Friday, January 14, 2011

As Cynical As They Wanna Be

First lady Michelle Obama weighs in on the Tuscon shooting as a mother and finds a message of hope.

In the days and weeks ahead, as we struggle with these issues ourselves, many of us will find that our children are struggling with them as well.  The questions my daughters have asked are the same ones that many of your children will have – and they don’t lend themselves to easy answers.  But they will provide an opportunity for us as parents to teach some valuable lessons – about the character of our country, about the values we hold dear, and about finding hope at a time when it seems far away.

We can teach our children that here in America, we embrace each other, and support each other, in times of crisis.  And we can help them do that in their own small way – whether it’s by sending a letter, or saying a prayer, or just keeping the victims and their families in their thoughts.

We can teach them the value of tolerance – the practice of assuming the best, rather than the worst, about those around us.  We can teach them to give others the benefit of the doubt, particularly those with whom they disagree.

Ann Althouse sums up the winger response to this message of tolerance:

Shouldn't we learn to be perceptive, analytical, and aware that some of the individuals among us are, in fact, mentally sick and need something other than tolerance and wishful thinking about how good they might be? So why is the First Lady telling us to teach kids the opposite?

If you're still puzzled by such a cynical reaction as this is, this makes perfect sense if you remember wingers like to look at liberalism, with its basic tenets of tolerance, inclusiveness and togetherness, as a mental disease.  And as far as building an America that Christina Taylor Green would have been proud to have contributed to through civil service, Althouse takes a steaming dump on that notion, too.

It would make more sense to teach creationism instead of evolution than to teach these wishful lies about government since children need to learn how to be effective citizens and lulling them into passive admiration of the government undermines the democratic process. Believing or not believing in creationism, by contrast, isn't going to change what happened in the grand expanse of evolutionary time. 

The First Lady is teaching our children wishful lies about government!   Remember when Laura Bush was attacked for the same thing after 9/11?  Oh wait, didn't happen.  Wonder why.   Tolerance:  more dangerous than creationism.

Instead, we should teach our kids to focus on the differences, identify those who possess those differences as possible threats, and to keep a "critical eye" upon them. Other people aren't to be trusted, government sure as hell is not to be trusted.  Look out for Number One, just watch out you don't step in number two, as Rodney Dangerfield once said.  That of course brings up this now infamous observation about Galtism and kids from Rogers at Kung-Fu Monkey:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. 

Meanwhile, the wingers keep insisting the best way to put an end to "the climate of hate nonsense" is to attack the First Lady of the United States for her message of tolerance.

Nice guys.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rather than belabor the obvious points here on liberalism as a mental illness, I'll take the high road and ask why Zandar has such a problem with teaching our kids independent analysis and critical thinking skills aimed at watchdogging our nearly always corrupt government.

SteveAR said...

I'm with Althouse on this one. How does tolerance fit in with what happened last Saturday? Michelle Obama injected her politics into this tragedy, just as so many on the left have done, even though politics had nothing to do with the killings. Nothing. A valid question to ask would be, why does the First Lady insist on driving the liberal political "narrative" when it has nothing to do with all of this?

And as far as building an America that Christina Taylor Green would have been proud to have contributed through civil service, Althouse takes a steaming dump on that notion, too.

Obama didn't say that at all:

We can explain to them that although we might not always agree with those who represent us, anyone who enters public life does so because they love their country and want to serve it.

Again, what did not agreeing with those who represent us have to do with last Saturday's shooting?

Why is it that there is this continuous attempt by the left to falsely inject their politics into this?

SteveAR said...

Instead, we should teach our kids to focus on the differences, identify those who possess those differences as possible threats, and to keep a "critical eye" upon them.

Neither Althouse or "wingers" say that at all, or any of the other things you mentioned. People in the private sector serve others just as honorably as those in the public sector. And to go back to Michelle Obama's line about disagreeing with public officials, there is a far higher percentage of crimes, including violent crimes, against private sector businesses and those who work for those businesses than against those who are in the public sector.

Meanwhile, the wingers keep insisting the best way to put an end to "the climate of hate nonsense" is to attack the First Lady of the United States for her message of tolerance.

That's because the liberal notion of "tolerance" is like the liberal notion of "diversity"; it's a scam that celebrates superficiality over substance. I know of what I talk about.

Feldman sums it up best at the end of her piece:

If her children — or yours, for that matter — ask about what she calls “these issues”, tell them the truth: There are some seriously disturbed people in this world who unfortunately sometimes cause mayhem. Some, perhaps many, could benefit from medical treatment. They are unlikely to seek it themselves, but there are laws to get them examined to see if they need treatment and some people in Tucson, including apparently Sheriff Dupnik, unfortunately failed in their obligations to do that.

