Reality Sets In

[Delija]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

You sure sound absolutely certain about that Delija, even though you know nothing about working at the Washington Post. Are you a Sith?



Tom

You know what I know how? While it is true I have never worked at the Washington Post, my stepdaughter is working there now. What makes you think you know better than she? (or I?).

D

[FrankRizzoXD40]

WOW! It looks like a lot has happened since I've been away. This is all very entertaining. I just bought a new computer so my weekend project was to transfer all of my old files, documents, music, emails, etc from my old computer to my new one. That's why I was gone for a couple days. Delija should be happy though, because my average daily post count has dropped due to my absence.

Originally Posted by eleanor

"If Democrats succeed in making this war a failure"?????????????????????

Huh???

"Democrats"??

Yes eleanor, I said democrats.

Originally Posted by eleanor

Who has been in power since 2000? Who started this war? Who has had control of Congress? Who has refused to even look at changing ANYTHING before LOSING A MAJOR ELECTION?

Calm down, eleanor. I am talking about what is going to happen in the future. The majority of the mistakes so far in the war have, of course, been the Bush admin's fault. But now the DEMOCRATS are in power and just in case you haven't read the news lately, they are already opposing Bush's new plan BEFORE HE HAS EVEN ANNOUNCED IT! It will be hard to convince anyone that the Dems want to win the war, especially since the letter that Pelosi and Reid (did you read it?!?!?!) is calling a "phased redeployment" of our forces OUT of Iraq BEFORE the Iraqi military is ready to defend the country. Does that sound like a strategy to win the war to you? It's tatamount to surrender/cut and run to me. You can spin it all you want, but the Democrats have made it clear that they don't want to win the war and see the Iraqi government through until they can defend their new democracy.

You really need to try to calm down. I wasn't talking about what has happened, I was talking about what is GOING to happen since the democrats have taken power--what they HAVE SAID that they want to do.

Originally Posted by eleanor

By the way Frank -- who brought "al-qadea" INTO Iraq?? WE DID!!

What is that supposed to mean? Are you somehow trying to say that we have "asked" for al-qaeda to be our enemy? Does it not occur to you that they have PROMISED to follow us around the globe and interfere with ANY military operations/affairs that the US is involved in?

Originally Posted by eleanor

Who destroyed one of the only secular nations in that part of the world??

Secular nation? Yeah....that's why in the last few years of power Saddam was putting more and more Islamic references in his government. Like adding "god is great" to the Iraqi flag, adding more and more references to Islam on government buildings, etc..etc...

So we destroyed Iraq? Are you trying to say that it was better off under Saddam

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

I can read you liberals like a book. And my pal Mr. Goldberg says it a lot better than I.


Are you certain about that?

By Jonah Goldberg


Have you heard the news? Belief is bad

Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you'll soon hear someone explain that real conviction - dogmatism! - is dangerous. Andrew Sullivan, in his new book "The Conservative Soul," declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist "Christianists" - the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there's a war afoot for "the soul of the American Republic" between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on.

Much of this stems from the popularity of Bush hatred these days. Bush's alleged "messianic certainty" - to use Sen. Barack Obama's words - is dangerous and evil in the eyes of supposedly meek and nuanced liberals.

The rot, not surprisingly, has reached Hollywood. For example, in "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," George Lucas caved to the fashionable anti-absolutism that comes with Bush hatred by having a young Obi-Wan Kenobi proclaim,"Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes!" Translation: Only evil people see the world as black-and-white. This signaled that Lucas's descent into hackery was complete, since it was Lucas himself who originally explained that the entire universe is divided into light and dark sides.
Longtime New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis captured the thought nicely a few years ago when he said that a primary lesson of his entire career was that "certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft."

Whenever I hear people say such things, I like to ask them, "Are you sure about that?" When they say yes, which they always do, I follow up by asking, "No, no: Are you really, really certain that certainty is bad?" At some point even the irony-deficient get the joke.

But they still don't understand that the joke is on them. Virtually every hero in human history has been driven by certainty, by the courage of their convictions. Sir Thomas More and Socrates chose certain death, pun intended, over uncertain life. Martin Luther King Jr. - to pick liberalism's most iconic hero - was hardly plagued with doubt about the rightness of his cause. A Rosa Parks charged with today's reigning moral imperative not to be too sure of herself might not have sat at the front of the bus. An FDR certain that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity might have declined to declare total war on Nazism for fear of becoming as bad as his enemy.

The fact is that unless you know where you stand, it's unlikely you'll have the courage to understand where someone else is coming from.
Obviously, there's more than a grain of truth to the view that closed-mindedness is bad. Immunity to new facts and a smug confidence that you couldn't possibly be wrong are serious character flaws and the source of grave mistakes. Yes, of course, dogmatism can be very bad, if the dogma in question is bad. But, as Chesterton teaches, a dogmatic conviction can also be morally praiseworthy and socially valuable. If you doubt that, let us now commence the war on the certainty that murder is wrong, that racism is bad and that a parent's love should be unconditional.

