Friday, October 08, 2004

why surfing through the blogosphere makes my head hurt

So I surfed over to instapundit for my daily dose of "heh" and "indeed"(didn't anyone tell this guy that's what 15 year old modem users used to use on BBS's when they wanted to sound clever? And that was in 1989...) and clicked a link for a recipe page(which had a few things I'll have to jot down), clicked on the link there to "She Who Shall Be Obeyed", which sounded like a damn cool blog title, and finally ended up here. Now I grant you the sidebar stuff on the frontpage is rife with condescension and misapprehension, but the essay is sort of thoughtful until it gets to the part where he says the following:

"And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.

It's really just that simple."

ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME?? Is this what people really think the whole debate is about? Since I like to set straw men on fire....

I'm part of that half of the country that thinks Iraq was a mistake. Yet I have no interest in being nice to anyone, least of all anyone who doesn't live in Hampden, so clearly that includes "the terrorists". I'm sure many of my lefty friends feel the same way(with probably a little less parochialism towards people who don't live in Hampden - I tell them "spend a month in SF, you'll feel differently"), as they've said as much. There isn't a niceness advocate among them. Most of us would prefer that the Islamofacists were all dead or in prison, or at least would leave us the eff alone. You noticed they aren't? You notice there are more of them everyday? You wondered why?

The debate about "the war on terror", and thus the presidential election, alas, isn't about being effin' nice or being effin' mean, it's about how we should best devote our limited resources to preventing another 9-11. It really comes down to the fact that half the country thinks you deter this by being smart, and the other half of the country thinks you deter this by being stupid.

There are some people who think that the best thing to do would be to secure our borders, enact policies for defense of the "homeland"(oh christ), and then kill the bastards in their sleep.

Then there are people like this Bill person who have fallen for an effective demagogue and think that, because Mr. Bush made a nice speech that was written for him by someone else, somehow invading Iraq was a great way to show that you do not eff with us. 9-11 managed to release his inner tough guy that just wants to come out swinging against any and all comers. I agree with the sentiment, but it's incomplete.

I got no love for any of the Axis of Evil. I don't think we should pet them or give them flowers, or let any members of their governments date my daughter. I do think that there's a better way to deter them from attacking us than by invading a country and pissing off everyone who lives there. See, the whole Islamofacist movement is a movement and is therefore driven by numbers. The more people get driven to their ranks the worse it gets. The best way to kill it is to starve its base of support, not increase it. The Bush Doctrine hasn't done that, it's done the reverse. Thanks Mr. Bush!

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Tough Minded, I should point out that I have no interest in shipping off the half of the country that disagrees with me. Maybe that's where we differ? I think the minute you start talking like that, you may as well convert to Islam and join up the Al Queda, because that's the same kind of bullshit they want the right to practice - different flavor, but it's the same brand.
|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home