I put up a little post about extremism last night, and I received a very interesting e-mail in response from Warren "Bones" Bonesteel in Rapid City, South Dakota. Thank you for sending it in. Any dissenting views out there?
"Something I've been sharing around the interwebs in the U.S. Although directed at Americans, I think the premise is an accurate fit for any nation.
-wrb
=====
The true wonder is...
The rhetorical and political attacks on right-wing 'extremists' by left-wing 'extremist' politicians, activists, media outlets and bloggers are creating the environments for the very things they fear. The same is true with the right's rhetorical and political attacks on the left.
If both sides don't stop and take a deep breath and think about the consequences of their own words and deeds, open violence and civil war are inevitable. The Tiller murder and the demonization of more than a hundred million Americans because of it?
The eco-terrorist's destruction of the environment and private property in the name of protecting the environment?
The stalking and 'mobbing' of ideological opponents by right-wing and left-wing 'extremists'? The violent and deadly Muslim attacks on innocent Americans? The miltarization of civilian police departments, with SWAT teams 'accidentally' killing more than three hundred innocent Americans in their own homes, each and every year? All of that and more is only the beginning of the violence that we will see and experience for ourselves.
An extreme pov? No. It is historically inevitable. America is not immune from history. The world is not a nice, quiet, middle-class suburb or a gated community.
Violence is always the result when opposing ideologies indulge in such rhetorical and political attacks upon one another as are seen in today's American political and social landscape. Historically, when the government begins to exert control over the private lives of its citizens? When the civilian police forces become militarized?
Historically, when opposition parties begin to actively and openly dehumanize and demonize their ideological opponents, as is now occurring in America? Such things are always a prelude to violence and to civil war.
Both of the major political ideologies in America will bear full and complete responsibility for the death and destruction that is now almost inevitable. The poor and inept leadership by members of the political, social and intellectual leadership in America has led us all to this point in history.
You complain about the economy and about big government spending... but you vigorously defend your own debt and credit-driven lifestyles. You quite correctly accuse your ideological opponents of corruption, but violently defend your own.
You complain when another ideology legislates a law that restricts your own freedom, but you vigorously pursue the legislation of laws which restrict the freedoms of others. Thus, you now live in a society where anything not approved by the government is a crime - and there is very little that the government approves. Then, you wonder why America has the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth.
Are Americans so evil that we must lock them all up? Or have we imprisoned nearly two million people just because you don't approve of them? The majority of American 'criminals' who are imprisoned have performed no violent crime nor have they committed fraud or interfered in the freedoms of others.
You think you are free...you've been told that you are free. ...but you cannot make a move without some form of government approval; paying a tax or a fee or getting a license or a permit. Every move you make is regulated by the government. The very air you breath is now being taxed.
But, in the midst of your Keynesian-consumerist driven and government-controlled lifestyles, you think that you are free...and you think that you are just...and you think that you are patriotic, freedom-loving fools...and you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is an unpatriotic 'extremist.'
As Americans have continued to elect and re-elect such inept and corrupt leaders as we now have in Washington and in state legislatures around the nation, we each bear responsibility for the inevitable result of such leadership. If we wish to place the blame for the current state of affairs on anyone, we need only look in the mirror.
The wonder isn't that America will experience another civil war or possibly break up into individual nation-states. The true wonder, historically, is that America has held together as long as it has.
Disclosure: Although I registered as a Republican for a local election in 2004, I am actually a rare breed these days. I'm a 'Jeffersonian Democrat.' A true Classical Liberal. Of course, from the pov of our government, that makes me an enemy of the state. From the pov of the political right, I'm a left-wing liberal. From the pov of the left, I'm a right-wing extremist. The Cassandra Effect does apply, here. You see, your own hubris and ideologies have blinded you. Most of you believe, in complete denial of all of the facts and against all of the evidence of mankind's recorded history, that 'this sort of thing just can't happen in America.'
I've got news for you.
That paradigm is about to crash and burn around your ears."
24 comments:
Seems like he forgot to mention the elephant in the room, "faith" based ethics and religious dogma.
Where do all these "ideas" come from, for example, who says it's "OK" to murder abortionists or fly planes into office blocks, where do the perceived warrants and rewards come from for such behaviour?
I haven't lived there for several years now but is America really as polarised as this article suggests?
I think it got more polarized when Bush invaded Iraq -- and now I think many people are furious that Obama got elected so maybe it's worse than it used to be? I hope an actual American living there will answer your question.
That's why the recent Euro elections were such a breath of fresh air - they showed that multi-party pluralist politics do work and work better than any other system.
What, only a strong leader can take decisive action? Well, I say decisive action is only needed if the system of strong leadership failed in the first place - leaders are strong when they can build consensus, not when they defeat opposition.
The question I want to come back to is "Who will fire the first shots?".
