Pride

a.k.a Vanity, the sin from which all others arise: guilty as charged. A few weeks ago I read a MySpace blog that really bugged me (This link sends you to my page, not hers). It displayed so much ignorance that I was forced to respond. Her blog title alone was fightin' words. My friend D*Nice once told me that arguing via the World Wide Web is futile because no one wins and both parties end up looking foolish. I still don't know whether or not I agree with this, but the reply I received several days later was too scornful and condescending for me to take the high road. The gauntlet had been thrown down, and my pride was pricked. What follows is one of my foolish and futile internet arguments. If you're a glutton for more sinfulness, you can find another one here. In both cases, the name of my nemesis is disguised because I don't have permission to reprint their writing and they're not here to defend themselves.
-----
[Original Blog of Sunday, January 30, 2005]

Democrats love america like OJ loved nicole

...if you're a Democrat or liberal, that is fine. just don't hide under the ruse that you love america.

i myself am Independent, there are some Dem ideology/policy i agree with, and some GOP ideology/policy i agree with.

but on the topic of Iraq, i have to side with the right. the left has done nothing but berate the war while begrudgingly saying "well... fine... free elections in Iraq would be a great thing... i guess..." (usually followed by a hasty "unless there is MASSIVE DEADLY VIOLENCE THAT DISRUPTS THE ELECTIONS OH THE QUAGMIRE!!!")

sometimes, i wonder if the democratic nat'l committee is the mouthpiece for al-queda.

we heard that afghanistan would never be able to hold free, successful elections. they did. congratulations hamid karzai.

we heard that the palestianian authority would never be able to hold free, successful elections. they did. congratulations mahmous abbas.

we heard that iraq would never be able to hold free, successful elections. they did. congratulations, people of iraq.

i am sorry so many in the world secretly hoped your innocent civilians would be killed in a massive outbreak of violence. and i feel sorrow for those were killed by suicide bombers. but i am very pleased to hear about iraq the model, now emerging in the middle east.
-----
From: Xopher
Date: Mar 4, 2005 11:22 PM

Hi. I hope you're not offended by me writing you out of the blue, but I think your blog of January 30 is a little bit ridiculous. I hope that you're joking about that "Democrats love America..." line. If you're not, then I would challenge you to quote any prominent, or even obscure, Democrat who has expressed the desire for violence during the Iraqi elections. You appear to be employing the Fox News technique: you claim without evidence that Democrats are actually saying things that you wish they would say. Which only makes me think you're not being honest when you state that you're an independent. You heard that Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Iraq would never be able to hold free, successful elections? Was that before or after the 1996 free, successful elections in the Palestinian Territories? Was it that evil Democratic National Committee who told you these things?

While it is good news that Afghanistan and Iraq have both held elections, there is more to democracy, freedom and stability than voting. The violence in Iraq continues apace, and large swaths of Afghanistan are still controlled by the same warlords who were loyal followers of the Taliban. In fact, democracy and reconstruction in that country are being seriously threatened by the swift rise of the drug trade, according to both the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime and the Bush administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy. Opium production, a staple crop now in every province, is at an all-time high.

In practice, democracy only takes hold when nurtured from within -- no matter how many elections are held. Lebanon could fast become the shining light for democracy in the Near East. Another good reason to look to Lebanon is because their yearnings for sovereignty involve ejecting an occupying power: this could be an ominous forshadowing for sovereignty movements Iraq & Afghanistan.

I apologize for the length of this message, but I just wanted to point out to you that no American in their right mind (Democrats included) would actually WANT more violence in Iraq. Like you, I am neither Republican nor Democrat...but I think we should be fair to both, on all issues.
-----
From: xxxx
Date: Mar 8, 2005 6:40 PM

my blog title was facetious.

the reason i feel the way i do is because SO many democrats were SO vocal about how iraq would never be able to hold elections. same with afghanistan. but the aftermath of the afghan elections?

nearly ignored. read charles krauthammer's "miracle begets yawn" in the dec 10 2005 issue of washington post (page A37). or william safire's "the afghan miracle" on october 6 2004.

however... you cannot deny that had the afghan election broken out in mass violence as the insurgents promised, that everyone would be condemning it and (ultimately) blaming bush.

as for the PA election of mahmoud abbas (i like to quote to make more of an impact): "You heard that Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Iraq would never be able to hold free, successful elections? Was that before or after the 1996 free, successful elections in the Palestinian Territories?

you should've told that to:

steven erlanger in the 12/29 edition of the NYTimes, section A, page 3, column 1, Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem, in the 12/28 UK's paper the Guardian page 13, Khaled Abu Toameh in the 12/22 Jerusalem Post, Section: news, pg 2.

...and that's just 3 i grabbed from a recent research paper of mine that i had by my desk.

i feel the way i do because i concetrate very much on the area. i'm a poli sci major. i am also well-versed in islam, and many early islamic scholars (such as ibn khaldun - the reason i mention that is you cannot gain an understanding of a region without also knowing its history)... i know the middle east/middle eastern events going back to pre-Islamic arabian civilization.

if i simply hated democrats (and i take offense to that, by the way, the late senator paul wellstone was a family friend) i would be bashing them over a ton of things. or quoting anne coulter.

i am independent, but something about the disappointment in the voices of many democrats when having to discuss middle eastern elections, was very unsettling to me. not that the GOP doesn't unsettle me as well, but there is a difference when one is actually HOPING for harm to befall on our troops (example: the democrats' "protest vote" against more money for troops in iraq... if one was truly concerned, i have a hard time believing one could honestly vote to render parts of their electorate vulnerable). honestly, when i say "democrats," i don't think i mean the moderates or even the heavily left-of-center. i usually am referring to the far-left extremists who've hijacked the party.

xxxx
-----
From: Xopher
Date: Mar 15, 2005 9:41 PM

Hi, xxxx. I apologize for the delayed response, but I wasn't online for most of last week. I had hoped that you were being facetious with your blog title, as well as with some of your other statements (wondering if DNC = al-Qa'ida mouthpiece; Dems loving America = a ruse; implying that Democrats secretly hoped innocent civilians would be killed in a massive outbreak of violence, etc.).

