Subscribe to
NSLog(); Header Image


Some people seem to have a keen sense of reality. Some do not. First the Sherlock thing and then "Clinton pursued Osama bin Laden?" And 20+ other fallacious, silly things? Y'know, cuz Colin Powell never served his country or anything…

Almost all of the questions Dan's asked have been answered and the implications rebuked so many times by now that the work has been done for me. I simply point you there for fun: the Kerryites will get a kick out of it (though, were I one, I imagine I'd simply be embarrassed) and the Bushites will get riled up.

Seems Dan's been watching - and believing - far too much Michael Moore. Heck, Michael Moore - almost as much as anything - has cemented my vote for the Republicans this time around.

P.S. I'm going to be pretty diligent about deleting any comments that are rude to other commenters. Pick on me all ya want - I can take it. Do so with some civility, and with the understanding that I might disagree with you as much as you disagree with me.

9 Responses to "Da(m)n"

  1. Erik, there's really not much to say about that... the people in your country are going to vote, and many of those are blind with respect to the rest of the world and they seem to be unaware of the fact that Bush has already done a lot of damage on the international level. People in the US seem to live on a different planet - Kyoto doesn't matter, 50$ per barrel of oil does not matter, warfare does not matter in a time when the USA's budget deficit is higher than ever before, and then there were those (non-existant) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and people in Guantanamo without a fair trial - and you want for more years of that?

    But nevermind, you know that you've been really lucky if the US manage to perform a proper election at all 😉 History has shown that US citizens have many reasons to be proud of their origin - the last four years have destroyed a big part of this positive image. But there you are, go ahead. I, for one, cannot understand this.

  2. Ralph, both candidates have voiced opposition to Kyoto. Only Ralph Nader seems to think it's a good idea. And hey, the US's first priority is the US, not how much some other country likes the US.

    We found weaponry. That's been covered. We found evidence that Saddam had ties to terrorism - funded it, supported it, etc.

    I also really don't think that anyone outside of this country has the necessary information, perspective, or background to speak on the subject in a way that's going to impact me. I'm all for a unique perspective, but you can't have a perspective free of bias and bullshit on this topic anywhere, and certainly not from another country. Not in this day and age.

    And that's sad. I despise both candidates for the lame negative ads. The negativity sickens me. Candidates - older people tell me - used to run on their records and their policies. I wish voting for nobody sent a stronger message. Instead, I'm once again voting against someone. That's just sick.

  3. We found evidence that Saddam had ties to terrorism - funded it, supported it, etc.

    I'd really like to see a link to such evidence, as I haven't been able to find it.

    If you hate those stupid negative campaign ads, why vote for either of those two candidates? There are plenty of other people on the ballot (and I don't mean Nader) .. find one who is more reasonable and vote for him. Yeah, your vote won't really count for much of anything, but if more people did so it would send a message.

  4. Tim, find the stories yourself. C'mon now… There are plenty of places.

    I already answered your second question. I said "I wish voting for nobody sent a stronger message." Until "more people" do it, it's a wasted vote.

  5. Erik, you've said before that "I am voting for Bush because he's not Kerry!". Out of curiosity, if there were a more appealing Democrat to you, would you vote for him instead of Bush (and if so, who would it be?)

  6. I would vote for someone else. Name him? No. I haven't done the research on every possible Democrat alive. I'm a registered Republican and I have strong Libertarian leanings, and if John Kerry is the best the Democrats could come up with, it's a sad day for the Democratic party.

    I said way back in July something like this: it's almost like the Democrats thought they'd lose, so they threw an unappealing candidate out there. If they'd thrown someone out who actually had some appeal (and half a brain), they'd be leading and win by a landslide.

    Who? Fuck if I know who. The Democrats chose their man, and I don't like 'im.

  7. You know, I'm so tired of this election year. It was kinda fun in January when I sat in a schoolroom with more than 40 other people who wanted to make a difference in the democratic process. It was a thrill standing up for your guy, being counted as supporting someone. The finagling was fun when it turned out that your first choice didn't pass quorum. It was fun watching a UAW worker shine a flashlight at you and beckon you to 'see the light' and come join his party.