This sounds like a case of "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
And as one of Elizabeth's posts has pointed out, extreme anger leading to violence isn't usually a characteristic of left wingers. Not since the Red Brigades, anyway.
When what you believe (deeply) has no basis in reality, actual or threatened violence probably seems like the only place left to go.
As an example, abortion and the concept that a "soul" enters a zygote at the moment of conception. This is an unfalsifiable concept so if you strongly believe it but can't "show" it to be true, then how can you debate an opposing view other than by saying "just because" followed swiftly by "believe it or else!".
I'm not sure I agree that left wingers are any less violent though (animal rights, Tibet etc.), there is perhaps more of a tradition of rational debate among liberal/left-wing folk.
Daddy, the Bolsheviks!
Though you do mean recently, I know.
But they don't really say a soul enters a zygote, do they, it's a more vague 'it is a person' argument.
I see what you mean about the animal rights groups. I wonder why those groups are considered 'left wing' -- are they?
Yes, Katie, good one about the Red and White Army.
I dunno. I just hate violence, no matter where it comes from.
E, good question, I always think of animal rights groups as being left wing but you are quite right, there is no reason to think that.
I think you have to ask what is behind the "its a person" argument, when a clump of cells is clearly *not* a person. It's all wrapped up in the concept of a soul making human zygotes "special" from all other clumps of cells, the fact that you kill more cells when you pick your nose seems to pass the argument by.
Hmm, I was looking at the political angle of sci-research recently and found this
http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2009/05/meps_science_stem_cell_researc.php this
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/09/is-the-green-party-anti-science/
and this
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/the-green-partys-policies-have-the-potential-to-destroy-biological-research/
which seems to link anti-vivisectionists, GM campaigners etc to the Green Party and an underlying anti-science and anti-research attitude. The general question is opened up here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/01/european-elections-science-stem-cells-gm
there was also a great blog on the times about this but I can't find it now...
I'd be interested in what other make of it.
Yes, I did say recently (the last 30 years).
I don't know - maybe the laft have nothing to get angry about now? Maybe the whole world is socialist?
Yeah, right!
Mind you, much of what the original post says is true.
The millions imprisoned because we don't approve of their lifestyle.
The way or freedoms are taken away so that we can more effectively fight those who "they" say would take away the same freedoms.
And the ceaseless, mindless consumption that keeps us enslaved.
All true.
But why must violence be the response?
I am completely *hors du combat* on this topic, I swear, but as I'll comment using my real initials I thought I'd disarm all my liberal "enemies" right at first...
Eliz's bro Kev once made a very funny observation about how his sister, the flaming Trotskyite, "eats like a Republican" and that I, her conservative nemesis, "eat like a Democrat." We laughed at the time, but y'know? He's right! But I was an English major, therefore quite comfortable with situational irony...
I'm not a PETA member. I own not one but TWO fur coats, and innumerable pairs of leather shoes.
But I won't eat an animal that's been slaughtered/transported cruelly. So how sincere am I?
I am a practicing Catholic, and so must disavow, on principle, abortions and capital punishment. But in real life I can see many excellent reasons for both practices.
I hate violence, too. I was never, ever, even once, struck in anger as a child (or as a wife, SO FAR although LE says that could change if I don't mend my sassy ways) so I don't even understand why anyone could be physically abusive to another.
ALL THAT SAID, though, I do think I would rise to the occasion if I had to. If someone broke into my home and wanted to kill me, I think I might take great pleasure in blowing a splashing, gaping hole in his carotid artery...and go to confession later and tell God I'm really, really sorry, but...to do this act I'd need a gun, which I do not own, so this argument is moot.
So many of the arguments on this site are moot. We do "the best we can with the sense we're given," and there are just bound to be inconsistencies in all our statements...from the leftest lefties (most of y'all) to the Catholics and observant Jews here (me and Michigan Mom.)
For such free-thinkin' people, y'all sure say "they" a lot.
It ain't "they," peeps---it's "us."
BWJ said: Eliz's bro Kev once made a very funny observation about how his sister, the flaming Trotskyite, eats like a Republican.
Eliz: I never knew Kevin said that but I don't understand what it means. What is a flaming Trotskyite? And is eating like a Republican mean I eat meat?
I hate the name calling just because I don't believe in God and vote Democrat that makes me a Marxist/Trotskyite/'exteme liberal'/atheist. I think of myself as a mild mannered person -- my life is just like yours -- I try to do good, be nice to people, raise good children, do a good job at office, be a good wife -- but there are these terms that can be flung at me that make me seem like a bit of a monster.
Bren, that was why I put "they" in parentheses.
If the government (for example) takes away freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, and that action goes unchallenged, it is indeed we who are doing it.
Enquiring minds want to know how liberals are supposed to eat.
Are they supposed to be vegetarians?
Or exist on a diet of granola?
