Live! From Orange County...

The blog of Michael Janke

God. faith. pop culture. politics. conservatism. books. music. movies. jack bauer. life.

About this Entry
Posted by: MikeknaJ

Visit MikeknaJ's Xanga Site

Original: 5/7/2008 10:29 PM
Comments: 22
eProps: 20

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Wednesday, May 07, 2008
 
Currently Listening
Indiana (with Bonus Disc) - Amazon.com Exclusive
By Jon McLaughlin
see related

EDIT ADD: Survivor
Here stands Erik, now officially the Dumbest Survivor Of All-Time

dumb

Wear the title proud, Erik. You earned it. And it sure made for some historically awesome TV. Thanks, man.

===

Big stuff to cover today. Let's get right to it.

Iron Man
I saw Iron Man. It rocked. The end. P.S. If you see it, stay until after the final credits roll.

FlipShot
I signed a new contract and got a new phone:

flipshot

Ex-Gitmo Prisoner Turns Suicide Bomber
I still continue to marvel at those who want to close Gitmo. The people held there want us to die, and when they get out they get right back to work to accomplish that goal. It's happened before. It just happened again, as a released prisoner just turned himself into a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Abortion Is A Right! You Can't Challenge It!
So say some dudes who take it upon themselves to tear down a pro-life memorial. It's captured on video. Listen to them rant about it as they pull the little crosses out of the ground. "It's a constitutional right; you don't have the right to challenge it.... do not put this in front of us!" Just sad. And weird.

(Also, umm... since when is abortion a constitutional right?)

80's Cartoon Nostalgia
My friend Tim hooked me on this one, and I've been sitting at my computer all night wasting time watching more YouTube videos like it. Here's 10 minutes of pure 80's nostalgia, set to some classic 80's tunes. See how many of your favorite cartoons you can spot.

"Yes We Shall!" - Cobra Commander Edition
I'm sure you've seen the now classic/infamous Barack Obama "Yes We Can" video put together by various celebs and musicians who support him. Here's a satirical response. An ingenious response. A hilarious response that almost made me spit out my McDonalds Vanilla Iced Coffee when I watched it. It's funny all on its own, but if you listen closer and actually hear what he's saying it's off-the-charts funny. Especially if you don't like Obama, and you did like GI Joe growing up.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

Guliani Absolutely Destroy's Obama's Credibility On Judges
The title says it all. Taken from HotAir, which transcribes a Guliani interview:

KELLY: It’s funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain’s point today said and I quote, “Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It’s written by members of the Congress. It’s written by framers of the Constitution. It’s written by the people when they amend the Constitution.

And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?

Obama Doesn't Know History
More from HotAir, which transcribes Obama stating the following:

"The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida’s leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

They then nail him on his complete and utter lack of historical comprehension:

Putting aside the “labeling and name-calling”, leaving a war without winning it is, in fact, surrender. How else would anyone describe it? “Quitting” and “running away” come to mind, but both are synonymous with surrender. Leaving when the new strategy has made great progress in bolstering the elected government in Iraq is especially egregious, but in any case retreating while engaged with the enemy is surrender by any definition of the term.

I’m particularly bemused by the references to FDR and Truman. Both men ended up having to conduct massive wars that outlasted their presidencies, and in FDR’s case in no small measure because Western nations insisted on talk rather than action. While we maintained diplomatic contact with Germany and Japan until Pearl Harbor, FDR did not meet with Hitler and Tojo. And that diplomatic contact didn’t stop war from coming; indeed, it make it much worse than it otherwise would have been, at least in Europe, had the US, UK, and France had taken the appropriate steps to disarm Hitler when he started his Versailles Treaty violations.

Truman met with Joseph Stalin during and after World War II, but that didn’t stop the Soviets from blockading West Berlin or ringing down an iron curtain across eastern Europe, enslaving those nations for almost 50 years. If Potsdam and Yalta are Obama’s idea of successful foreign policy, then he obviously hasn’t studied 20th century history. Talking with implacable tyrants leads to appeasement, which leads to either war or more implacability of the tyranny in question.

