Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
They're on boths ides
Published on May 14, 2004 By Draginol In Blogging

Ever notice that anti-americans usually have no idea how hypocritical they sound?

Anti-Americans use words like "alleged" or "assumed" to qualify evil deeds done to Americans.  But even the most far-out theory or assumption of something an American has done wrong is taken as a literal fact.

And they wonder why so few people in the mainstream have any respect for them.

Bad things don't need to be qualified. If you do a bad thing, it doesn't matter where you're from. There can be extenuating circumstances, but it doesn't change the bad thing. 

Zealots have the problem in that they can't see straight. They see one side as ultimately evil and the other side totally justified.

Limbaugh, who exuses despicable abuse of Iraqi POWs by a handful of American soldiers and contractors is an example on the right.  There are plenty of examples on the left where the events of 9/11 and other atrocities done to Americans is swept under the rug so that they can fixate on some particular american misdeed or blow it up to gigantic proportions.

Most zealots, in my experience, are people who are out of touch. Sometimes due to their success (Limbaugh) or their failures (check out an anti-war protest sometime to see the carnival of losers). They have lost any sort of attachment to objective reality.

 


Comments
on May 14, 2004
Zealots have the problem in that they can't see straight. They see one side as ultimately evil and the other side totally justified.

excellent observation. exactly the reason why we shouldnt reelect a zealot this year
on May 14, 2004

You don't think Kerry's a zealot? Hello?

on May 14, 2004
I don't think he's a zealot. I'm with kingbee, I think Bush is a zealot. I've never used the word zealot, but I like to use the term "blind faith", which has the same connotation.

This kind of stinks, I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with anything the top JU user says.
on May 14, 2004

I tend to think the one who didn't organize massive protests in the capital in favor / in opposition to some issue is closer to a zealot than someone happens to be very religious.

I'm agnostic but I have never understood why some people treat those who have a lot of faith as if they have "zealots". There is nothing in Bush's actions that bespeak zealotry. Some of you need to quit seeing religion as some sort of boogeyman.

on May 14, 2004
I agree with you, Draginol. I think it's funny that Iraqi beheaded an non-guilty American when they accused Americans of mistreating prisoners. Yes that was true, but they did more and worse, such as dragging two Americans all over the road.

Maybe they thought we violated their trademark of abusing prisoners.
( Yes, I know it's really bad joke... )
on May 14, 2004

The thing about Bush and zealotry is that there's very little evidence that any rational person IMO is going to find leading them to conclude that he's a zealot.  He's very religious. 80% of Americans are religious. I'm one of the 20% that aren't. And yes, Bush's religious views make me uncomfortable. But a zealot, no.

But if Bush is a zealot, certainly Kerry is. If you're organizing protests with Jane Fonda in your youth, that probably puts you well on the path of being a zealot.

on May 15, 2004
The thing about Bush and zealotry is that there's very little evidence that any rational person IMO is going to find leading them to conclude that he's a zealot

here are two excerpts from an essay entitled fundamentally, bush works on faith by peter schweizer and rochelle schweizer,

ask bush family members and friends about the intersection between the war on terrorism and george w. bush's christian faith and you get some strong answers."george sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "he doesn't have a pc view of this war. his view is that they are trying to kill the christians. and we the christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know." ...bush reads the bible and a devotional every morning. when you compare what he reads and studies with what he says and does publicly, the overlap is stunning. his readings influence his language. one morning shortly after sept. 11, bush got up and read proverbs 21:15 (new international version): "when justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." soon after, he was calling the terrorists "evildoers."

you defined zealotry this way:

Zealots have the problem in that they can't see straight. They see one side as ultimately evil and the other side totally justified

i agree. and if it walks like a duck, etc.

there is another possibility but its even more disturbing. over the course of his administration, ronald reagan ("empire of evil") seemed to gradually morph into his spokesperson persona and there were a number of indications he was deteriorating rapidly. during his 2nd term, it seemed to be reciting dialogue rather than speaking. perhaps its just coincidence that bush and reagan have more than a couple advisors in common. perhaps not. if you watch and listen to him carefully, theres a clear difference between bush speaking and bush reciting.
on May 15, 2004
But if Bush is a zealot, certainly Kerry is. If you're organizing protests with Jane Fonda in your youth, that probably puts you well on the path of being a zealot.

logical? no

whether bush is or isnt a zealot has no bearing on kerry or anyone else for that matter. zealot carries an intrinsic historical religious connotation. the spector of kerry and fonda igniting a shared vision of religious apocalypse is way too funny.

if you meant organizing protests with jane fonda in your youth presumed one was well on the path to being a fanatic, it would make more sense not enough to justify a claim that kerry is today a fanatic. or that he ever was one.

whether you agree with his take on the war in vietnam, kerry served his country honorably and was decorated for heroism in combat. although he--like many other officers--realized he could no longer justify the war after experiencing it first hand, he completed his term of service. (you might want to reread 'a bright and shining lie" if you question kerry's judgement in that regard)
as a veteran, he had every right, and perhaps a duty as a citizen, to express his concerns. whatever issues you may have with fonda, if you want to tar him with the same brush you'll need a very long (and visible) extendable handle
on May 15, 2004
In my opinion, neither Bush nor Kerry are zealots. They are both too pragmatic for that. Bush may wear his Christianity on a sleeve, but his major concern is oil. Kerry may have protested the war, but his major concern is winning the election.
on May 15, 2004

kingbee: You aren't the arbiter of logic.

But I'll give you a bit of a hand: If you lower the threshold on the label "zealot" down low enough so that it encompasses Bush, it then stands to reason that Kerry's actions in his life would also fall into this new threshold.

It is my opinion that NEITHER is a zealot.  However, if one is going to lower the standard for Bush, the same standard, when applied to Kerry, makes him as much if not more a zealot.

The argument that Bush is a zealot because he's religious and because he thinks (gasp) terrorists are "evil doers" makes him representative of many many millions of Americans. 

The standard for being a zealot is not failing to behave like a Vulcan.

on May 15, 2004
my mama warned me against trading cows for magic beans, playing cards with anyone named doc and letting myself wander blindly into an ambiguous construct..specially one compounded by a failure to elucidate.
on Jul 02, 2006
unpack,fatter tempts watchfulness settled shorthanded?