January 27, 2003
It's Miss Harris if you're nasty
Bo-ring. Have you tried reading "liberal bloggers" lately? I have come to the conclusion that I can't possibly be a liberal -- even though I hold all sorts of supposedly liberal opinions -- I think gay people should be able to get married and adopt kids (why not? they can't be any worse than some of the "normal" hetero parents out there), I don't worship any god and I don't care if others do, I think everyone deserves equality of opportunity (that is, don't put obstacles deliberately in the way of people based on ridiculous characteristics like skin color), and so on. But apparently today to be a liberal you have to be a paranoid, nasty, name-calling, mud-slinging, knee-jerking, accusatory (as in, accusing people who disagree with you of being a troll or starting a flame war), miserable fuck.
 |
| "Man, that shizzit is nasty." "I'm depressed now." |
PS: here is what one person thinks of the American and European "human shields" that have descended upon his country. He calls them "war tourists." Funny, I don't think that that is the impression the "human shields" intended to give.
Posted by Andrea Harris at January 27, 2003 02:42 AMI just wonder how loud the "no war for oil" crowd would scream if in fact the oil taps were shut off and they couldn't drive their SUVs. No predictions, just a fun little thought experiment.
Posted by: Dave at January 27, 2003 at 09:34 AM"...if in fact the oil taps were shut off and they couldn't drive their SUVs..." (or Volvos, as the case may be.)
What would they say? It's easy. They'd blame the American oil companies for not finding a magical petroleum substitute.
Have you seen the IBM ads ("server pixie dust," "business time machine," etc?) This is how many "progressives" actually seem to view technology.
Posted by: David Foster at January 27, 2003 at 10:59 AMI've noticed exactly this on the tv political talk shows. The guy representing the Right usually debates logically and calmly. The guy representing the Left, Mr. Combs, Mr. Franken, that ex-representative bald guy, always (yes ALWAYS) stick strictly with screaming, name calling and a series of personal attacks.
When I tune in to these shows I am hoping to hear both sides of whatever issue is being talked about. It just seems that the Left, more often than not has no "side", except, "We believe exactly the opposite of what THEY believe and we don't give a damn if we can't support that belief! Dammit."
Posted by: Tom at January 27, 2003 at 11:44 AMDespite the nastiness, the name-calling, and the fact that they refuse to criticize totalitarian regimes, the anti-war crowd seems to think that they are the good guys, defenders of the poor and oppressed. They're wrong, and they're becoming even more irrational lately. When it comes to the subject of Bush, Ashcroft, and the right-wing ‘junta’, they lose all sense of reality.
Great rant – every word is true.
Posted by: mary at January 27, 2003 at 12:20 PMBrilliant, Andrea. I couldn't possibly have said it better.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 27, 2003 at 04:33 PMHey, fun rant.
I've noticed the same thing myself. I'm fairly "progressive" on personal behavior and morals-and am a hard cranky right threaded wingnut when it comes to foreign policy and the use of the military to project US power. That's supposed to make me a libertarian, but I've never been really comfortable with the dogmatism that seems to obsess them. Maybe someday I'll figure it out. As to Bush-well I didn't vote for him, but it wasn't the end of my world when he ended up the winner. One just has move on and deal with it.
So we should now refer collectively to such blogs as the Legion of Miserable Fucks?
Don't like that one? How about Axis of Feeble?
Posted by: CGHill at January 27, 2003 at 04:38 PMSorry to be anonymous, I just hate reading responses. :)
Where was I? Oh yes.
Fearless leader, 4 more years thereof, etc. Good point... but we're currently enjoying Supreme Court justices appointed in 1976, among other times, and if the current Shrub-in-Chief (not to be disrespectful, but heck, I'm anonymous) appoints say a good two or three more Conservatives (limit state power to legalize non-injectable drugs which are legally used in this country for medical reasons; euthanasia self-inflicted by competent persons; etc.) then we could be enjoying even more solicitude to corporations, the permanent illegalization of abortion (not that I like the stuff; but I'd rather not have the federal government decide for everyone. Why should males have any say... or women above the age of reproduction? Isn't this an issue for females of fertile age and below to debate, decide upon, and implement?) and such other goodies.
