HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 10, 2006 Miscellaneous thoughts on my mind: Walking into work today I saw a car laden with left-wing bumper stickers. One of them said, "Oh Look, Another Pro-Lifer for War". This sentiment is out of touch on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin. First, I don't know that there are very many decent people anywhere--conservative, liberal or otherwise--who are "for war." There are simply those who acknowledge the need for it under certain circumstances and those who feel it is never warranted in any situation. Perhaps those in the latter group feel that any situation can be negotiated through non-violent means. To me, this whole argument comes down to the belief in evil. Peaceniks tend to believe evil does not really exist in any absolute form (ironically, other than in war and violence itself). Given this, there is not much to fight for I guess. Saddam Hussein is not a bad person; he's just misunderstood. (Interestingly, many of these same people pronounce President Bush to be an eveil terrorist, which is a contradiction I've never been able to fully grasp.) I can understand being against war in specific circumstances. For instance, many were against the Iraq War and had their reasons for being so. And, certainly, there have been "bad wars" throughout history, fought for reasons which were less than righteous. Being against war under any circumstances, however, has always been kind of a cop-out in my mind, particularly for those of us fortunate enough to live in a free and open society. The idea is that nobody, including those in non-free nations, should want to fight for the rights and privileges that we already enjoy. This strikes me as a tremendously selfish stance. How easy it is to believe that sentiment, and how lucky one is to be able to display that anti-war statement on some foreign made jalopy while driving freely down a road which was surely paved, at least in part, with the blood of soldiers willing to fight and die for the cause of freedom. I'm also partially amused and partially irritated at how those with more liberal tendencies have a knack for comparing apples to oranges as if they are one and the same fruit. They then, invariably, point to the obvious differences between them as evidence of some kind of crack in the conservative argument. Comparing the act of abortion to war is equivalent to comparing a monkey to a space ship. An abortion is the termination of an unborn life that is often, now always, more for the convenience of the mother (and father at times) than anything else. There are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. The point here, though, is that it is not at all a contradiction to both recognize the need to fight for freedom when it is called for AND be pro-life when discussing abortion. This is an example of how liberals define what a conservative argument is, then they poke holes in the argument as they defined it. I've seen the same logic applied to those who are in favor of the death penalty and are pro-life, which are also two points of view that are not diametrically opposed. Pointless Debating - In another issue, I'm just about ready to give up on debating political issues directly with people who are completely at odds with how I see the world. I'm not saying that how I see the world is always correct; it's just that it is becoming more and more evident to me that, when people see the world in such a different light, real debate is pointless because the parties involved are not even listening to each other. Most of us pick and choose the "evidence" which supports are predisposed notions while dismissing most evidence to the contrary. It's far easier to have a discussion with someone who at least acknowledges an opposing viewpoint in a meaningful way. There are those who believe the world and country are going to hell and the economy is about to fall apart (some of whom post to UK regularly) and I say let them believe what they want. Perhaps they might be proven right some day; then where will they be? Dubai Ports - This is another emotional and confusing issue. I do not pretend to know enough about running a port and maintaining its security to comment on that aspect of the debate. Knowing how Bush has made the security of this nation his number one priority while in office, I would find it completely surprising that he would so openly compromise the security of the nation by endorsing this deal, and I trust that's not the case. Those who hate this president will reduce the issue to some nefarious intent on his part. Reasonable people see that there is much more involved. I do find it interesting, though, that the very people who call Bush a "cowboy" for "going it alone" and criticize him for alienating nations everywhere are the same voices who now openly decry the UAE port deal primarily because it involves an Arab nation. Are we only supposed to "reach out" to other nations when those nations are in Europe and involve primarily Anglo-Saxon populations? Some of these same individuals being so critical of this deal for national defense purposes are also the same ones who cheered when a government leak compromised our ability to monitor terrorist communications. I hope the voting public takes note and does not allow these politicans to play both sides of the fence. ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
