1
   

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

 
 
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 12:08 pm
Underneath my screen name it says I'm a newbie. I have only been on A2K a few days, but was immediately impressed by the higher intelligence levels compared to other message boards I have been on. People here (for the most part) know and research what they are talking about.

But I got to thinking why seemingly intellegent people start posting things like: "Bush is an idiot", "swolf is 4 years old", "I can't figure out why anyone with any intellegence would vote for Bush". I understand it is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it almost always turns into insults (and not just our liberal friends either). So when I read an article called "Ever wonder why?: Part II" it started to make a little more sense. Perhaps we should all look inward a little bit and see where we see ourselves in the pecking order of things. Give it a read and tell me what you think.



Ever wonder why some people hate America so?
 
This is not a new phenomenon nor one confined to foreigners. More than 20 years ago, Eric Hoffer said: "Nowhere at present is there such a measureless loathing of their country by educated people as in America."

 Note that it is not the downtrodden masses but the pampered Ph.D.s who most vent their spleen at the country that protects and indulges them. When a friend who teaches at Harvard put an American flag sticker on his car, his astonished colleagues demanded to know: "What is that?!"

 An American flag on a car or a home would have brought a similar outcry of amazement and disgust at Berkeley -- and on elite campuses in between, all across the country.

 Nor is such a posture confined to academia. Movie-maker Michael Moore is going around the world saying that the United States is "a crappy country" and its people "stupid" -- while his movie "Fahrenheit 911" is being praised to the skies in the press and among the intelligentsia, as it puts its anti-American message on the screen.

 What is there about America that sets off such venom -- among Americans, of all people? One answer might be to look at the kinds of countries praised, defended, or "understood" by the intelligentsia.

 For many years, the Soviet Union was such a country. After too many bitter facts about the Soviet Union came to light over the years to permit its rosy image to continue, much of the intelligentsia simply shifted their allegiance or sympathies to other collectivist countries, such as China, Cuba, or Vietnam in the Communist bloc or India, Tanzania and other collectivist regimes outside it.

 It did not make a dent on intellectuals that people were fleeing the countries they praised, often at the risk of their lives, to try to reach the countries they were condemning -- especially the United States of America.

 What is wrong with America, in the eyes of the intelligentsia? The same things that are right with America in the eyes of others.

 If one word rings out, and echoes around the world, when America is mentioned, that word is Freedom. But what does freedom mean?

 It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit -- regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters, as so many intellectuals do.

 The more the American vision of individual freedom prevails, the more the vision of the anointed fails. The more ordinary people spend the money they have earned for whatever they want, the less is available to the government as taxes to spend for "the common good" as Hillary Clinton recently put it.

 The more people who raise their own children by their own values, the less is there a place for the collectivist notion that "it takes a village to raise a child," as Hillary has said elsewhere. Too many of our schools are convinced that they are that village.

 Cars and guns are both instruments and symbols of personal independence -- and both are targets of hostility and even hatred by those who are convinced that they can run other people's lives better than those people can run their own lives. All sorts of claims are made against cars and guns, without the slightest interest in checking those claims against readily available facts.

 When America frees ordinary people from the domination of their betters, and prevents them for being used as guinea pigs for the vision of the anointed, the more America insults the very presumptions that enable the anointed to think of themselves as special, as one-up on the rest of us.

 Countries that impose a collectivist vision from the top down will be forgiven many atrocities, while a country like the United States that lets individuals go their own way will not even be forgiven its successes, much less its shortcomings.

 As we celebrate both our country's independence and our individual independence on the Fourth of July, we should never forget that this independence is galling to those who want us to be dependent on them.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,462 • Replies: 61
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 12:14 pm
Good article.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 12:33 pm
Bad article.

I HATE when people imply that criticism = hate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 12:42 pm
I think your missing the point. It's not a matter of criticizing, it is a matter of why you are criticizing.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 12:50 pm
Cars and guns represent some of the best things about America? I love it. I guess drive-by shootings are the best of all worlds...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 12:52 pm
Quote:
I think your missing the point. It's not a matter of criticizing, it is a matter of why you are criticizing.


Um, this is America. I'll criticize for any god damn reason I please. You have the right to do the same. It doesn't mean I hate the place.

I criticize and construct. They are the two sides of the coin when it comes to being progressive.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:01 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Cars and guns represent some of the best things about America? I love it. I guess drive-by shootings are the best of all worlds...


The article says "Cars and guns are both instruments and symbols of personal independence..." not Cars and guns represent some of the best things about America.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:04 pm
Ok, you don't hate America... perhaps the article doesn't apply to you Cycloptichorn... but if it doesn't, why are you taking such offense to it?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:13 pm
Because it is a common claim used as an ad hominem attack quite often by those who don't want to hear criticism of their leaders.

Also, it is somewhat frustrating to have to defend the fact that there is a difference inbetween loving one's country (patriotism) and blindly following the orders of it's leaders (cronyism, rampant partisanship, and, I guess, shill-ism though I doubt that is a word). America was BUILT on dissent.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:14 pm
How is a gun an instrument and symbol of personal independence? For that matter, how is a car this kind of symbol?

