The Significance of the Pickle

[Rev Blair]

If the title of the thread doesn't make a lot of sense, I suggest you need a lot more Arlo Guthrie in your life, and a fair bit of his dad too.

 

Anyway...

 

Rev, I love your wisdom, your attitude and your intellect. You have a knack for humor and a talent for flare in your overgeneralizations, but you can't really believe the literal interpretation of your words...do you?

 

It's kind of funny...a few years ago I did a series of "phone calls" I got from George Bush. It was just one of those things you e-mail to friends and relatives...yet another way to avoid writing by writing.

 

The premise was that he thought I was the kind of reverend he was used to dealing with, when in reality I was a beer swilling yahoo. He'd call me up, and I'd tell him things...yeah, things.

 

In the very first one I admonished him over and over again that literalism was a sin...kind of a warning to the readers that I was talking in generalities and metaphors...since I wanted people to think about what I was saying, but not think it was factual.

 

The Conservatives and Republicans I knew pretty much hit the roof over the first three or four things. They demanded sources and links. I ignored them, thinking they were just goofy because I was going after their boy.

 

Then I introduced the men in the black Ford. They were secret service agents assigned to watch me (I did get banned from the US for, as near as I can tell, something I wrote on the internet in real life and they were kind of a reaction to that).

 

So anyway, in these things I was writing, I had these two poor bastards assigned to watch me. They were bored as hell, underpaid, and had to to knock on my door to use the bathroom, since they weren't allowed to leave for any length of time. I ended up drinking beer with them on my front lawn while they played frisbee with my dogs.

 

The Democrats and Liberals and NDPers on my e-mail list hit the roof. They were sure I was being entrapped and shouldn't be talking to these guys. My own mother called to suggest I talk to my Member of Parliament about the US government spying on me.

 

Somewhere along the line, everybody forgot that literalism is a sin...except my grandmother and my MP, both of who got it.

 

On this site, I've said that politics isn't a science and that it's closer to black magic than science. That doesn't mean that I don't believe what I'm saying or that I'm just making things up. It means that I'm not going to provide links to back up everything I say though. I charge 35 cents a word if I have to do that, and the writing is no fun. Neither is the reading, for that matter, but it doesn't matter because the people who pay me are no fun either. Scale is scale though, and until they make beer and cigarettes free, I will write things that are no fun for people who are no fun.

 

On another site, where I was constantly pushed for links for things that had been in the general media, I began responding, "Sausage," whenever anybody said, "Link?" It's a cheap pun in response to what I see as cheap pedantry. This is politics, not science.

 

Of course it's my opinion. It's a pretty well-considered opinion based on a variety of news stories and opinions from experts, as well as my own reading of the entrails, but the only "fact" in politics is the poll results on election day, and even those are subject to interpretation. (My gosh, my English sucks tonight)

 

I kind of feel like that we're headed to that same kind of place here as in the examples I gave. I understand that it's a science site, but this is the politics section. Part of the reason I came here is because I feel scientists need to be more involved in politics...not as a group, but as individuals.

 

 

Anyway, literalism is a sin and when it comes to politics, it's all opinion. Some opinions work out better on a more consistent basis though. The president on the West Wing once said something like, "You know how I know that? Because I listen to smart people."

 

It's likely the most correct line in the entire run of the show, except he should have said, "Because I listen to people who have been right more often than not for several decades."

[ecoli]

If the title of the thread doesn't make a lot of sense, I suggest you need a lot more Arlo Guthrie in your life, and a fair bit of his dad too.

TBH, I have no idea what you're talking about in the rest of this post... but "hell's yeah" on this part.

[iNow]

Rev Blair has been challenged by Pangloss, who moderates the Politics board, to supply references about George W. Bush's IQ since Rev Blair made the comment that "Bush is an idiot."

 

I think Pangloss has gotten a bit too hung up on protecting GWB through the years. While he often asks important clarifying questions, and pushes posters to better articulate their position, I feel he too often pushes the opinions of others here into TINY little boxes which fit with an O'Reilly mindset. I am pretty confident this is not done intentionally (although, I could very well be wrong), but he simply brushes aside good arguments far too often as "right wing" or "liberally biased," it really hinders intelligent discussion (IMO).