Idol Swami Update
It's a big week, because we not only have our boot but we have the official top three. This means that our preseason Final Three predictions now come into play. And that means: bonus points!

Castro finally exists stage left. About time. Syesha gets political. Everyone had Castro to go, and everyone except Christy had Syesha as the second pick.

Today what you'll see after you boot picks listed are your scores from this week, then your bonus points that you got for your F3 picks. You get 10 bonus points for each correct pick. So, for example, Downs gets 30 bonus points this week because he's the only person to get all of the final three people right. But spiritvsFLESH gets 0 bonus points, because unfortunately for him all three of his picks have already been eliminated. It doesn't matter what order your F3 predictions are this week - the goal is that they simply made the final three. Next week you'll get 20 points for each correct F2 pick you have, and if you picked the winner right you'll get an extra 30.

Name - (bottom picks, boot, TW, BONUS) // Total Points
MikeknaJ - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 20) // 145
pedro1music- (Syesha, Jason, 11, 10) // 136
Dowens - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 30) // 132
briansbabe94 - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 20) // 126
csemsen - (Cook, Jason, 8, 20) // 124
dsemsen - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 20) // 117
jsrichie - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 10) // 107
KariStar86 - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 10) // 98
wsemsen - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 20) // 98
spiritvsFLESH - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 0) // 94
curlyprincess - (Syesha, Jason, 11, 10) // 90
alittlebitrocknroll - (no picks, 0, 20) // 80
paulaangela - (no picks, 0, 0) // 27
marshallismyalias - (Napoleon Dynamite, Brainy Smurf -101, 0) // -883

Final Three Predictions
csemsen: 3. Carly 2. David A WINNER: David C
MikeknaJ: 3. David C 2. Brooke WINNER: David A
briansbabe94: 3. Brooke 2. David A WINNER: David C
Dowens: 3. Syesha 2. David C WINNER: David A
dsemsen
: 3. Michael 2. Syesha WINNER: David A
jsrichie: 3. Brooke 2. Carly WINNER: David A
spiritvsFLESH: 3 Michael 2. Jason WINNER: Brooke
KariStar86: 3. Carly 2. David A WINNER: Brooke
curlyprincess: 3. Michael 2. Carly WINNER: David A
pedro1music: 3. David A 2. Jason WINNER: Brooke
HuckabeesFriend: 3. Michael 2. David A WINNER: Brooke
wsemsen: 3. Syesha 2. Chikezie WINNER: David A
alittlebitrocknroll
: 3. David C 2. Carly WINNER: David A
paulaangela: no picks made
marshallismyalias: 3. Burt Reynolds 2. Alex Trebek WINNER: Sean Connery

 Posted 5/7/2008 10:29 PM - 22 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

22 Comments

Visit dsemsen's Xanga Site!
I think Sean Connery might just take the whole thing...
Posted 5/8/2008 12:20 AM by dsemsen Xanga Premium Member - reply

Yes!!  MikeknaJ pulls ahead of pedro1music!!  Go Mike!!
Posted 5/8/2008 6:51 AM by Bojangles - reply

Visit KariStar86's Xanga Site!
Haha... just because some people say Barack Obama is wrong/stupid/naive/whatever doesn't make him so, especially if they're toeing the conservative line as carefully as you are. :P

They're good thoughts, and definitely things to consider. But they don't mean that Obama's "credibility" is "destroyed" or that he "doesn't know history." Different people have different views on different things, and that's just the way it is. You seem to think that just because a conservative says it, it's true. Well, here's news - some well-informed people actually disagree on how judges should interpret the law and what that means for activism vs. restraint! Some well-educated people actually disagree on how to conduct foreign relations! And some reasonable people don't resort to machismo and chest-beating instead of considering what they like to call "surrender" and "retreat." And you're welcome to take one side or the other, obviously, but that doesn't mean the other side is stupid and their credibility is destroyed for disagreeing with you.

