HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 17, 2008 It is interesting how the resident critic of Useless Knowledge proclaims that I am a dimwit because of my optimism as related to the economy of months, and even years, back. I have presented my rationale for my conclusions countless times and it is not worth the effort to do it again. Rest assured, I was not alone in my opinion at the time and, as I've stated, I simply did not recognize the extent to which the Democrats in Congress had undermined the mortgage loan industry, forcing lenders to make bad loans and sitting by while Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae grew so large that they held one out of every two mortgages in the U.S. The real issue occurred to me during an email exchange with yet another UK critic, one who feels that I should not have been so "naive" as to not recognize all of the warning signs in the economy. What occurred to me is how these individuals, who claim I am partisan, refuse to put any blame anywhere but on President Bush and Republicans. While I do not agree with all that Bush has done, I am also astute enough to know that Bush is not the cause of all of the world's problems. One cannot say the same thing about his critics though. There are those who truly think that the world was peaches and cream before Bush took over, that he invented terrorism and economic misery all just so he could make his "oil buddies" more money (or something like that anyway). Some people even claim they are nonpartisan, have no allegiance to a political party, then they proceed to criticize everything that one party does while completely ignoring the other party's malfeasance. If that does not exactly sound "nonpartisan," it is because it is very partisan. No, a big part of the reason I am being criticized is because there is a perception that I was somehow defending Bush by saying the economy was alright. The fact that I presented objective publicly available information to support my conclusion does not matter. Anything and anyone displaying just a hint of supporting Bush, must be destroyed. Even the so-called nonpartisan individuals believe this. What is interesting to me is that our fearless leaders in Washington, D.C., not just the president but all of the members of Congress as well, apparently did not recognize any pending economic problems. I know this because they did absolutely nothing about the situation until it was too late; and even the actions they have taken so far have done little or nothing good. Shouldn't the exalted leaders, the Einsteins in Congress that are now telling auto companies how to run their operations, have recognized the warning signs well in advance? Aren't they expected to know more about these things than we the people who send them to do our bidding? Yet, I've seen little criticism of these fine members of Congress from the "nonpartisan" UK contributors who appear to want to bash me for having the gall to not recognize the problem. I am "naive" or purely partisan because of the perception that I might, just might, have been defending the "Bush economy". So it seems I am being held to a higher standard than the elected leaders in Washington. We can, apparently, tolerate incompetence in Washington, D.C. just fine, but there is no such acceptance of a column submitted anonymously to an internet website. While I was initially flattered by this, I then considered the source and I was quickly brought back to earth. I'll let the hypocrisy stand on its own, because it is overwhelming. Personally, I do not believe there is such thing as a "nonpartisan". To me, that is just semantics. There are individuals who are apolitical, who would rather watch "American Idol" than read or listen to something truly informative. These people may drag themselves to vote every four years, and they usually do so in an ill-informed manner. They are truly dangerous, because they often form their opinion based on sound bites and what the media tells them instead of on their own principles. You might call these types "nonpartisan," but they are really just uninvolved and often uniformed. We are all better off if they do not vote at all. The second kind of "nonpartisan" is someone who quietly has very strong political beliefs, but is just disenchanted with the two-party system for some reason or another. These individuals believe they are better--more objective--not being associated with either major party, that both parties are equally underhanded. Individuals with this mindset, however, are often not any more objective than someone who calls himself a Democrat or Republican. They often still have strong views that lean either right or left, or maybe a little of each. I think some of them just like to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at both sides, while they offer up little in the way of their own ideas for moving things forward. Although they may call themselves "nonpartisan" or "independent," that does not generally mean they are impartial. Few of us are really impartial unless we are ignorant of a situation or just unprincipled. Anyone who holds certain principles then gains knowledge about any particular issues, is invariably going to formulate an opinion on those issues. It is virtually impossible to be an engaged, caring and informed person and yet maintain an overall ambivalence to the world.
I guess in the end a person who can sit by idly without forming a viewpoint on what they see around them would not likely formulate a worthwhile opinion anyway.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