 

 

 

Rev Blair...

 

I'm not sure of any other instances where I recall this happening to you on SFN. I only recall seeing "calls for links and resources" on your Bush is an idiot claim (which, really, come on... we all KNOW is an opinion, and one that is fairly well grounded in our experience these last 8 years). Were there other requests for resources?

 

The folks who moderate this site are pretty good about this sort of thing. The only time links are requested is when someone makes a claim that is outside of the accepted understandings. However, you're always given a chance to support your comments, and to address questions about them.

 

However, being asked to support a comment with references after saying "Bush is an idiot," I agree, is pretty significantly outside the norm of actions of this site's staff.

[mooeypoo]

I personally said "Hell yeah" to the generalizations part, good post Rev Blair, you're amusing and light, and that's missing here in the Politics thread.

 

I think, however, that we need to remember that one of the problems in a Political debate is that it is emotional. Political opinions tend to be more than just opinion, they tend to be emotional opinions, and as such, people take them very personally and tend to ignore rational debate rules.

 

Some things don't need references in such a discussion, but some do.. if you make a claim that rely on historical premise or something similar, you probably should base it. If you make an opinion, then people sjould lighten up and understand it is an opinion.

 

But *saying* "lighten up" is different than actually having people follow this advice. Again - political debates are often emotional.. which is also why there were some problems (in general) with this specific forum existing in SFN.

 

Good post, though, I enjoyed it.

 

~moo

[Rev Blair]

I just thought a little explanation was in order, iNow. I purposely didn't refer to Pangloss in this post, because I'm trying to explain where I'm coming from, not discredit Pangloss.

 

In fact I think that Pangloss does a good job both moderating and putting up lucid arguments.

 

I don't think questioning the matter of Bush's lack of intelligence is one of those arguments though. There have been stories in the media about that since before he was president.

 

My greater point though, is that politics is not a factual business. When I say that George Bush is an idiot, I'm not talking about SAT scores or his IQ, I'm talking about the outcome of his past policies, his general demeanor, the number of serious errors he's made, his apparent inability to communicate and so on.

 

I also don't want to be misunderstood. I make no bones about being partisan, but even my provincial MLA...who happens to belong to the party I give money to and work for at election time...knows damned well that if I don't agree with him, he can expect some pretty severe criticism, and that criticism will not be kept behind closed doors.

 

At the same time, if I see somebody in another political party doing something good, I tend to let people know about that as well.

 

I might be partisan, but I'm not blind.

 

Finally, things are a bit different at this site than at most places I post. Most places I post at have members who have known me for a very long time, whether they agree with me or not, so explanations like this one generally aren't necessary. I feel that puts others here at a disadvantage, since they might have trouble interpreting where I'm coming from and what I say.

[Pangloss]

iNow, clearly differentiating between opinion and fact is not a "tiny little box", it's an important part of what we do here, and I challenged a statement of objective fact exactly like you challenge statements of objective fact from global warming opponents. If you want to see that as "putting someone in a tiny little box", that's fine, but ironically you are absolutely mirroring my complaint about political correctness on GW and other issues here. If you want to talk about that I'm okay with it, just start a new thread, please, preferably on the Suggestions and Comments board. I do appreciate the tone of your point and Rev Blair's reply. As you say, it's not my intent to box anyone in, I'm just trying to preserve a certain level of respectability and openness in our discourse, and keep this from becoming a partisan-left or partisan-right board, which I think is something we all want. I'm open to suggestions on that front.

 

I fully support this thread and Rev Blair's opinion.

[ParanoiA]

If the title of the thread doesn't make a lot of sense, I suggest you need a lot more Arlo Guthrie in your life, and a fair bit of his dad too.

 

Anyway...

 

I don't understand the thread Rev. No one said you had to distinguish fact from opinion until you violated your own indictment of the Bush administration. THAT's what started the whole business.

