Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Stupid people make me sad.

But the people who tell them lies make me mad. The people whose hypocrisy shines through blindingly, who have no regard for the truth and only for political gain and popularity--and they can be found on all sides of the political spectrum--are giving me no end of frustration at the moment.

I'm going to have to stop listening to talk radio...


Anonymous said...

I know exactly what you mean on this one. There are people out there who make claims based on evidence that could logically be interpreted differently. People who lie about their true goals knowing that the truth is if their demands are met it would only hurt their popularity and their politics. There are even people who are a part of groups that support those who caused the problem in the first place. There are definitely people who fit your description on both sides, I guess its all in how close you look at the actions of people.


Jennifer said...

lol, Travis, why not just say "Cindy Sheehan" when you mean it? :-)

I want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly:
Cindy Sheehan lies because she says she wants a meeting with Bush, but she really doesn't 'cause that would slow momentum in the anti-war movement?

If that's your argument, here's the response:
1) I am sure that Cindy DOES want to meet with Bush. She would absolutley appreciate such a meeting.
2) I am sure she recognizes that it WOULD hurt momentum. Her immediate demand is to speak with Bush, or,in the long term, to let military families hold this administration accountable.

Now... we can think in short term or long term goals... Obviously she wants both goals to be achieved. But the anti-war movement as a whole seeks to achieve the long-term goal of accountability.

In the Civil Rights movement, when students sat down at lunch counters and demanded to be served, did they want their immediate demands or their long term ones?

Immediate demands: be served right then and there. Result: no momentum for the movement, no media coverage, no end to segregation.

Long term demands: end to segregation.

They DID want their long term demands met, but they recognized that if their short term goals (being served) were met, they would have no movement.

The best thing that southern shop-owners could've done to stop the movement would've been to serve the protesters. It would've quelled momentum.

The best thing for Bush to do to quell momentum would be to meet with Cindy Sheehan. He hasn't realized this or sees other drawbacks to meeting with her.

Hope that answered your argument and that her tactics make a little more sense in historical social movement context!

"There are even people who are a part of groups that support those who caused the problem in the first place."

Not sure I get this?

Thanks for the reply!

Anonymous said...

Well, I don't really agree with you. I don't know how you can feel you can talk about what the students really wanted in the Civil Rights Movement. If they had been served the movement would have had to change, but it could have served as a rallying point that white shop owners were willing to bridge the gap. Rosa Parks probably wanted more than to just sit at the front of the bus, but when she refused to move she was in a win-win situation, either that would force her to the back, further spreading her cause. If she had been allowed to sit there. Her defiance would have spread the movement because that would meant that those who tried to force her to the back would have backed down in a confrontation. I think both of those cases, they won either way. So in saying that, it leads me to doubt her sincerity when she wants to meet with Bush, but not enough to hurt her movement. She knows what Bush is going to say and she knows she's going to reject it but she even said her son died for Israel. It seems she would rather push the movement that meet with Bush. Yet most of the things we hear from her and people speaking for her is that she just wants to meet with Bush.

To the other question. Cindy Sheehan is a member of organizations who supported the World Tribunal for Iraq. This tribunal came out and said the Iraqi insurgency is legitimate and should be supported. So she is supporting those who killed her son in being a part of that organization. She can say that Bush killed her son, but it when it comes down to it, it was the insurgents. You've told me we are just on the wrong side of a civil war, but the insurgents are made up a lot by Al Quaeda (sp?) and by former baathists. If you believe we should be on the side of terrorists and those who we took out of power, then I guess you have the right to your opinion. I know thats not all it is, but that is a main part. I honestly don't know how groups like Code Pink and their members can come out and say we support the troops and those who are brutally killing them and civilians too. I don't see how that supports the troops at all, maybe thats just me though.


Jennifer said...

Rosa Parks was a "movement person." In the long run, she DID want to sit wherever the heck she wanted to on the bus. At the time, however, she did not. There would have been no movement. That's how social movements work, by disrupting the status quo and getting national attention to their cause. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's all that works. Without media, there's no movement :-)