Culture v. Reality

[PoliticalChic]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

 

[slackjawed]

I can agree with the points you make in your post.
Unfortunately, it seems like our public schools are teaching our kids the story according to culture, not according to history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can agree with the points you make in your post.
Unfortunately, it seems like our public schools are teaching our kids the story according to culture, not according to history.

Actually, as far as the post, none of my words are included. I thought that Klavan wrote in a pretty funny way.

Now, as far as our so called education system, your point: so true, so true.

Probably the most disastrous effect of Progressivism.

One of the problems, as pointed out by Chester Finn, in "Troublemker:"


a. The ‘middle school movement’ was a set back for the pursuit of educational excellence, which supposed that grades five though eight should focus on life-adjustment, and non-academic and anti-intellectual agendas, and development, self-confidence, and socialization. Rather, the hormone-and-angst adolescents should not be expected to absorb much in the way of formal skills and knowledge.

b. Just when the middle grades were needed to supply a strong foundation for high school, the middle school became the place “where academic achievement goes to die.” Cheri Pierson Yecke, “Mayhem in the Middle: How Middle Schools Have Failed America, and How to Make Them Work,” 2005.

 

[ACG22]

In an attempt to point out how "culture" supposedly revises reality to suit its particular agenda, you... revised reality in order to suit your agenda. Congratulations!

 

[rikules]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

"In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness."



if it weren't for progressive liberals;


blacks would still be descriminated against, and even lynched, by conservative christian culturalists

women would still be home, barefoot and pregnant

gays would still be in the closet
or in jail

the capitalist leaders would still take 98% of the wealth

workers would still be living in poverty (and owing the company store)

and advanced technology and health care would be for the benefit SOLEY of the rich and the military

liberal progressives helped raise the pay scales (and health benefits) of MOST Americans to a decent and honorable level

and, btw, the authors use of the words "ALWAYS" is a bit extreme.

I've seen movies.

many of them portray America and the American military as being good...

independence day, for example.


have you seen a psychiatrist yet?

you should get help for your "I HATE HATE HATE liberals" insanity

cons are NOT as good as you claim

and liberals are NOT as evil as you think

 

[rikules]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

would you like more liberal cultural reality?


can you handle it?


without grabbing your gun, running off to some place you THINK is "too liberal" and killing everyone?

well

here goes

presenting todays progressive liberal America!;

gays are out and about!

everywhere!

and most people are fine with that, even many cons (how liberal of them)

we see them on tv (they even have their own shows), they work with us, live in our neighborhoods

they are our friends
our children

and according to latest polls most Americans would accept gay spousal benefits in lieu of marriage

(that's pretty progressive and liberal)

women are in the armed forces

they are even in military institutes

and nobody cares!

15 years ago when shannon faulkner was the 1st female to attend the citadel people like you made her life a living hell...

today...nobody cares

blacks and whites marry!
and nobody bats an eye!

30 years ago you cons would have had a hissy fit...

but today even you cons don't really care

- blacks and gays and women are in prominent positions in the government, in the military, in business

- everyone has sex outside of marriage (even you, no doubt, though you probably have to pay someone)

- millions of men and women are living together without bothering to marry!

- more and more people are waiting longer and longer before getting married (if they ever do marry)

- and atheism is on the rise with up to 15% of the population admitting that they are not believers

welcome to liberal and progressive America

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an attempt to point out how "culture" supposedly revises reality to suit its particular agenda, you... revised reality in order to suit your agenda. Congratulations!

Did you actually have a point?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

"In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness."



if it weren't for progressive liberals;


blacks would still be descriminated against, and even lynched, by conservative christian culturalists

women would still be home, barefoot and pregnant

gays would still be in the closet
or in jail

the capitalist leaders would still take 98% of the wealth

workers would still be living in poverty (and owing the company store)

and advanced technology and health care would be for the benefit SOLEY of the rich and the military

liberal progressives helped raise the pay scales (and health benefits) of MOST Americans to a decent and honorable level

and, btw, the authors use of the words "ALWAYS" is a bit extreme.

I've seen movies.

many of them portray America and the American military as being good...

independence day, for example.


have you seen a psychiatrist yet?

you should get help for your "I HATE HATE HATE liberals" insanity

cons are NOT as good as you claim

and liberals are NOT as evil as you think

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the relationship between 'progressive liberals' and philosophy from which they descend.

That would be fascism.

Progressives began with the concept that the collective, the state, is of greater value than the individual, and this is what differentiates 'progressive liberalism' from classical liberalism.

If fact, I'll bet that you are ignorant of the fact that the late 19th century- early 20th century Progressives, most prominently personified by President Woodrow Wilson, were so reviled by the American public, that they changed their name to 'Liberal.'