I don't want my great-grandkids to be enjoying the legal legacy of Bush's court-appointees. Think that can't happen? What if Bush appoints a 29-year-old? If medical science advances even a little bit between now and 2050?
Other than that, great post. I hate flames too :)
Posted by: anonymous coward at January 27, 2003 at 04:57 PMHey, anonymous -- one should always be vigilant. Still, name me one horrid, awful freedom-destroying, carpet-being-rolled-back-to-the-Fifties (the 1850s) ruling passed by the Supreme court since 1976 -- rulings that have affected everyday citizens in a big way, not mild annoyances like having to fill out an extra form or get parental consent if you are underage. Then go look up "checks and balances."
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 27, 2003 at 08:29 PMRe the "No War For Oil"/ SUV nexus: I saw a bumper sticker a few days ago that was a good example of this. It read: "War On Iraq=Terrorism For Oil". It was on the back of a SUV. Possibly an example of the ever popular "Don't do as I do; do as I say!".
Posted by: John F. MacMichael at January 27, 2003 at 10:51 PMHey, anonymous coward: please explain to me how overruling Roe would result in a nationwide ban on abortion. You seem all for states' rights in the drug context, so you are either an ignoramus or a hypocrite. I really could care less whether abortion is outlawed in Mississippi and subsidized in California: the US constitution protects the right to interstate travel, so properly recognizing that abortion is not a federal issue would be nothing other than a triumph for democracy over the rule of unelected federal judges. In practice, the overwhelming majority of states would keep abortion legal, either legislatively or as a much more credible matter of state constitutional law based on explicit textual language rather than "penumbras" and "emanations."
Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 27, 2003 at 11:04 PMDavid's right. A complete overturn of Roe v. Wade would merely result in the states being allowed to decide again what the legalities would be. It would simply return the process to democracy.
Which is, even for a pro-choice person like myself, probably preferable. It would effectively end the ridiculous pro-choice/pro-life debate for good, since the overwhelming majority of America's women (let alone men) prefer a moderate course.
There's simply no evidence that anyone on the current court--not even the most "conservative"--would ever render a decision banning abortion. The screaming loonies at NARAL and NOW aside, the truth is that the most "conservative" jurists simply think the states should decide this matter.
Why is democracy so frightening to some people?
Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 28, 2003 at 05:38 AMYou might find the following to be of interest:
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 28, 2003 at 10:20 AMYou forgot to put quotation marks around the url in your link. I fixed it.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 28, 2003 at 10:26 AMWhoa... can I have your number?
Just kidding. That was one helluva rant. I do consider myself liberal, although I avoid using that term, lest I be lumped in with the other losers. I agree that the right-left thing is getting to the point where it sounds more like a schoolyard riot than a policical debate. What a bunch of whiners!
Posted by: Jim, the Vegas Leatherneck at January 28, 2003 at 10:30 AMOn my campus the other day, a bunch of anti-war protesters held a demonstration (not sure what war they were protesting, exactly, but then neither do they) -- an exercise that, from all I could gather, consisted mostly of their walking in circles while repeatedly barking rhyming gibberish ("No war for oil, workers toil in soil!"... or somesuch nonsense...).
Anyway, one of the placards featured most prominently in the protest -- a picket sign stabbed in the air with great glee by a group of patchouli-soaked, fascist-humping Blixie-Chix -- insisted, "The Only Good Bush Is Between My Legs!"
Which somehow I doubted.
Posted by: Jeff G at January 28, 2003 at 12:26 PMWell well well...
It's alive.... alive... IT'S ALIVE!!!
Dude, where ya been?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 28, 2003 at 04:39 PMOK...that's TWO Jeffie G. sightings in one day. Maybe the SotU is the holiday I've been waiting for.
Please Lord, Please Lord, Please Lord, Please Lord, Please Lord, Please Lord, Please Lord!!!!
Posted by: Scott Chaffin at January 28, 2003 at 10:40 PMDean,
Democracy is frightening solely to people who believe that they are the exclusive possesors of a higher morality which the idiotic unsophisticated masses will never grasp, and so the public must be given what's good for them by their betters, regardless of what the majority of that public in all its hopelessly reactionary foolishness might actually want. It's straight out of Lenin: vanguard of the Revolution and all that, you know.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 28, 2003 at 11:28 PM