Anonymous said...

...and our corrupt private sector, which I would have added, and shall, because it's the internet and I can.

But, I guess a related question is; do you really think he has a problem with it? Zandar and Bon have a number of posts on the corruption of government and our corrupted and corruptING private sector on this blog, so it's odd to suggest that he wouldn't be for that.

As for Althouse, what the hell is she complaining about? First Lady's trying to reach out, and Althouse is basically saying 'Well, I would have had a speech about how some people are just crazy and that the government is corrupt!' As inspiring as I'm sure it would be for children to be taught this, it doesn't invalidate the message she DID give.

Althouse is just sniping at the First Lady cause she can. Whatever. It was a good speech, and one a lot of people needed to hear. Or are we suggesting that Americans don't need to be respectful of the government and the opinions of others?

Zandar said...

Well, that's because Steve labors in a world where when conservatives say things about FLOTUS they are bravely exercising free speech, but when I say things, I'm cynically injecting politics into everything.

And if people were actually exercising critical thinking skills, we'd not be conflating Michelle Obama's message of tolerance and wanting a government worthy of the ideals of a nine-year old child's heart with blind and complete faith in government in the first place.

Crticism of government is healthy, but there is such thing as unhealthy criticism.

Anonymous said...

Lectures on tolerance and the evils of conflation and sweeping generalizations are pretty hollow coming from a guy who equates all conservatives to "wingers" on a blog titled "Zandar Versus The Stupid".

Fix your own house first before you worry about Ann Althouse or anyone else, son.

SteveAR said...

Remember when Laura Bush was attacked for the same thing after 9/11? Oh wait, didn't happen. Wonder why.

You shouldn't wonder. It's apples and oranges. We know for a fact that Muslims attacked us on 9/11, but that not all Muslims were responsible. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for what happened to those of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor, when the government, run by liberals, decided to put tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Japanese immigrants and citizens into relocation camps (as I mentioned yesterday, the Supreme Court authorized this in Korematsu, which is still the law).

On the other hand, we have one lone gunman with apparently severe mental issues who fired upon a crowd and killed and wounded many people. And for his own reasons that had nothing to do with politics.

Yet, the left has been trying to make this about politics since minutes after the shooting occurred, outrageously pushing the notion that conservative rhetoric, and therefore conservatives, had something to do with this, even though it isn't true. While President Obama gave a very appropriate speech, it would have been a good idea for First Lady Obama to have done the same thing. Instead, she let the liberal "narrative" take over.

This isn't "hate speech" on our part. It's valid criticism. This is valid criticism, unlike the "criticism" that has been done by the left, who put the bar for criticism into the abyss. Nobody is accusing Michelle Obama of being even remotely responsible for last week's shooting, unlike what the left has done to Sarah Palin and conservatives.

Anonymous said...

Valid criticism with added references to '2nd Amendment solutions', proposed secessions and accusations of treason, Steve. We all can go back a few years and pull out some highlights on what we mean by 'violent rhetoric' versus 'criticism'. To ignore that these things were said and addressed repeatedly is to ignore recent history.

Off to work!

Zandar said...

"Nobody is accusing Michelle Obama of being even remotely responsible for last week's shooting, unlike what the left has done to Sarah Palin and conservatives."

You're right...nobody is accusing Michelle Obama of being remotely responsible.

Why you're implying I did by asking that, I have no idea.

SteveAR said...

We all can go back a few years and pull out some highlights on what we mean by 'violent rhetoric' versus 'criticism'. To ignore that these things were said and addressed repeatedly is to ignore recent history.

I'm not saying those events didn't happen. I'm saying, and will continue to say, rhetoric that people claim is "violent" and/or "eliminationist" and/or some other catchy phrasing had nothing to do with the crime that occurred in Tuscon last week. The facts that are coming out, and yes, I mean the facts, prove my point. President Obama didn't avoid the facts during his speech. Michelle Obama did in her "teachable moment". How does it help when the First Lady teaches the wrong lessons from this tragedy?

Hell, look at this statement you made earlier:

...and our corrupt private sector,...

That's the same private sector that provides just about all of the goods and services you use or have. Yet, you are happy to engage in this broadly false demonization. All you've done is to tell me to keep to principles you want me to keep while you blatantly ignore them.

SteveAR said...

You're right...nobody is accusing Michelle Obama of being remotely responsible.

Why you're implying I did by asking that, I have no idea.


I didn't imply that at all. However, you most assuredly did claim Sarah Palin of being remotely responsible. Again, don't deny that you did.

Both Althouse's criticism and Feldman's criticism of Michelle Obama has been constructive and on point. Obama did inject her politics, the left's "narrative", into her statement. And they did so without accusing her of anything but that. Unlike the "criticism" of others against conservatives. You don't see that?

