Saturday, February 14, 2004

Fear-mongering Republicans is always fun to read. So incredibly blinded by their liberalism that they cannot have a cogent discussion. I came across this gem of an article on how the Republicans will instill fear to win votes, that I just could not contain myself. Here's my e to the author (his e is

Dear Mark,

I lived in the Bay Area for eleven years. I have returned to the East Coast and now teach law. I have been a Republican my entire life and do not see a change in the foreseeable future. I have not been, am not presently, nor do I plan to become fearful.

When you write that we fear environmentalists, I recall earlier presidential election cycles wherein the DNC ran ads stating that Republicans wanted to rape the forests and poison the waters. I was always amused by the simplistic schoolyard bully tactics used by the Democrats. As I studied forensic persuasion at law school, it became clear to me that the Democratic Party thought its audience to be of the lowest intellectual levels. I was torn between feeling pity for the DNC decision makers or sympathy for the party members.

You cite "fear of terrorists" early on as if it is a bad thing. Perhaps living in SF gives you that distance. I'm happy for you. For those of us that lost people we knew in NYC, that still keep finding people (without looking) who knew people that were lost, it isn't as easy to nonchalantly ignore the threat. I do not feel it is paranoid to recognize that terrorists could have a field day with car bombs in front of shopping malls, with crowded subway systems, or overpasses. It is a shocking change from a couple of years ago.

You paint the USA PATRIOT Act (the second word is all caps - it's an acronym) with a broad brush of infringement. Have you read it, along with the long history of cases that led up to it? Or are you just repeating the selected musings of your peers? I do not know you and so I offer that it is unfair of me to be so assuming on this point, but I feel strongly that any broad, condemning statement such as yours is inherently flawed. (Do you see the irony?) Regardless, many aspects of the Act are long overdue in fighting crime. Some aspects are being applied more broadly than the legislators intended. Like any piece of legislation, it needs to be refined through the courts. But that is how our system works, Mark - emotional legislators pass legislation; jurists grounded in precedence refine its application.

Gay marriage: such a touchstone of Bay Area politics. An overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians; an overwhelming minority of Americans identify themselves as homosexual. Are these positions at odds? Surely not, at least not structurally. But there is a strong feeling in the Christian community that homosexuality is a sin. Since we are all sinners, this should not come as a shock. But one should not condone or encourage sin. One should work away from it. The Christian Bible contains many examples of condemning homosexuality and many, many more of encouraging heterosexuality. Then as the argument leaves "beliefs" on each side behind and we search for facts, Christians read an article like this - article - which seems quite reasonably researched and presented. Couple the observations of children born out of wedlock to the American criminal experience, wherein the incidence of crime is significantly higher among juveniles who are raised in a home environment other than a traditional husband/wife, and a reasonable argument against gay marriage begins to form.

Am I a homophobic paranoid delusional police-state loving freak? If you are seeking readers and not cogent discussion, then I suspect you will say so. That is your right. But, Mark, I am actually quite reasonable. I get up every morning and try to raise my children in an understanding, loving manner. I have gay friends that I treat as lovingly as I do my heterosexual friends. I have little political use (which excludes personal use, my friend) for Democrats because I find them intellectually dishonest.

On this point, maybe you can help me with this - just how does a women's rights organization support Bill Clinton when he at least subjected women to his uncontainable sexual desires and perhaps was even more aggressive? Tell me, would you have felt so charitable if he had an orgasm on your daughter's dress? How does a human rights organization support Mr. Clinton when in 1992 he left the campaign trail to be present when Ricky Ray Rector was executed? Mr. Rector was so profoundly mentally incapacitated that he saved his pecan pie for after his "execution." I have no vast amount of dislike for Mr. Clinton. He isn't even on my RADAR (another acronym) screen - but he is such an easy target.

In closing, what I found my amusing about your article is that you are informing your readers to not listen to Republicans, that they should be fearful of Republicans, because Republicans want you to be afraid. It is no small literary feat to achieve such circular and manipulative logic. Good for you!!

I hope you have a wonderful day. Clyde Middleton, Philadelphia, PA.

No comments:

Post a Comment