This ultimately is my problem with the anti-certainty chorus; they aren't offended by conviction per se, but by convictions they do not hold. Jean-Paul Sartre famously wrote that "hell is other people." Well, for the new "liberal" champions of skepticism and philosophical humility, hell is the certainty of other people. "Closed-minded" has come to mean "people who disagree with me." (This is a corollary to the popular tendency of defining "diversity" as a bunch of people who look different but think alike). So, for example, pro-lifers have an unshakable "dogmatic" and "faith-based" certainty that abortion is wrong. But, we are told, pro-choicers are merely open-minded and realists. People who are certain gay marriage is good are "enlightened" people, while those whose convictions point elsewhere are zealots.

In other words, certainty has become code among the intellectual priesthood for people and ideas that can be dismissed out of hand. That's what is so offensive about this fashionable nonsense: It breeds the very closed-mindedness it pretends to fight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel like a 'hero'.


See eleanor and Delija? I have you pegged, you are normal liberals and you cannot help but ridicule people with strong convictions and 'certainty'. Sorry, but your moral relativism is the EASY way.

Tom

That's crazy how you found this article that even had Delija's SIGNATURE in it!! It's almost like that guy was writing about him.

ROFL!

Frank

[eleanor]

Once again: "An eggheady book review" -- as opposed to what??

When good old Jonah does a book review -- if he's capable (see I can use the very same devices) -- isn't it also "eggheady"?

"Listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio" --- what does that mean?

Why the use of such negatively charged language to describe something (we don't know what -- is it an interview, a book review, a news report, a personal essay, an opinion piece? --- What is a "thumb-suck-session"?) that is not made clear. Every reader will have their own concept of what was meant by that phrase. The fact it was directed toward a specific audience, one that is usually anti-public radio, means that this imprecise phrase will "work" on different levels. It only means exactly what YOU, the reader imagines it to mean.

"Real conviction - dogmatism!". Two very different things.

"Dogmatism is usually defined as, "the tendency to express strongly held opinions in a way that suggests they should be accepted without question".
Synonyms: intransigence, inflexibility, strictness, rigidity, presumption, firmness, arrogance.

That is a far less flexible than "certainty".

The opposite: Antonym: openness

Someone may be CERTAIN, yet be open to new information.

"Dogmatism" is far beyond "real certainty" -- it's beyond "pig-headedness" (to use a less elegant word).

Next our Dear Jonah says: "MUCH of this stems from the popularity of Bush hatred these days."

No, much of this stems from many, many, years of CIVILIZATION. Much stems from thousands of years of CHANGE.

Dogma: The Earth is the center of the universe. Not so -- is it? But you could be imprisoned, killed, mutilated for saying those things.

Dogma: Only Roman Catholics can go to Heaven. I suspect there are a few Protestants that might just argue against that.

Dogma: Eating MEAT on Friday is a MORTAL SIN -- until it isn't.

Dogma: Man will never fly -- I can prove it. That is, until someone else DOES IT.

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anyone who has lived more than 25 years knows the world is NEVER "black or white". They may well CLAIM it is -- but in their everyday, real lives, they operate as if shades of gray exist. One is ideology -- the other reality.

The entire equation Jonah based his rant on is invalid. Thus, the entire article is totally false, a piece of pure propaganda, one that any thinking person might well chuckle over -- and wonder what sort of folks it's written for.

In truth, it is only written for the true believer, someone who is already one of the faithful.

This form was often used by folks who wrote apologetics for Communism -- there was always that ONE turning point, that one "jump-shift" assumption --- if you believed that, the rest went down like a really smooth, tasty milkshake. Question that -- and the entire edifice fell apart.

If you require more, I'll take up the rest either tomorrow or Monday (expecting guests for the weekend).

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Once again: "An eggheady book review" -- as opposed to what??

When good old Jonah does a book review -- if he's capable (see I can use the very same devices) -- isn't it also "eggheady"?

"Listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio" --- what does that mean?

Why the use of such negatively charged language to describe something (we don't know what -- is it an interview, a book review, a news report, a personal essay, an opinion piece? --- What is a "thumb-suck-session"?) that is not made clear. Every reader will have their own concept of what was meant by that phrase. The fact it was directed toward a specific audience, one that is usually anti-public radio, means that this imprecise phrase will "work" on different levels. It only means exactly what YOU, the reader imagines it to mean.

"Real conviction - dogmatism!". Two very different things.

"Dogmatism is usually defined as, "the tendency to express strongly held opinions in a way that suggests they should be accepted without question".
Synonyms: intransigence, inflexibility, strictness, rigidity, presumption, firmness, arrogance.