Zandar said...

What I see is that you've been trying for nearly a week now in the comments section of nearly every post I've made to absolve conservatives of any and all responsibility for the political climate by dogmatically attacking anyone who voices the opinion that it might even be a possibility, with tactics running the gamut from "both sides do it" false equivalency to "how dare you in a time of national crisis" flag-waving to "you have blood on your hands too" hyperbole.

So you will excuse me if I admit I am quite tired of your "arguments" there, Steve.

Zandar's Credibility Problem said...

"Fix your own house first before you worry about Ann Althouse or anyone else, son."

Can't fix a foundation built on sand and lies. You can only condemn it and tear it down.

"...with tactics running the gamut from "both sides do it" false equivalency to "how dare you in a time of national crisis" flag-waving to "you have blood on your hands too" hyperbole."

That describes every post you've made for the last 2.5 years.

Once again, you have to wonder about Zandar's mental state of being, and if he's not exactly the kind of person Ann Althouse is correctly telling us we all need to watch out for.

JoyfulA said...

Trying to have empathy for nasty, paranoid people gives me a headache. Where and how did they grow up that made them so afraid of the Other?

innocent bystander said...

i sure would like to know what the fuck kind of job steveAR has that he can post so much boring drivel here every day. jesus. why can't Z just make him a blog administrator so steveAR can post opinions under his own byline (which most sane people will then skip) and we'll be spared his long-winded take-overs of every fucking comment thread? get another hobby, moron.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know what kind of job Zandar has that allows him to blog from work every day for over two years.

The answer is "Not one he will have much longer" as I see more comments made when he should be doing his job.

It's gotten to the point where this is now a significant human resources issue that requires corrective action.

You might want to dress extra nice and actually shave and shower on Monday, Zandar. People in the HQ building will be wanting to talk to you.

SteveAR said...

What I see is that you've been trying for nearly a week now in the comments section of nearly every post I've made to absolve conservatives of any and all responsibility for the political climate by dogmatically attacking anyone who voices the opinion that it might even be a possibility,...

You haven't yet provided one single, solitary piece of evidence, and I mean real evidence, as opposed to opinion and innuendo, as proof to show the shooting was due to conservative rhetoric. You're the one making this point; it is up to you to prove it. It isn't up to me to prove it didn't.

If I blamed the rhetoric of you or Barack Obama or Michelle Obama or leftists in general of being responsible for the tragedy, you'd demand, and rightly so, I prove it, right? How is it then that you don't have to?

The Desert Fawkes said...

One of the survivors in that rampage is already blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Sharon Angle. That didn't take long did it!

D Johnston said...

However, you most assuredly did claim Sarah Palin of being remotely responsible.

When, Steve? You've been lobbing this accusation for days now. The closest I've seen to Zandar doing what you're claiming is this post, with the line You cannot say the hateful language of the extreme right did not contribute to this. Did Zandar claim that Palin was responsible? No. Did Zandar claim conservatives in general were responsible? No. And yet you harp on it, day in and day out. You bring it up even when it's irrelevant. This post has nothing to do with Palin or conservatives or assigning blame. You're the one keeping this alive, not Zandar.

I'm struggling to even comprehend you, Steve. You claim that you are an adult with a family and responsibilities, but you are not behaving like a grown man at all. A grown man does not spend twelve hours a day trolling a blog. Your obsession with this tiny little corner of the Internet does not suggest maturity. It suggests the worldview of a child - an angry child so impotent in real life he has to vent his rage on strangers online. I don't care how old you are, you need to grow up and get some perspective.

Normally I'd just pop in here and toss off a cheap gag about how you're really some teenager acting tough online. But the more I follow you - and the other trolls here - the more I feel sorry for you. Is this really all you have in your life?

Paula said...

Man, your trolls aren't even fun, Zandar.

Zandar said...

"You haven't yet provided one single, solitary piece of evidence, and I mean real evidence, as opposed to opinion and innuendo, as proof to show the shooting was due to conservative rhetoric. You're the one making this point; it is up to you to prove it. It isn't up to me to prove it didn't."

Well, two things, Steve-o

One, Last time I checked, this was my blog, not yours. You don't get to demand a damn thing from me. Feel free to exercise your choice to leave if I'm not to your standards.

And two, the Pima County Sheriff's Office seems to think there's something to this whole rhetoric thing after all considering Arizona State Senators are getting death threats from Sarah Palin supporters.

Have a nice day. Preferably somewhere else.

Unknown said...

Actually, Pima County sheriffs are actively investigating Sarah Palin as an accessory to the assassination of Gabrielle Giffords, as they must, in order to determine whether or not to charge her with a crime.