 

You made the statement that oversimplifying Iran's politics "They bad, we good" doesn't help matters, and that things will not go well. And you made that statement while oversimplifying Bush's politics as "Bush is an idiot".

 

You're guilty of that which you accuse others. It's that simple. Write all the posts and create all the threads you want, but this is not about mistaking opinion for literalism, it's about making overgeneralizations about others making overgeneralizations.

 

iNow, and others, always get emotive and miss Pangloss's points when he calls folks out on this. If you're not going to be consistent with your application of your philosophical conclusions, then expect to be challenged.

 

It doesn't matter what ideology or party you're attracted to. It doesn't matter if "you hate the same guy I do, yay!!" - it doesn't relieve you of critical obligations to analysis. We all know the smell of rhetoric, and it has it's place in politics, no doubt. We also know the smell of hypocrisy, and everyone loves to point that out.

 

Didn't I say we never outgrow the taste of humble pie? Try a piece Rev, it's not as bad as you think.

[iNow]

At least I have an excuse. I'm a diabetic, so humble pie could literally kill me.

[Reaper]

So, I guess we all now do agree that Bush is an idiot (and that this is a fact of life)?

 

Good, now let's move on....

[Pangloss]

Rofl, yes please. And I'll take iNow's slice.

[Rev Blair]

I don't understand the thread Rev. No one said you had to distinguish fact from opinion until you violated your own indictment of the Bush administration. THAT's what started the whole business.

 

I don't think I did violate it though. I was able to give several examples of Bush policies that were less than intelligent. I've been pretty clear that politics isn't based on fact, but opinion.

 

I started this thread in an attempt to clarify where I'm coming from, kind of a guide to avoiding misunderstandings. Perhaps I'm muddying instead of clarifying...wouldn't be the first time. I'll keep on trying though, if for no other reason than it isn't often that I can name a thread something that's had me singing, "I don't wanna a pickle, I just wanna ride on my motorcycle..." all day long.

 

As for Humble Pie, it's not as good as Saskatoon pie, but I've eaten my fair share of it and will almost certainly eat a bunch more in the future. To quote another of Arlo's songs, "I'm not shy...or tired."

[Saryctos]

That doesn't mean that I don't believe what I'm saying or that I'm just making things up. It means that I'm not going to provide links to back up everything I say though.

I can empathize with this sentiment. It's actually what has turned me off from posting most of the time(or at least turned me into a drive by quasi-troll:-p) This doesn't mean that this doesn't have merit. Requiring links for so many things keeps the integrity of the politics forums in line. I may not post much, but I certainly read others' posts every day. I wouldn't be coming back if I didn't think it was a great place for political discourse.

 

There's no requirement to provide all these sources and links to make a post. However, don't expect to win any arguments that way. It has more to do with ego than anything. Don't post unless you make it a good one, seems to be a mantra around these parts(and that makes sense). Sure you could skip taking all the time you need to properly articulate your arguments, but then your ego eats at you. "I didn't make a good post, no one will listen, they'll think I'm an idiot, they'll think they're right but they're really not!". The process of finding links to support your view to actually present to people of differing opinions is much harder than simply finding links that reinforce something you already think.

 

 

So, I guess we all now do agree that Bush is an idiot (and that this is a fact of life)?

 

Good, now let's move on....

 

Thank you for putting it so poignantly. For this is exactly the problem that probably started this. It's not the mere statement of "bush is an idiot", it's the acceptance of it as fact. We don't all agree on this issue.

 

Whenever Rev spoke out against the presidents intellect it was usually in an insulting manner. Then he would continue to go back to the thread at hand, until there was a bush comment, then Pangloss would step in to challenge the assertion. Afterwords Rev would comment about how Pangloss was still 'stuck on this topic', and proceed to insult Bush as a response to being called out on doing so.

 

Originally I had re-read the whole "Conservatives Beating War Drums on Foreign Policy (Formerly: A Nuclear Iran)" thread and was going to analyze the whole disagreement quote by quote, but I guess I'm lazy enough to not care about going in depth. From what I've seen, I can say that I think Rev should take away from this experience an air of professionalism in his posts, since the only true reason anyone would be upset about them is the insulting demeanor. You would probably have had little, to no abrasive reaction if you had left out the insults, implied or otherwise. Obviously you didn't mean to offend anyone, but be more aware of this sort of reaction in the future and you can avoid it in the future.