Did you know that under the Progressives, American was indeed a Fascist nation:

1. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry
2. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
3. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream
4. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
5. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
6. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
7. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters
8. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9


Here, for your edification, John Dewey:

“Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.” John Dewey and the philosophical refounding of America | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

“DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…” John Dewey and the philosophical refounding of America | National Review | Find Articles at BNET


If you would like to continue this discussion, you had best be prepared for thrills, spills and readin' wills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

would you like more liberal cultural reality?


can you handle it?


without grabbing your gun, running off to some place you THINK is "too liberal" and killing everyone?

well

here goes

presenting todays progressive liberal America!;

gays are out and about!

everywhere!

and most people are fine with that, even many cons (how liberal of them)

we see them on tv (they even have their own shows), they work with us, live in our neighborhoods

they are our friends
our children

and according to latest polls most Americans would accept gay spousal benefits in lieu of marriage

(that's pretty progressive and liberal)

women are in the armed forces

they are even in military institutes

and nobody cares!

15 years ago when shannon faulkner was the 1st female to attend the citadel people like you made her life a living hell...

today...nobody cares

blacks and whites marry!
and nobody bats an eye!

30 years ago you cons would have had a hissy fit...

but today even you cons don't really care

- blacks and gays and women are in prominent positions in the government, in the military, in business

- everyone has sex outside of marriage (even you, no doubt, though you probably have to pay someone)

- millions of men and women are living together without bothering to marry!

- more and more people are waiting longer and longer before getting married (if they ever do marry)

- and atheism is on the rise with up to 15% of the population admitting that they are not believers

welcome to liberal and progressive America

I must admit, I like your tenacity.

It is the silliness of your position that detracts.

So, to be clear, are you now defending the modern liberal vs. the conservative positions?

Have we left behind your jaundiced view of Progressivism?

Or, would you like me to continue to educate you on the provenance of your vaunted idea of 'progressive-liberalism'?

Pick your poison.

 

[ACG22]

In an attempt to point out how "culture" supposedly revises reality to suit its particular agenda, you... revised reality in order to suit your agenda. Congratulations!

Did you actually have a point?

I kept it pretty simple for you. Which word was confusing for you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an attempt to point out how "culture" supposedly revises reality to suit its particular agenda, you... revised reality in order to suit your agenda. Congratulations!

Did you actually have a point?

I kept it pretty simple for you. Which word was confusing for you?

I appears that you are a public school grad, and haven't grown since.

Here, let me help you out:
You made no point, other than 'hey, I don't agree with you!"

Am I wrong to expect more substance?

If you read some other threads, you will see the adult manner of debate, along the lines of
"here is my objection," or "this is documentation which shows the opposite point of view"...


We certainly have enough school-yard banter.

Care to try again?

 

[mudwhistle]

Reality vs perception.

That is the key here.

 

[Granny]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

Very good post! Most of our "entertainers" have little or no talent at all IMHO. They do have a serious need for adoration, though. Most of them, I ask myself, "Who the hell is that!?" Fantasy world is the place in which they live.

As to JFK - I was a long-distance operator when he stood up to Cuba and the Russians. He acted very swiftly and surely. The operators were going nuts because the board was lit up like a Christmas tree - we couldn't pick up the calls fast enough and wondered what the hell was going on to create so much phone traffic all of a sudden.

When JFK was asassinated I was working for the FBI in DC. I've never thought Lee Harvey was anything more than the fall guy. When we were told JFK was dead the FBI went into very high gear. My very deep gut feeling was that Lyndon Johnson was the "author" of the plot to kill Kennedy. I believed it then and I still believe it today. Johnson would never have been elected into the White House and he was corrupt right down to his soul.

I have yet to see anything done by Oliver Stone that is accurate.

 

[ACG22]

Did you actually have a point?

I kept it pretty simple for you. Which word was confusing for you?

I appears that you are a public school grad, and haven't grown since.

Here, let me help you out:
You made no point, other than 'hey, I don't agree with you!"

Am I wrong to expect more substance?

If you read some other threads, you will see the adult manner of debate, along the lines of
"here is my objection," or "this is documentation which shows the opposite point of view"...


We certainly have enough school-yard banter.

Care to try again?

You clearly don't understand. You attempted to make a criticism, yet you used the exact same tactics as those you were criticizing. It's really that simple. And from what I've seen so far, there's very little "adult" debate going on here. Just more ranting and ignorant commentary like your OP. It's funny that you want to have an "adult" debate when your OP was childish and full of errors. At least I'm learning who I don't need to bother with already.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"


"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."

Who have I quoted? A liberal/progressive or a conservative?


Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record, Sept 16, 1981

 

[Wry Catcher]

Essays, like literature of any genre, arises from a concrete historical setting. Approaching such, you should keep in mind who wrote it, when and where it was published, for what audience it was originally intended, and what purposes it was supposed to achieve.

 

[Againsheila]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

I'm only going to take ONE of your examples and lambaste you for it...Terry Schiavo, what right does anyone have to end the life of another like that? My son is low functioning autistic, you want to kill him because at 22 years old he still wets his bed? He can't carry a conversation with anybody, you want to kill him for that? Where do you draw the line?

