February 24, 2004 – I Must Be Doing Something Right
This past week I had a very interesting experience. A friend of mine passed on my column on the Patriot Act onto some rather conservative friends. The resulting invective was not only surprising, but unfortunately indicative of what is going on in today’s political climate. Assumptions were made about who I was, what I believed, and a myriad of other issues because I was not happy with the Bush Administration and specifically fearful of John Ashcroft. This happened not once, but twice. One email string resulted in an exchange of ideas, and we found that many assumptions were incorrect, and we basically agreed to disagree. On this one, well, I responded, and heard . . . nothing. I thought you might enjoy the email of outrage I received in response to my Rant, and my response. I fixed a couple of spelling errors and added a couple of paragraph breaks to help with the ease of reading. If you want a refresher on what I said about the Patriot Act, which instigated this whole barrage, you can link to it here:
From: Mr. X
To: "Deborah Alexander" <deborah@deborahsrants.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:55 AM
Deborah - I am enclosing a response to your article on the Patriot Act plus a response to my request to pass it along to you. We are dealing with a true friend who happens to be an ardent Republican supporter of the President.
You may or may not wish to reply.
I think you should be proud that your "rantings" evoke such strong feelings both supportively as well as to the contrary. More importantly, I find it refreshing that you are outspoken and courageous enough to speak your mind on controversial subjects when the world today is so focused on doing what is "politically correct".
Mr. X
*****************************************************
From: Mr. Y
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:29 PM
To: Mr. X
Subject: Re: The Administration and The Patriot Act!
Mr. X
I'll keep my comments brief since I view the same things this woman does but arrive at such remarkably different conclusions. The woman is quite typical of those who take her position. It sounds good if you're a like-minded ideologue but at the core it is merely another Democrat ranting and raving about a Republican President. I really love how these Demos have become so concerned about fiscal responsibility. When the deficits were adding up each year throughout their control of Congress and during Carter's and Clinton's years (except for those after the Republicans gained control of the House), why were they so particularly silent about "deficit spending" then? How did the deficits turn to surpluses and vice versa? Have any of their leaders tried to lead the way by asking for spending cuts? Their complaints about the Prescription Drug bill is that it doesn't spend enough of our tax dollars!
And the Patriot Act, well, it's the "boogie man" for these same ideologues. The hand-wringing about "First It Was the Jews" fear-mongering is just hogwash. Most of the Patriot Act is already available for use against crime syndicates, drug dealers and other criminals. The Patriot Act allows these same laws to be applied to terrorist activity. I'm for more profiling if it continues to keep terrorists from attacking America (like it has in the last2-1/2 years). It astounds me that there are those who believe this stuff is just not happening by coincidence. By the way, the Patriot Act was not passed into law by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. It was passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law by the President. Do those who keep pointing at the evil Mr. Ashcroft ever wonder how their representative/senator voted?
I want criminals and terrorists fearful of the American Justice Department. I know of nobody who has had their lives altered since the Patriot Act has been implemented. Do you? Does this woman? Of course, she does. Liberals have victims lined up for every occasion. That's as much invective as I can muster for such a redundant regurgitation of any NY Times editorial about the same subject.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. X.
Sent: Feb 22, 2004 7:28 AM
To: Mr. Y
Mr. Y, I thought it might be beneficial in terms of creating a dialog if I passed along your comments to the author. I believe in creating a forum for open discussion. However, I would never copy your opinions and show them to others without your approval.
I think you know me by now. I try to bring together people from opposite camps to at least understand each other and at the very least "agree to disagree".
Your call.
Mr. X
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Y
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:11 AM
To: Mr. X
Fine by me. However, I find that our current state of affairs does not encourage dialogue. At best, we have opposing opinions being offered but neither side is willing to hear. I do believe that liberal views are "felt" views mostly and facts are never allowed to interfere with those feelings.
Laws are for everyone but those elite few who think they know "higher" laws to follow, e.g., the gay marriages in SF encouraged and allowed by the mayor. There are so many examples of how these few continue to bastardize our system of laws just to pursue their personal agendas. They never consider the common good or that which is best for the majority of citizens. It's just more of the "do your own thing" kind of mentality.