Pangloss, on the other hand should try and assert what he means in a more direct manner instead of trying to be so damn political about it. It's not always about some overbearing ideology, sometimes you as a moderator just don't like words that people use, say so, don't try to argue them into understanding what you mean.

I could easily be mistaken on both accounts, but hopefully this shows that I've at least thought about it enough so you can try to understand why I would say these things. Because it's not about me being right, or you being wrong, but about how you react to what I've said.

[iNow]

Well said, Saryctos.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I think that's the longest, most thoughtful post I've seen from Saryctos.

[iNow]

And with that said, thanks Rev Blair for the reminder:

 

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, on the other hand should try and assert what he means in a more direct manner instead of trying to be so damn political about it. It's not always about some overbearing ideology, sometimes you as a moderator just don't like words that people use, say so, don't try to argue them into understanding what you mean.

 

Wow. I am somewhat (and not a little bit) in awe of that post. I accept your analysis as writ.

 

<bow>

[Rev Blair]

I do speak out against Bush's lack of intellect in a disparaging manner. So do a lot of other people, not all of them highly partisan.

 

The thing is that I can't think of a single policy of his that worked as advertised, never mind whether I agreed with the advertising or not. Eight years of failed policies does not point to an intelligent policy maker.

 

Also, I'm pretty used to playing pretty hard at politics, and insulting politicians is part of that game. I don't hold them or their offices in awe, in fact I agree with Mencken's maxim that down is the only way a journalist can look at a politician.

 

Anyway, I take all of your points to heart, with special mention to Saryctos.

[ParanoiA]

Also, I'm pretty used to playing pretty hard at politics, and insulting politicians is part of that game. I don't hold them or their offices in awe, in fact I agree with Mencken's maxim that down is the only way a journalist can look at a politician.

 

Well then your disposition isn't an honest approach to the truth. This fuctions just like partisanship. You've decided they're all beneath you (not necessarily inaccurate) and that you're going to insult them and that it's a game. That's good for columns and spiffy editorials, but not much good for those of us looking for honest, critical analysis. Not that you have to be, but many of us are, which is why we may clash.

 

 

 

I hold the offices in awe and therefore get frustrated by the opportunists that occupy them.

 

There are very few, as in I can think of two, true statesmen in those offices. Although I'll admit, I haven't done any particular research on all of them, so there could be more. I highly doubt it though.

 

So, consequentially, I wind up looking down at them most of the time. I want someone I can look up to. Someone who truly is an expert at law, economics, and so forth - someone who I think is truly smarter than me. When's the last time you ran across a politician that you felt out ranked your capacity for wisdom and philosophical primacy?

 

In my mind, they should all be that way.

Edited May 31, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Rev Blair]

So, consequentially, I wind up looking down at them most of the time. I want someone I can look up to. Someone who truly is an expert at law, economics, and so forth - someone who I think is truly smarter than me. When's the last time you ran across a politician that you felt out ranked your capacity for wisdom and philosophical primacy?

 

Quite often, actually. The thing is that those who have those traits either remain on the back benches, or water down their capacities in order to become more electable. That's part of the tyranny of democracy, unfortunately.

 

As for holding offices in awe...that seems to be more an American thing. I don't care how smart a president is, or how powerful the office makes him. In the end he's just another guy in an upper management position. The office doesn't make people better, and it holds no magical powers.

 

Well then your disposition isn't an honest approach to the truth. This fuctions just like partisanship. You've decided they're all beneath you (not necessarily inaccurate) and that you're going to insult them and that it's a game. That's good for columns and spiffy editorials, but not much good for those of us looking for honest, critical analysis. Not that you have to be, but many of us are, which is why we may clash.

 

Nah, my analysis is as honest as anyone's...perhaps more so because I have no inhibition when it comes to speaking truth to power. The problem with holding an office or a policy-maker in high esteem is that at some point you lump their bad policies in with their good ones, or let the policies you don't agree with slide because of the ones you do agree with.

