I like this George Will Newsweek column. Lost in the good news last week about Iraq was this: Montenegro completed its dissolution of the union with Serbia. The last of Yugoslavia is gone. Both Yugoslavia and Iraq were created after World War I. Will Iraq also dissappear? While I don’t think it will, it’s a clever way to ask the question.
Iraq’s national secuirty advisor, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, said a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. And there have been 452 raids since last week’s killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions.
President Bush, even the New York Times is forced to admit, is having a good week or so: He shows up in Iraq, Zarqawi is dead, the new government is in place, and Karl Rove is cleared. Things are back on track for the administration and we will see continuous improvement in Bush’s polling numbers.
President Bush, even the New York Times is forced to admit, is having a good week or so...
So good, in fact, that Iraq is about to either suddenly fall off the media’s map or the map will be simply redrawn to show that Bush’s sucks now more than ever. Either way, the media is becoming more and more irrelevant to national debate every single day.
Also, the Republicans didn’t lose that special election in California for Duke Cunningham’s vacant seat.
But let us discuss Will’s interesting hidden question. Bush vs. Wilson? "Wilsonian Bushism"? Revolutionary "republicanism"?
I will pose the question; is Bush/Rice foreign policy new or a modern adaptation of Jeffersonian to Monroeian to Polkian to McKinleyian to Wilsonian to FDRian, and on, and on...foreign policy?
Do we only fight for revolutions we deem worthy? and or aceptable?
"Do we only fight for revolutions we deem worthy? and or aceptable?"
Uhhhh .... yeah ... we do and should.
It is not hypocritical to not fight for every revolution. Seriously, you would want us to fight for a Marxist revolution over a democracy just because it is a revolution?
Anyway, the decision to fight for a revolution also is political.
Peter said: "..and we will see continuous improvement in Bush’s polling numbers." The evidence of the last few years shows that the chance of that happening are very slim:
https://www.pop.umn.edu/%7Eruggles/Approval.htm
About all Bush has left is the Dobsonites, dominionists and the usual assorted trailer trash that make up his "base" which is only 30-35% of the population. The party of Lincoln has come a long way.
About all Bush has left is the Dobsonites, dominionists and the usual assorted trailer trash that make up his "base" which is only 30-35% of the population. The party of Lincoln has come a long way.
Sure has. When do I get my trailer?!?!
Let’s remember, as you sneer at those unworthy types, that many of them constitute the military that is keeping your elitist rear safe and warm.
Mark,
You act like you didn’t know. Tom Pain’s amazing insight is sooo clear!!! The only members of the Republican party are those with an agenda and those who are too stupid to see through it, and give their support based on a faulty love of freedom and patriotism. Don’t act like you didn’t know the only real citizens live in the cities.
If I recall the numbers from the last election, Monsieur Kerry had a clear edge in the poor and stupid category. And I’ve often wondered why it’s perfectly OK (in the minds of liberals) to throw around disrespectful epithets like "redneck" and "white trash" and "trailer trash," but names like the "nigger" and "wetback" and "gook" are verboten. Looks to me like the Left has no business preaching about racism or classism to us!
Dain, while all of the terms you mention are "disrespectful epithets," I reject the notion that the three you mention as still socially acceptable are as bad as the ones that aren’t. "Redneck" refers to a subculture, not an ethnic group, and is determined by one’s cultural preferences (NASCAR, country music, etc.) rather than the color of one’s skin or the shape of one’s eyes. "Redneck," I think, is comparable to "geek," which, although it might be considered offensive to someone who is called that, is hardly the same as making sweeping generalizations about a class of people based on purely biological factors that are beyond their control.
I disagree, John. While they are social class designators, virtually everyone who "belongs" to these "groups" are either of Scotch-Irish or English descent...I suppose the Cajuns would be an exception, but you’ll note that their "stereotype" is a bit different. Who ever heard of black or Asian "trailer trash?" Nope, those words are racial as well as classist, as the epithet "white trash" clearly indicates.
But there are plenty of people who are of Scotch-Irish or English descent whom no one would dream of calling "redneck." The racist terms that you mention are meant to apply to everyone of that particular background.
