Re: Bumper Stickers and Jokes
Reply to: comm-674160266@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-05-09, 12:32PM EDT
Thank you for your kind words. After reading your post you seem to subscribe to the typical jingoism codified within identity politics (1). Identity politics that has been force feed in our universities ever since the mid and late 60s. Not once did you afford any evidence that supports criticism of this administration. Rather you simply made reference to the multiple demographics you use to identify yourself. Such an argument is indicative of the “associative logical fallacy”.
I take offence to identity politics due to the fact that identity politics was never meant to address any supposed social injustice. Rather identity politics was the resultant of the sociological war levied against United States via the Soviet Union during the cold war. The goal of the Soviets was to create, co-opt (read steal and re apply), facilitate and foster what the Soviet Union deemed internal political dissidents to erode national solidarity (2). National solidarity which constitutes a significant contributing factor regarding the foundation upon which national will rests (3). One can readily observe a multitude of evidence from the mission statements of political organizations such as Pippy Restocking, the black panthers or the weathermen. Further one can also point to the fact that such methods where codified by the Soviet Union as an interregnal part of soviet revision of Marxist military doctrine (4). Marxist military doctrine combined an emphasis on offensive strategy along with political warfare. Lenin and Trotsky are both quoted as saying “pacificism was a weapon to be used for the purpose of rotting the armies of capitalist states”. Contemporary versions can be read by current adversaries of the United States such as China in the book “unrestricted warfare” authored by two PLA intelligence officers.
That being said I will thank you to not misrepresent Neo Conservative policies. Specifically you seem to think that there is some great divide between most of the true goals regarding the issues you illustrated (equality environmental issues) and policies supported by neo conservatives. Where neo conservative differ from swimming pool socialists that have hijacked those important issues is the mechanics on how to obtain those goals. I will illustrate how neo conservative policies when compared to the true goals of those issues not the subversive goals couched by the socialism co-opted version of said issues implemented to undermine the United States are one and the same. I will take each of the issue you mentioned in turn, illustrate how said issue has been co-opted and then elaborate how the true goals of the issues you mentioned are the same found in neo conservative ideology.
“However, as an immigrant”
This comment smacks of the anti American, anti western third wordlist element found within identity politics (5). How does or better yet should being an immigrant effect your position regarding national policy? If you are stating that your position regarding United States national policy is effected by the fact that you are a immigrant such a statement illustrates (or at least comes off as) your possessing dual allegiances. My response to said duality is the same as Teddy Roosevelt’s regarding immigration (6); we have no room for such dualities in the United States, either be an American and nothing but an American or go back to where you came from. That Rubric applies to anyone no matter what their place of origin is.
If on the other hand your statement of being an immigrant is an attempt to legitimize the idea that this administration is anti immigration said criticism is not corroborated by the policies implemented by this administration. This administration along with our entire government has had a very lax policy regarding illegal immigrants – a policy that I disagree with. That said I as well as most of the neo conservatives that I have talked to (including many prominent figures in neo conservative movement) have nothing against immigrants provided that such immigration is operates under some rational requisites.
First and foremost said immigration is legal. There is a multitude of reason why we need to know who is coming into the United States, not the least of which is due to the current proximate security concern or the “global war on terror”. Beyond the security aspects of needing to know who enters the United States a individual who illegally obtains entrance into the United States (say a Mexican migrant worker) insults the legal immigrants who followed the rules (like my mother / father in law).
Second that said immigrant homogenizes with United States culture. This means that said immigrant speaks functioning English and adopts United States cultural mores. To not do so undermines the standard of living for the immigrant in question. Further, lack of homogenization on the part of the immigrant undermines the base level of national identity necessary for our nation / society to function (7).
Third that said immigrant constitutes a net sum positive return for our fellow citizens and our nation as a whole. Such return is calculated by the very specifics which define the current United States post industrial knowledge based society / economy. The United States can not, should not be a de-facto welfare system for individuals who can not pull their own weight. In short I support h1b visas for immigrating scientist / engineers (provided they also meet security requirements) as such human capital affords the United States competitive advantage. I do not how ever support amnesty for illegal immigrants from Mexico as such individuals do not posses skill sets indicative of leading sectors in current / supplanting K-waves.
