War
heyday, staffed with soldiers watching to ensure that citizens not flee their
totalitarian masters. Fortunately, those same citizens took democratic action
themselves, sixteen-some years later…and I assume at least most of those towers
are no more today.
Smith goes on to speak heroically of
the "president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11". Oh, I could throw up at
that! We were in free-fall for several
days, running on automatic, while a few cooler heads shut down all air traffic
(remember the eerily empty skies?), installed ground-to-air missile batteries
around Washington DC and other cities, and
tightened the border. Meanwhile,
King George II sat in an elementary-school classroom (wasn't it kindergarten?)
for, what, seven? seventeen? minutes, reading a book to the kids, while three
thousand people were incinerated on his watch.
A leader with his (or her) hands on
the reins would have put the book down gently, hugged a kid a moment, then
stood up and announced that there was a bit of an unexpected emergency, and he
needed to go back to Washington… but he would return to their classroom once
things had settled down.
Instead, there he was, white as a
sheet, utterly out of his experience and reckoning, waiting for a real leader –
good or bad – to tell him what to do. Eventually one did, and Georgie left.
And don't give me that out-of-date
bu||sh!t (pardon me again) about lowering taxes. This might have been an issue
in Reagan's day, when the prime rate was, oh, twenty-something? Certainly not
the under-six it's been for years. But our taxes are not too high, and
weren't in 2001 either.
When George came into office (I
still say both elections were stolen), the government had a fiscal surplus for
the first time in decades. But,
just as he did in Texas when he took over there, George wiped the surplus back
out by returning it to the citizens, claiming it belonged to us. Well, yes, it
had been collected from us… but just as with a solid savings account and good
investments, it was there for use on our behalf. You simply don't cash it all
out because there's too much money! You'll need it later: catastrophic health
issue, severe home damage (or renovation), and other needs not as easily
anticipated.
Sure enough, a few months later
nineteen men boarded our jets and turned them into weapons to use against us,
and we were suddenly at war… with little or no money to fund it.
Tax cuts under this administration
have repeatedly favored the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the weak
and needy. When programs are no longer funded as strongly at the federal level,
the burden devolves to the individual states (and commonwealths). But the pressure
is now on them, too, to cut taxes. So how to fund?
Why, now the states, deathly afraid
of raising their own taxes to take on the new, added burden of those
formerly federal programs, are stuck with the unenviable choices instead
of cutting funding for education, infrastructure, health, and so on. Most raise
tuition rates at state schools. (George, my daughter wants to thank you
personally for that one.) Some (as in Maryland) debate, or even institute,
gambling, on the assumption it would be easy money… and clean. It is neither.
Others (as in Virginia and New Jersey), backed into a corner, raise property
taxes – and now some rates do rise too high.
I'm sorry; I just can't see how
cutting a break to a multi-millionaire is going to help make a poor, elderly,
unemployed African-American woman more able to pay for her insulin. And how
will she help take care of her granddaughter? And you wonder why some people
are unhappy?
Smith says that Bush II "has been called every name in
the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from
terrorist attacks". Is
he serious? Or just trying to pile it on ever more thickly? It would be
absolutely ludicrous to assert that the president has been criticized for
keeping us safe! Is he nuts? Administration
policies certainly have made it much more difficult for anything further on the
scale of 9/11 anytime soon (although any half-decent administration would have
done at least as well in this regard; George's team is hardly unique in
history).
What Bush has been understandably
and justifiably vilified for is the range of misdeeds by him and his cronies,
impeachable offenses that amount to – as a great bumper-sticker I saw only once
said – Treason, Tyranny, Murder, and Corruption. Bill
Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Andrew Johnson were each impeached for less. As
another bumper-sticker says (you can tell I love 'em): When Clinton Lied, No One Died.
And the all-volunteer Army (uh, yo –
Craig? There are plenty of Marines, Navy, and Air Force out there, too)
currently fighting in the Middle
East are not
"out there defending you and me". They are defending the flow
of oil (a strategic interest, yes – but that's all), and trying vainly to pull
back together a country they should never have gone into in the first place. It
is not for our freedom.
Likely you've heard all the evidence
that there was no evidence by mid-March 2003 of WMD's in Iraq… while even then
the evidence was more than clear in North Korea and Iran. And you've probably
heard how our valiant soldiers, under orders from on high, rushed to defend the
Iraqi oil ministry offices… and left the museums wide open to devastation of
this ancient country's long heritage.
Terrorists were not tolerated under
Saddam – who was, yes, a brutal, repressive dictator… but had been nearly
toothless since 1991. Now, the terrorists seem to be firing out of every
school-window, blowing up in every market place, and picking off every civilian
they can find.
