RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


forgive and forget?(26 posts)

forgive and forget?DougSloan
May 3, 2003 6:09 AM
Well, mostly forget. I get the impression that this whole celebrity anti-war/Bush/America thing is already being forgotten. While it may have seemed like a big deal in the heat of the battle, particularly with the media fueling the fire, I don't find many who care, nor even remember who to boycott. The DC's will bounce back, probably trading some new fans for some lost ones. I'll still watch Ocean's 11, maybe sneering a little at Clooney, but he always was sort of a pompous ass anyway.

Big non-issue to me, now. Same feeling elsewhere?

Doug
re: forgive and forget?Spoke Wrench
May 3, 2003 8:31 AM
I feel pretty damm fortunate to have been born in the United States. During this whole war thing, it became clear to me that the most important thing isn't free elections, it's free speech. Iraq had elections, but without freedom of speech, elections are meaningless.

We have a long tradition of free speech in the United States. Yet, even here, whenever a real controversy arises, there is a strong effort by some to contain the free speech of others. I think that it's fortunate that the law only allows us to do this as individuals and not as a government - that's part of free speech too.

I wonder, however, how we are going to be able to convince the people of Iraq, who have lived their whole lives without free speech, how important free speech is? If we're unable to achieve that goal, I fear that the ultimate result of this war will be fruitless.
Two thingsLive Steam
May 3, 2003 11:47 AM
I have yet to see anyone attempt to limit someone's right to free speech here in the US. No one tried to limit the inane utterances from Janine Garofolo and others. No one tried to prevent many of the Hollywood gentry for putting their collective feet in their mouths. We are still hearing their nonsense. Criticism goes both ways, you know. Criticism of what they said is not an attempt to limit their speech. It is just that - criticism.

Second, it does appear that Middle Easterners are well able to demonstrate and exercise their lungs in open forums. Just turn on your TV and look at all of the protests in the streets of Baghdad. However I am not convinced they know how to think for themselves as individuals and not part of a sect. Therein lies the real issue for them. They need to see that many of their so called leaders do not have the best interests of the general population in mind. Many Iraqis are educated though and this may give them a leg up on their destiny toward a democratic society.
You sound like a dittohead conservative.Spoke Wrench
May 3, 2003 2:05 PM
Disagreeing regarding pride or lack therof concerning the President's place of birth is pretty dumb but fine by me if you want to do it. Refusing to buy Dixie Chicks CD's or refusing to play same is OK. Burning a CD that you personally own is OK.

Death threats are over the line. Vandalism is over the line. Violence is over the line. Spitting and throwing stuff is over the line. That stuff all happens here in the US even though we have strong committment to free speech. If that's not an attempt to intimidate free speech, what would you call it?

Exercising your lungs to espouse a majority or popular cause isn't much of a test of free speech. You can do that in Cuba or Iran or most anywhere. Free speech is the ability to express a MINORITY view without the fear of physical reprisal.
You sound like a bleeding heart liberalLive Steam
May 3, 2003 8:28 PM
The acts of intimidation you mention are against the law and should be dealt with accordingly. It applies to both sides of the aisle too you know. Doug mentioned the idiots that toss paint on those wearing fur. That is a similar form of intimidation that is also an assault and is punishable as a crime. I am pretty sure they come from your side of the aisle. What about the idiots that were disrupting traffic in order to slow and prevent materials headed to the middle east conflict from proceeding to their port of departure? Isn't this akin to intimidation? Isn't it possible that emergency services were hindered from reaching their destination in a timely manner, possibly resulting in the loss of life? Your buddy Tim Robbins threatened a reporter with physical harm for writing a piece about his family. I am pretty sure he is an anti war, peace loving liberal. Is you disgust for intolerance only reserved for those from the conservative right?