That is a far less flexible than "certainty".

The opposite: Antonym: openness

Someone may be CERTAIN, yet be open to new information.

"Dogmatism" is far beyond "real certainty" -- it's beyond "pig-headedness" (to use a less elegant word).

Next our Dear Jonah says: "MUCH of this stems from the popularity of Bush hatred these days."

No, much of this stems from many, many, years of CIVILIZATION. Much stems from thousands of years of CHANGE.

Dogma: The Earth is the center of the universe. Not so -- is it? But you could be imprisoned, killed, mutilated for saying those things.

Dogma: Only Roman Catholics can go to Heaven. I suspect there are a few Protestants that might just argue against that.

Dogma: Eating MEAT on Friday is a MORTAL SIN -- until it isn't.

Dogma: Man will never fly -- I can prove it. That is, until someone else DOES IT.

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anyone who has lived more than 25 years knows the world is NEVER "black or white". They may well CLAIM it is -- but in their everyday, real lives, they operate as if shades of gray exist. One is ideology -- the other reality.

The entire equation Jonah based his rant on is invalid. Thus, the entire article is totally false, a piece of pure propaganda, one that any thinking person might well chuckle over -- and wonder what sort of folks it's written for.

In truth, it is only written for the true believer, someone who is already one of the faithful.

This form was often used by folks who wrote apologetics for Communism -- there was always that ONE turning point, that one "jump-shift" assumption --- if you believed that, the rest went down like a really smooth, tasty milkshake. Question that -- and the entire edifice fell apart.

If you require more, I'll take up the rest either tomorrow or Monday (expecting guests for the weekend).

Wow, talk about sophistry and overgeneralization.

Here is all you need to understand eleanor.

Originally Posted by Jonah Goldberg

Virtually every hero in human history has been driven by certainty, by the courage of their convictions. Sir Thomas More and Socrates chose certain death, pun intended, over uncertain life. Martin Luther King Jr. - to pick liberalism's most iconic hero - was hardly plagued with doubt about the rightness of his cause. A Rosa Parks charged with today's reigning moral imperative not to be too sure of herself might not have sat at the front of the bus. An FDR certain that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity might have declined to declare total war on Nazism for fear of becoming as bad as his enemy.

The fact is that unless you know where you stand, it's unlikely you'll have the courage to understand where someone else is coming from.

Be very afraid Eleanor, there are many heroes out there.


Tom

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Wow, talk about sophistry and overgeneralization.

Here is all you need to understand eleanor.





Be very afraid Eleanor, there are many heroes out there.


Tom

First, I was quite specific. I wrote of words, and their relationship to each other. It was neither "sophistry", nor "overgeneralization".

Second, what do you mean by, "Be very afraid Eleanor, there are many heroes out there"? Is that supposed to be some sort of threat?

Why am I to "be afraid"? Are you saying I've made it to some sort of "enemy list" -- will you suggest "action" against me?

How do you know i'm not one of the "heroes"?

You do realize this is a GUN LIST, don't you? Not the best place in the world to make threats -- veiled or otherwise.

Geez, am I going to have to keep the shotgun IN bed with me now??

Are you trying to shut me up?

Why?

That was one of the very dumbest things I've ever had said to me.

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds? -- "be very afraid Eleanor"

Why? Of what? Of who?

By the way, please answer this post -- or I WILL report it.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Why am I to "be afraid"? Are you saying I've made it to some sort of "enemy list" -- will you suggest "action" against me?

How do you know i'm not one of the "heroes"?

You do realize this is a GUN LIST, don't you? Not the best place in the world to make threats -- veiled or otherwise.

Geez, am I going to have to keep the shotgun IN bed with me now??

Are you trying to shut me up?

Why?

That was one of the very dumbest things I've ever had said to me.

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds? -- "be very afraid Eleanor"

Why? Of what? Of who?

By the way, please answer this post -- or I WILL report it.

Talk about an overreaction. When someone says 'be very afraid of person X' in a political forum, you somehow interpret it as a threat against person X There appears to be a short circuit somewhere. I think you could report that one until your fingers went numb. I don't see how anyone could interpret it the way that you have suggested.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Delija

2: Nice cut and paste (for a change). Ever have any thoughts of your own?

I don't belong to many forums (only ones that are gun related). But I have to agree with you here. I am amazed by the repeated article after article postings of people. Certainly it makes sense to post an article as the start of a thread to initiate a debate on a certain topic. But we have folks (Tom, bd, and others) that do it as their form of replying.

[bd]

Originally Posted by eleanor

First, I was quite specific. I wrote of words, and their relationship to each other. It was neither "sophistry", nor "overgeneralization".

