The point of the second half of the essay was why the patriots of Smartland act the way they do
OK. As I reread the piece, I see that I was mistaken about its point. I see that the entire piece was about why the Smarties act the way they do and what I first thought was the point was just the opening rationale--the take-off point.
I can see no sign that they ever put the question to themselves that way.
It seems pretty obvious to me why they wouldn't ask themselves the question. Of more interest, IMO, is why no one else puts the question to them that way. You mentioned that Rose failed to. I wonder what other opportunities were lost. Did no one on Fox ask them, either? I would be very interested in hearing the the answer to that question were it asked.
How the Hell can smart and educated men act like they are bystanders in the war? How can they deny there even is a war?
It seems to me that you got closer to the answer, or at least the right question, than did anyone else you cited. Everyone is so focused on attributing this to Bush hatred and the superiority of the Smarties that they miss what I see as the essence of the great divide, what you and I discussed many moons ago, which is the question of whether there really is a war. Do you recall those discussions? I remember using the word, "existential," a lot during it. <g>
>>I mean, what kind of idiot breaks a hole in the hull of his boat during a storm, just because he doesn’t like the guy at the tiller and thinks the storm could have been avoided?<<
Seems to me that it would be more useful to get past the notion that this is about the guy at the tiller and invest the reclaimed energy in persuading the MSM that there is a storm and that they are making a hole in the boat. That's the only way to change their behavior.
>>So during such a difficult time, even people who think the Iraq war or even the whole war on terror is a horrible mistake still have an obligation of loyalty to the nation that offers them protection, prosperity and freedom.<<
Of if unable to persuade them about the storm and the hole, persuade them to at least be more cognizant of the impact on the troops. Yapping about Smarties is not helpful if the objective is to fix the problem rather than to rant about it.
looking back, do you think that the polarization per se was the evil to be avoided, and everybody would have been so much better off with the discussion tabled?
The cure for polarization is not to table. The cure is setting aside preconceptions, listening actively and respectfully, and analyzing the differences constructively.
Here is an open letter to the editor from a very unhappy media consumer who is currently serving in Iraq:
That essay was also well done (as was yours, BTW). Very passionate, very eloquent, very clear. I wonder what kind of job this guy has in Iraq that he has the access and the time of an LB to spend surveying the MSM. He must not be out dodging IEDs if he can "daily see the gross distortions." |
