Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Actually it becomes incumbent upon people who take on the "anti-war" mantle to accurately identify their political affiliation(s) so that the public - the people they're trying to win over to their argument - will know what the agenda really is. Of course quite a few so-called "anti-war" types are quite often something more - "anti-democracy", or "anti-capitalism", "leftist", "socialist", communist", or plain old "anti-Republican". Funny how this is rarely done. What do such folks have to hide, and why? Is it because their actual agenda is known to turn off people who would otherwise be hoodwinked effectively into supporting something which, if they really thought about it, may be repugnant to them? I've found a disturbing tendency on the part of protest movements in the past 15 years or so to be less concerned with whether they're VIEWED as "right" than whether they're actually "right" or not. For me Political Correctness (spawned during a particular non-Republican's term) is nothing more than the outgrowth of someone else's inane need to oppress others through imitation intellectualism and cooked numbers. Individuals of all kinds and colors tend to rebel against this when they know what it actually is, which is most likely why some items are often blurred a bit or put under a banner presenting something "more palatable" and therefore easier to SELL. Alas, honesty is still the best policy, and not just for "someone else". I suppose I'm some kind of "bigot" for expressing this opinion. Beware however - expressing an individual opinion is usually averse to the interests of the Left, or for that matter cults like Scientology. I was asked to play a London event in 2002 that was initially described to me as a "gathering of like-minded people", then it was said to me that it was "in the interest of peace", and finally described to me as an "anti-Bush rally". I persist in the belief that politics should be peoples' own business, and I don't care for GroupThink either. If this makes me a conservative, then I guess I'm one of those, but not in all manners. I also make it a point not to adhere to stereotypes, or other pre-constructed expectations. I suppose doing so could make me a "contrarian", or perhaps just a non-conformist. I prefer the latter. It's a good thing that in San Francisco (and the rest of the United States of America) you can't be imprisoned without trial and put to death just for expressing an opinion that opposes some Ayatollah's Fundamentalist Regime. No, Pat Robertson doesn't even come close. Stephen Goodman * Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff * http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack * http://www.medialinenews.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Shirkey" <jcshirke@midway.uchicago.edu> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Friday, 09 September, 2005 06:05 AM Subject: Re: BEATS NOT BOMBS in San Francisco > > On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, Larry wrote: > >> You're dead-on, Matthew: this anti-war stuff is the typical, knee-jerk >> response of far-left-wing America-haters. > > And thanks for your own knee-jerk response that does nothing more than > stereotype all anti-war sentiments as the "knee jerk responses of > far-left-wing America-haters." Yep, I'm glad you took the time to think > that one through. Personally, I prefer the anti-war sentiments to the > pro-war ones. Call me "crazy"--or "left-wing," or "anti- American," > or...(fill in the blank with your preferred stereotype of the moment). > > Jeff > > > > > > >