The lack of civility in discussions has become the norm. The sense of all pulling together to solve problems has degenerated into a power struggle only. Common goals like educating our children, feeding the hungry, housing, the homeless, defending the country, etc. no longer have communal effort once a course of action is decided upon. Everyone just wants their solution to be the one implemented so that they can take credit and cling to power. Though the American public has given the Republicans control of Washington and most of the state houses, the Democrats have become obstructionists instead of accepting the public's decisions. Witness the Demos leaving the state in Texas in an attempt to cling to their old gerrymandered districts (claiming that the Republicans gerrymandering is something new!), the blocking of judges by the use of the filibuster (never done before but what do they care. Precedent is only for issues like Roe v Wade, etc.), lying ceaselessly and shamelessly about President Bush's statements prior to going to war (read Ted Kennedy anywhere and Kerry relentlessly), and so on. How can one not despise a liar. How can one ever trust a liar. Well, Demos demonstrated their ability to overlook this most despicable eraser of trust when they found every excuse they could sound bite to defend Clinton's perjury. The most common was "it's just about sex." Now they attempt to place President Bush in the same category because of his decisions about war based on pre-war intelligence. They seem to have forgotten that the entire world's leadership, the UN, Kerry, Clinton, etc. believed the same thing, Iraq had WMDs. Somehow President Bush lied. It's about power and agendas, certainly not about truth that these people rave on. And nothing will alter their viewpoint, not even the facts that are available to all. It's especially galling since most of them have never read the Kay Report, read UN Resolution 1441 or read CIA Director Tenet's speech about our intelligence before and after the war. But they have an opinion and back it up by referring people to websites for ideologues. They're just like Limbaugh’s Ditto heads, only hyped up on the opposite pabulum. Since feelings are personal, I don't trust solutions to problems that are based on them alone. It results in situational ethics and moral relativism. The left touts this stuff as some sort of higher order of understanding. In truth, it's merely an excuse to live a hedonistic existence while mouthing the sort of feel-good but ineffective musings of "it's for the children," "better one hundred guilty men go free than ...," "it's only personal behavior," etc ad nauseum.
Mr. Y
-----Original Message-----
And, for those still reading, here was my response:
You should not make assumptions about people, because often, they are not accurate. As an FYI - I was railing against the deficit long before the Bush Administration, since I do not believe in paying credit for anything other than my mortgage, I believe that our government should not either. Government is full of pork barrel special interests on both sides of the aisle, and for example, our military needs to be modernized and streamlined on the procurement side to avoid redundancies and get some additional economies of scale on production. I am what you would probably call a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. You can do whatever you want in your own home, just don't ask me to pay for it. As for the Medicare bill, to me it is a boondoggle for the drug companies, and Tauzier (sp) should be in jail for conflict of interest since he has now taken a $2,000,000 a year job with the drug companies since passing this piece of corporate welfare.
This is second time someone has assume that my concern about the Patriot Act has equated with a far left political slant, which, trust me, is not the case. With regard to the Patriot Act, while pieces of it were available against organized crime and other federal prosecutions, other parts of it were not. It expanded federal wiretapping, investigation, subpoena and detention powers beyond what is arguably permissible by the constitution. It was also passed within 6 weeks of the attacks on 9/11, by a house and senate built into a froth (understandably) after the terrorists’ attacks on this nation. It is a complex and very long piece of legislation, and did not get the consideration it deserved. Many who voted for it now have reservations, and I would hazard to guess that if it were proposed today, in its same exact form, it would have a much more difficult time passing without modification. Perhaps it is just a general mistrust of the government, as I grew up in the shadow of both Vietnam and Watergate, but I think transparency and accountability is important to prevent government from becoming something other than a servant and instrument of the people. I know that I cannot and should not know everything that goes on - but someone has to be able to hold those in power accountable for their actions, or abuse is inevitable. Man by design is just too damn flawed not to mess up without having the fear of someone looking over his shoulder. I also believe that John Ashcroft is using the office of Attorney General to advocate his own personal religious beliefs. He is now using his office to subpoena medical records in order to investigate and possibly prosecute late term abortions.
I also agree that situational ethics are very dangerous - which is why I condemn both what the Judge in Alabama did with regard to the 10 commandments and what the Mayor of SF is doing with regard to gay marriage. Just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right, as an elected official to ignore or circumvent it. I personally do not give a rat’s ass what someone does behind their bedroom door, and am not personally opposed to gay marriage, but that does not mean that that the Mayor of SF has the right to ignore a specific statute and order marriage certificates be issued in contravention of state law. If this had been another issue, lets say desegregation, and the mayor refused to integrate schools, the same folks advocating gay marriage would be screaming bloody murder – that is why we are a nation of laws, and why we must use the system we have to amend the laws, otherwise . . . anarchy. If this was done by a court or a rabbi or a priest, I may not have such a strong reaction. If you have a problem with the law you go to the court or the legislature for redress, you do not circumvent it by fiat.
I agree completely that BOTH sides of the political spectrum believe that they have the right to ignore the plain English of the law when it suits their purposes – and then scream with fury when the other side does exactly what they have done. For example, it was OK for the US Supreme Court to intervene in a state’s rights issue and decide the presidential election when arguably it had no real jurisdiction to do so, but an activist judiciary deciding issues like gay rights, well it must be stopped. It is funny I heard no complaints about activists judges in 2000. The way this country works is that not everyone gets everything they want all the time. Both the far right and the far left should be unhappy at some point in order for things to be working properly. It is not OK for the far left to impose their moral agenda on the US, just as it is not OK for the far right to impose their moral agenda on the US.