They are conferring with other elected officials who have received death threats for challenging Sarah Palin, like Leland Yee of California.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/sheriffs-death-threats-palin-fans

I'm confident that if they can connect the dots, they'll press charges.

Sarah should stay off Fox and lawyer up til this blows over.

I pray that all those responsible for the killings will be brought to justice.

SteveAR said...

And two, the Pima County Sheriff's Office seems to think there's something to this whole rhetoric thing after all considering Arizona State Senators are getting death threats from Sarah Palin supporters.

That is "evidence" only within your hyper-partisan "community-based reality", not actual reality.

Zandar's Credibility Problem said...

And the number of death threats from liberals against Sarah Palin is up dramatically too.

See how this game works when played by your lousy standards, Zandar?

SteveAR said...

Allan:

I pray that all those responsible for the killings will be brought to justice.

I'll wager, Allan, that you believe Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, correct? Nearly 50 years of evidence proving he did wouldn't change your mind, right?

Zandar's Credibility Problem said...

""There has been an incredible increase in death threats against Gov. Palin since the tragedy in Arizona, since she's been accused of having the blood of those victims on her hands," she said. "When you start to accuse people of having the blood of innocent people on their hands, it incites violence."

Almost immediately after the Saturday shootings, critics drew a connection between the attack and a map released by Palin that used crosshairs to spotlight 20 House Democrats she wanted to see defeated in the midterm elections. One of them was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a victim in Saturday's tragedy.

There is no evidence that alleged shooter Jared Loughner was inspired by Palin or had seen the target map."

I think this debate is now over.

Again, are you willing to retract your libelous statements about Gov. Palin and are you ready to accept your share of the responsibility in provoking the death threats against her?

Unknown said...

"I think this debate is now over."

Yes, it ended when you agreed with us that hateful words and violent rhetoric directed against public figures, like Gabrielle Giffords or Sarah Palin, incites other people to threaten them, and some to even attempt to harm them.

Didn't you promise to leave this blog after you were exposed as a pathological liar and complete failure as a troll?

Anonymous said...

And I'm back - with a question for Steve:

If you admit that, yes, there Is violent rhetoric, BUT it isn't responsible for guiding anyone's behavior violently, then what is the point of using the rhetoric in the first place?

Basically, you're saying that people's words don't persuade others to extreme action. I think a lot of people would disagree with you here. There is a long thread of conservative figures throughout the last few decades exploiting people's outrage over what really are modest reforms decided through democratic procedure, by calling them acts of tyranny.

This really isn't an issue for the left - at best, you might see the odd crack or snide remark, but these are infrequent, and interspersed with commentary about compromise, working together, and evaluating all options. The odd harsh remark or insult is used like the odd punctuation mark, but for the GOP, it seems more of a verb, and lately, vowels.

PS: Sorry if I offended you by mentioning that our corrupt private sector is corruptive. I thought it was common knowledge that major corporations have been taking the cream of the economy at the expense of the taxpayer's expense and their employees increased and unrewarded productivity and calling it God's work and their just reward for driving the economy into the ground.

No offense was meant. I apologize.

SteveAR said...

Response 1 to abanterer:

PS: Sorry if I offended you by mentioning that our corrupt private sector is corruptive.

I wasn't offended. I think it was just moronic on your part to claim the entire private sector is corrupt. Based on what you say following the statement I quoted from you, you don't even know what the private sector is. Now I know for a fact that you are nothing more than a moron.

SteveAR said...

Response 2 to abanterer:

If you admit that, yes, there Is violent rhetoric, BUT it isn't responsible for guiding anyone's behavior violently, then what is the point of using the rhetoric in the first place?

And who is going to define what is violent rhetoric, the Left? You? You all can't even keep your violent rhetoric out of things (e.g., "The Tea Party's First Scalp In 2012").

There is a long thread of conservative figures throughout the last few decades exploiting people's outrage over what really are modest reforms decided through democratic procedure, by calling them acts of tyranny.

Right. Sure there is.

This really isn't an issue for the left - at best, you might see the odd crack or snide remark, but these are infrequent, and interspersed with commentary about compromise, working together, and evaluating all options. The odd harsh remark or insult is used like the odd punctuation mark, but for the GOP, it seems more of a verb, and lately, vowels.

Because you all are such angels, correct? Because things from the left like "KILL BUSH", "BUSH=HITLER", "BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL", movies about assassinating Bush, Democratic U.S. Senators calling U.S. soldiers Nazis and Communists, flag burnings, hanging Bush, Cheney, and/or soldiers in effigy, all those things were exceptions, right, even though there were HUGE numbers of such displays regularly, along with writings expressing the same things, while Bush was President? And you think I want to let you define what is violent rhetoric or not? Metaphorically speaking, drop dead.

Related Posts with Thumbnails