Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I read many newspapers, blogs, talk shows, etc. I like to sample a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints. I do not form my viewpoints just because Laura Ingraham happens to say it. She has been the person who I gravitate towards because my beliefs are generally in line with hers.

I have a great political science professor who has taught me more than any other professor I have had. He's absolutely brilliant.

And in general, I end up leaning towards the conservatives on most issues? Why? Because in general they offer up substance. Not just rhetoric, but actual substance. I find it difficult to back many of the liberal positions on issues where in the end they had egg smeared in their face because of all the foul-drawl that is put forward. It seems like their bigger agenda is to attack Republicans. They have no plan, no strategy. Chuck Schumer and "San Fran Nan" have even admitted this. Articles have been written about it. I certainly can't back people with no plan (or if a plan is offered, it's pie-in-the-sky, like Murtha's).

And the dictionary definition you posted proves that America is not imperialistic.

1. We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.
2. We haven't taken over Iraq to make "territorial acquisitions". And we aren't imposing our power in the sense that we don't have control over the politics. To the economy, some extent. But by and large, the Iraqis are voting on their own and establishing the economy on their own. We are nudging them in the right direction. We're not looking to dominate Iraq.

By the very definition of imperialism which you have provided, we are not imperialistic. My prof went into great detail one lecture about how the United States doesn't fit the requirements of being imperialistic when I took his International Relations course last year. This year he went on a tirade about how simple minded the people who say that Bush is like Hitler after a student went and said that to him. That incident occured over three weeks ago, and he still gets riled up about it.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.

Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth.

1. nation or its people: a nation or its people considered as a political entity

2. republic: a nation or state in which the people govern

3. association of states: a group of states that have formed an association for the political and economic benefit of all members

4. people with common interest: a group of people linked by something that they all have in common

Technically, it's not a colony since we pretty much let them do their own thing. We're not trying to impose control over them. Anyhow, they seem to be content with the way things are. In 1998 the House passed a bill calling for elections to decide the island's permanent status. They chose to keep it the way it is.

Puerto Rico is the largest commonwealth of the United States. The rest are small islands, which again, are pretty much left to their own devices. That doesn't qualify as an empire, and certainly doesn't prove that the United States is imperialistic.

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

What is the "modern sense"? Please pin down a definition, and how the United States fits into it. If there is a "Modern sense" then maybe we should be looking at a new term instead of trying to apply a term that doesn't fit...

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late.

An Ingraham effect? Urm, no.

The following are examples from recent days of Bush and administration officials directing blame at the media's coverage of Iraq:

On March 19, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on CBS' Face the Nation and answered a question about the sagging support for the Iraq war by noting that "there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad."

During a March 20 press gaggle, White House press secretary Scott McClellan discussed the speech Bush would give later that day in Cleveland. McClellan said that the "dramatic images that people see on the TV screens ... are much easier to put into a news clip" and told reporters that the president would address the "real progress being made toward a democratic future."
In his speech to the City Club of Cleveland, Bush said he understood "how some Americans have had their confidence shaken." He continued: "Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq." Bush then talked about the town of Tal Afar, which he described as a "concrete example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in their newspapers and on their television screens."
Later in the speech, Bush said: "The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news. Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured."

During a March 21 press conference, Bush said that "for every act of violence, there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the evening news."

Later in the press conference, Bush claimed that he had presented "a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate. ... They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win. "

As the White House mounted its offensive in recent days, the Bush administration's argument that news outlets have consistently ignored the good news in Iraq in favor of reports on bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities has echoed throughout the media. For instance, as MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted on the March 22 edition of Countdown, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham appeared on NBC's Today on March 21 and complained that the network's Iraq correspondents only "report[] from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs [improvised explosive devices] going off." Later that day, in an appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham claimed that there are many in the media "who are invested in America's defeat." O'Reilly, in turn, expressed his belief that "there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes," as Media Matters for America noted.

Actually what you have here is the latest administration excuses for failure talking points being distributed to, and parroted by, all the usual suspects. Blaming the media seems like the last, and most desperate, act of a nothing's-our-fault administration.

But hey, far be it for me to come between you and Laura I. Carry on with the hero worship.

[Prudence]

It's probably best not to imply that those who disagree are unfamiliar with the topic, although it's a tempting trap into which I fall all too often.

Personally, I think there are limits to what the current administration would "permit" the Iraqis to decide. And I'm not automatically disagreeing with that philosophy. Absolutely there are laws they could propose that would merit, at the very least, strong influence. However, that means the benevolent servant ideal where the US merely provides the heavy lifting isn't an accurate description.