I find this whole Republican/Democratic finger pointing discussion very sad. I happen to love this country very much. The lack of civility is on both sides of the aisle has resulted in a polarization of the issues to the point where genuine debate is lost and the issues get lost amid the hysterics. As for the Texas matter, well, part of the problem is that they (the Republicans) decided to change the rules for when to use the census data – they did not do it during the normal time frame, but when they had the majority - so is that Democratic stalling or Republican shenanigans - or both? I also find it quite amusing for the Republicans in the Senate and House to scream about Bush's appointments when they did the exact same thing to Clinton. Someone needs to call a timeout for everyone in Washington and say its time to look at things on their merits alone and get to work. Both sides do the same thing to each other, then each side screams foul. It is like kids on a playground.
I find many issues, at least those not dealing with such things as police power and the first amendment, full of gray issues. Which is why I have such a hard time with this present Administration. Everything is an absolute. Either you are for us or against us. And, just for the record, while the left has said some pretty hash things about the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration has been equally harsh, basically accusing anyone that has not backed its plan on fighting terrorism as being un-American. Since you mention the whole feeling and emotions issue and the left, I find the same arguments true of the right, and many of the issues that divide us stem from issues surrounding faith and beliefs - not facts and numbers. Religion and morals, and what exactly constitutes "moral behavior" is at the crux of this whole discussion. Is it moral to let someone decide for themselves what is right or wrong, or is it moral for you to tell them what is right and wrong. My belief is the former, while many on both the left and the right believe the later. The problem with this is that the later requires a subjective determination, and once opinion gets into the determination, all hell breaks loose.
As for Clinton, here is my take - I think he is a much brighter man than George Bush, but far less moral: I think he was more thoughtful about decisions regarding the Presidency, and far more reckless in his personal actions. Would I want Bill Clinton as my neighbor, No. I also believe that had Bill Clinton or Al Gore gone duck hunting with a Supreme Court Justice before they heard a case involving either of them as a defendant that another independent counsel would have been appointed quicker than you could say “Whitewater” and had a company either of them worked for been given a no-bid contract in Iraq, the same would have happened, so again, there are double standards. I also believe that George Bush thinks he is on a mission from God, as he has said as much in interviews, and that scares me to no end. I believe he is trying to impose his own morals on the country, and that also scares me. I do not think he is a thoughtful man in terms of policy and actions. I do not think that we can impose our will on the international community, and that like it or not, we have to play with the other members in the family of nations. I would actually prefer if we could find a way to become independent of foreign oil, and then many of our near term problems would become at least somewhat lessened, but I do not see this happening.
I also firmly believe that the decision to go into Iraq was made the day the man was elected, as a way to settle some old scores. Whether this perception was right or wrong, it was only reinforced by what was perceived as a desire to go to war. He did not even give the appearance of trying to give inspections time, which would have given him at least the pretext of trying to resolve things peaceably. Also, it is clear that while the war was planned, the peace was not, and this Administration was ill-prepared for post-war Iraq. I just think it is indicative of his Administrations assumptions about foreign policy (thank you Richard Perle and other neo conservatives who think we can create democracy in the middle east in the near term). I think the man's foreign policy is reckless and risky, and am wary of a bunch of men running our government, directing our defense, and making decisions regarding war, many who never served in active duty. I firmly believe the long term consequences of his foreign policy decisions are going to be disastrous in that a whole new generation of hate will be spawned courtesy of our actions in Iraq. I also find that his failure to recognize the need to really focus on the Israeli-Palestinian baffling, since this is causing much of the current tension.
For the record, I am against illegal immigration, voted to recall Gray Davis, voted for Arnold, would have voted for Richard Riordin had he run, would have voted for John McCain if he was the candidate in 2000, and think that there are many things wrong with the liberal/progressive movement. People should take responsibility for their actions, public education should be protected at any cost, a thriving middle class is the benchmark of this country, and the First and Fourth are the two most important of the first ten Amendments. I am not a knee jerk liberal on every issue, and vote the issue and not the party. I also think Rush is being made a scapegoat, and find it ironic that the ACLU is backing his appeal. So, there you have it. I do not know if that counts as dialogue. All I know is that I am not happy with what this Administration has done, and where it seems to be going. As an American, it is my right to disagree with him, and it is your right to disagree with me. That is what makes this country so great. If you think I am a far left wacko, so be it.
Whew - I feel like I have given birth to a diatribe. All I know is that if my rants are pissing someone off so much that I can almost imagine his head exploding, then I must be doing something right. Rant on one and all.