Freedom of thought and expression: Those are other instruments of personal independence. I don't see how owning a gun or driving a car means anything more than having the means to buy 'em.

But if guns and cars are what makes you misty-eyed about America, go for it, jp...
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:23 pm
Re: Things that make you go hmmmmm...
I'm a newbie, too, JP. Hi, nice to meetcha. Smile
I have some opinions about your article:
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Ever wonder why some people hate America so?
 
This is not a new phenomenon nor one confined to foreigners. More than 20 years ago, Eric Hoffer said: "Nowhere at present is there such a measureless loathing of their country by educated people as in America."


I'm not qure I agree with this statement. Why should I believe Eric Hoffer's take that criticism equals loathing?

jpinMilwaukee wrote:
 What is wrong with America, in the eyes of the intelligentsia? The same things that are right with America in the eyes of others.


Who are these intelligentsia referred to? Berkeleyites and others in liberal colleges? Why do only they deserve the title, "intelligentsia?"

Quote:
 The more the American vision of individual freedom prevails, the more the vision of the anointed fails.


I have a theory on this... I think that perhaps ideology has replaced religion in some people's lives... That it is some sort of answer to the need for a higher collective goal in a world where, to many, traditional religion no longer makes sense.

Quote:
 The more people who raise their own children by their own values, the less is there a place for the collectivist notion that "it takes a village to raise a child," as Hillary has said elsewhere. Too many of our schools are convinced that they are that village.


WTF does THAT mean???

Quote:
 
 As we celebrate both our country's independence and our individual independence on the Fourth of July, we should never forget that this independence is galling to those who want us to be dependent on them.


So, the point of the article is to remind us that current leaders of our country find our independence galling? Isn't that enough alone to warrant our criticism? I don't think disagreement is unamerican. I think freedom to think for myself goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech. I don't think it's been proven that intelligent people loathe America. I know too many of them who, if cut, would bleed red,white, and blue.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 01:23 pm
Cycloptichorn,

I am not saying you can not criticize our leaders, nor am I saying i don't want to hear the citisism. I am also not saying you are unpatriotic. The point of the article is that some people feel superior to others and feel that because they are more educated/more wealthy/have a larger vocabulary (I know what patriotism means) that they feel threatened by the other people who have the same freedom and rights as you. I was using the quotes of "Bush is stupid", and "swolf is 4 years old" as examples of people trying to establish that superiority.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 04:16 pm
D'artagnan, you are arguing two words out of an entire article...try debating the ideas not the words.

Princess,

I think the author only used Berkely as one example. I think he feels that anyone who feels "elite" would be considered in that group.

The village quote means that it is not the jobs of the schools or the government to raise our children. Nor should they tell us how to raise our children. Those are decisions that should be left up to the parents.

I think we are all missing the point... here is how I interpret the article.

There are a group of people who feel superior to the rest of society or the "common good" Hillary calls it. These people feels threatened that the "lesser" people have the same rights that they do. Cars are used as status symbols in our world. The fancier the car the fancier the person. But, (given the means to do so) anybody can drive a Lexus or Mercedes or BMW. But if everybody could drive a BMW this would lower the status of that symbol. The same could be said about freedom. While Ph.D.s at Berkely (or people on A2K) feel intellectually superior to other "common" people, that does not make their opinion any more important than others. This as the article states is what the lesser people feel is great about America while the superior just feel threatened.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 05:44 pm
jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Princess,

I think the author only used Berkely as one example. I think he feels that anyone who feels "elite" would be considered in that group.

The village quote means that it is not the jobs of the schools or the government to raise our children. Nor should they tell us how to raise our children. Those are decisions that should be left up to the parents.

I think we are all missing the point... here is how I interpret the article.

There are a group of people who feel superior to the rest of society or the "common good" Hillary calls it. These people feels threatened that the "lesser" people have the same rights that they do. Cars are used as status symbols in our world. The fancier the car the fancier the person. But, (given the means to do so) anybody can drive a Lexus or Mercedes or BMW. But if everybody could drive a BMW this would lower the status of that symbol. The same could be said about freedom. While Ph.D.s at Berkely (or people on A2K) feel intellectually superior to other "common" people, that does not make their opinion any more important than others. This as the article states is what the lesser people feel is great about America while the superior just feel threatened.


I'm not sure I, or anybody I know, would agree that parents alone should raise children. That's not the cultural norm here, or anyplace else. There is an odd group now and again... (I'm thinking of Sawney Bean here...) But more usual is collective raising of children, hence the universal acceptance of Hillary's statement, that it takes a village to raise a child... Schools can serve as that village if they are set in neighborhoods. They teach the rules that govern children in their area. They come to a child's defense against familial abuse. They offer supplies and assistance to needy families. They monitor many set standards and offer tools to maintain them (often churches do this as well.)

