Chester Bartels writes to the Grand Rapids Press:
Why has the press crowned Obama? [I mean so what if he has more delegates/votes than Hillary and has generally acted more ethically than she has?]He is the most liberal senator, by record, and he has avoided voting on any issue of substance by voting here or not being present at all. What has he done? What has he proposed other than raising taxes and redistributing wealth (pure socialism)?
He is a hollow shell with no substance. Yet the media are largely behind him. Why? Do the media, too, find nothing to be proud of in the United States? [I am nothing but a patriot. I always wear a flag pin, even when I'm not wearing a lapel.] Do they want to ruin "the rich" so government can be the chief if not the only employer?
Do they want to stop an unfavorable war only to let the fundamentalist Islamic cults rule the Middle East? It would seem that a man with the given name of Barack Hussein Obama would have to be scrutinized a bit before we would want him to be a senator, let alone a president! [You can tell a lot about people by their middle name.
For instance, my middle name is Hitler, and I'm a secret Nazi.That's why I didn't include my name because I'm hiding something.] Never forget that it was capitalism that won World Wars I and II, not socialism. [But do forget that capitalism also lost World Wars I and II and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was on the winning side of WWII. And don't consider Marx's complaint that capitalism leads to the objectification of the working class because that will only lead you to conclude that Hitler's Germany was the apotheosis of capitalism.] The opportunity for profit is what drives men to succeed, not the opportunity to be given someone's else's hard-earned dollars.If the Democrats win the Congress and the presidency, increase taxes as they have promised, institute national insurance as they plan to do, and increase government size and influence, then we can forget freedom as we know it. [I'm talking real freedom here, not the due process and the Geneva Conventions that only the socialist Democrats care about.] Thinking citizens must keep these socialists out of office. Let's find out a lot more about Obama before we even consider him as fit to rule this country[, but not before we write a letter to the editor filled with no new information and conclusions that aren't supported by non-trivial facts].
This post was written in Sarcastic Trebuchet font. This post was intended to mock Chester Bartels' letter to the editor and to expose certain beliefs/conclusions as baseless or illogical. Any feelings of pique caused by this post are purely coincidental.
6 comments:
damn. Chester Bartels is a man whose head has spent its entire life securely lodged up his rectum.
first off, if we're gonna start stereotyping a person based upon their middle names (in Barack's case, a middle name that comes from a religion whose entire purpose is peace), then let's assume that "Chester" = no-good idiot hick who married his first cousin and had kids with three eyes and purple skin, due to some weird genetic combo. see? stupid thing to do and probably not accurate.
also, good comments, Wolverine about WWI and WWII. an "amen brotha" to that. If Chester knew the first damned thing about liberalism, he'd understand that the goal is as small a government as possible whose only power is to interfere when one person's expression of individualism infringes upon another person's right of expression. Read some JS Mill.
And oh my God! who could imagine a society in which all people had equal access to healthcare (also viewed as the right to life)? such a silly notion, right? (NOT). he probably doesnt understand that over 45 million Americans are living without any kind of health insurance and that the majority of these work.
and the ability to actually have some kind of quality of life for one and one's family will suuuurely lead to the end of freedom as we know it because not starving to death or other methods of death due to poverty are really not thaaaaat bad (hopefully, the reader can see that this is drenched in sarcasm aimed at correcting the ludacris "understanding" Bartels has of the aims of communism and socialism).
after reading the piece, one can indeed confirm that Bartels is a no-good idiot and hopefully his children (if he has any) are not purple and hopefully they inherited someone else's intelligence. however, this conclusion was drawn from actual proof that Chester Bartels himself provided, not from insane stereotypes about his name.
also, to Chester Bartels, if you had discovered this little thing called the internet and news channels other than Fox, maybe you'd actually learn a little more about Mr. Obama and thus you'd not complain about not knowing anything about him. Read some more, man, and dislodge your head. your brain or its remnants need some more oxygen.
About WWI and WWII. Let's remember that the tides didn't turn in favor of the Allies until the US joined the fight (point for capitalism), and the Soviets were only on our side in Round II becuase the Nazis broke their deal (not quite a point for socialism). With that said, and given myriads of other factors, I think it can be safe to say that niether of those wars was really a showdown between socialism and capitalism. (It would also be prudent to note the involvement of the US government in the economy during those wars in understanding that ours was not an entirely capitalist system during those times.) To the author of the letter in question: World Wars I and II aren't really evidence for the strengths of capitalism.
However, I do believe capitalism is a better alternative (that is, pure, free-market economics) than socialism. Free market competition produces better goods and services at (you guessed it!) competitive prices, as opposed to poorer-quality goods and services from socialism (Google "Trabant car" for a quick lesson about this). And, coincidentally, the same is true of health care.
Just imagine, guaranteed health care for all! Except when your town has to rely on a lottery to determine who gets to see the doctor (as has been the case in some Canadian towns). If we had truly free market medicine, without the intervention of insurance companies or the government, prices would be far more competitive. And duly note that I am not saying this is the way the American system works. It isn't.
