September 25, 2003
Left or Right: Both are Wrong
I have two political bumper stickers on my car, one says “Shut up Hippy” and the other states “F**k the Right”. I get a lot of waves, honks, middle fingers, peace signs, angry looks, and really really angry looks. I also have car insurance in case the Hippies or the Right decides to vandalize my car. I have a Harley Davidson sticker as well, I like to think it’s the tip-off to people that I’m pro-America, pro-business, and pro-“insert biker stereotype here” (yes I ride a Harley). The point is to make people think, it’s a blatant contradiction in today’s America because it concisely states my position: both major parties are wrong and do not represent the people.
So when I get accused of being a Democrat (I’m not, I’m an independent with a slight Libertarian lean) — and of bashing on Bush because I’ve got my guns out for Republicans or some nonsense — I have to take offense. Or at least clarify my position.
Now is the point where some people expect me to go into some crazy spiel where I talk about drinking Colt 45 and spilling it on my $140 Jordan's that I bought with a welfare check, but the fact is, that's an exaggeration, they only cost $135. This paragraph really has no other point than to make you laugh and for me to tell you about how stereotypes work against both sides if you point them out. If you think all rich people live in huge mansions, read "The Millionaire Next Door". And if you think all poor people are broke because they use drugs, or are lazy, read "Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America".
Stereotypes are a dangerous tool in this age, and both right and left-wingers use them to libel the other side. There are countless websites dedicated to depicting Republicans as white Christian men, rich exploiters, and Ivy League spoiled brats from the suburbs, and every flavor of imperialist, fascist, and feudalist you could want. Just as there are countless websites dedicated to depicting Democrats as black welfare moms, inner city, drug legalizers (and pot-heads), burnt out hippies from the 60s, and every flavor of socialism, Marxism and communism you could want. The point is, these apply to those at the extreme ends of the spectrum. It's also how every party seeks to polarize itself and it's opposition, from the Nazis (right-wing) to the Bolsheviks (left-wing).
The problem is that America seems to have a cynical addiction to this polarization, which dates back to the first presidents. There was John Adams, a democrat (little "d" because it was not the party name yet) who wanted to increase federal powers and quash the opposition with the Sedition Act. And later, Jefferson, who wanted to increase state powers and quash the opposition with state laws. Do you see a trend? Read William Safire's "Scandalmonger" for the best context on American politics for that period (his writing solidified my viewpoint that to be truly objective in political discourse, you have to write against both sides).
I'm not going to apologize to Democrats if and when one of their ten candidates comes under fire from my findings, just as I don't apologize when I expose the current administration's blunders (intentional or not). I have leaned heavily on the Republicans mainly because they generate more news, and consequentially, mistakes. They are "the ins" now, and if the political field changes and Democrats are in power, they will probably lambast me and call me all sorts of licentious things when I expose their misdeeds. That's the nature of being in the middle.
I don't apologize for running stories questioning involvement in Iraq. I don't apologize for questioning Wesley Clark's role in the Waco massacre (this and other items on the former general I am still compiling for a feature). I refuse to apologize when I criticize the left for using hypothetical evidence in lawsuits to once again try to ban guns and usurp our second amendment. I absolutely will not back down in my assertion that those elected should be held to promises made during campaigns and should be judged harshly when they willfully go against the will of the people. Being critical of our government, especially those who have so much power over the future of our nation, should be a primary cause of news organizations, not an afterthought in the push for unification and nationalist fervor.
My views are not always critical of the major parties, and there are plenty who trumpet the positive aspects. That's why I don't expect to be a Limbaugh or a Franken, they hold hands with their party and it's easier for them to be accepted by their group, glad to be blind of their faults so long as they are part of a club. The fact is, I'm more content to follow the constitution, hold my independent "hammer of truth", and beat you with it.
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at September 25, 2003 01:29 PMWell I really enjoyed reading this piece because it is PURE commentary. I like to read stuff like this because it makes the site interesting.
I liked the jab you threw at me with the crack about the Colt 45 and air Jordans…touche. It was clever as well as funny. Apparently you got my joke. You are obviously nothing but a drunk…or a child….right Thomas Scott?
I think that the reason why stereotypes exist is because they posess a kernel of truth. I am sure that you will disagree with me on that point. But you are just a dirty Liberal anyway :)
Posted by: Pete at September 25, 2003 01:57 PMOoh. Nice straw man, Pete. Change my original words before attacking, and then use them against something completely different!