In truth Terry Schiavo's husband wanted to end her life before the money from the settlement ran out and he wanted to marry another woman. I sincerely doubt he had any concerns at all for his wife at that point. She wasn't in any pain. Even smiled in the video I saw.

Where do you draw the line? If we are going to be euthanize people, are we gonna be like Hitler and Euthanize all the people with disabilities? Sterilize anyone that has a gene that could cause a birth defect?

Is my son less of a human because he can't talk? Because he's still in diapers?

Terry Schiavo's family WANTED to take care of her, actually begged him to let them take care of her. Why didn't he just divorce her and let them? Again, she wasn't in any pain.

Oh, and just so you know, I'm not "evangelical". I am a Christian though, and I believe Andrew is here for a reason, if just so I can use him as an example when people start calling for euthanizing others because of brain damage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I kept it pretty simple for you. Which word was confusing for you?

I appears that you are a public school grad, and haven't grown since.

Here, let me help you out:
You made no point, other than 'hey, I don't agree with you!"

Am I wrong to expect more substance?

If you read some other threads, you will see the adult manner of debate, along the lines of
"here is my objection," or "this is documentation which shows the opposite point of view"...


We certainly have enough school-yard banter.

Care to try again?

You clearly don't understand. You attempted to make a criticism, yet you used the exact same tactics as those you were criticizing. It's really that simple. And from what I've seen so far, there's very little "adult" debate going on here. Just more ranting and ignorant commentary like your OP. It's funny that you want to have an "adult" debate when your OP was childish and full of errors. At least I'm learning who I don't need to bother with already.

Much better job, but you still fall short.

1. "You attempted to make a criticism, yet you used the exact same tactics as those you were criticizing."
Not true for several reasons. First, there is not word one of mine in the OP. All is Klavan. Second, his use of examples to make his point is far more efficacious than your bloviation.

2. "...there's very little "adult" debate going on here..." Allow me to defend the USMB, although I believe that if you were to view more of the debates, you would find that there are quite a few adult, informed, passionate posters on both sides.

3. "Just more ranting and ignorant commentary like your OP." Ah, and here we see the sophomoric poster in action. If you were able to list and give examples of "ranting and ignorant commentary" then you would have. Instead you use "ranting and ignorant commentary" as though your opinion was in some way dispositive. Which it is not.

4 "your OP was childish and full of errors." Either defend or retract. How about examples of the errors, or the childish nature of the OP. Or did you find Klavan's humor childish?
Or, silently skulk away with your tail between your legs.

5."At least I'm learning who I don't need to bother with already."
And, finally, the real import of your post: fear.

Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself” Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”

 

[PoliticalChic]

"


"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."

Who have I quoted? A liberal/progressive or a conservative?


Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record, Sept 16, 1981

This is a pretty 'meaty' post.

I like it because it allows both of us to present a defensible position, and you have focused like a laser on this one aspect of the debate.

Your point, it seems, is the Progressive stance that there are no time-honored, moral truths. You subscribe to the view that all cultures, all viewpoints are equally valid. That you have fallen under the spell of postmodernism and multiculturalism. The ‘search for truth’ is surpassed by ‘it all depends on your perspective'.

Am I correct as far as your thinking?

Now for mine.
Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. One example of such a truth is that the individual has a higher value than the state. Another is that humans are neither perfect nor perfectible by government policy or law. Therefore, the need for checks and balances and the separation of power.

Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

Now, the Senator Goldwater quote that you have included to support your position, it is only applicable if I were insisting on you behaving as I do, as I believe, but that is not the case.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

The only attempt at 'force' is the one we both use on this board: debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

I'm only going to take ONE of your examples and lambaste you for it...Terry Schiavo, what right does anyone have to end the life of another like that? My son is low functioning autistic, you want to kill him because at 22 years old he still wets his bed? He can't carry a conversation with anybody, you want to kill him for that? Where do you draw the line?

In truth Terry Schiavo's husband wanted to end her life before the money from the settlement ran out and he wanted to marry another woman. I sincerely doubt he had any concerns at all for his wife at that point. She wasn't in any pain. Even smiled in the video I saw.

Where do you draw the line? If we are going to be euthanize people, are we gonna be like Hitler and Euthanize all the people with disabilities? Sterilize anyone that has a gene that could cause a birth defect?

Is my son less of a human because he can't talk? Because he's still in diapers?

Terry Schiavo's family WANTED to take care of her, actually begged him to let them take care of her. Why didn't he just divorce her and let them? Again, she wasn't in any pain.

Oh, and just so you know, I'm not "evangelical". I am a Christian though, and I believe Andrew is here for a reason, if just so I can use him as an example when people start calling for euthanizing others because of brain damage.

I believe you owe me an apology for this statement alone: "...you want to kill him ..."

This slander is based on your misreading of the OP.

I have never taken such a position, nor has the OP.