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.
* Cartoons about DVDs and Stuff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shirkey"
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).
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around