Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Famous Loony Right-Wingers part 1

Orson Scott Card: Stupid or Insane?

We've got some nice bigotry:

"Previously, the Shiites have shown astonishing self-restraint (for Arab countries) when provoked..." (This is him talking about the ones he *likes*, incidentally);

Lots of Democrat bashing:

"And it looks like anybody in Iraq with any money at all is buying plane tickets and getting out of the country.

All because shortsighted, ignorant, or malicious "anti-war" Democrats misled the American people into thinking our war effort was a failure and was doing no good. The result is that now our war effort is failing, not because of President Bush, but specifically and directly because of the Democratic victory.";

Ridiculous naievete OR blatant lying:

"People are dying now in Iraq, and fleeing the country as well, because the Democrats won..."

combined with "Vietnam was a great idea":

"..and because this victory is being universally interpreted as a sign that Americans will skedaddle from Iraq the way an early generation's Congress betrayed South Vietnam.";

Lack of ability to tell the difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops, and believing that supporting war is the only statesmanlike and patriotic thing to do:

"Democrats must speak up -- now. It is too much to expect the Congressional Democratic leadership to act in a statesmanlike way -- if they were capable of such a thing, then the election would not have been about the war at all, since they would have been in support of at least its general aims.";

Neck deep denial about Bush:

"And President Bush can't do it, since he's now widely perceived as a lame duck.

(That perception is ridiculously false, of course: America has a President, not a prime minister, and Bush's power to continue this war and stand by his word is so strong that it would be extremely difficult for a Congress with such a narrow Democratic majority to enact such a radical change in war policy.)";

and about the war:

"The American people may have been sold the false idea that the war has been badly run,".

The other essay needs to be read in full to be believed (and the wrath is inspired by Doonesbury, which isn't exactly the most lefty or most satirical cartoon out there), but he sums up a little for us:

"So when Garry Trudeau compares a perjurer for private gain who corrupts his office to have sex with a girl who had infinitely less power than he did, and a President who has taken enormous political heat to run the cleanest war in history against a stateless enemy that puts all existing laws and rules to the test, and claims that the latter is the one who deserves to be impeached, one can only wonder what kind of world Trudeau actually wants to live in.

Is it possible he really wants to live in a world in which terrorists can plot with impunity because government has no power to try to intercept their communications in advance or question anybody who does not already want to tell us information?

And then the terrorists can retire to safe havens with governments that openly promote terrorism yet cannot be touched because America "loves peace"?

And those governments can develop nuclear weapons with impunity because we cannot confirm with absolute proof whether they have such weapons programs unless and until we defeat them?"

I just don't understand. I don't understand how someone intelligent and with access to all the information he needs can come up with shit like this. Argh.

I've always known Card was a bit of a right-wing loon, which saddens me, because I love Ender's Game, and because he loves Firefly*. I hate finding out people I admire have these kind of opinions. And yeah, I knew he was Republican and had some vaguely offensive opinions, but I didn't realise...this.

*In other queries, how is it that people can like stories that go contrary to all they believe in? Or do people just take the meaning they want from books or TV shows? I've been wondering this recently, because there's a guy on the discussion forum I go to who's a huge Terry Pratchett fan, but also a right-wing war-loving death-penalty-supporting bigot in a lot of cases. And it confuses me. How can he enjoy something like Jingo, for example?


( 11 comments — Comment )
(Deleted comment)
Dec. 4th, 2006 11:34 am (UTC)
I may try that comparison out on him sometime :D
Dec. 4th, 2006 11:30 am (UTC)
Did he say the cleanest war in history?

I'm going off to weep quietly in the corner.
Dec. 4th, 2006 11:35 am (UTC)
I know...it's gone past something I can get irritated at to just a disbelieving "Guh?!". But he does imply he only really watches Fox News, so...
Dec. 4th, 2006 11:50 am (UTC)
Well, if the writing is good enough I can let the opinions pass by, up to a point. I greatly enjoy reading Evelyn Waugh, frex, and I can't imagine I'd agree with him about much. Perhaps your friend has the same attitude. Note that both Waugh and Pratchett, in their different ways, make their views clear without getting on their soapbox. I think this is the key. I do not care for being preached at in a work of fiction, even if I agree with the preacher.
Dec. 4th, 2006 11:58 am (UTC)
Oh, I utterly agree about the preaching thing...and yeah, I can enjoy writers who disagree with me to a certain extent, but, I dunno. I suppose what I'm wondering is whether, say, Pratchett's views ARE clear, or whether I just think they are because I agree with them, and bloke-on-discussion-board either doesn't notice Views at all, or thinks the book agrees with him.

I've been re-reading Asimov's Foundation books, and while I still like them, some of the politics in them, particularly the ending of the whole thing, leaves me distinctly unsatisfied. Because I can see he thinks it's a happy ending, but I don't think it is.
Dec. 4th, 2006 01:44 pm (UTC)
Do you mean the original Foundation trilogy, or the sucky ones he went back and did years later?
Dec. 4th, 2006 03:25 pm (UTC)
Heh - the sucky ones, mostly, but they kind of make you reinterpret the earlier ones.
Dec. 4th, 2006 11:59 am (UTC)
I could probably come up with a decent justification for a lot of this stuff, and all you need to do is believe that the whole of the western world is infested with eeeevil terrorists with the entire middle east backing it financially. And also accept the Presidential line that the War on Terror is an actual war.

Mind you, I think the pro-Democrats tend to be a little too easy on Clinton. It's not unreasonable to hold your nation's leader up to higher standards.
Dec. 4th, 2006 03:27 pm (UTC)
But to believe that you'd have to...never leave your house and only watch Fox News. OK, so that works.

I'm a bit unsure about the Clinton thing. I don't personally feel like I need my top politician to also be a model for the perfect personal life, but lots of people seem to...
Dec. 4th, 2006 01:37 pm (UTC)
Dec. 4th, 2006 04:04 pm (UTC)
My guess in these sort of matters is there is a deficiency in what I label as "emotional intelligence" with extremist of either side, of whatever extreme belief, that warps their normal mental facilities to shape and believe what they want to believe rather than fairly assessing the whole spectrum of facts about an issue. Thus you can have extremely intelligent men and women, like the Neo-Cons that shaped this administration's failed agenda, completely and utterly mistake their own dreams for the reality of how people, culture and religions operate and react. The real sad part is for the most part, when people make mistakes, they don't fess up to correct it...they'll just ride their own lies to destruction.
( 11 comments — Comment )


bad wolf
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com