My original sentence was “it sounds like the ramblings of either a drunk or a child” (emphasis not in original), and I was referring to your grammatical skills and lack of coherent arguments, not your sense of humour.
Posted by: Thomas Scott at September 25, 2003 02:12 PMPete and Thomas: I deleted the last two posts, please stay on topic and do not antagonize each other or I will delete all of your future comments.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 25, 2003 02:48 PMI find it interesting that my first comment has disappered. This proves my point that this blog is used only to make the “editors” primarily the democrats feel that they have some relevance in the world. Sorry to hurt your ego, but I am sure there is plenty of hot air to absorb the blow.
Your site is based on a great ideal of everyone getting equal time, unfortunatly this is not the case. Until the editors stop acting like Nazi checkpoint guards this Blog will continue to only see input from the “editors”.
Like a dog cleaning itself the area might be clean, but your breath still smells like A**!
Posted by: Deth Frmafar at September 25, 2003 03:01 PMExcellent. I tend to disagree with your opinions on a lot of subjects (e.g. you tilt Libertarian, I tilt Green), but I generally respect the way you support your opinions. This is probably one of the best written pieces I’ve seen on watchblog thus far. I’ve long believed that two parties aren’t enough to accurately represent the full spectrum of political thought in this country (hell, 20 parties probably aren’t enough).
Those who believe that only the Dems and Reps should be taken seriously are simply hoping to replace our democratic republic with an autocratic oligarchy.
Posted by: rev_matt at September 25, 2003 03:08 PMPete, please stop posting as Deth Frmafar (and frankly, grow up). Your IP addresses are identical.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 25, 2003 03:14 PMStephen, there is only one flaw in your otherwise execellent personal point of view. That is that you have nothing to offer.
You place your perspective in the heavens amongst the gods where only perfection and altruism reside. You criticize the left, the right, the middle, — indeed, you fault the human species for being human. Your perspective lacks understanding and compassion and account for what it is to be human.
To be human is to be limited in ones ability to reach perfection. Politicians include a host of flawed persons who nonetheless reach for ideals and perfection as best they can perceive and implemement those ideals and perfections.
But, what does the middle stance you so proudly defend have to offer your fellow human beings or the American experiment? Nothing but criticism and exposition of human fallibility of those who for all their foibles are putting their careers, their characters, their personal histories on the line in an attempt to improve conditions according to some view of perfection which they ascribe to.
I have fallen prey to this human foible myself, at times. I believe though analysis of causes and effects and inescapeable correlations of events are far more productive for poltical debate than simply taking the easy way out and holding the position that one can find fault in everyone else’s view because everyone else’s view is less than perfect because everyone else is human.
So if everyone else is human, what does that make you, Stephen?
Posted by: DRRemer at September 25, 2003 03:49 PMHey Steven, My friend is posting as well and we sit right next to each other. Ever heard of DHCP? I find it hilarious that you think that I would try to pose as someone else knowing how moveable type works, and knowing that any one of you can check an IP address. Perhaps it is you who need to grow up, or at the very least learn more about internet protocal.
Posted by: Pete at September 25, 2003 04:50 PMI take offense to being mistaken for Mr. Pete with his perfect smile, expensive car, collared shirts, and beautiful blonde wife. Please do not mistake me for someone from his privledge and decedance.
Sherlock Holmes needs to take an internet protocal class. Or wait! It must be a right wing conspiracy. Two users form the same IP address what next 4 more years of Bush?
:-)
Posted by: Deth Frmafar at September 25, 2003 05:02 PM
Oh Yeah! Tell Ashcroft to stop doing background checks on people he disagrees with. You want my IP? How about my address? Charlton Heston and I are having a BBQ this weekend for some friends, you should stop by.
Posted by: Deth Frmafar at September 25, 2003 05:06 PM[I’m sure I’ll regret trying to explain this]
DHCP does not mean you will both have the same IP address. It means when you log on to your machine it is automatically assigned an IP address by the DHCP server.
Multiple users with the same IP address would be an indicator of the use of a gateway of some sort between the users network and the internet (e.g. inside a company or organization that uses a non-routable IP space behind the router, as many libraries do. This is also generally how “high speed internet routers” from Linksys et al work if you hang one off your cable/DSL modem and connect multiple computers to them).
I know it’s off topic, but if they insist that Stephen needs to learn more about internet “protocals” they could at least not be wildly wrong in their identification of those protocols.
Posted by: rev_matt at September 25, 2003 05:40 PMComments are now closed, good job guys.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 25, 2003 05:42 PM