Doesn't mean I think Obama's right, either. I tend to fall on the side of judicial restraint myself. Pulling out of Iraq immediately may not be the best thing to do (b/c of strategic concerns, NOT b/c it would be "surrender" or "retreat" and it would mean we're wusses or something). Talking with enemies may only work in certain situations. But come on, man. This is getting tiresome. I usually enjoy reading your political thoughts even if I don't agree with them, but in the past several months I could just turn on conservative talk radio and hear everything you're writing.
Posted 5/8/2008 7:56 AM by KariStar86 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit KariStar86's Xanga Site!
Also, I doubt that anyone who wants to "close Gitmo" is promoting strapping terrorists up with complimentary bombs and letting them run wild on the streets. They just believe that human rights shouldn't be abused, and people disagree on what those human rights are and whether you can ever give them up. Also, not everyone we imprison is guilty of something. Most of the time, we don't even tell them what they're in prison for, much less let due process determine whether or not they're guilty of anything. Oversimplification doesn't solve much...

And that abortion "rights" video is very strange and sad. :/
Posted 5/8/2008 9:12 AM by KariStar86 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit MikeknaJ's Xanga Site!

Different people have different views on different things, and that's just the way it is. You seem to think that just because a conservative says it, it's true.

You know, Kari, I'm really tired of your continued subtle digs at my intelligence or thought process. You can disagree with me all you want, but the insults are uncalled for and I take personally.

I do not think that just because a conservative says it, it's true. I do not "toe the conservative line." I take the positions that I take beause I've thought about them and formed a conclusion. In most cases I am conservative, but that is the end result of my process; I am not conservative because someone tells me to be so and I don't take a position just because it's the conservative position. When I blog about something political it's because it's something that I care about and have thought about enough to form a conclusion - if I have not given it enough thought to form a conclusion about I don't take a position. I've thought about most of these core issues for years - decades even. While you may not agree with me, you can quit stating or implying that my beliefs are simply parroting those of other commentators. I welcome a counter-argument. I do not welcome or appreciate personal insults and digs.

And you're welcome to take one side or the other, obviously, but that doesn't mean the other side is stupid and their credibility is destroyed for disagreeing with you.

When did I say the other side is stupid? As for the credibility comment, I said it because I mean it - for me (and it's my blog that we're talking about), his credibility is destroyed on the issue of judges. I have the right to blog my opinion on the man - if you want to blog about how you think his judgement on judges is fine, go right ahead.

Most of the time, we don't even tell them what they're in prison for, much less let due process determine whether or not they're guilty of anything. Oversimplification doesn't solve much...

There is no due process for prisoners of war. Never has been. Never will be. The reason people do not want Gitmo closed is that you then either have to release them or bring them to the US, where they would get due process. But prosecuting them then would endanger national security because to successfully prosecute and give the necessary evidence would require the revealing of intelligence assets and processes that are classified, and endanger lives.

And that abortion "rights" video is very strange and sad. :/

Why are you sympathetic about my abortion comment? Is it because on this issue you happen to agree with me, so here I'm not just toeing the line?

Posted 5/8/2008 10:27 AM by MikeknaJ - reply

Visit marshallismyalias's Xanga Site!
Um, iPhones are cooler. In fact, I am leaving you this comment right now with mine. On the Metro. On another continent.
Posted 5/8/2008 10:30 AM by marshallismyalias - reply

Visit queenofcanadia's Xanga Site!
I agree with you on the abortion thing - last time I checked it was not written into the Constitution that a woman has a right to an abortion... it came out of a Supreme Court ruling in which they very loosely interpreted the Constitution.

Love the 80s cartoon clip by the way. I miss those shows.
Posted 5/8/2008 10:36 AM by queenofcanadia Xanga True Member - reply

Visit kamomlisa's Xanga Site!
My fiance is dying to see Iron Man. Thanks for the thumbs-up. Loved the Giuliani interview passage. Lisa
Posted 5/8/2008 11:18 AM by kamomlisa Xanga True Member - reply

Visit queenofcanadia's Xanga Site!
Thanks for the reply comment. If I had known that there was an Idol game going on, I would have indeed joined it. I usually don't get it wrong, unless votefortheworst gets involved.
Posted 5/8/2008 11:27 AM by queenofcanadia Xanga True Member - reply

Visit KariStar86's Xanga Site!
People like to say that they have a right to their own opinions, and then proceed to state their own facts. People don't have a right to their own facts. Whether or not Obama "knows history" is a matter of fact, isn't it? Have you seen test scores?