Fourth that said immigrant does not pose a threat to my fellow citizens or our nation as a whole. This means said immigrant does not possess connections with any terrorist groups, left over soviet insurgent groups in Central / South America, the intelligence branch of the people liberation army of China and so on. Said immigrant does not posses any medical conditions that pose a public health risk. This means no STD’s, HIV, Hepatitis, TB etcetera. The United States is not the world nationalized health care system.
“as a woman”
Again more identity politics, what does being a woman have any thing to do with the legitimacy of national policy? Seeing as you did not take the time out to elaborate your criticism I am assuming that your criticism of this administration based on your gender centers around the issue of abortion. Misconception further defined by the false notion that abortion constitutes a woman’s “right to choose” and or how in your misconception this administration is violating some unwritten law via the appointment of judges that do not tow the misandristic line. Barring the fact that abortion was made legal via the left stacking the supreme court in the mid and late 60s the sanctification of abortion is resultant of radical second generation feminism. Radical feminism viewed / views the opportunity cost incurred via bearing a child as contradictory to realizing their misandristic goals. Said ideology concluded that because we live in capitalist society one needs money to effect change (not untrue). To have money in our post industrial knowledge based society one needs to posses academic accreditation in skill sets indicative of current / supplanting K-waves this means college. Radical feminism put forward the idea that one can not go to school or hold a job because they are pregnant. Hence the radical feminist movement looked to free up any potential opportunity cost either though abortion or through enacting or changing laws which would afford women preferential treatment when it comes to responsibility regarding raising a child.
The odd thing is that women have the right to choose regardless if abortion exists or not. If you do not want to have a kid, do not have vaginal intercourse. There are plenty of other activities that two (or more) people can engage in to release sexual tension that do not result in pregnancy. In short abortion does not facilitate choice but absolves BOTH parties of the responsibility regarding a pre informed choice they already made.
I know you are thinking “where is the choice when pregnancy is resultant of rape or molestation”? Baring the fact that said argument is “appeal to emotion”, and “two wrongs make a right”, I would contend that killing a developing human being who had not control over the circumstances surrounding their conception compounds the problem. You are in a sense killing an innocent bystander who had nothing to do with a admittedly heinous event. I could go on to point to the sociological issues that illustrate abortion being unsustainable, about how our ageing society contributes to the fiscal crisis regarding social security. How abortion has prematurely killed millions of workers but there is not enough room.
“as a UN fan”
The goal of uniting humanity is a noble one, one that neo conservative support. In fact there are many global trends that are facilitating these goals. Such trends include a global communication network (the internet) the advancement of transportation technology, to a lesser contributing degree the expansion of democracy and economic interdependence. That being said these are not the only trends that are occurring, such stabilizing trends are competing with destabilizing trends and in some cases constitute a double edge sword. Destabilizing trends include population growth, resources competition due to development of lesser nations, weapons proliferation in some part facilitated via the internet and economic interdependence. The question is how to best support positive stabilizing trends while mitigating negative destabilizing ones.
While I am not against the UN performing its intended function (a place where nations could come to deliberate their differences) it is not able to perform the executionary aspects of providing the public good of system stability or security. This is due to the collaborative nature regarding the structure of the UN coupled with the very essence of human nature itself. The resultant of these two elements is that collaborative approaches toward obtaining any goal are vulnerable to the three issues that traditionally undermine such approaches no matter the scope or scale. Those issues include:
The prisoner dilemma - Analyzed in game theory by means of a non-zero-sum game called the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (Axelrod, 1984). The two players in the game can choose between two moves, either "cooperate" or "defect". The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little) but not as much as the "cheated" cooperator whose cooperation is not returned. The problem with the prisoner's dilemma is that if both decision-makers were purely rational, they would never cooperate (8).
The state or non state spoiler issue – Dishonest of irrational actors that actively go out of their way to undermine the ability of the collective to obtain said goal, examples include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union blocking United States lead legislation to “internationalize nuclear power” in 1946 or Russia China France having vested interest in the previous Baathists regime in Iraq.
Free rider issue - In economics, collective bargaining, psychology and political science, "free riders" are actors that consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production. The free rider problem is the question of how to prevent free riding from taking place, or at least limit its negative effects. Examples include Europe that has free rode underneath the United States security umbrella for over 60 years. A more personal example would be that one individual who doesn’t pull their weight in a group project, yet still get a good grade because of everyone else’s work.