Also, I think socialism (as it has been practiced throughout its relatively short history) also ultimately leads to an objectification of the working class. I know we've read Orwell, and I think he makes this point well.
Furthermore, let's not confuse Mill's liberalism with American liberalism again. The liberalism described by J-Mad and espoused by Mill is far closer to Reagan conservatism than it would be to FDR-, JFK-, or LBJ-style liberalism, which is basically the only platform Democrats have run on since the Great Depression.
As for Barack's middle name...a trivial aspect in the debate over his candidacy. It's not his fault. Give the guy a break.
WARNING - WHAT FOLLOWS IS A SLIGHT TANGENT. READERS WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE ORIGINAL POST SHOULD SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
But seriously, J-Mad, spare us the "religion of peace" bit. I do feel bad for the millions of Muslims who denounce acts of terrorism that are carried out in the name of Allah, as they are poorly represented in the global community. But clearly, to the perpetrators of those acts, Islam is not a religion of peace. Again, I do not think all (or even a majority of) Muslims are violent - those that are simply happen to be the most noticed, which is a tragedy. Yes, calling all Muslims terrorists is like equating all Christians to the KKK. But do you realize that when an Islamic state government (like that of Iran) declares, "Death to America," it makes people a little uncomfortable with the thought of a having a president who shares a name with a violently prominent Muslim? I don't think this thought is rational, but I do think it's natural. Heck, people were even concerned that JFK was going to let the pope run our country. Feelings like this are nothing new, unfortunately. (Moreover, nobody really stood up to defend Mitt Romney when pollsters asked if voters would support a Mormon). Unfortunately for the world's Muslim community, there is little evidence that Islam (as practiced by its most vocal followers) is a religion of peace. You can see why somebody might get the impression it isn't.
END OF TANGENT.
While the author of the letter conveyed his message somewhat poorly, I share his concern about a socialist direction. For as much as contemporary American liberals talk about "choice," it's interesting to note that they're not much in favor of the economic choice (choice and quality) that a free economy would provide. I do agree that people want an environment where they keep what they earn, and earn what they keep. I find more satisfaction and self-worth in such cases where that happens to me.
Oh, I almost forgot one more thing.
Kudos to all for keeping this an atmosphere which is respectful of all opinions, no matter how
poorly they are coommunicated. After all, if we make people feel dumb for speaking their mind, eventually we won't have to listen to them.
And in case you missed it, that was sarcasm.
Okay, for starters, I'ma apologize for acting like a douche to Chester Bartels. The man has every right to express his opinions no matter what I or anyone else thinks about them and censorship of such expression should not be advocated in any form. All I would ask of Mr. Bartels (even though there is no reason on earth for him to comply) is that he make some attempt in being slightly more informed before he writes a piece in an already idiotic publication (and YES, GR Press, that’s a shout out to YOU). That being said, his right to express his opinions should be as uncensored as my right to openly disagree (which is allowed, but probably not most effectively carried out by passing character judgment). So a big MY BAD to all. I’ma post when I’ve had a wee more reflection time next time.
In the case of health care, it is important to remember that Canada is not the only example of a universal health care system. Take for example the UK, France, and Cuba. These countries all have so-called “socialized” health care systems. In the case of Cuba, Cuba is one of the best countries in the world in regard to their health care system and the quality of medications that they produce (while prescription medication production isn’t necessarily related to the quality of the health care system, as a side note, Cuba is the leading manufacturer in the world of prescription medication. Just thought that was interesting). And there are places in the United States that are equally comparable to the situation RWL describes of the lottery in small towns for doctors. People in the United States face a crisis in the quality and availability of health care nationwide that is of course amplified in small towns. This is a phenomenon not unique in the least to a universal health care system. I am aware that you did not state that the United States was perfect but there are many other countries which take health care far more seriously and make sure that all people have equal access to it. If this can best be done through a universal system, then so be it. By the way, no one to the best of my knowledge is arguing for an entirely socialized medicine system such as Canada’s. I believe that the argument thus far is for universal COVERAGE for citizens (which only means that those who can’t afford insurance will be insured. Also important to note here that this does not necessarily mean the elimination of co-pays or the loss of funds to hospitals).
I am going to refrain from offering overt commentary on the merits of capitalism, socialism, and communism. In short, I believe that if each were practiced on a large scale as their theory dictates, each would work. However, as the federalists pointed out, men are not angels and so consequently there has not yet been a system actually carried out according to the flawless theories that they are supposed to adhere to. However, I do believe that pure capitalism assumes everyone is on an equal playing field, which is not the case. It does not account for gross injustices in society that keep certain groups at a palpable disadvantage. Asymmetrical power relations and institutional racism are also not accounted for. I believe that the combination of various systems is probably the best way to overcome these recurring barriers. But, ‘nuff said.
WARNING: RESPONSE TO RWL’S TANGENT.