That Hot Air place did really prove anything Obama said was wrong. They just pointed out weaknesses in his reasoning. Which is totally fine and legit, but that has absolutely zero percent to do with how well Obama "knows history." It's about how well Obama would interpret and apply history. He may be well-versed in many aspects of history, he just has different views than some about what certain things mean and how they can be translated to today. Opinions are only valid if they are actually matters of opinion.

I wasn't meaning to attack your intelligence or thought process. I don't understand why you took it so personally, but I'm sorry if I did attack you and I'm not seeing it. Many of my comments were actually directed toward the people you quoted, since that's about all there is in this post. But I'm wondering why it's okay for you attack someone else's intelligence and thought process. Obama's not your friend, obviously, so I understand that it's different... in fact, I'm starting to wonder what he ever did to you. This blog has gone from "I Like Mike" to "I Really, Really, Really Dislike Barack. A Lot. Really." ;)

I often defend our current President when people make certain statements attacking him, b/c while I greatly dislike him as a president, I don't think the insults are warranted or even supportable by fact. A lot of them are just repeating what liberal ideologues say about him being the worst president ever, yadda yadda yadda. Many of them say things that aren't even true... which was my problem the last time I commented on your political stuff.

As for where you called the other side stupid? I think "complete and utter lack of historical comprehension" implies it. I mean, one would need to have a very low level of intelligence and knowledge to have a TOTAL lack of comprehension about most things. But I get that that's probably hyperbole. :P

"While you may not agree with me, you can quit stating or implying that my beliefs are simply parroting those of other commentators."

What did I say that wasn't true? I mean, in this blog entry, you literally just repeated what conservative commentators said. Which... I mean, there's nothing wrong with doing that to a point. It's just disturbing to me how I can see your bold titles and pretty much predict, word for word, what you'll say and the conclusions you'll come to, based on what I've heard from ideologues. Much of what you say has no indication of ever considering a non-conservative point of view... which I guess doesn't mean that the consideration wasn't there, but you don't show evidence of it in your posts.

I guess I have a hard time believing that anyone genuinely toes any political line that closely. I'm used to talking to people who have more nuanced views, and the people I've met who stay this close the platform of their chosen party are usually not very informed, nor are they critical thinkers. I know that that doesn't describe you, but that's just my experience with others. I shouldn't make assumptions, but it's difficult.

"Why are you sympathetic about my abortion comment? Is it because on this issue you happen to agree with me, so here I'm not just toeing the line?"

Maybe because the video IS strange and sad? A video of people bombing and abortion clinic because abortion is murder would also be strange and sad.

"There is no due process for prisoners of war. Never has been. Never will be. The reason people do not want Gitmo closed is that you then either have to release them or bring them to the US, where they would get due process."

First of all, the people detained at Gitmo are not classified as POWs. They are classified as "unlawful combatants," which is really quite convenient as the US believes that unlawful combatants do not have the same rights as POWs.

# (Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
# (Article 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
# (Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
(from the Third Geneva Convention)

Still, though, internationally "unlawful combatants" have rights as well:

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."
- Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Now, you could dismiss international laws and treaties, like the current administration does. I can see why people would do that - those agreements raise questions of state sovereignty. But that still doesn't erase the fact that there are U.S. CITIZENS being detained in Gitmo (and surely elsewhere by now). These citizens are guaranteed the right to due process in our own Constitution and they haven't been afforded it, because of suspicions of terrorism.

Lately, the Supreme Court has tried to remedy this. From Wikipedia (I know, but they provide references):

In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the captives "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[23] Therefore, the captives have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. A district court has since held that the "Geneva Conventions applied to the Taliban captives, but not to members of al Qaeda terrorist organization."[24]

Now, I'm not sure why the Geneva Conventions would not apply to al Qaeda members - possibly b/c they're a transnational organization, and the Taliban were specific to Afghanistan. But look at what it says about due process.

