7.31.2004
Something I was thinking about...
Can the Bush administration do ANYTHING right?
I will pause for a moment to let that sink in...
When it has sufficiently sunk in, you will realize that there are actually two questions that I wrote, with the same words, but with different implied meanings.
In one sense, people ask the question with a twinge of exasperation, as in the negation of "Why does the Bush administration continue to do these things that I think are wrong?". In another sense, it is a serious question that I ask all chronic and vehement critics (self-styled "dissenters" - another topic I will address later). As in "Have you prejudged or demonized the actions of the Bush administration such that any action they take is immediately labeled as wrong?"
The second question is the one I am getting at, and I think it is a good one. I think that even if you disagree with many of the things that someone has done, there are things that you should agree with. It seems amazing to me that anyone would do the exact polar opposite thing that a group of people (who themselves do contradictory things) would do at all times. It is logically impossible if you think about it. I think that if you can't come up with at least a few good things (or things you agree with) that a person has done you are not thinking about them objectively.
So I guess the challenge I leave you with is to come up with a list of things that Bush has done that you liked or agreed with. This is not homework, just a personal food-for-thought thing, but it would be interesting to see what you guys come up with. In the end, dubya is not a unthinking automaton indwelt by Satan, however much people of a leftward bent paint him to be.
In the end, be nice.
Oh... I almost forgot. Just a personal rant here... I am getting very tired of everybody who wants to hurl accusations and rhetoric at or about Bush taking on the mantle of dissenter. First of all, there is a real difference between dissenter and crank. A dissenter goes against the normal flow of thought in a particular group. When you get to many of them, they cease to be dissenters and become a faction. They can't help it... that is just logically what they become defined. A dissenter is a whistleblower at a company, not the collective group of people who also bear the label "Democrat" (Or republican or independent or environmentalist or any other list of "dissenters")
I guess what is bugging me more is when people take the approach of "dissent" to be "This person or group who loudly and vociferously rants against The System is intelligent and well informed and someone I look up to, so therefore if I loudly and vociferously rant against The System I will become someone intelligent and well informed and someone looked up to."
People scream and shout and rant and rave and really have no idea what they are ranting and raving about. They get a little information that is immediately digested and taken to be absolute unslanted truth and don't critically (as in believing almost nothing they see/read because it is obviously fake) examine it and the opposing side to determine what the truth (and not merely their own thoughts on The Way Things Should Be) is.
Ok... that was my personal rant.
Can the Bush administration do ANYTHING right?
I will pause for a moment to let that sink in...
When it has sufficiently sunk in, you will realize that there are actually two questions that I wrote, with the same words, but with different implied meanings.
In one sense, people ask the question with a twinge of exasperation, as in the negation of "Why does the Bush administration continue to do these things that I think are wrong?". In another sense, it is a serious question that I ask all chronic and vehement critics (self-styled "dissenters" - another topic I will address later). As in "Have you prejudged or demonized the actions of the Bush administration such that any action they take is immediately labeled as wrong?"
The second question is the one I am getting at, and I think it is a good one. I think that even if you disagree with many of the things that someone has done, there are things that you should agree with. It seems amazing to me that anyone would do the exact polar opposite thing that a group of people (who themselves do contradictory things) would do at all times. It is logically impossible if you think about it. I think that if you can't come up with at least a few good things (or things you agree with) that a person has done you are not thinking about them objectively.
So I guess the challenge I leave you with is to come up with a list of things that Bush has done that you liked or agreed with. This is not homework, just a personal food-for-thought thing, but it would be interesting to see what you guys come up with. In the end, dubya is not a unthinking automaton indwelt by Satan, however much people of a leftward bent paint him to be.
In the end, be nice.
Oh... I almost forgot. Just a personal rant here... I am getting very tired of everybody who wants to hurl accusations and rhetoric at or about Bush taking on the mantle of dissenter. First of all, there is a real difference between dissenter and crank. A dissenter goes against the normal flow of thought in a particular group. When you get to many of them, they cease to be dissenters and become a faction. They can't help it... that is just logically what they become defined. A dissenter is a whistleblower at a company, not the collective group of people who also bear the label "Democrat" (Or republican or independent or environmentalist or any other list of "dissenters")
I guess what is bugging me more is when people take the approach of "dissent" to be "This person or group who loudly and vociferously rants against The System is intelligent and well informed and someone I look up to, so therefore if I loudly and vociferously rant against The System I will become someone intelligent and well informed and someone looked up to."
People scream and shout and rant and rave and really have no idea what they are ranting and raving about. They get a little information that is immediately digested and taken to be absolute unslanted truth and don't critically (as in believing almost nothing they see/read because it is obviously fake) examine it and the opposing side to determine what the truth (and not merely their own thoughts on The Way Things Should Be) is.
Ok... that was my personal rant.
< 01:54 >< /j >
