Well, I was going to post and apologize a bit, feeling that even though I was a bit tired after being up since 6 AM on three hours' sleep, had been teaching all morning and grading all afternoon, just got out of 3 hours of meetings (glad it was a big one, since I fell asleep while the Pres of the college was talking)--and even though I'd read repeated petty little insults and caricatures--well, I thought my last post wasn't altogether polite.
But maintenant...
1. Mike. And this'll be the 1,000 time I've written this, but here you go: a) the world does not divide into "liberal," and "conservative," politically; b) I am certainly not a liberal, other than in the very general sense that I think snoops should stay out of other people's affairs and that we should actually try and help each other when possible. Oooh.
2. The notion that the political spectrum consists of two opposed groups is a) a by-product of the weird political history of the last twenty years in this country, b) a fantasy of right-wing (a term I use because that's what THEY say) commentators like Rush. It is absolute nonsense, in reality.
3. Unclear? Ungrounded? Unfair and unaware? Odd, considering that we commiesymps keep quoting various authorites from different sides of the arguments, keep referring to actual facts, keep mentioning the actual law and actual history. In response, we get...the same old same old, a rustling of papers, an accusation about America-bashing, a quick change of subject, a demand that we all fall into ze gut LINE. Behind ze PRESIDENT!! Raus!!! Yep, that's discussing them issues.
4. And last. Will you please actually LOOK at the theory you're depending upon? Go back and read, say, a bit of Ricardo and Adam Smith? Flip through the "Wall Street Journal," the "National Review," the "American Spectator," good sound conservative/right wing/capitalist supporters all? Will you PLEASE check the business news, flip through "Slate," when you get on the Net (I know, I know, they're commiesymps too...that Christopher Hitchens, who's been supporting going after bin Laden and Hussein and excoriating lefties for their idiocies for two years now...right liberals, the whole pack of 'em...). Will you just LOOK at the public statements of the guys you're supporting? I mean, I turned on the local news last night when I got home...what's 'is name, our esteemed Secretary of Defense had just won some doubletalk award, and even the local prettyboy/girl conservative announcers were laauging on camera at what he said...
And once in a while, actually try looking at the books, the ideas, the history you incessantly attack. Because you're kinda up the creek, argument-wise...sorry...my side, the side of the EEVIL, knows what you're claiming because we know the books and the arguments, and you sure don't seem to have a clue about what you're arguing against. I mean, have you READ, say, Daniel Bell? Or, say, Molly Ivens or Michael Moore or ANY of these guys?
If I were grading your writing in this thread--and sorry, but it is the way I think, since I spend a fair amount of my time grading--I would rate it as a B. (You'll hardly credit this, but my invariable rule is that when I disagree politically, or on religious grounds, I grade at least a half-grade higher, just to ensure that the student gets treated fairly.) I would write a long note, explaining why you need to be able to cite the texts, and the facts, and offering some suggestions about sources that were roughly in line with your ideas. I would write a longer paragraph, sketching out the reasons that you need to avoid demonizing your opposition--not so much because it's unfair, but because it's a bad way to construct an argument if you want to be taken seriously. And I would suggest a couple more things that you might read--in this context, it might be Henry Kissinger vs., say, Edward Said--so you'd have substantial material to quote and dissect/rip apart, rather than just complaining about, "they," and, "them, " and, "liberals."
"By all means, rip up the silly libs and lefties. Just be sure you actually have--the goods on 'em--and show that you know the ideas and texts and facts exposing their stupidity--so your ideas will be taken seriously," I would write.
In other words, I would demand that you read the books, and check the facts. Clearly, that would be inappropriate here--and even to mention it is of course a bit sneaky. And I guess, in an advance which is certainly unfair, that I feel sure you'll simply use this last paragraph as more proof about "liberal," bias in education. I imagine, too, that you'll simply edit the last paragraph out of your memory and accuse me again of more liberal, one-eyed bigotry, if you respond to this at all. I won't quite agree...but, well, there it is.
But I mean, doesn't it bother you than some of us keep citing authors and events and public statements and laws and all the rest, and you don't?
And I am sorry for getting exasperated a little. I do at times lose a bit of my temper, after the name-calling. (I know, I know...you feel that I and others write condescendingly or whatever...I'm talking about explicit, unarguable name-calling, OK? And I'm not saying I'm totally innocent.) But ya know, the one thing that does worry me about Rush n'Bush and these guys is their utter intolerance of dissent, and their legitimization of a notion that's been around this country for quite a while--the notion that anybody who doesn't think exactly the way they do is an enemy, that anybody who doesn't believe in their brand of Protestantism is an enemy of Christ, that anybody who doesn't want to jist go BOMB 'em hates America, that anybody who doesn't worship at the altar of the Almighty Dollar and His Acolytes, the Blessed Church of American Business is an unrealistic moron.
Oh well. At least I know why I never hear the Dixie Chicks and Springsteen on the radio anymore...