I wasn't aware that free speech was reserved for the minority, but I guess one learns something new every day.
a bleeding heart liberalrwbadley
May 3, 2003 9:33 PM
So, please inform those of us not familiar with 'bleeding heart' character. Why would 'anti war' (or, 'for peace') be cause for derision? Would you enjoy to be subject of repeat ordnance rained on your city, town, abode? Please enlighten us here...

Tossing paint on another's property is wrong in any case. Making a statement politically comes in many forms. How about the destruction of a statue of the deposed leader of a country... Wrong? How about the team that worked to create the artwork? What might they feel?

To be branded left/right liberal/conservative does not do the many shades of grey we might find in our society justice. To do so restricts forward movement. Of course we find this all must be dealt with as it comes...

Were I either party; I may threaten one doing my family disservice/injustice. Should I only be allowed to do so if I validate GWBush & Co policy? Is that consistent with the view you're espousing?

Does (BHLiberal) have to do with having empathy for a fellow human or other species we share the planet with?

Why is Liberal tossed out as a derisive epithet, when in fact it (tends) to denote a frame of mind that would appear to be of concern that many of our actions may have an effect on a planetary balance that might eventually be tipped negatively by our species (in)action/ technology/ overpopulation?

Speaking for myself only, I do feel intolerance for certain actions. Most of these actions are performed by humans/individuals in the name of (pick your cause) We tend to take sides of an issue based on past experience and frame of mind/reasoning. There will always be others on the other side of the aisle saying that action might not be the best.

I find amusing and disturbing that our system in the US (and other areas to be sure) tends to advocate action not best for future modest survival, but more towards immediate growth and consumption to facilitate an illusion of (prosperity)

Were one to advocate a sustainable plan for the next 200 year survival of our (US, Global) population; one would be branded communist/socialist to be sure. Present trends will certainly not allow us to continue the current path...

Tread lightly or carry a big stick?

RW
a bleeding heart liberalbic
May 4, 2003 2:33 AM
Gosh, who can give a definition of any political term. They all fit ones own idea of their world view. But a few things I can give a definition to.

"How about the destruction of a statue of the deposed leader of a country... Wrong?

One must assume you are talking about the statue of Sadam, or perhaps Stalin, Hitler? Or even E. Amin. You should talk to some who lived and suffered the death of family members of any of those. Not to even speak of the rape and torture thousands more suffered. Perhaps even millions.

"How about the team that worked to create the artwork? What might they feel?"

Anyone who "worked to create the artwork" did so at the expence of their own life or those around them. Or should face the same fate as their leader. God do you really consider any statue such as those as "art work?" If so, then I throw everything you say in the trash just as I know those who tore down the statue did.
"Why is Liberal tossed out as a derisive epithet?"Live Steam
May 4, 2003 6:40 AM
Why is "concervative" or "neocon" used in the same manner?

I don't even want to get into your ridiculous attempt to attack those who would choose to destroy the effigy of a despot, who acted with such depravity against his people. One intelligent person already did that for me.

I believe the quote you were looking for is "Tread softly and carry a big stick." - a modified Teddy Roosevelt quote. The original quote was "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." It is a West African proverb and was written in a letter to a friend, while he was governor of New York, describing his tactical relations with the party boss who threatened to ruin his political career if he didn't toe the party line. This has been the adopted doctrine of the US for many years, but is now being rethought as events such as 9/11 occur.
So, you take issue with my modification...rwbadley
May 4, 2003 8:14 AM
of a modified quote? I am familiar with the quote, and have no hesitation to modify it to illustrate a point more effectively, provided it is able to be disseminated by the listener.

I was not displaying my affection for said statue. My point was to show you the idea that there are always two sides and more to an issue. Even something so apparently 'cut and dried' as the destruction of an evil dictator. People may or may not miss either the statue or the person it represents, however there will always be someone on both sides willing to espouse their point of view. Do you think it impossible to find a single person (or more) that is mourning the loss of the statue or the person represented? How will this change if our goal of nation building were to become mired in sticky failure?