I understand Elizabeth's concern over the portrayal of her as a fire-eating Trotskyite who nevertheless eats like a republican.
Turning it around, an equivalent statement could be something like: "You know, Brenda might be a swastika-waving, jack-booted Nazi, but in her leisure habits she's really quite liberal. After all, she prefers reading books to hunting".
See how strange it sounds?
Mel said:
>why I put "they" in parentheses.
I meant quotes, of course, not parentheses. Slight slip of the brain.
Kevin was just being funny! It was not meant to be serious! I think all he meant was that most vegetarians are lefties, at least that's the stereotype (probably left over from the '60s/'70s alfalfa-sprout-eatin'-free-lovin' peaceniks era) and that most die-hard Republicans (supposedly) like to live off the fat of the land...again, a stereotype probably descended from, I dunno, Diamond Jim Brady or some such. As my good pal Monsieur Wikipedia says:
"Brady's enormous appetite and resultant girth were as legendary as his wealth. It was not unusual for Brady to eat enough food for ten people at a sitting. George Rector, owner of a favorite restaurant, described Brady as "the best 25 customers I ever had."[2] A typical Brady breakfast would be: eggs, pancakes, pork chops, cornbread, fried potatoes, hominy, muffins, and a beefsteak. For refreshment, a gallon of orange juice—or "golden nectar", as he called his favorite drink. Lunch might be two lobsters, deviled crabs, clams, oysters and beef, with a few pies for dessert. The usual evening meal began with an appetizer of two or three dozen oysters, six crabs, and a few servings of green turtle soup, followed by a main course of two whole ducks, six or seven lobsters, a sirloin steak, two servings of terrapin and a host of vegetables. For dessert, the gourmand enjoyed pastries and a two pound box of candy."
Just, y'know, your typical capitalist snack...:):)? Maybe I need to rethink either my politics or my diet...
This was never meant to be a real discussion topic, because it's so silly! Sorry if I didn't indicate my tongue in cheek with a smiley thang...
OJ, Interesting articles, my own sense is that we have been following a trend line of anti-intellectualism in the "west" since the 70s (perhaps not "anti" more "apathy"); I think this has created a vacuum into which all kinds of inanity has rushed from the relativism of the Greens to the NHS wasting £12 Million a year on homoeopathy. I follow a few US based science writers and they claim it is even worse over there. The popular culture seems to be tracking with this trend, Reality TV, Jeremy Kyle, Jade Goody etc; it seems that it's cool to be thick these days.
The green party and others seem to think its just fine to ignore good science when it comes to things like GM; their problem is that they struggle to come up with rational objections or even anything practical to replace it with. It's all very well objecting to GM from the comfort of an Islington semi, but if you make $5 a year and live in a reed hut on the Brahmaputra delta then you have a very different perspective on cheap food. The simple fact is that we (Humans) have been genetically engineering food for the last 5000+ years, via selective breeding; this is nothing new, just more efficient.
As for stem cells, this is one of the most promising lines of research for a long while especially since we have an ageing population; the only objections that I’ve seen are the “faith” based ones, i.e. the assertion that a few embryonic stem cells has a “soul” or is special somehow. The assertion that the needs of 150 cells trump the needs of a 12 year old with MS seems immoral to me.
Hay! I'm not ready to let this food thing go---I still feel miffed that I was so misunderstood! I (thought!) I was just poking gentle fun as much at my own "jack-booted" self, and contradictory diet style, as the "Trotskyites"---nobody, not me, not Kevco, EVER meant to cast asparagus.
About stem cell (doin' a 180 here topic-wise) it just seems to be a case of science getting a bit ahead of ethical resolutions---activity in the research labs outstripping the theological/ethical resolutions, making certain things "possible" before it's determined whether they are right to do, and under what circumstances.
Stem-cell research certainly holds promise, but I see both sides of the question, and am still meditating on this.
Here's where you and I would part company, Steve. In the same paragraph, you throw out a mention of our "aging population" as well as a "twelve-year-old with MS"---interesting, but (in my view) two different topics.
A child with a potentially curable, or manageable, disease, is one thing. Keeping millions of very, very old people alive "forever" (or as close to is as we can stretch it) is not necessarily a laudable goal, whether from an economic standpoint or a spiritual one. If you're an atheistic bottom-line economist, you must surely acknowledge that the huge population of Baby Boomers who survive until they are a thousand years old will bankrupt future generations, with the medical bills for keeping them gasping for that one last breath. If you are religious, then you would believe that life is not measured in years, and that a good death is not necessarily the end. Works from either perspective, with some overlap, no doubt.
"Death where is they sting/Oh grave thy victory?" The end of life, for the extremely aged, is not necessarily a terrible tragic thing, and money wasted on seeing if we can get Granny to last until she's a desiccated withered scrap of 159 seems...hubristic, to me. "Cheating Death" has been a literary theme, ever since we stopped grunting like apes and began to have curious metaphysical yearnings. Tales of desperate bargains struck with the dark powers to buy immortality are---well, they pre-date the written word.
