0654 - Irreconcilable

Publishing this column has its rewards, and also its irritations. The rewards are you Readers who write in and discuss, amplify, emend and yes, even correct us. The irritations are those who disagree, but instead of discussing facts (always acceptable), or analyzing (also always acceptable) or debating (as welcome as praise), instead call us names. One of the popular names to be called is "Liberal". This is the favorite adjective of death of those who, like the Hezbollah, are warriors of a strange faith, in their case belief in the incompetent Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld management. As an example, a fellow with poor manners writes in and asks to be added to the OO E-mail distribution list, and in the course of asking for this free service said, referring to the OO's last column [EthicalAction, OO # 653]: "... you liberals always make things sound so easy. Thank goodness your [sic] not running the ‘free world'. Fighting barbaric behavior with a little unethical behavior is OK by me." Now, Readers, aside from this fellow's grammatical mistake, he makes the mistake of thinking that calling somebody "Liberal" is reasoned argument. It is not. In the column, for example, the OO said terrorists, IF (but only if) convicted, should be shot at dawn, and that assassination of Saddam was a desirable ethical alternative : "offing him was correct". This is not soft-headed Liberalism, and the rude applicant hasn't explained how keeping bin Laden's taxi driver forever in Guantanamo Hell moves us morally or practically forward.

In this sad world, quite a bit sadder this last week, we have supposed leaders everywhere who are bent on advancing their supposedly splendid causes by perfectly terrible and indeed stupid acts. What good did it do Hamas or Hezbollah to kill and grab a few Israeli soldiers? Damn little. Whose cause is advanced by suicide bombers? No cause, that's the answer. In our non-fuzzy-minded Liberalism, if you will, we are perfectly willing to have a smart assassination of the fake religious leaders of murderous causes. We grant the right of Israel to retaliate, but killing lots of innocent Lebanese may not be the smart way to go.

From the U.S. polls, we foresee a possible change of control in Congress. Judging from the low behavior in both parties, that's devoutly to be wished. We want to support a new Party: the Smart Party. And here's our slogan: Think. Not bad, eh? Maybe we need IBM‘s permission. We refuse to believe that unethical actions ever pay dividends in the long run. We note that Time Magazine has announced the end of "Cowboy Diplomacy". That's good, no doubt, but how about the end of stupidity and incompetence? We see that Cheney just insulted Putin's governance. It's not that Putin's Russia is a garden of freedom, it's that we need Russian help badly these days, due to the Iraq screw-up. Cheney isn't helping, nor is his defense of torture helping the U.S. world image.

Those who believe in the virtues of democracy are both cheered and troubled these days. They are troubled by the apparently fair election of Hamas in Palestine, leading to rivers of blood. They are cheered by the revulsion of the American public, who are about three to one against re-electing the present members of Congress. That would be small-d democratic cleansing, as long as they get that Democrat guy with the cash in the freezer and that crazy D-dame with the wild hair and the bad manners. If Senator Ted Stevens could only be wished away with his bridges to nowhere and the Republicans be forbidden to use the word "Liberal" for two years, we might get somewhere. And wait a minute! Let's call our new party the "Bipartisan Smart Party". That'll sell, won't it?

Next time: Changes [OO #655]

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

Home