I find a common theme of narrow thought (from any direction, left or right) to be the inability to view from multiple directions the many sides of (pick an issue).

If we allow ourselves the indulgence that only one view is correct, our lives will certainly become less interesting to say the least

Choosing the right path ultimately stems from being able to create more than one solution to any known problem.

If we tie our hands by walking a typical 'party line' thinking, how will we be able to creatively solve the many problems we are faced with, now and future?

I urge you all to practice creative thinking rather than regurgitate the latest force fed fodder of the day.

RW
I agree that one must consider the possibilities, however ...Live Steam
May 4, 2003 8:40 AM
this cannot be used as an excuse for inaction. One must weigh the pros and cons and take action for progress to be achieved. Maybe there are some who "miss" Saddam - probably those who were collecting large sums of money from his coattails of power, but I believe the vast majority of the Iraqi people and most of the rest of the World's population are better off from his demise. Playing Devil's Advocate is fine on chat boards, but the real World demands decision making and action. One cannot get mired down in the minutia and the fear of offending the few at the expense of the greater good. Everyone wants peace. Even the generals of the military want peace, but many times peace can only be achieved by vanquishing the malevolent. The World has no place for idealism.
The World has no place for idealism...rwbadley
May 4, 2003 9:43 AM
Spoken in absolute terms such as this, you are certainly proving my point well.

Inaction is in itself a choice that may be underrated. Why should the only 'correct' action show devastating consequences that may or may not prove fruitful in the future, and at the very least have proven to be extremely costly and possibly destabilizing (?)

Your talk of the 'real world' makes me shudder a bit. Who's real world? Yours? Mine? Iraq's? Congo? Argentina'? Are you implying there is only one source of info on 'real world' status? Playing Devil's advocate is not just fine on chat boards, but a needed tool to point out flaws in any choice of action. I will concede your point that one must weigh the pros and cons to determine a proper course of action. However, without parties to play the role of 'devils advocate' how many sides to the issue will you be looking at? The one predetermined by a sole point of view?

We will spend billions to repair damage caused by our 'deconstruction'. Think any of our 'bidness' leaders are interested in this? Haliburton et al? Would Generals fear for their jobs if armies were not needed?

If your talk of concern for the few vs the greater good is in fact well thought to a logical conclusion, then you must advocate for the demise of the SUV, as well as other generally wasteful practices associated with certain freedoms we enjoy...These practices are known deletarious to the overall welfare of the many, yet enjoyed by a small fraction of global population. This is only using your own valid point taken further, and not even to an extreme.

RW
Your arguement is faultyLive Steam
May 4, 2003 11:40 AM
The Iraqi dilemma did not arise over night. It was decades in the making. Inaction was the norm. The last administration chose to ignore it in hopes that it would miraculously go away. GWB and his advisors made a different choice after their hindsight showed that inaction, sanctions and appeasement would fail as they had done prior. Strategizing does involve a Devil's advocate component. One must always look through the eyes of one's opponent in order to visualize their own vulnerability and error in judgment.

As for whose "real World"? - it is our real World here in the US that matters most to me. I believe that every nation on Earth thinks the same way about their own little part of the Universe too. It is for better or worse, a simple fact of life, and extends up from the basic family unit. I am sure you put your family ahead of the neighbor's family in some daily life issues. This extends outwardly to our borders. Understanding, kindness and compassion need not be sacrificed however, but when push comes to shove, you can bet that one looks after their own first, whether it be a family unit or nation.

France, Germany and Russia sure as hell were looking after their own best interests. They had economic interests in Iraq that would be disturbed from initiation of a war. Their objection to military engagement had nothing what so ever to do with humanitarian issues. They were concerned about how the situation would effect their own interests.