"But prosecuting them then would endanger national security because to successfully prosecute and give the necessary evidence would require the revealing of intelligence assets and processes that are classified, and endanger lives."

Not really. There are secret courts that do this sort of thing all the time. And if this was the only reason for preventing these people from being tried, why can't the prisoners at least be told what they're being held for? Or classified as POW's? The current administration has tried to say that these prisoners will be tried when the War on Terror is over - a war that was never officially declared and has no official enemy. Basically, "We'll treat you fairly once every terrorist organization in the world is eradicated." How does that make any sense?

No-one wants terrorists to go free. No-one wants murderers or rapists to be free to inflict harm on more people, either. But should we indefinitely detain all people that may possibly be murderers or rapists - or may possibly know something ABOUT murderers or rapists, and so we waterboard them to find out the information - until the "War on Murder and Rape" is over? Wouldn't it be better to find a way to bring these people to justice without taking such drastic measures and abusing human rights?
Posted 5/8/2008 11:51 AM by KariStar86 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit MikeknaJ's Xanga Site!

It's about how well Obama would interpret and apply history. He may be well-versed in many aspects of history, he just has different views than some about what certain things mean and how they can be translated to today. Opinions are only valid if they are actually matters of opinion.  

In this particular case about Obama, I said what I said because his use of the references to Roosevelt and Truman were grossly strange and inappropriate to his point; in reality they contradict him. A lot of people have different views on the historical facts of Jesus life as well. It is my opinion that they are wrong. You can retranslate something all you want, but there comes a point where your revision is flat out false.  

They just pointed out weaknesses in his reasoning. Which is totally fine and legit, but that has absolutely zero percent to do with how well Obama "knows history."  

Actually, I think it has everything to do w/ how well Obama "knows history." Because anyone can recite facts and dates, but the application of those facts and the reasoning behind how and why those things happened is what "knowing history" is all about.

I wasn't meaning to attack your intelligence or thought process. I don't understand why you took it so personally, but I'm sorry if I did attack you and I'm not seeing it.  

You do it almost every time you respond to a post of mine these days. Here you quite clearly implied that I'm simply parroting the views of others and have not the mind to think for myself. "You seem to think that just because a conservative says it, it's true." And I'm just toeing the line. Why wouldn't I find that insulting?  

What did I say that wasn't true? I mean, in this blog entry, you literally just repeated what conservative commentators said. Which... I mean, there's nothing wrong with doing that to a point. It's just disturbing to me how I can see your bold titles and pretty much predict, word for word, what you'll say and the conclusions you'll come to, based on what I've heard from ideologues. Much of what you say has no indication of ever considering a non-conservative point of view... which I guess doesn't mean that the consideration wasn't there, but you don't show evidence of it in your posts.  

Usually I write the commentary about the things I quote myself when I blog. I didn't here. I am under no obligation to write out long essays about my thought processes on an issue if I wish to blog about it. Last night I was tired and short on time, so I let others do the commentary for me. If you haven't noticed, I haven't been doing as much blogging these days outside of TV posts because I don't have the mental energy to devote to it. I shouldn't have to disclaimer each post with an "* = I've thought about this myself before I posted it" remark.  

Besides. I just liked what they said and how they worded it.  

As for considering non-conservative points of view, I probably do that more than the majority of the politically inclined in the country. I read multiple liberal blogs daily, get my news from non-conservative news sources online (not Worldnetdaily or Newsmax), and rarely if ever watch Fox News out of all my hours of news/commentary viewing on TV. When election returns come in, I tune into MSNBC for Matthews and Olbermann. I've had this conversation with various friends before - it's specifically because I already know what I believe and think as a conservative, so I want to see the other viewpoint on a story as it breaks.  

I guess I have a hard time believing that anyone genuinely toes any political line that closely. I'm used to talking to people who have more nuanced views, and the people I've met who stay this close the platform of their chosen party are usually not very informed, nor are they critical thinkers. I know that that doesn't describe you, but that's just my experience with others. I shouldn't make assumptions, but it's difficult.  

What you said about assumptions. Because you did it again, with your "nuanced" comment.  

