Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Bias, Liberalism and Pacifists

“In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns.” Yet nine days later Dan Rather was reporting on Mr. Bush’s National Guard service as if it were the story of a lifetime. Once Mr. Rather’s statements were proven false, he said “I want to say personally and directly, I’m sorry” for the story and CBS “can no longer vouch for the authenticity” of the article. (Source WSJ 9/21/04.) Media Bias, you bet!! Had this “boo-boo” been less of a major story, it would have just been another “biased” report made daily by liberal writers and verified by the newspapers that publish their liberal views.

“With the rise of the middle class and a broader prosperity, envy became a diminishing factor in the psyche of the Democratic Party. By the 1960’s, pacifism replaced envy as the defying trait of the social democratic identity. After all, the Democratic Party leadership became dominated by affluent, anti-war activists while the rank-and-file Democrats remained real-world tradesmen. But no matter: Rich Democrats and their accountants know how to avoid paying higher taxes while raising those of the working class.

The declining significance of class envy also transformed the Republican Party. As the GOP became less a gentlemen’s-club-only and more muscular in it’s world view, it became more disciplined, disaffected realists of all economic stripes, most notably Democrats such as Ronald Reagan, William Bennett, Lawrence Kudlow and the whole “neoconservative” movement.” (Excerpts from a “Letter to the Editor” WSJ author, Richard Reay, 9/04.)

Since I have written about the rise of socialism in our country, I must also express my concern about the rise of pacifism in the United States as well as Europe. This is obvious in many of the articles appearing in “Letters to the Editors”, in most printed media and voiced on certain TV stations. You will have determined by now, I am not a believer that terrorists, or most any aggressor, will be stopped by the citizenry being passive. (Definition of passive - rejecting the use of force as an instrument of policy.) Armed terrorists, many of whom have an education but misinterpret the Koran, Bible or other religious documentation or beliefs, lead uneducated and ignorant people to kill themselves along with innocent people and most types of pacifism has ever worked with when dealing with terrorists and their followers..

A picture in the Times magazine dated 9/13/04 show an armed and masked terrorist leading a group of 10 to 14 year old boys. There leadership is teaching them to kill all who disagree with them, even their own people, and to enslave their women after they become old enough to marry. You believe that pacifism will turn these people into moderates? Moderates did not turn commercial airlines into missiles and fly them into buildings on 9/11. The World War of Terror was not started by moderates. Moderates, through negotiation, will not bring and end to this war. Moderates and pacifists have not stopped the terror that goes on every minute in our own country.

Her is an excerpt from the Journal Star and The Associated Press dated 8/26/02, “More than 6 million in corrections system, one out of every 32 adults in the United States were behind bars or on probation or parole by the end of 2001.

Get real!! The world was never a “safe” place. While you keep spilling your ignorance in “Letters to the Editors” and peace marches I suggest you read World, Mideast and American History. Or did you never hear of World War I and II, of Hitler, Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, our own not so Civil War, the terror of settling our country?

Try not to blame the current leadership for all hatred of us by other countries. These countries are still in the “envy” stage and have no middle class and prosperity. When we help force and lead them to a more democratic form of government, with a middle class and prosperity, only then will our world become safer but never safe.

I close with this thought “liberalisms inability to identify any moral absolutes leaves it adrift” (Source Anonymous)


Anonymous said...

I agree, the world has never been save.

Bill Dennis said...

The "pacifism" of the Libertarian Party is what caused me to quit that party, whose basic stance on small government individual responsible I wholeheartedly agree.

As far as why these other nations hate us, I frankly could care less whether some other nation hates us. If Canada were the most powerful and richest nation on Earth, they woduld be hated for that very reason.

I am more concerned about whether they respect and, yes, fear us

Somebody had to be at the top of the food chain. I vote for us.

Anonymous said...

I don't vote for us as being at the top of the food chain. Frankly, all it does is open more problems than benefits. As a small-l libertarian, I don't agree with the total pacifism of some Libertarians and libertarians, but I believe in armed neutrality and non-interventionism with the need to take military action in some cases(e.g. Afghanistan).

Merle Widmer said...

Bill & Anonymous,

Thanks for your comments. When a person is as independent as I am, I can't say I'm not many times a liberal in my thinking and writing and actions. Their are many definitions of a liberal & I believe I fit this one best - Not bound by authoritarinism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms. Note it says not "bound". Doesn't mean I paint all people labeled as "liberals, with a broad brush!!" Merle

Aleksu said...

I am guessing the concepts "Pax Romana" and "Pax Americana" need to be understood by the Americans.

The world has never been a safe place, and the more we over use our resources the more armed conflicts we will witness.

One thing though, whenever I read about how the world hates the USA usually there is mentions of Saddam or Ghadaffi.

Never there is a mention of Saudi Arabia, a regime that is never critiziced (sp?) by the American media, a regime far from being democratic, a regime that keeps millions of Arabs in poverty and ignorant, a regime that profits from the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Where did Osama find his pilots? In Saudi Arabia.

Name a country with no middle-class? Saudi Arabia.

So, it is not exactly middle-class envy what moved Osama (a Saudi millionaire) to use Saudi Arabs to attack America.