There is no World order. Globalization only stretches as far as national monetary profitability allows (this applies to all countries and not just the US). Divine intervention would be required to achieve the peaceful coexistence it sound like you are talking about. Hey that would be wonderful. I am all for it, but it is not reality. Compromise is probably the best we will ever do. However in compromise there is someone that is always going to be unhappy with the results. This breeds contempt and hate and eventually ends up in some type of conflict.

Your SUV analogy is all wrong. It only proves my point that the few who would have us abolish their production and use, cannot override the majority who desire to own and use them. I will listen to their concerns and attempt to remedy the issues they present to the best of my ability, but I will not give in to their demands because they are the most vocal. As for their "practices being known to be the most deleterious to the overall welfare of the many", that may be a subjective viewpoint. You want to quantify it. It cannot be quantified unless everything is taken into consideration. The is one reason Bush would not sign the Kyoto Treaty. There are many signatories to the treaty that are not and have no intention to conform. The US is already under voluntary compliance while other nations such as Russia, China, India and others are way behind and have very little incentive to comply. This is obviously another topic for discussion :O)

I am so happy I am getting all this work done on the club newsletter today :O) It gave me some time to post here once in a while :O)
I would tend to agree on your first point...rwbadley
May 4, 2003 7:10 PM
That the Iraq situation was years in the making. Here is a site that will enlighten you further: http://www.ips-dc.org/
It would appear our buddy Rumsfeld was ready to get in bed with Saddam, even after the fact of Kurd/Iranian gassing. This was business/oil lust. Many ins and outs to the story here. We were wanting to build a dual use chemical plant there as late as '88. Your attempt to pin problems on the last administration doesn't hold a bit of water from what I can see. During '92-00 all was more or less quiet regarding Iraq. Saddam displayed little evidence of being a threat to our interests during that time, and we were busy getting drunk on the stock market ;-)

We all have our own chunk of reality, this does not mean we need to be limited to a small scale viewpoint. The 'I got mine, let them eat cake' nationalism may not work as well as in the past due to the shrinking global picture. This is akin to the thinking that--well, as long as SARS stays over THERE, WE are OK over here-- More and more, >over there< will become >over here< eventually. I am all for preserving our own, but we should look to the fact we are on a pretty large playground, what goes around comes around.

France, Germany, and Russia were looking out for their own interests. You would pin them as rattin bassets for doing so? We had our chance to set up those oil contracts in the late '80's We were shoved off when Saddam caught on we (Bechtel co) may have been price gouging. He gave the contracts to others for half the price, and we were sent packin'. So our recent action did a whole lot of damage to those countries interests. Rattin bassets indeed...

Peaceful coexistence? In a dream I suppose. I will never expect that to occur and have never said that it will.

You pin Globalization to a monetary policy only. Why do you continue to confine your view? The air we breathe is shared around the planet. So India and Pakistan escalate to a Nuclear exchange. Will that fallout be limited to their own borders? Our eastern seaboard creates huge amounts of pollution that carry over the small ocean to the north atlantic countries causing environmental problems there. China is developing, and we find their pollution being carried to our west coast. The virus' we live with will attack us everywhere.

RE: SUV analogy being all wrong. I can only say that you seem to be quite positive and rather adamant about this one... I could fill pages on this ... another time. I will say this: An SUV does weigh twice to three times the weight needed to perform a simple task. It does use more fuel. It does emit higher and more emission than a typical smaller vehicle. We managed to survive many years without there being one in every drive.

I am curious 'tho, about why every time a mention is made on the SUV topic, certain folks will drag out the Kyoto contract. A close friend of mine that gets much of his 'news' information from a certain popular radio 'entertainer' drags this one out at the drop of a hat.

Thanks for the lively debate Steam,

RW
Type font problem?rwbadley
May 4, 2003 7:13 PM
You pin Globalization to a monetary policy only. Why do you continue to confine your view? The air we breathe is shared around the planet. So India and Pakistan escalate to a Nuclear exchange. Will that fallout be limited to their own borders? Our eastern seaboard creates huge amounts of pollution that carry over the small ocean to the north atlantic countries causing environmental problems there. China is developing, and we find their pollution being carried to our west coast. The virus' we live with will attack us everywhere.

