|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Wired News: Why Did Google Want Blogger? Strange,... The Observer | Comment | Mr Bush goes for the kill... House restaurants change name for 'french fries' a... "The War Prayer" The War Prayer by Mark Twain Fear, the Foundation of Religion Bertrand Russell... Great! ----- Inhofe Upsets Democratic Aides C... Some ideas on what I see as I surf around the blog... Ahhh.. this is the kernal of truth that I feel, ma... U.S. Troops Use 9-11 for Inspiration ::shivers::... So, what does America need for defenses and what s... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
3.13.2003
The Logical Fallacies: Index Tuned into some right-wing talk radio on the way home, (though I would never admit to it on any survey, ever!). And I was wondering how the hosts get away with what they do. Its sheer mockery. Its riddled with Logical Fallacies. It seems the subject of tonights fiesta of derision was celebrities that have come out against the war. The celebrities are not much better at making their case either in terms of being logical or reasonable. But they do better by miles that the talk show host. The typical session started with the playing of an audio clip of some celebrity that had recently appeared on a television interview show and expressed their views. During the clip the radio personalities made derisive comments not unlike ones you remember the "cool" kids making as the "not cool" kids would walk by when you were in High School. It had little or no real substance but was aimed at undermining the position of the celebrity. They played a clip from Tim Robbins who made his points about protests and the UN. To which the response was: "Oh, yeah, we have a guy that was in Bull Durham talking about maturity" An Ad Hominem if you didn't already guess.... The rest of the arguement was that since they were "Hollywood Celebrities" they were "Anti-Religious" and "Immoral". And they had no place expressing their opinions in the media. The anti-religious comments are based on the assertion by the celebrity that she was uncomfortable with President Bush's use of religious references in his discussion about the war, feelings which I happen to share. It seems crass to talk about your Christian faith as you prepare to invade and kill Muslims. Brings up bad memories of the crusades. Not to mention the recent naming of a new bomb after a Biblical figure. The irony of the situation is: The media, especially television want recognizable people so people will watch. And with the attention that is given to celebrities they are able to get access to media easier than other people. In some cases they are sought to give their opinions because they are in the public eye. Other celebs seek the spotlight so they can "give voice" to what they feel is people with their same opinions. They are not supposed to give their opinions when they are asked I suppose. But I think the mockery and the derision would be absent if they were pushing for a war. I don't think the problem is with their celebrity status but instead, their message. Some say that they do not reflect the opinion of mainstream america since they represent a small subgroup of society that lives in a different reality. That may be true. But there is also a history of celebrities that have gone into politics. The right wing / republican camp should be sensitive to the carte blanche write off they give celerities, especially given the presence of Reagan and Heston in their ranks. Many celebs are active in political issues, given their time and money. I do wish though that more people that are not notorious in some way were given more of a voice. We seem to be stuck with a choice of either Pundit, Celebrity or Government Official. As if those are the only voices that are allowed discourse. ----- There seems to be a new shorthand for being antiwar Its now simply known as being Anti-American. Anti-American... But having been to many anti-war marches and rallies I can say without a doubt that nobody there is anti-american. Most people consider their actions as being in the service of debate. Many of course feel that with the government is pushing for war and the media's not challenging the government's position. That the only way they can voice their opposition is by standing around on street corners and making noise. I don't think its fair to equate opposition to war as being equivalent to being anti-american. I don't want the war, but I don't hate america. Pro America Rally In some states and cities, including my own hometown of Tulsa, there was Pro America Rallies or Rallies for America. This seems to say that somehow the rallies oposing the war are "Rallies against America". I hope that is not the case. But from hearing the rhetoric of the AM talk show hosts that are behind some of the rallies i would say that would be the message. "Our purpose is to let the American people and the world know that we support our troops, that we say ‘no’ to terrorism, and that we want to liberate Iraq,’’ said Bob Johnson, a member of the board of directors for Free Republic Network, a nonprofit group associated with the conservative Internet bulletin board freerepublic.com. I support the troops (bring them home!), I say "no" to terrorism and I would like to see Iraq liberated. But I still think the proposed invasion of Iraq is ill-conceived and I dont support it. But I still think that by defining their rally in those terms lends credence to the idea that anti-war groups are opposed to those ideas. That's not what I see. I thinks its an attempt to blur the real issue. Being in opposition of the government's policy and opposing an invasion of another country is now simply know as being anti-american and by association you don't "support the troops". I think that would be hard to say about the various veterens that are active in the Anti-WAr activities. At a recent get together there were Veterens from Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War. Many were sympathetic to the actual soldiers but didnt see any inconsistency in opposing the governments position. I believe that the troops are being used as a screen to defend the war arguement. I am upset that we have already sent soldiers to the Middle East, in many instances calling up reservists for a war without broad nationaland global support. Now we are supposed to just accept the was because doing otherwise might be bad for the troops. I don't buy that. Commiting troops to deployment does not automatically mean we should attack. Careful consideration and support should be lined up before we commit to military action. Thats my thoughts on the recent "debates" about war or no war. satumma@hotmail.com | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