Thanks for the article recommendations. While I agree with both Krauthammer and Safire that free elections anywhere in the Near East are a positive development to be lauded, the premise that they're miraculous is laughable. What's so miraculous about the armed forces of a rich, powerful country (what some would call the world's last superpower) routing the Taliban militia within 100 days, installing a government and subsequently holding elections?

Krauthammer goes on to state that liberals are now complaining about poppies, and that this is merely a case of 'dog bites man' news. It's not just liberals, however, and it's not the same old poppy story. As I said in my previous message, even Bush's O.N.D.C.P. acknowledges that opium production is at an all-time high -- accounting for 60% of the Afghan economy. This is a 239% increase in the poppy crop since the Taliban was driven from Kabul. Antonio Costa, exec. director of the U.N.O.D.C., said that "The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is slowly becoming a reality. Opium cultivation, which has spread like wildfire... could ultimately incinerate everything: democracy, reconstruction and stability."

Please understand that I'm not lamenting the departure of the Taliban (though they still run much of the hinterland) or disrespecting the courage of candidates and voters in Afghani elections; I just think we should hold off on the self-congratulatory circle jerk for awhile.

While I don't deny that had violence marred the elections I (and many others) would have held Bush partly responsible, that doesn't imply that I (and many others) wished for bloodshed. There is already a mountain of failed policy for which Bush is to blame. His detractors don't need any more evidence, especially at the cost of American lives. His Iraqi adventure has drawn vital money, troops, and supplies from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and the hunt for al-Qa'ida. I am reminded now of Saint-Exupéry's quote from The Little Prince: "Men have forgotten this truth, but you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed." I doubt Bush, who admittedly hates reading (especially about policy), ever read any Saint-Exupéry. Nevertheless, he shares the burden of responsibility for the direction of democracy in Afghanistan.

I can't help but notice that you begged the question when answering my challenge to "quote any prominent, or even obscure, Democrat who has expressed the desire for violence during the Iraqi elections". In response, you stated that "SO many democrats were SO vocal about how iraq would never be able to hold elections". If there were that many and they were that vocal, their quotes shouldn't be that hard to find.

Regarding the three articles used in reference to your research paper, none of them refuted my point, which was that I hadn't heard anyone in the media saying that Palestinian elections could never be held. The authors confirmed the sundry difficulties (including voter apathy) facing Palestinians elections, especially in Jerusalem, but none stated that "the PA would never be able to hold free, successful elections".

If Senator Wellstone was a family friend, then you have my condolences. However, you shouldn't have been offended by anything in my message. I never said that you "simply hated Democrats" (your quote), I only questioned what you wrote about them in your blog (re-read my first paragraph for a summary). Actually, now that I look over what you wrote again, it does sound like bashing. By the way, you have my thanks for leaving Anne Coulter out of the discussion.

In your last paragraph, you still appear to believe that Democrats were "HOPING" for harm to befall our troops; nothing could be further from the truth. The protest vote you cite as evidence was not a protest against funding the troops, only against the way in which that $87 billion would be spent. The Democrats in question wanted some of that money to be a loan to Iraq, while most other members of Congress wanted it to be a gift, leaving the burden on the U.S. taxpayers. Had that bill not passed, another one would have been crafted with a different spending layout -- the troops would still have been supported. Perhaps that other, unrealized bill would have allocated even more funds to body armor. Incidentally, Bush threatened to veto said bill had $10 billion of the funds been allocated in the form of a loan. Using his own logic, he was thereby threatening to not support our troops. By the way, there was plenty of high-grade body armor available on the market in the spring of 2003 -- many soldiers' families purchased it themselves. Why wasn't it bought by the government right from the start? Why didn't the Pentagon send the troops to Iraq with proper protection in the first place? Did Bush and Rummy not want to support our troops?

I laughed when you wrote that "far-left extremists" have hijacked the Democratic party because I feel the opposite is true. In my opinion Kerry -- their candidate of choice -- was a milquetoast, meandering, stodgy windbag whose position on Iraq (on many issues, actually) wasn't all that different from Bush's. And he was the face of the mainstream Democratic Party. Even Clinton was Centrist, considering his economic and social welfare agendas. The last president who had a left-leaning domestic policy was Nixon (he also successfully engaged China and the Soviet Union, the opposite approach of Reagan & Bush Jr. regarding their own percieved evil enemies). It was even known then as the "liberal consensus". Weird, eh? If Kucinich had been nominated by his party last year I'd have to agree with you, but that wasn't the case. I also happen to believe that the Neoconservatives and to a lesser extent, the Religious Right, have hijacked the Republican party. But maybe that's just me.

Anyway, I know it's hard to convey tone in email, but I want to reiterate that none of this is an attack on your background knowledge. I'm glad you take history into account and are familiar with Ibn Khaldun, though I prefer reading Khalil Gibran or Omar Khayyam. While I'm neither a poli sci major nor a Near East scholar like you, I did live there for two formative years as a child and came away enriched and fascinated. Apart from its oil, it's a long-neglected part of the world with which all westerners, Left & Right, need to come to terms.

Xopher
-----
[I'm still waiting for a reply...]