RE: SUV analogy being all wrong. I can only say that you seem to be quite positive and rather adamant about this one... I could fill pages on this ... another time. I will say this: An SUV does weigh twice to three times the weight needed to perform a simple task. It does use more fuel. It does emit higher and more emission than a typical smaller vehicle. We managed to survive many years without there being one in every drive.

I am curious 'tho, about why every time a mention is made on the SUV topic, certain folks will drag out the Kyoto contract. A close friend of mine that gets much of his 'news' information from a certain popular radio 'entertainer' drags this one out at the drop of a hat.

Thanks for the lively debate Steam,
Type font problem? It must be the shrinking globe theoryLive Steam
May 5, 2003 5:09 AM
at work. What happened to the font?

Hey nice of you to reference one of the most leftist sources this side of Stalingrad. Most of what they wrote is conjecture littered with facts that fit their "story". How they could determine motive from the information they cite is beyond comprehension.

You again made my point for me. Yes China and the other are polluters and their pollution does effect us here at home. They Have agreed in principal to the Kyoto Accord, but have no intention of complying any time soon. Further more the more burden is placed on the US in the KA than the other nations. The US is under voluntary compliance now, so why do we need to be put under the gun when no one else feels obligated to conform? Say I would think you would want to protect my right to own and operate what ever vehicle I could afford and desired. Oh I guess I would need to be in the minority for my voice to be heard. We know how many SUVs are being sold, so I am not a minority denizen.

I only brought up the KA because you used the SUV analogy. Quite a leftist response. The same response I get from my leftists friends :O) I love people like Robert Kennedy jr. and Arianna Huffington and Babs Streisand telling us we, the lowly proletariat, are not allowed some luxury in our lives. It should only be reserved for them and their jet setting lifestyles. Heating and cooling multiple large homes simultaneously and using private jets and limousines to negotiate the globe. Very altruistic of them, don't you think? I think it is duplicitous :O)

Nice chatting with you too ArDubbaya :O) At least you didn't find the need to attack my intellect like some of your lefty brethren here on our favorite web site :O)
You just proved my point!Spoke Wrench
May 4, 2003 4:46 AM
Actually, I'm very conservative. My point was that the right of free speech has to be defended vigerously and that's not always pleasant. I'd think that defending the Bill of Rights would have to be considered a conservative stance.

I notice you weren't able to quote a statement from any of my posts saying I advocate throwing paint, threatening journalists or obstructing traffic. How do you equate defending free speech with assuming that I must approve of all of that?
You just proved my point! - What point was that?Live Steam
May 4, 2003 6:07 AM
How on Earth did I prove your point? I do not view the acts of a few deranged people who threaten acts of violence against someone with an opposing view, as a concerted effort by an entire dissenting faction to stifle free speech. These people are criminal no matter what side of the aisle they hail from. I never advocated tolerance for the acts you described. However I also don't believe that free speech is reserved just for the minority voice.

I think too many people have become accustomed to the "silent majority" apriorism. The "silent majority" is starting to believe they need to be heard, for the courts have adjudicated their rights away from them. The minority now has the louder voice. The rights of the few now take precedence over the good of the whole. I understand protecting the smaller voice, but the courts and trial lawyers have taken things too far. Abuse of the system is still abuse no matter the political conviction supporting it.

After all of this, I must ask you the same question - How do you equate defending free speech with assuming that I must approve of the acts of violence reportedly targeted at those apposed to the war?
Lets review the bidding.Spoke Wrench
May 4, 2003 8:04 AM
My original post simply stated that, despite the fact that we have a long tradition of free speech in the United States, there are still individuals who would limit some other people's right to speak their mind.

My concern was that I think it's going to be a tall order to convince the people of Iraq, who do not have this tradition of free speech, how important free speech is.