    When the Republicans turned on their spin machines it stopped being fun. Well, I say spin machines, but that's not what happened. The thing that it's taken me a while to realize, the thing that still really hasn't sunk into my deeper being, is that Republicans don't spin. I can play Devil's Advocate for just about any platform. I tend to do that because I'm basically a sympathetic person at heart. I can see the other side of the argument. I can imagine how people can feel a certain way. I'm empathic most of the time when I stop to think about things.

    The thing is though... Republicans believe what they say. They believe what they're told by their 'trusted sources' of information. As much as I cannot believe what I hear come from a Republicans mouth, they can't believe what comes from my mouth.

    What America is divided over is not the issues. It's not the moral fiber of the candidates. It's not even what we think about the war anymore. We are divided, deeply divided, on who we trust. Ultimately trust is a mater of faith, and the divisions in Americans today are approaching Biblical proportions.

    What do you do when you cannot personally verify your sources of information? You entrust a proxy to bring you the information. You instill in that proxy (or proxies) a level of trust that makes their word worth more than that of other sources. You have faith in your 'trusted source'.

    The trouble today is that the two main camps of 'trusted sources' are so pervasive and in such opposition to each other. Maybe it's always been this way. Maybe I've just begun to see things as they've always been. Perhaps it's been augmented by the 24 hours News cycle and the prevalence of the Internet, which gives the views of either side of this conflict of sources an echo chamber to enhance their message and fervor.

    I do know that this election stopped being about who tells the truth a long time ago. This election, and the future of America, has become a contest of 'who do you believe', 'in whom do you entrust your faith?' That's it. Perhaps I'm naive for not seeing this before. Do you trust a radio blow hard that uses words like feminazi, or do you trust a movie blow hard that uses images of 'My Pet Goat' to make his point?

    That's what it comes down to. Who do you trust? You can rationalize that decision any way you want to. You can dig up as many tid bits from your 'trusted sources' as you care to to rationalize your decision, but in the end, at it's most basic level, you have to make your decision as a mater of faith. In the face of contradictory evidence and an inability to personally verify claims you have to close your eyes and do what you feel is right.

    What we fail to see, what I have failed to see, is that we all do this. We all believe in our own choices. Republicans aren't bad people that we should demonize. They aren't evil for believing differently. Their faith has brought them to a differing opinion. To rail against them, or the reciprocal, does nothing to advance ourselves or our nation.

    In a way I'm glad that the last year has been such a tumultuous election year. It has taught me that and effort to persuade, to convert, someone set in their beliefs is a futile effort. All opinions are equally valid. It does nothing but bring suffering upon yourself to attempt to change another. By realizing this I am closer to escaping from the suffering I've felt this last year.

  8. It frustrates me that this has to happen at all.

    It's more of a popularity contest than anything. A buddy of mine told me that he's told a guy at work that he didn't vote for Kerry. He did not, however, tell him who he voted for.

    This guy was thoroughly attacked for "voting for Bush". In reality, he voted for who he wanted, which wasn't Bush or Kerry (or Nader for that matter, I guess that narrows down the choices).

    Anyways, it's very frustrating to see people so divided on the slightest of details. 7 minutes in a room. Did he get shrapnel in his leg or not? Would 7 minutes have changed the situation or does shrapnel existence have any bearing on future policy? It's kind of sad.

    I didn't vote this year, I shredded my absentee ballot. I find it so frustrating that so many people are voting and think they "know something", but in reality haven't looked past the news and opinions of others who are like-minded. I refuse to take part in such a corrupt exercise, even if it does mean my loss of choice. I go to good restaurants, I don't want a crappy buffet.

    Even though (don't flame me please) I thought Clinton's policies were better at the time, I voted for Dole. 4 years of him talking in the third person would have made politics enjoyable. 🙂

  9. I also really don't think that anyone outside of this country has the necessary information, perspective, or background to speak on the subject in a way that's going to impact me. I'm all for a unique perspective, but you can't have a perspective free of bias and bullshit on this topic anywhere, and certainly not from another country. Not in this day and age.

    It's sad and it's true. I think that's important to realize because that could take a lot of biased fact checking behaviour off the debate.

    I mean, I'm not living in your country and I'm not sharing your political point of view and I don't want to bring on arguments that shall impact you. But to be honest, these three sentences above makes me wonder how the next election campaign will effect my perspective or yours. Do you think it will become any better?

    I doubt that reading William Gibson (last sentence), for example...