Why?
We took away a brutal order… and replaced it with no order. We yanked out the
heavy-handed checks and balances, and made a murderer out of everyone over
there with a long-held grievance, a target out of every civilian… and further
targets of our own sons and daughters and brothers and sisters simply because
they are there and finally within easy reach of the terrorists.
I think – and I may be wrong in this
– most of the newest volunteers in our armed forces volunteered to fight
terrorism, and have bought into the administration's lies and deceits about our
purposes, and proudly and unfairly become the latest ranks of cannon-fodder. Older
volunteers (and especially the Reserve forces) joined not to fight, but to pay
for education, to learn a trade, and to patriotically honor this awesome
country of ours… not to let out their blood in a forgettable slum far from
home. And if they do "refuse to go", they lose out on money
needed for their children and families… and (especially with that lousy
discharge) most prospects for a better job once a better administration comes
into power in Washington.
PS, Craig: when you castigate the
media, you do remember that that
includes you, right? Just wanted to make sure.
Regards,
AgingChild
Sent: Thursday,
February 01, 2007 9:07
AM
Subject: something to think about
Subject: something to think about
Boy, is this right on target! I love
it!
Regards,
Anon E. Mouse
Made
in the USA: Spoiled Brats
The other
day I was reading Newsweek magazine
and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true,
given the source, right? This is the
same magazine that employs Michael ("Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo") Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice,
and I start off in this way.
The Newsweek poll
alleges that 67 percent of
Americans are unhappy with the direction in which the
country is headed,
and 69 percent of
the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, 2/3s two-thirds of the
citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being
the knuckle-dragger
I am, I started thinking, "What we are we so
unhappy about?"
Is it
that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7
days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the
summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy
folks have a job?Maybe it is the ability to
walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it
is the ability to drive from the Pacific
Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present
identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds
of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary
shelter? I guess having
thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not
good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show
up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are
rich or poor, they treat
your wounds and
even,
if necessary,
send a helicopt6er to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps
you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who
own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of
trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top-notch equipment to extinguish the flames – thus saving you, your family,and your belongings. Or if, while at home
watching one of your many flat-screen TVs, a burglar
or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest
will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This is all in against the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs, or militias raping and pillaging the residents., nNeighborhoods where 90 percent of
teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about
the complete religious, social,
and political freedoms we enjoy, that which are
the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of
you folks unhappy.
The fFact is, we
are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No
wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They
see us for what we are.: tThe most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of thanking the good Lord that we
live here.
I know,
I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us
out? The president who has a measly 31-percent approval rating? Is this the same president who
guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The
president that who cut
taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has
been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled
ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander-in-chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending
you and me?
Make no
mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve,
and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft
in this country. They didn't have to go.; tThey are
able to refuse to go,
and thereby end
up with either a "general" discharge, an "other than honorable"
discharge or, worst case scenario, a "dishonorable" discharge after a
few days in the brig.
So why
then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of
Americans? Say what you want,
but I blame it on the media. "If it bleeds,
it leads" –
and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood
and guts.; hHow many
will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this,
and media outlets are for-profit corporations.; tThey offer
what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying"
them in one way or another. Just ask
why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how
he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he was would have done it this way….. Iinsane!
Stop
buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use
the New York Times for the
bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a
country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
I close
with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What
have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we
enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our
liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work
ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we
Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we
may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''
I suggest
we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have
will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we
squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful,
this generation will be known as the "greediest and most ungrateful
generation." A This is a
far cry from the proud Americans of the "greatest generation" who left us an untarnished legacy.
AgingChild Feb 3, 2007
Another postword from AgingChild: Blasted blogifier again put extra breaks in the middle of several paragraphs. Well, that’s not how I wrote or formatted the letter. Never mind; I’m still trying workarounds… but I’m not about to spend another hour tweaking it, as I’ve had to do with other posts. If this esthetic problem continues, though, I’ll eventually post here the location of my NEW blog-site. But I want to give WordPress a good shake first.
Regards,
AgingChild
far cry from the proud Americans of the "greatest generation" who left us an untarnished legacy.
Another postword from AgingChild: Blasted blogifier again put extra breaks in the middle of several paragraphs. Well, that’s not how I wrote or formatted the letter. Never mind; I’m still trying workarounds… but I’m not about to spend another hour tweaking it, as I’ve had to do with other posts. If this esthetic problem continues, though, I’ll eventually post here the location of my NEW blog-site. But I want to give WordPress a good shake first.
Regards,
AgingChild
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete