![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Political dump
May. 4th, 2007 11:55 amHere's a bunch of stuff I wrote over at the Washington Post this morning. I'll spare you the links. Honestly, does anybody ever read this crap? :D
[In response to a columnist's blog about the most threatened seats in Congress]:
It troubles me that the only indication listed here of how well a threatened incumbent is doing in trying to protect their seat is how much money they've raised.
Aren't any of these people trying to hold on to their seats by doing something wacky like, I don't know, maybe providing excellent service and representation for their constituents?
If any of them ARE doing that, how about telling us about that as well? I know everybody loves money, but (heretical though the thought might be) MONEY IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!
[Later in the same thread, in response to someone else]:
Well XXXXX, I can understand that - but it bothers me that constituent service isn't even MENTIONED as a factor in re-election.
If I were a representative, I'd damned well be trying my best to provide the best service and representation for my employers - the people of my district and the people of the United States - that I could, in the hope that they'd recognize and reward effective representation.
Okay, that's probably a pretty naive thing to say, but still...doesn't performance have ANY impact on elections? I think it does, and if it doesn't, it should!
[The thread veered towards the question of whether it was intolerant for liberals to suggest that someone who professed a disbelief in evolution (such as three of the Republican Presidential candidates) was unqualified to be President]:
To quote somebody or other: I'm open-minded, but not so much that my brains fall out.
If someone wants to profess a disbelief in evolution, that's fine. They have free speech. They can even disbelieve gravity, if they want - I don't care.
But to pretend that their beliefs need to be given respect by anyone with a modicum of education or common sense is ridiculous. It ignores the fact that there is such a thing as objective truth and reality.
It seems ironic that right-wingers are so eager to jump onto the bandwagon of government enforcement of moral certainty, but when it comes to FACTS, they can't change stances fast enough. Suddenly, moral relativity is the order of the day. And they're proud and happy to legislate for all of us on the basis of their utterly disproven fantasies.
Despite what Bush & company have been pushing down our throats for the past six years, there IS such a thing as objective reality. And we are not obliged to pretend that fantasies - particularly ones that may endanger us all - are true or valid.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be the ones with common sense?
[Finally, I lost my temper at Charles Krauthammer, a neocon and war booster who wrote a column deploring George Tenent for "rewriting history"]:
Thanks, Mr. Krauthammer, for bringing hypocrisy to new heights. I wouldn't hold a brief for Mr. Tenent, but considering just how much YOU boosted and advocated for the war, it takes a lot of chutzpah for you to be talking publicly about rewriting history.
If there were any justice in the world you'd spend the rest of your life standing in an alley somewhere next to Mr. Tenent, begging for quarters. You personally contributed to the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, including children and American troops. You are beneath contempt, and so is the Washington Post for employing you.
[In response to a columnist's blog about the most threatened seats in Congress]:
It troubles me that the only indication listed here of how well a threatened incumbent is doing in trying to protect their seat is how much money they've raised.
Aren't any of these people trying to hold on to their seats by doing something wacky like, I don't know, maybe providing excellent service and representation for their constituents?
If any of them ARE doing that, how about telling us about that as well? I know everybody loves money, but (heretical though the thought might be) MONEY IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!
[Later in the same thread, in response to someone else]:
Well XXXXX, I can understand that - but it bothers me that constituent service isn't even MENTIONED as a factor in re-election.
If I were a representative, I'd damned well be trying my best to provide the best service and representation for my employers - the people of my district and the people of the United States - that I could, in the hope that they'd recognize and reward effective representation.
Okay, that's probably a pretty naive thing to say, but still...doesn't performance have ANY impact on elections? I think it does, and if it doesn't, it should!
[The thread veered towards the question of whether it was intolerant for liberals to suggest that someone who professed a disbelief in evolution (such as three of the Republican Presidential candidates) was unqualified to be President]:
To quote somebody or other: I'm open-minded, but not so much that my brains fall out.
If someone wants to profess a disbelief in evolution, that's fine. They have free speech. They can even disbelieve gravity, if they want - I don't care.
But to pretend that their beliefs need to be given respect by anyone with a modicum of education or common sense is ridiculous. It ignores the fact that there is such a thing as objective truth and reality.
It seems ironic that right-wingers are so eager to jump onto the bandwagon of government enforcement of moral certainty, but when it comes to FACTS, they can't change stances fast enough. Suddenly, moral relativity is the order of the day. And they're proud and happy to legislate for all of us on the basis of their utterly disproven fantasies.
Despite what Bush & company have been pushing down our throats for the past six years, there IS such a thing as objective reality. And we are not obliged to pretend that fantasies - particularly ones that may endanger us all - are true or valid.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be the ones with common sense?
[Finally, I lost my temper at Charles Krauthammer, a neocon and war booster who wrote a column deploring George Tenent for "rewriting history"]:
Thanks, Mr. Krauthammer, for bringing hypocrisy to new heights. I wouldn't hold a brief for Mr. Tenent, but considering just how much YOU boosted and advocated for the war, it takes a lot of chutzpah for you to be talking publicly about rewriting history.
If there were any justice in the world you'd spend the rest of your life standing in an alley somewhere next to Mr. Tenent, begging for quarters. You personally contributed to the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, including children and American troops. You are beneath contempt, and so is the Washington Post for employing you.