I myself was once called a "hillbilly" by a black person because...I happened to work at a gas station (a high school job). That person would never have called a non-white person that particular name...it was both a class and racial slur (a two-fer!). It is true that "redneck" etc. aren’t as broad as some of the purely racial epithets, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have a strong racial component...and that they should never therefore be used in political discourse...yes?
Well Dain I can tell you one difference: Most of us rednecks are darn proud of being rednecks! Ever seen the Blue Collar Comedy guys? No sir, we’re not exactly ashamed of who we are and we don’t give a darn if someone calls us rednecks or hillbillies. I’d have to agree with John on this one.
Well, Clay, it’s pretty common for a group to "embrace" a derogatory epithet and twist its meaning into a symbol of identity. For instance, the black population routinely uses the N-word. I occasionally watch Blue Collar TV, and it’s funny...but it’s also cashing in on the supposed stupidity and crudeness of the "redneck" population. Betcha anything if it were a bunch of minority comics (rather than Foxworthy and Co.) it just wouldn’t be funny for most of us "bubbas."
Mr. Dain:What was the context when the black man called you a "hillbilly"? I’m sure the specifics of the story would make the average "politcally correct" liberal squirm!!
This was back in the day when many gas stations had attendants pumping gas. We had a drive full of cars, and these black folks came in last. It was first come first serve, of course, and when we didn’t wait on them quickly enough (in their minds)they got abusive.
There are many black people who are hypersensitive and latch onto any "evidence" of racism. In this instance, they interpreted the wait as racism...in reality we were just very busy, and they were last in line. It was pretty ironic...I treated them like I would treat anyone, and I got called names as a result. It was at that point that I began to suspect that what many minorities want is not "equality" but rather deference.
Get a grip, man. This has nothing to do with Dr. Schramm’s post about Iraq.
"And I’ve often wondered why it’s perfectly OK (in the minds of liberals) to throw around disrespectful epithets like "redneck" and "white trash" and "trailer trash," but names like the "nigger" and "wetback" and "gook" are verboten."
Well, there’s another one for the Dain Hall of Shame.
First, where are these liberals who think it’s "perfectly OK to throw around disrespectful epithets like ’redneck’ and ’white trash’ and ’trailer trash’"? I can’t say that I know any of them. I stick with more precise insults. If someone is an ignorant goon then I don’t see what difference their skin color, their ethnicity, their national background, their socioeconomic status, their lawn-decorating preferences or anything else makes. I will refer to them as an ignorant goon. Also, other than the conveniently self-serving declaration that it is so, what evidence is there that (at least some) conservatives would not also find it "perfectly OK" to use those disrespectful stereotype insults?
Secondly, one aspect of Dain’s beyond-ironic, non-stop victimization/persecution complex seems to be the notion that he’s being strictly prevented (presumably by the same group of Liberals) from using epithets like "nigger" and "wetback" and "gook." Giving you a big benefit of the doubt, that you have no great urge to use such words, why the obvious indignation regarding the perceived stigma and restriction surrounding use of such terms?
And that gas station anecdote was extremely ridiculous. It’s quite possible that the same thing could have happened only with a car full of white people calling you a "hillbilly" (imagine they’re all latte-sipping liberals in a Volvo if that trips your trigger). What sweeping conclusions about white people would you have drawn from your little gas-station social lab then, I wonder?
Peter said: "..and we will see continuous improvement in Bush’s polling numbers." The evidence of the last few years shows that the chance of that happening are very slim:
https://www.pop.umn.edu/%7Eruggles/Approval.htm
Sorry for the distracting nit about "trailer trash" even though there’s certainly an element of truth in it. Just as there’s also an element of truth in "arrogant liberals."
Does anyone dispute that followers of Dobson, Robertson, Jones et.al form a substantial part of the "base?"
Well, at least you apologize for using the term...I don’t think Clinton’s people ever backed down from calling Paula Jones "trailer trash."
Although I do not endorse every aspect of their political agendas, I don’t think you could characterize Dobson, Robertson, etc. as "trailer trash." As I stated in comment #8 above, I think both parties have their share of poorly educated people...with Democrats holding an edge in this regard.