So, I learned through the Vent that someone’s dictionary correlates intolerance with a “right-wing” Republican political view. As “right-wing” is a vague description, how does the dictionary define that term? While focused on this idea, I thought I would look for descriptions of intolerance. I found plenty on the same page of the newspaper, but they don’t seem to agree with that “dictionary” definition. For example:
“Republicans are worse than the Taliban” (Taliban is an Afghan political group that destroyed historic national monuments, imprisoned teachers, political leaders, women, and anyone who does not view the world according to their fifth-century perspectives). Where is the evidence of this comparison? Do you not, as a non-Republican, still have freedom of expression? Can you no longer wear a swim suit that leaves little to the imagination? The Taliban would not allow such.
“. . . why these types (Sheriff Arpaio and ex-Senator Pearce) are called fat cats. Let’s not allow Pearce to get any fatter. Anyone who accepts gifts like he did is no good!” So being fat is bad, and being fat is paramount to being influenced? Is either one of those attributes confined to Republicans? Since when is being influenced either illegal or unethical? Do you hold your own representatives to the same standard?
“I am one of those Democratic female venters, . . . I think you need to see the Wizard of Oz for counseling.” Since I don’t agree with your Democratic point of view, I should retreat to a fantasy land, and consult with a known deceiver?
“After finding out that every drop of oil the Keystone Pipeline carries could go to China I have decided to drop out of the Republican Party.” Was it not the democratic president, Barack Hussein Obama, who shut down negotiations with Canada for developing the Keystone pipeline? Did you ever truly have “right-wing” or conservative ideals?
Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln, are part of a law-abiding organization, and do not deserve the slander of being compared to Nazis, Communists, terrorists, or any other example of depravity or oppression. The same goes for Democrats, independents, Green Party, Libertarians, etc.
We can agree to disagree. We have the right to persuade others to our beliefs. But use reason and passion to do so, rather than name-calling and violence. Was it not President Obama who declared that we must have a more tolerant dialogue?
Patrick Shepherd
Mesa
antirino posted at 3:20 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Patrick,
Outstanding! I nominate this for letter of the year!
Dale Whiting posted at 5:22 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Ok, I'm on board.
Let's refer to this letter as the Good Shepherd Rule. When any of us criticize another without stating some basis for that criticism, we violate the Good Shepherd Rule.
Today I criticized our Arizona Legislature for trying to pass a "birther rule." I explained why doing so was wrong. Then I noticed that Chilidog had beaten me to the punch. So I signed back on, apologized to Chilidog for not reading him first, then lashed out against Arizona Neoconservatives insinuating that they are not well educated. Technically I have not done a study of this. So in lashing out, I violated the Good Shepherd Rule. I now make amends.
I have no idea why Arizona Neo-conservatives act as they do. I speculate that they have not been well educated. For in acting as they do, they appear unable to deal with nor understand the more nuanced problems in life such as understanding the US Constitution, particularly when understanding it would lead them to opposite conclusions.
Now, someone who differs with my opinion may sign on and explain why the birther law makes constitutional sense. But before you do, know that you must first deal with both Chilidog and I, who apparently have been introduced to the Constitution.
Slabside posted at 5:31 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
I am guilty of this from time to time. I must endeavor to curtail such name calling.
@Dale, " Ok, I'm on board." then "I have no idea why Arizona Neo-conservatives act as they do."
Wow. Just wow.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:01 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Dang Slabside! You beat me to it! "They have eyes, but they cannot see."
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:16 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Patrick: I quite agree! I like to debate issues. It's much more intellectually stimulating.
I do recall President Obama's State of the Union address when he mentioned that both sides must work together, and not blame each other. About two paragraphs later, he was blaming the "Republicans" again.
The sign of a great leader is to lead by example.....
Dale Whiting posted at 7:16 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
The headline of this piece, one likely chosen by our editor is: "Defining something not so simple"
I picked an example, a term I often use, Neo-conservatism.
What is Today’s Neo-conservatism? It’s hard to define.
In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":
• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East
• an us-versus-them mentality".
I find this definition to be the best one I have ever read!
According to the Lead Editor of International Relations, Stephen McGlinchey, "Neo-conservatism is something of a chimera in modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political movement that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism, yet for its supporters it is more of a ‘persuasion’ that individuals of many types drift into and out of. Regardless of which is more correct, it is now widely accepted that the neo-conservative impulse has been visible in modern American foreign policy and that it has left a distinct impact"
Neoconservatives hold the "conviction that communism was a monstrous evil and a potent danger".
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term ‘neoconservative’ since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
In summation, no one wants to be called a neo-conservative. Either you are a socialist who liked Reagan's approach to defeating the Soviet Union, or you are a supporter of our surogate war on terrorism, the surrogates being fought being Muslim Fundamentalists.
I define a neo-conservative as being someone who likes to keep things simple, simpleminded if you will. Rather than studying Islam to discover it is as multi-dimentional and divided as is Christianity or Judism, they just paint black hats on all Muslims. Rather than recognize the incredibly complex nature of politics in the middle east, they simply see Israel as our unfailing ally and paint all who question this relationship as having become corrupted and misguided. Rather than see how fundamental conservative values can and do lead to fellow conservatives coming out on opposite sides of particular issues, depending upon the weight each gives to those five or six classical conservative values, they paint those fellow conservatives who disagree with them as being liberals wearing black hats.
Slabside, in my dictionary, you are an Arizona Neo-conservative!
Now how do you stack up against these definitions?
Do you over simplify issues?
Do you classify those who disagree with you as being liberals?
Where do you stand on war vs. diplomacy?
I could go on and on and on. But do you see my point? It ain't that simple!
Slabside posted at 7:41 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
LOL huh Master? You just can't make up the stuff he posts. Not in a million years! [beam]
@Dale, " I picked an example, a term I often use, Neo-conservatism."
You don't say Dale? I don't think anyone posting here at EVT has ever noticed you ever using the term NeoCon. I'm quite shocked by that revelation.
Dale, I stopped reading after that. I've better things to do with my time like searching the clothes dryer for llost socks.
Rich posted at 8:06 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Wrong. Why? We have three ways we reason. Deduction, I have a bag of beans, pour them out and find I have a bag of forty white beans. Induction, I have a bag of beans, take out about a quarter of them and have twelve white beans, therefore I have a bag of forty-eight white beans. Abduction, having seen these results I have a white bean, therefore it belongs in the bag. The third way is how we reason.If we forget we are rational, observational and passionate, we miss all three.
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:36 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Rich: I enjoyed reading your comment. However, I thought the third was called Scientific (or Systematic) Reasoning Skills. Please advise.
http://web.cas.suffolk.edu/faculty/esandberg/mb_chapter.pdf
Rich posted at 10:39 am on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
Mr.666,
Abduction was used by Sherlock Holmes and most "scientific" detectives in fiction. The scientific method, however, begins at induction. The classification was constructed by American psychologist/philosopher Charles Saunders Perce, if you want to look it up.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:50 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
Thanks Rich.
larry walden posted at 10:05 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
O' Dale. Do you really think all you believe about "neoconservatism is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And the points made by Professor Clarke on international ethics and neoconservatism......? Each of the seven points about neoconservaties made in your letter are easily disputed and undoubtedly contested by fair and balanced thinking people like Patrick Shepherd. Furthermore, it may be to your benefit to learn some logical reasoning like Rich presented in his letter. Also, Dale me boy, learn for yourself to "think out of the box". You might be pleasantly surprised that what so-called experts say about a subject, can be mere speculation or opinion like anyone else.