Okay, I hear you loud and clear, RWL. This is a misconception that many people who have not been exposed to true Islam hold. However, bear in mind that this is exactly what those not exposed to true Christianity for that matter also believe. The fact is that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all share the same roots. They share the same prophets (most of the time) and they pray to the SAME God and go to the same Heaven (just because the name for God is different in different languages doesn’t change this. Allah is the Arabic word for Dios and Yaweh and God. It’s the same, it’s the same, it’s the same). So, saying that Islam’s God is not peaceful is to say that the Jewish or Christian God is not peaceful. We all know that Christians or Jews would not tolerate this, as we know such statements to be false, so why is there this barrier between Christians and Muslims, whose religions are really not that different? Judaism states that the Messiah is coming, they believe Jesus was a real guy but not the Messiah. Islam says that Jesus was a prophet, not the Messiah, but that the Messiah is still gonna come (Mary is also highly revered in Islam, sorta like Catholicism). Mohammed is not related to the Messiah; he just happens to be the last prophet so far. Christians say “naw, it stopped with Jesus because he was the Messiah.” Islam is a religion of peace. The word “Islam” means peace. When people greet each other, they say “may peace be upon you” the same as what “shalom” means and the same as what Christians say in church. A Muslim is someone who submits to the will of God, which is peace. Islam abhors murder of any kind and forbids suicide, the same way that Christianity does. The whole religion advocates peace.
We would all agree that just because a few people claim to be followers of a faith DOES NOT MAKE THEM REPRESENTATIVE of the faith, no matter what. I believe that we would all agree that the KKK and Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph are NOT Christians nor did they follow at all what Christianity is really about (love, peace, etc). In fact, they are considered to be domestic terrorists in the United States. Similarly, terrorist groups that claim to be Muslim are NOT Muslim just as the KKK is NOT Christian. In the same way that no one asks Christians to apologize for the KKK and Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robet Rudolph (because they understand that these people are NOT Christian), no Muslim should have to apologize for attacks carried out by those claiming to be devout followers of the faith.
And about 9/11, Iran held a candle-light vigil for the United States and its leaders openly expressed sympathy for our national tragedy. When a devastating earthquake shook down many historic parts of Iran and killed thousands of people, Iranians graciously accepted the help of the United States and other Western countries sending aid in. Now, these actions were between an established Islamic country and a country that has attempted to separate itself from religion (but whose leadership is overwhelmingly Christian). As Dr. Martin Luther King states, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Clearly, the true character of the respective faiths was expressed during these tragedies. The rest of the saber rattling, however, can best be described as lousy political rhetoric practiced by both sides.
Now, RWL, you talk about “Islam as practiced by its most vocal followers.” Let’s talk about some of Christianity’s most vocal followers for a change. How about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Between the two of them alone (not to mention the rest of the Christian Right in the United States), they have a univserity with which they teach their views to the students, they have their own TV channel, and they have each made absolutely RIDICULOUS statements about everything.
QUOTES (IT’S LONG SO SKIP AHEAD IF ONE MUST)
For example, let’s take a few quotes from Pat Robertson:
“You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/8/92
And from our President: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush
Back to Pat:
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice [yeah, because I guess the Federalists just threw in the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses cuz they had some spare parchment].
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93. [just FYI for Pat, Hitler killed gay people in the same way he killed Jews, Roma, the disabled, the old, the young, the innocent…get it?]
And now some ones from the late Jerry Falwell:
“The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.” Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev Pat Robertson again agreed, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001)
“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.” -- Jerry Falwell [clearly, he shoulda done his homework because AIDS affects EVERYONE]
“The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.” -- Rev Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976
“It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.” -- Jerry Falwell
“There is no separation of church and state. Modern US Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.” -- Jerry Falwell
“If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.” ~Jerry Falwell
“Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.” ~Jerry Falwell
END OF QUOTES
I could go on, but to do so would make my head explode because of all the hypocrisy. I understand that an individual has the right and ought to interpret faith for him or herself but I strongly believe that the majority of Christians around the globe would denounce this kind of rhetoric, nor from my experience do I take these statements and similar ones to be expressions in any way, shape, or form of true Christianity. I think that we would both be inclined to agree that Jesus, Mohammad, Abraham, Buddha Shakyamuni, and others would have taken a different approach.
ON A DIFFERENT NOTE, As far as concern about the “socialist direction,” there was a profound American leader who had something to say about that. I think it fits nicely with our whole discussion of religion, too. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.” ~MLK
Soooo, I hope that this insanely long comment clears up some stuff. If any of you made it all the way to the end, thanks for reading it and hopefully you can forgive my previous transgressions in my first comment on this post. As always, I welcome discussion on these and other issues, so feel free to keep it going (either here or another post, whatev). If there’s something I didn’t explain clearly enough, hit me up and I’ll break it down further.
Aight, Peace!
When I published this, I was unsure how it would be taken or if I had crossed the line. In retrospect, it was clear that I had. I apologize, and I've struck-through the most egregious sentence.
And not to defend what I did, but RWL, your Ann Coulter-defending privileges are revoked, if you haven't revoked them yourself already.
Umm...I don't even like Ann Coulter...
Excellent news!
Post a Comment