dad may have been right: And now, my take.

dad may have been right

a horrible sinking feeling as you drift to sleep

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

And now, my take.

I'll sorta go point by point here. And I am playing Devils advocate here for each of you. Which will bring me to my conclusion in a bit...

Goose, I agree, it is idiotic to blame the hurricane on an individual or individuals. But Rick Santorum (R-PA) did that, blaming the victims, and going so far as to suggest litigation against them. So did Pat Robertson. He actually sorta blamed Ellen DeGeneres. "This is the second time in a row that God has invoked a disaster shortly before lesbian Ellen Degeneres hosted the Emmy Awards. Is it any surprise that the Almighty chose to strike at Miss Degeneres' hometown? ... God already allows one awards show to promote the homosexual agenda. But clearly He will not tolerate such sinful behavior to spread beyond the Tonys." So, while I agree it is stupid to play the blame game, both sides do it so well. Partisinism is such that the actual issues are practically ignored, and people spin spin spin to whatever ends they need. Be it attempting to crucify the President, or demonizing a talk show host. It's part of what makes America so fucking neat to watch these things in.

Dave: I also like when ID gets kicked in the teeth. I do have a massive problem with Darwinists though. Many times, I feel they mix up Creation Science, which is total bullshit, with Intelligent Design, which, although I personally disagree with for several reasons not open for debate right now, unless folks are REALLY interested, is much less difficult to argue. The beef with ID folks at the molecular level. See http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html for an interesting artilce supporting neither, but taking a slightly ID slant. I just feel that occasionally Darwinists, who I agree with, take a too zealous stance, when a cooly scientific one would do, and they become like many of their manic detractors. Again, so many times, the people I agree with are as bad, if not worse reactionaries than those they argue against.

Alex, this is one it is hard for me to find another side of. Even at my most conservative, I cannot find it in me to forgive wiretapping without court orders. I mean yes, lives could possibly be saved. But court orders don't take that much time. At all. Nor would getting one actually warn the suspect, unless he had a reliable inside man in the everfucking Justic department. And folks, if we are that deeply infiltrated, they deserve to win, ok? Cause we aren't up their ass that deep. Not by a long shot. But still, if one were to be massively convinced that the only way to be safe was to no longer be free, I suppose one could be convinced it was the thing to do.

My main issue in the past year is the disappearance of the moderate. The disappearance of the middle ground. The assertion that there is only right and only wrong, whichever side you sit upon. I am saddened by the lack of understanding and willingness to speak to people of differing opinions, just instead, the desire to subjugate them to whatever your thoughts may be. I am not levelling this at anyone I know. It is a national malady, a world malady. everyone has it. It is moral certainty. And it is deadly, for everything it touches, in my opinion, because certainty brings stasis, and stagnation of thought. And a wise old Polack once said stagnation is death. What kills me about 2005 was the death of grey.

spouted by Johnny @ 12:04 AM

6 Comments:

At 10:08 AM, Mike Garvey said…

I never got to ring in with my issue, by the way. I'm scared to death of the casino in Buffalo. I don't really think that's a red/blue issue, but it's what gets my goat anyway.

As to your middle ground point - I don't think it's dead yet, it just doesn't have a mouthpiece. In fact, if we were all totally and completely honest with ourselves, I think there are more of us just to either side of the middle than on firmly in the extreme.

The problem is that no one votes anymore. In order to get people riled up enough to head to the booths, a campaigner is more likely to get elected if s/he appeals to the extremes. Stupid marketing.
At 10:28 AM, goose said…

Well met BFJFY!! Question though. You said, "The assertion that there is only right and only wrong, whichever side you sit upon." Johnny, I'm a bit confused how could there be anything but either only right or only wrong? Are there really shades of wrongness or are they human creations meant to mitigate one's guilt? I understand your point that the moderates have all but vanished like some sort of modern day saurid extinction, but that does not change the fact that there are only 2 roads, right and wrong. Something is either "right", and if so is always "right", or it is "wrong" and if so can never be "right". (yay CCD) The problem we have in this bubbling melting pot, is accepting a universal code laying out what is right or wrong, who decides that, and who gets to tell others what the parameters of the "paths" are? Tough call, especially with the disintegration of the individual conscience. (ex: "Who are you to me what I do/think/believe is "right" or "wrong") Please enjoy 2 pieces of penny candy on me!
At 11:07 AM, Johnny said…

Heh. I will enjoy the penny candy. And I am pondering your point. You do have a good one. :)

And Garv, the venting is still open!!
At 7:13 PM, Alex said…

When I say I was pissed at the wiretap thing, I mean I was pissed at the President. No one is above the law, especially not the President.

And in America, it's spelled "gray". ;)
At 9:09 AM, Jess said…

...except in the case of Jean Grey.
At 2:54 PM, Greg said…

In Johnny's defence, I went to the centre of the library, the red coloured section, and found that both grey and gray are acceptable.