Where is the UN in Darfur? How come I don’t see a sea of blue helmets drowning out the human misery in Rhowanda? The UN without the United States is impotent that is why. Worse yet the United Nations has been perverted by would be peer competitors as a means to undermine United States primacy. Again one can see evidence of this in the book “unrestricted warfare” where the Chinese intelligence officers make reference to “law fare”.
Conversely neo conservatives support a different method of obtaining providing the public good of stability and security so that positive global trends can have their effect. Such approach is centered around hegemonic stability theory. Hegemonic stability theory states that a system is most stable when there is a single uncontestable system leader that provides the public good of system stability and security. Due to the single entity nature of a system hegemony such approach is not vulnerable to the elements that undermine collaborative approaches. A hegemons capability rests upon the likes of a large, growing economy, dominance in a leading technological or economic sector, and political power backed up by projective military power. An unstable system will result if economic, technological, and other changes erode the international hierarchy and undermine the position of the dominant state. Empirical evidence based on historical precedent surround the cyclic nature of the world system as defined by long cycle structural theory conclusively supports this (9).
“as an environmentalist”
The reason behind why every nation relegates environmental issues to back of the burner issues is due to the fact that implementing said issues comes at the cost of maximizing relative comprehensive national power (10). The chaotic nature of the international system defines it as a system of self help. Hence state actors understand to maximize their chance for survival they needs to maximize their relative comprehensive national power. In short the chaotic nature of the world system translates into a lack of credence regarding environmental concerns. What this translates into is that if you want state actors to put more primacy on environmental issues the chaotic nature of the world system has to be changed. The only way to do such a ting is for a uncontestable global hegmon to provide the public good of system stability and security. In short you best support a United States global empire.
While not perfect taking into account amount of pollution relative to per capita of wealth produced the United States has one of the best environmental records of any nation. Conversely collaborative approaches like Kyoto will not address global climate change as it gives mid developed nations like china a pass. China which opens a new brown coal fired power plant every week. China who’s reckless and unsubstantiated military competition with the United States has rendered half its rivers so biologically dead they can not support cyan bacteria. China whose deserfication of its entire northern providence has progressed to the point of sand storms in Beijing.
“as a poor college student”
Left wing jingoism based on class warfare.
“as a mass media consumer”
Um care to elaborate this point?
“net-neutrality advocate”
United States has an extremely unregulated internet. If you are in fact referring to House resolution 5353, said resolution does not undermine you acess to the internet. Rather such a resolution was implemented to afford industry standards as well as address the issues regarding vulnerability of the United States infrastructure regarding misuse or attack.
“a strong believer in freedom of religion I can not morally stand up for Bush or McCain”
When specifically has either president bush of senator McCain undermined your or anyone else’s freedom of religion?
“Thanks for showing me that politics isn't a blatant division between the educated and the poor/Machiavellians.”
I left this one for last. This statement constitutes nothing other then an thinly veiled ad homonym attack by insinuating that those who subscribe to Machiavellian theories are in fact uneducated. I would contend based on the relative and absolute paltry manner of how you couched your arguments, you would do well to invest your time in thinking out your argument instead of attempting to redefine others. As for having a nice day, it is always a nice day when I get to tear apart left wingers jingoism.
Jeff
1. Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group supposed to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or neurological wiring). The term has been used principally in United States politics since the mid 1960s. Identity politics was described briefly in an article by L. A. Kauffman tracing its origins to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (radical left wing organization) formed in the early and mid-1960s.
2. Puzzles of Democratic Peace, Theory, Geopolitics and the Transformation of World Politics, by Rastler and Thompson, Chapter 1, Page 16 paragraph 2-5.
3. National Will defined as support of Nations policies durring peace or wartime.
4. Men In Arms a history of warfare and its interrelationship with western society by Preston, Chapter 17, page 2554- 255.
5. Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington,
6. In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt http://www.usbc.org/teddy.html
7. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society by former advisor to the Kennedy administrations and Pulitzer Prize winner, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
8. http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm
9. For more on long cycle theory see War and change in world politics by Gilpin, or great powers global struggles 1490 – 1990 by Rastler and Thompson.
10. Something New Under the Sun an Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World, by J. R. McNeill along with post lecture discussion with the author awhile attending Georgetown University.
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 674160266