 

My grandmother gave me some advice about the NDP once, a party she supported from its inception and I still support today. "You have to watch these bastards," she said, "Or they start talking like Liberals and voting like Conservatives." I think that goes across the political spectrum...we have to speak out in whatever forum is available to us in order to keep the politicians honest.

[ParanoiA]

Nah, my analysis is as honest as anyone's...perhaps more so because I have no inhibition when it comes to speaking truth to power. The problem with holding an office or a policy-maker in high esteem is that at some point you lump their bad policies in with their good ones, or let the policies you don't agree with slide because of the ones you do agree with.

 

Why do they have to be held in any "esteem"? Every person makes good and bad decisions, that's the whole point in not being polarized one direction or the other as a precondition to analysis. Your job may require this approach, but I have no readership or constituency to please with my assessment, so I'm going to do my best to judge each dude fairly.

 

We're just not going to agree. I can't stand the shiny shoe opportunists running for office nowadays, as that's my conclusion when considered as a lot. But individually, everybody's got a fair shot in my book. As fair as I can offer anyway.

 

As for holding offices in awe...that seems to be more an American thing. I don't care how smart a president is, or how powerful the office makes him. In the end he's just another guy in an upper management position. The office doesn't make people better, and it holds no magical powers.

 

I hold the office in awe in reverence to its history and importance to a government I'm very fond of. I'm proud of our constitution and the principles it establishes and I'm proud of Jefferson's message concerning liberties, and I'm proud of Adams, and the rest of the great thinkers that so bravely insisted on this republican experiment - no doubt in the face of their hypocrisy and crimes against humanity. That's the human experience. Good people do bad things, and vice versa.

 

The office is important to the value of the constitution. I think I understand where you're coming from though, it's just I have no problem partitioning the office from the man serving it. I have no more or less internal censorship on my critical voice concerning anyone's performance in that office as I would of any other human being. They earn no status by the office itself.

[Rev Blair]

Why do they have to be held in any "esteem"? Every person makes good and bad decisions, that's the whole point in not being polarized one direction or the other as a precondition to analysis. Your job may require this approach, but I have no readership or constituency to please with my assessment, so I'm going to do my best to judge each dude fairly.

 

We're just not going to agree. I can't stand the shiny shoe opportunists running for office nowadays, as that's my conclusion when considered as a lot. But individually, everybody's got a fair shot in my book. As fair as I can offer anyway.

 

That "fair shot" business assumes a blank slate though. Politicians do not reach high office without garnering a record that can be used as a likely predictor of their performance. I don't just mean a record of voting and previously held offices, but a record of statements, proposed policies, and interactions with others.

 

To most foreign observers, it was fairly obvious that George Bush was going to be a bad president, for instance. Those predictions were based on his past performance and the performance of those around him.

 

Similarly, it's pretty obvious to non-neo-conservative observers that Stephen Harper is a bad Prime Minister for Canada...which is likely why he keeps stumbling in the polls despite facing the weakest Liberal Party in Canada's history.

 

I hold the office in awe in reverence to its history and importance to a government I'm very fond of. I'm proud of our constitution and the principles it establishes and I'm proud of Jefferson's message concerning liberties, and I'm proud of Adams, and the rest of the great thinkers that so bravely insisted on this republican experiment - no doubt in the face of their hypocrisy and crimes against humanity. That's the human experience. Good people do bad things, and vice versa.

 

The office is important to the value of the constitution. I think I understand where you're coming from though, it's just I have no problem partitioning the office from the man serving it. I have no more or less internal censorship on my critical voice concerning anyone's performance in that office as I would of any other human being. They earn no status by the office itself.

 

Yet the esteem the office is held in is at least partially responsible for your press not doing their job in the run-up to war in Iraq and your Congress' continued failure to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.

 

They say that impeachment would cause a constitutional crisis when, in fact, impeachment would address an existing constitutional crisis. That's why it's there.