[wendybeth]

Right now, a Christian convert is facing death in Afghanistan. This has created an interesting conundrum for the Bush administration. Do they intervene, and maybe cause the Karzai government incredible difficulties? Do we do what we would normally do, which would realistically be to try and ignore the situation, or in the face of mounting international criticism lodge a complaint with a world body such as the UN? Right now, the rumor is they are going with an insanity move, as no true muslim in their right mind would ever turn christian, but what if that doesn't satisfy the imams? The christian right. left and in-between will go after this admin like nobody's business. We'll see just how non-imperialistic we are with this little drama.

(For the record, I hope they go in with Blackhawks and rescue the poor guy).

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by Prudence

It's probably best not to imply that those who disagree are unfamiliar with the topic, although it's a tempting trap into which I fall all too often.

That's an example of elitism. In my humble opinion, the "we know better" ideology does not belong in a rational debate.


Unfamiliar? I suppose my professor with a PhD is unfamiliar as well? The United States isn't imperialistic. It's not imperialistic by the dumbed-down dictionary definition. And it's certainly not imperialistic by the textbook definition. If you have already read the textbooks, crack 'em open again; it's time to review the tome.

I absolutely don't mean to come across as being offensive, but I hold a very strong viewpoint on most matters, and I research them both out of personal interest, and because I get extra credit presenting speeches to my classes (This week I gave a speech about the positive and negative effects of Reagonomics in my Macroeconomics and Poli Sci classes).

[wendybeth]

While I am most impressed with your class roster, I must yield to the doers of society- I learned long ago that professors, while largely admirable, were teachers of what other people do. Not meaning to denegrate them whatsover, but they too have an agenda, and I would make it my business to find out what that was. It's easy to admire and follow people who spout off about the same things one already believes- they are geniuses!! It's much more difficult to read or listen to someone give an entirely differing viewpoint, and actually give that viewpoint a chance. Run it through your brain, look at all the shadings of grey, think that perhaps they may have something to offer. Life is not black and white, and if they are not teaching you that in college, than you are getting screwed. Or, you're in a junior college.

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

While I am most impressed with your class roster, I must yield to the doers of society- I learned long ago that professors, while largely admirable, were teachers of what other people do. Not meaning to denegrate them whatsover, but they too have an agenda, and I would make it my business to find out what that was. It's easy to admire and follow people who spout off about the same things one already believes- they are geniuses!! It's much more difficult to read or listen to someone give an entirely differing viewpoint, and actually give that viewpoint a chance. Run it through your brain, look at all the shadings of grey, think that perhaps they may have something to offer. Life is not black and white, and if they are not teaching you that in college, than you are getting screwed. Or, you're in a junior college.

Well, I have another professor in African-American Literature. I listen to him everyday as well. He has started passing me up when I raise my hand because I confront what he has to say ona regular basis. This one makes fun of passwords being set on the computers, making fun of needed security measures. He constantly makes remarks about how botched up he thinks Iraq is, about how incompetent he thinks President Bush is, etc. The difference between him and my political science professor? My poli sci prof backs everything he says up with clearly outlined logic. My poli sci prof presents various points of view and where their strengths and flaws lie. My Afr-Amr Lit teacher doesn't do any of that. He's stopped calling on me because I confront him on what he says and ask him to back it up. The last time he called on me, it was when he said that "Bill Cosby is out of touch". I asked him to back that up and instead of answering me, he went on to the next person.

I don't see things in black and white, or in absolutes. There are no absolutes, except as the famous quote goes "death and taxes". It seems like a common viewpoint that Conservatives see things as black and white -- not so. What you are seeing is a group of people who have come together because they agree on a certain set of issues. My VERY-liberal and VERY-feminist European History professor wore black in class after Bush's election, and said that conservatives are very good and picking issues and agreeing on them. She told our class that Democrats are going to have to work on that in order to win elections in the future.

I find the Junior College remark to be out-of-line. At least in Minnesota. I attend the University of Minnesota, but I know plenty of people who attended community college here first because the class sizes are smaller and it's cheaper (in Minnesota we have what's called the Minnesota Transfer Curriculm which allows you to easily transfer your credits to other schools in the state). I don't know about Community Colleges where you live, but here they are held up to the same standards as the other public schools. One of them in particular which is only a few miles from my house, Century College, is constantly winning awards with their debate team, math team, etc.

[wendybeth]

The junior college comment was a joke- kind of. A sort of 'you get what you pay for 'joke, which here in my neck of America means the Wal-Mart version of academics. Can't speak for your state, Shadoe.

We could argue political science and Lying Liars all night, but I have to go to bed- got to work tomorrow. Someone has to pay for this ****ing war.