Your original post seemed to me to say:
1. You don't believe that anybody in the United States tries to limit free speech.
2. The people of Iraq, through their anti-American demonstrations, are proving they do have free speech.
I took exception to both of those statements and I told you why I don't think they are true.

Since that point, it seems to me that you have gone from one wild, unsupported accusation to another. That's dittohead behavior. I think that Rush would approve of your taking me to task, but he'd want you to be able back it up a little better than what you have demonstrated so far.
I must have missed something along the wayLive Steam
May 4, 2003 8:28 AM
Point #1. I don't believe that people have been trying to limit free speech in so much as they have been reacting to it in unacceptable ways. So we may disagree here. I have not condoned the stupid acts of a few jerks who attempted to intimidate dissenting opinions. You made it sound as if it were a "right wing conspiracy", to dredge up an old Clinton aphorism. This lead me to believe you were a liberal.

Point #2. In reference to what I had initially said - The people of Iraq, and in most Middle Eastern nations, are acting "en masse". I believe that many are being lead by others with and an agenda not particularly conducive to a democratic a society. Sort of a mob rule mentality. I would hope that they realize that they no longer have to toe the party line and can speak up as individuals without fear of retribution. Somewhere here I believe we are saying the same thing.

There is no need to peg me as a Limbaugh Dittohead, in some attempt to deride my views. I listen to his show at times and do not agree with much of what he says. He is pompous and factious to a fault and is motivated by ratings. However he and others have brought a voice to the fore that has long been silent and misrepresented. For that I commend him and the other voices of conservatism.
Two thingsfiltersweep
May 5, 2003 11:23 AM
Since when has it been problematic to voice a protest against the US in the middle east...? Maybe my hearing is selective, but they were protesting the US both before and after the war... it proves nothing.

I fully agree that "many of their so called leaders do not have the best interests of the general population in mind. " Can you blame them for thinking the same of the US "occupying forces? "

I'm guess you'd personally bristle (if not more) if some left-wing radical came into your life and forcibly "liberated" you from your capitalistic enslavement ;)
I didn't say it was problematic ...Live Steam
May 5, 2003 1:23 PM
I just pointed out that they were doing it. My point was that the person on the street there should soon realize that they can be heard as individuals as well.

The only enslavement I'll be in soon is matrimony :O)
dixie chicks first show on their american tour...rufus
May 3, 2003 4:01 PM
the other night was sold out.
Not memohair_chair
May 5, 2003 6:44 AM
As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to forgive or forget. Celebrities are allowed their opinions like anyone else, even if those opinions are unpopular. And I could care less what they do outside of work. I also think George Clooney has done some good work. He's the Joel McRae of our time (you have to watch old movies to know who Joel McRae is). Even Clooney is embarrassed by Batman.
George Clooney = Joel McRae ?Live Steam
May 5, 2003 6:57 AM
How did you come up with that? I'm not denying it, just wondering where you drew the comparison. McRae always seemed to play the clean cut, All-American type. Clooney generally plays the unshaven cad/schemer.
George Clooney = Joel McRae ?mohair_chair
May 5, 2003 7:23 AM
He might be a schemer, but he's more of a lover than a fighter, which is what McCrea was. McCrea did a lot of westerns in his career, topping it all off with the great, great early Peckinpah film "Ride the High Country." But go back to his non-Westerns and I think that's where I see the Clooney comparison. Sullivan's Travels (which is where O Brother Where Art Thou came from), The Palm Beach Story, Foreign Correspondent, etc. In direct comparison, Clooney is definitely more charming and McCrea is more straight laced, but I think they could play the same kinds of roles.
Not hereNo_sprint
May 5, 2003 9:13 AM
I can rattle off a whole list of celebs right off the top of my head that won't get my money at least directly toward their pockets. I consider this every time (very rarely) I rent a DVD, or even more rarely, go to a theater.