 

I have a great deal of respect for your founding fathers, especially Jefferson, but because of what they achieved, not because of the offices they held. Those offices could have as easily been created by a gaggle of despots working a scam...which kind of brings us back to Bush and company.

 

It's necessary to keep in mind that you aren't the only one in awe of the office, and others react differently in that awe. It's not healthy and eats away at the democracy the office is supposed to represent.

[ParanoiA]

Yet the esteem the office is held in is at least partially responsible for your press not doing their job in the run-up to war in Iraq and your Congress' continued failure to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.

 

How so? I don't know of any press not doing their job in the run-up to the war in Iraq because the office of the president is so in "awe". These are people, not furniture or abstract philosophical concepts. The press has no issue raking the dude over the coals - especially if he's president.

 

 

I have a great deal of respect for your founding fathers' date=' especially Jefferson, but because of what they achieved, not because of the offices they held. Those offices could have as easily been created by a gaggle of despots working a scam...which kind of brings us back to Bush and company.

 

It's necessary to keep in mind that you aren't the only one in awe of the office, and others react differently in that awe. It's not healthy and eats away at the democracy the office is supposed to represent.[/quote']

 

Ok, I'm confused, are you referring to their actual office, the building they are physically located, to work and eat donuts out of? Yeah, I have no esteem for that particular architecture.

 

I'm talking about the offices created by the costitution, though. That's one of the "achievements" by Jefferson and his lot. It's their very achievement you speak of, on merit, that gives the constitution and the offices it creates the respect it demands. The fact that it wasn't created by a gaggle of despots, but rather people we respect due to their actions.

 

To disregard the importance of the office is to disregard the constitution and its contents - which effectively nulls this whole republican experiement. We then have no law, no order. We are nation of laws - laws promoted by the office, and our laws are only followed by the implied agreement by all americans that the document and its contents, trump the whims of any man, or group of men.

 

It's exactly this disrespect for the office that leads to Bush's and Cheney's. If the public doesn't take the office seriously, doesn't demand a worthy man to occupy it - then you get one car salesman after another. One bought and paid for oil man, after another.

[Rev Blair]

How so? I don't know of any press not doing their job in the run-up to the war in Iraq because the office of the president is so in "awe". These are people, not furniture or abstract philosophical concepts. The press has no issue raking the dude over the coals - especially if he's president.

 

Well, the New York Times actually issued and apology for not doing their job in the run-up to Iraq. The reasons they gave included their own reaction to 9/11, but the subtext of that is that, because it was felt the country should unite against a common enemy they united under the leadership of a bad president. They didn't question him because of the office he held.

 

Ok, I'm confused, are you referring to their actual office, the building they are physically located, to work and eat donuts out of? Yeah, I have no esteem for that particular architecture.

 

I'm talking about the offices created by the costitution, though. That's one of the "achievements" by Jefferson and his lot. It's their very achievement you speak of, on merit, that gives the constitution and the offices it creates the respect it demands. The fact that it wasn't created by a gaggle of despots, but rather people we respect due to their actions.

 

To disregard the importance of the office is to disregard the constitution and its contents - which effectively nulls this whole republican experiement. We then have no law, no order. We are nation of laws - laws promoted by the office, and our laws are only followed by the implied agreement by all americans that the document and its contents, trump the whims of any man, or group of men.

 

It's exactly this disrespect for the office that leads to Bush's and Cheney's. If the public doesn't take the office seriously, doesn't demand a worthy man to occupy it - then you get one car salesman after another. One bought and paid for oil man, after another.

 

No, I mean the offices, not the physical buildings.

 

There have been dozens and dozens of failed democracies and dictatorships that created those same offices. Such failures happen more often with the republican model than the parliamentary model. The truth is that the republican model doesn't work very well in most circumstances. That yours survived its early years is a testament to your founding fathers, not the offices they created.

 

None of that disregards the importance of law, in fact, it reduces the opportunity to evade the law because there is no worry about being seen to insult the office instead of the office holder.

 

The present holder of the highest office in the US has flaunted both domestic and international law, yet nothing has been done about it. At least part of that is due to people being afraid to besmirch the office. Meanwhile the office, not to mention your international reputation, suffers.