Second, what do you mean by, "Be very afraid Eleanor, there are many heroes out there"? Is that supposed to be some sort of threat?

Why am I to "be afraid"? Are you saying I've made it to some sort of "enemy list" -- will you suggest "action" against me?

How do you know i'm not one of the "heroes"?

You do realize this is a GUN LIST, don't you? Not the best place in the world to make threats -- veiled or otherwise.

Geez, am I going to have to keep the shotgun IN bed with me now??

Are you trying to shut me up?

Why?

That was one of the very dumbest things I've ever had said to me.

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds? -- "be very afraid Eleanor"

Why? Of what? Of who?

By the way, please answer this post -- or I WILL report it.

He chooses to live in a state of fear. It is his party's way of showing their patriotism and
devotion to their leader. It's "normal" for him.

"Be afraid" is a salutation among his type. It's kinda like those "You gellin' ?- I'm gellin'" shoe innersole commercials except they substitute "scared" for "gellin'" when they high five and try to out-quiver one another.


I think he's trying to convert you.

Good luck reporting him...he's had free rein since day one to say anything he likes. He's one of them.

You will probably, as you mentioned, get on an "enemy list" for reporting him.

Join the club.

The worst that will happen is the thread will be locked.

bd

[Delija]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

That's crazy how you found this article that even had Delija's SIGNATURE in it!! It's almost like that guy was writing about him.

ROFL!

Wow....I didn't realize how widespread my fame and notoriety was!

Geez Frank...I saw a dumb movie on cable a few months ago and the line struck me as timely (and timeless).

Somehow you seem to give me more credit than even my own kids. It wasn't enough that you credited me with writing the "Tommy Poem" (as you called it...LOL) , now I used a quote from a Star Wars movie and somehow Mr. Goldberg, while perusing XDTalk.com (known in some circles as FrankRizzo.com) saw my "signature" and decided to use it as a definition of what some perceive as narrow-mindedness.....black and white thinking.

Let me ask you this: When I recently wrote that I saw no shame, no weakness in changing my mind if I realized that I had been wrong (about anything), you responded by saying that you "didn't disagree" (or words to that effect....something short of "I agree"). Has something changed since? Is it now your contention that absolutes are absolutely the only kind of thinking that right (no pun intended) minded people are bound to stick by in order to "stand for something" (right or wrong)? To avoid "falling for anything" (or whatever the phrase is).

What does this say about Mr. Bush's changes of policy regarding the war in Iraq for example? Is he a weak minded "liberal" now that he appears ready to change his "stay the course" strategy and invoke a "surge" tactic (against the majority of his professional military advisers - hell, what would they know)?

Was Bush a "liberal fence sitting flip-flopper" when he changed objectives from finding weapons of mass destruction to liberating and bringing a "Western style democracy" to Iraq? And again when he endorsed another Islamic theocracy in the form of the present Iraqi constitution?

I have often asked our mutual friend Tom what his definition of "liberal" is. Never got an answer. So for a change I'll ask you what your definition of a "conservative" is. Do you believe in conserving things as they are? Good, bad or indifferent? Or are you too a wishy washy closet "liberal" who realizes that change demands change on occasion?

I don't think I overestimate your intelligence (and yes, I do think you are highly intelligent) when I think you know full well that change has to occur for things to progress.....far more often than not.

I'd bet you probably wear a seat belt, drive a car with air-bags, use unleaded fuel, etc. You even mentioned that you just got a new computer. Why? Couldn't you "conserve" your old one?

The world goes forward. Those who stand still get left behind. Always.

We hear silly word games like "why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?". Would a true blue "conservative" actually favor conserving our natural wonders? Why is it that "conservatives" (of the political variety) care little or not at all about conserving (for example) our wildlife refuges....why is it OK to drill for oil in a place like Yellowstone for a "true conservative" like James Watt, but a "liberal" is more likely to be concerned with conservation (of that kind)? Is Al Gore a "conservative" or a "liberal"? Or a "liberal conservationist"? (that would get my vote - and I don't see it as an oxymoron).

Bottom line is that I don't see any meaning at all to those terms as they are misused in today's political climate. "Conservatives" seem disinterested in conservation, and "liberals" seem to have more of an apparent ability to adapt to each situation. Conserve here, change there, etc.

Sorry for rambling....it's after 8am and I have not slept a wink due to a gout attack that hurts like all hell (and not a thing to do about it....old age sucks!).

But really Frank....to tell you the truth, I don't even know what a "SITH" is. I wasn't paying that close attention to the movie. It was just that one line that sort of jumped out at me while paying less than half attention to the movie. I guess that the beliefs in absolutes seems kind of hard core to me under any circumstances.

I'll try and freshen up my signature with something new. Hopefully after I can get some sleep. Anything to brighten up your day!!!!

Peace,
D.