But should this visceral terror necessarily influence gerontology research?
Modest proposal: perhaps instead of clawing frantically for super-extended life after age 100, one should invest a bit of thoughtful time into accepting that, after all, death comes eventually to all. Quality of life, not boring endless years, seems the goal to aspire to. But Hell's afire, Pope said it better (Alexander Pope, I mean, not His Current Holiness Benedict:):)---
"Vital spark of heav'nly flame,
Quit, oh, quit, this mortal frame!
Trembling, hoping, ling'ring, flying,
Oh, the pain, the bliss of dying!
Cease, fond Nature, cease thy strife,
And let me languish into life!
Hark! they whisper; Angels say,
Sister Spirit, come away.
What is this absorbs me quite,
Steals my senses, shuts my sight,
Drowns my spirits, draws my breath?
Tell me, my Soul! can this be Death?
The world recedes; it disappears;
Heav'n opens on my eyes; my ears
With sounds seraphic ring:
Lend, lend your wings! I mount! I fly!
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
bwj, some of us haven't stopped grunting like apes!
On the subject of food, politics shouldn't come into it - we all eat with our mouths!
Steve - don't mention Jeremy Kyle to me - he lives in Winkfield and I've just discovered he's a potential candidate in the Bracknell election (guess the party? ***story warning***)
On things like stem cells and GM, I'm not completely convinced either way, which is why I think it is essential that additional research is undertaken. Clearly there will be limits which is why we must find them.
It seems likely to me that some GM crop genes should be prevented from getting into the ecosystem etc, but I simply cannot support outright opposition to all research - that's just mad! We may be uncomfortable with certain aspects of research, but that's all the more reason to push for higher standards of experimentation.
Jeremy Kyle -- wasn't he a housepainter who decided to get into the advice business? I read his column in a woman's mag from time to time. He passes judgement on the most complex personal issues -- always with a line like, "I'm with you, Sweetheart. Your husband is a loser," etc.
What party is he running for? Let's see -- UKIP?
Yes, Brenda, put a bunch of smileys on those comments where you insult me next time and tell me things my brother said that I never knew. :) :) :) (etc)
bjw, You may well be right about people wanting to live forever, I wouldn't say I aspire to that goal, give me a good three score years and twenty and I think I'll be ok with that. I was more thinking of things like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's when I wrote that, horrible things that stem cell research is a potential ray of hope for because of the idea of replacing damaged brain cells. I think the potential to tackle those two alone makes it worthwhile work.
I think if you argue that there is something unethical about using stem cells (usually from unwanted foetal matter from fertility treatments, i.e. the alternative destiny for most of this stuff is the garbage!) then you need to explain why. We are not talking about people here, we are talking about cells in culture. And it is important not to forget every one of the cells in our bodies has the "potential" to become a human being if treated in the right way.
My own ethical position is that I support research that reduces the amount of suffering in the world. Stem cell research involves no suffering whatsoever, as opposed to some forms of vivisection, i.e. alternatives to stem cell research. For me the bottom line is that kids with MS have much more potential to "suffer" than 150 cells in a Petri dish. Of course that's not the same as saying "no holds barred" either.
I agree with you about death, I don't like the idea of course but like you the thought of clinging onto a meagre quality of life just for the sake of it doesn't strike me as a useful thing to do, it's heartbreaking to watch someone you love go through that for one thing.
Cool poem BTW, Pope was such a wise man, I reckon he would have been enthralled by modern cosmology since he spent so much time trying to make sense of a seemingly "random" universe (at least to people of his time) - interestingly in his early life he lived in a little village called "Binfield", its half a mile from where I live and coincidently I was married in a lovely little 14th century church there, small world isn't it!
(yeah I know a church wedding, I admit it, I'm a hypocrite too!)
OP, I think I was a little bit sick in the back of my throat when I read your comment about Jeremy Kyle, what a hideous thought! (I'd go with UKIP as well?)
I agree that more research is always desirable, but why are you "not convinced" in a broader sense? is it fear of the unknown, a moral position, some evidence etc.?
I agree of course that there should be limits, but wouldn't you say that the 1990 act is already more than sufficient to cover this work, perhaps a bit restrictive if anything?
In terms of GM crops, our ecosystem is already full of genetically modified flora and fauna, wheat, corn, maize all man made, cows, sheep, chickens, all man made, there is a danger here of thinking there is a boogy man under the bed IMO. I am yet to hear a convincing rational argument against this kind of research, it all seems to fall into the category of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) Whilst I wouldn't subscribe to a free for all, I think we do have to weigh irrational fears against the potential benefits.
Post a Comment