[ParanoiA]

Well, the New York Times actually issued and apology for not doing their job in the run-up to Iraq. The reasons they gave included their own reaction to 9/11, but the subtext of that is that, because it was felt the country should unite against a common enemy they united under the leadership of a bad president. They didn't question him because of the office he held.

 

That had nothing to do with "the office". That has to do with exactly what they said - uniting under a leader. That leader could be a despot, a PM, or a president. Humans following humans by natural group behavior. Nothing specific about the office itself.

 

This still doesn't give a reason why the "office" stopped them from questioning him. I'm not buying it. It doesn't check out.

 

There have been dozens and dozens of failed democracies and dictatorships that created those same offices. Such failures happen more often with the republican model than the parliamentary model. The truth is that the republican model doesn't work very well in most circumstances. That yours survived its early years is a testament to your founding fathers, not the offices they created.

 

That ours survived is a testament to the framers, not the founding fathers - two different sets of people. Perhaps the romance provided by the founding fathers helped with stabilizing the principles the framers used (of course, that's an example of holding offices in esteem, and seems to have worked nicely).

 

The offices created are a crucial piece of the constitution. You have not supported your point by logic or reason that these offices should NOT be held in the esteem afforded in that document, or how exactly you split hairs to hold the document in esteem yet not its contents.

 

I could understand issues with particulars, but not with something so central to our balance of powers. The office should be filled with good people, experts that deserve to be there, on merit, just like the guys that created them.

 

None of that disregards the importance of law, in fact, it reduces the opportunity to evade the law because there is no worry about being seen to insult the office instead of the office holder.

 

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't see how criticizing the office holder criticizes the office. I can insult president Bush all day long, and many of us do, but that doesn't insult the office in the least. This is about demanding the best to fill these offices that we acknowledge are important as they are the exercise of the republican government. That's where legislation begins. That's were legislation gets executed. That's where legislation is screened for its adherence to the constitution.

 

The present holder of the highest office in the US has flaunted both domestic and international law, yet nothing has been done about it. At least part of that is due to people being afraid to besmirch the office. Meanwhile the office, not to mention your international reputation, suffers.

 

And the point you keep missing, which explains much of the impotence of congress, is that he has flaunted domestic and international law with the blessing of the american people.

 

It's almost comedic watching the left's manifestations in pop culture. You get musicians at rock concerts shouting out against Bush and the GOP. You see comedians investing in it. You get actors and actresses making their statements. You see the pop culture left lash out against Bush and "the republicans", with their snarl, as if no one in their audience supports Bush and the republicans.

 

You seem to be making the same mistake. In your oversimplification charge, you failed to recognize the support for ALL of his decisions by the arguable majority of americans. Impeachment, domestic issues, international issues - our country is split on these ideas right now. Split - not "Bush forces his opinion on the american people, yet they re-elect him anyway...so he can force his stupidity on everyone".

 

Our country needs to find itself, and that's what its doing right now. We're re-learning, re-arguing age old dynamics of guns and butter. The two party seige doesn't help matters any because it exploits the Us vs. Them mentallity, which in turn does a disservice to honest discussion on where we want to go as a country. I know where I want us to go, but it has to start with good office holders that can measure up to the office.

[Pangloss]

It's almost comedic watching the left's manifestations in pop culture. You get musicians at rock concerts shouting out against Bush and the GOP. You see comedians investing in it. You get actors and actresses making their statements. You see the pop culture left lash out against Bush and "the republicans", with their snarl, as if no one in their audience supports Bush and the republicans.

 

That's the thing that always cracks me up about Bush-bashing as well. They don't seem to get that it's not just Bush they're insulting, it's the audience. That's what really happened with the Dixie Chicks, for example, and why most of the ABB movies don't seem to get anywhere in the box office.

 

As you say, all of this just gets in the way or real problem-solving. Impeachment, for example, isn't an answer, it's a pointless political ploy. It was stupid when they did it to Clinton, and it's the one thing we've somehow managed to avoid transforming into a standard practice under Bush. We should be GLAD of that, not lamenting its absence.