I don't see that article being about the same thing you do. Rather, I see it as more lumping any who criticize as being anti-american, but also an attack on those who benefitted from the protests for rights in the 1960s.(I see them as the majority of people who became what the article calls "intelligensia.") Also an attack on the democratic system by claiming we are dominated by our betters, rather than judged by our peers.

The article answers its own question with, "never forget that this independence is galling to those who want us to be dependent on them." If anything, it's pointing a finger at that sense of collective superiority many who criticize appear to feel. It's not about whose opinion is more important, but about that phenomenon. And btw, I disagree w/the premise, "Nowhere at present is there such a measureless loathing of their country by educated people as in America." I think that there were educated people during the cold war and other times of crises, who felt an equal amount of loathing, (or more like I do, FRUSTRATION) with the idiots who presume to lead us where they do.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 06:00 am
Quote:
I'm not sure I, or anybody I know, would agree that parents alone should raise children. That's not the cultural norm here, or anyplace else. There is an odd group now and again... (I'm thinking of Sawney Bean here...) But more usual is collective raising of children, hence the universal acceptance of Hillary's statement, that it takes a village to raise a child...


I feel as though I need to chime in here. I completely disagree with this statement. It is the parents responsibility to raise their children. I would dare anyone to try to raise my children other than myself or my wife.

Schools are to provide an education, not help raise children. I can't believe that anyone would want someone else to raise their children. This lack of responsibility is what is leading to the weakening of the family unit and the weakening of family morals. People don't want to be responsible for anything anymore and it disgusts me.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 06:55 am
McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure I, or anybody I know, would agree that parents alone should raise children. That's not the cultural norm here, or anyplace else. There is an odd group now and again... (I'm thinking of Sawney Bean here...) But more usual is collective raising of children, hence the universal acceptance of Hillary's statement, that it takes a village to raise a child...


I feel as though I need to chime in here. I completely disagree with this statement. It is the parents responsibility to raise their children. I would dare anyone to try to raise my children other than myself or my wife.

Schools are to provide an education, not help raise children. I can't believe that anyone would want someone else to raise their children. This lack of responsibility is what is leading to the weakening of the family unit and the weakening of family morals. People don't want to be responsible for anything anymore and it disgusts me.


I couldn't agree with you more. If more parents felt like that I think things would be a whole lot better. Kids learn early the difference between right and wrong.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 07:03 am
I have to agree with McG on this one. The lack of family structure is slowly eroding away the morals and work ethic in this country. As far as your response on attacking those who criticize... let me criticize to help clarify my point. While I don't mind Bush being Christian (I was raised christian and think it teaches good morals, but have decided since then that any religion that becomes fanatic is dangerous), I think he uses his religious superiority to keep homosexuals from marrying. When it comes down to it he is using it to lessen other people and deny them rights that every other American has. It is not about criticizing nor is it just about college proffessors, it is about the idea of limiting the rights of the common so that the "superior" can still be superior.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 09:48 am
Quote:
There are a group of people who feel superior to the rest of society or the "common good" Hillary calls it. These people feels threatened that the "lesser" people have the same rights that they do. Cars are used as status symbols in our world. The fancier the car the fancier the person. But, (given the means to do so) anybody can drive a Lexus or Mercedes or BMW. But if everybody could drive a BMW this would lower the status of that symbol. The same could be said about freedom. While Ph.D.s at Berkely (or people on A2K) feel intellectually superior to other "common" people, that does not make their opinion any more important than others. This as the article states is what the lesser people feel is great about America while the superior just feel threatened.


Hmm.

I guess I can see the thrust of your argument a little better here. But you'll have to pardon us for being a little thrown-off.

The first sentence of the piece is, 'Ever wonder why some people hate America so?' But none of the things you list off have anything to do with hating America. They have to do with people being jerks. That has nothing to do with one's patriotism.

Besides, I think you have it backwards. We don't feel threatened by the speech of the uneducated and unintelligent. We feel exhausted, frustrated, exacerbated. On a political debate board, arguments can go smoothly or quite badly; many times the difference is in proper use of argumentative structure, definitions, and proper citing and quotation of sources. When these are not present, the argument can degrade into a quagmire in the blink of an eye. :wink: After a while, we get tired of dealing with poor argumentation.

For example; I normally don't agree with the positions held by Foxfyre, McGentrix, Icann711m, or Finn D'Abuzz. But I respect the hell out of them for building good arguments for the other side of the issue.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 10:18 am
I guess I read into it a little more than was meant to. But when you think about it it works on so many levels. The white superiority over blacks lead to slavery, the Nazi superiority over Jews lead to the halocaust, the settler's superiority over native americans lead to many being killed and at the least driven from their lands. It goes beyond politics, but makes me think twice about who we elect into any position of government.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 10:22 am
The article attempts to equate elitism with so-called liberalism -- as though William Bennett never intimated that he knew better than the rest of us how we should live our lives. Is there a particular brand of arrogant bastardry that you'll find among members of the ACLU? Sure. But there's also a particular brand of arrogant bastardry that you'll find among members of the Federalist Society.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Things that make you go hmmmmm...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 07:27:51