And I don't toe the line w/ the party. If we sat down and went over each plank of either the Republican party or conservatism, I'd differ on quite a few things, in varying degrees. Because I have said nuance.  

Here's a point: you can be nuanced and still be conservative. Or liberal. You don't have to be in the middle of the spectrum to have nuance.  

For example, I'm pro-life. But that statement is much deeper than a face-value application. It affects everything from my views on RoeVWade, to my ideas on when life begins in the womb, to how I feel about adoption, to my preferences on constitutional amendments, to my views on if/when abortion is ever acceptable in any circumstance, to how I look at the viewpoints of others who are pro-choice and when I may or may not sympathize w/ their viewpoint, to my views on abortion protesters and the actions that they may take in the name of their cause, to how much weight I give the issue in my decisions to vote, to the kinds of options that I think unwed mothers should be given by both the state and the church, to how the church treats those unwed mothers, etc. But I don't have to type all of that out on my blog if I want to make a comment about being pro-life.

Wouldn't it be better to find a way to bring these people to justice without taking such drastic measures and abusing human rights?  

I guess that would depend on your idea of what abuses of human rights entail.

Posted 5/8/2008 12:56 PM by MikeknaJ - reply

Visit KariStar86's Xanga Site!
Here's the thing... We don't talk anymore outside of xanga. At all. And when we did, it wasn't very often. The Internet - and xanga specifically - may give us a feeling of knowing each other, but the truth is, I DON'T know you that well. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to. But I don't.

Which means that what I know of you is what you post here, and what you post here recently shows no evidence of considering non-conservative points of view. I know that at least a few of your readers converse with you mainly through this blog. I'm not sure why you're getting offended over the fact that I'm drawing logical conclusions from what YOU are choosing to let me know about you. When you write something for everyone to see, you can't pick and choose how they interpret it. If you want them to interpret it a certain way, you can only effectively communicate so that they are more likely to do so. You're under no obligation to write about your own thought process, but if you don't, I don't see how you can fault anyone for not knowing what you haven't shared.

"Here's a point: you can be nuanced and still be conservative. Or liberal. You don't have to be in the middle of the spectrum to have nuance."

I never said otherwise. I only said I didn't see evidence of nuance - of complexity, subtlety, etc. - in what you've posted. I'm used to talking to people who don't stick so close to a party... they may in fact be more extreme than that party.

When I said I shouldn't assume, I was talking about assuming that people who DO stay close to the party line aren't informed or critical thinkers. I shouldn't assume that, and I also shouldn't assume that you haven't come to your own opinions about these things. But should I then assume that you HAVE formed your own opinions, since you don't give evidence of it? I can give you the benefit of the doubt, based on what I remember of how you have been in the past. But when it's over and over and over and over and over again, it makes a person start to wonder. (Note that I haven't commented on anything political on here in a while.)

I'd also be interested to know what you disagree with the Republican party about... out of curiosity and for the sake of knowing where you're coming from. It might help me to understand you better.

I'm gonna actually quote myself for a second: "But I'm wondering why it's okay for you attack someone else's intelligence and thought process."

This doesn't just apply to Obama. Don't you realize that some of your readers aren't conservative? Some of them may hold the same views that you dismiss on your blog as the views of fools who don't know history, have no credibility regarding judges, or want terrorists to go free. Just because you don't write my name doesn't mean you're not "insulting" me just as much as I'm "insulting" you, if that's what I've actually done. This is why politics is, sadly, a taboo topic in polite conversation these days. People quickly go from talking about ideas and issues to talking about people. They start thinking - and saying - that people who think a certain way must be ignorant or naive or immoral. If they don't use those words outright - creating a full-blown fight - they'll imply it, leaving an uncomfortable feeling of resentment lingering in the discussion.

I'm not saying that everyone talking about politics has to "play nice" and be politically correct. I just... it's getting tiresome to essentially be told that I'm somehow defective for holding certain political views every time I read your blog - basically, for not being a conservative. (And that's the crux of a lot of your Obama criticisms - that he's a liberal and has liberal views. Wow! Who knew? Why don't you write more about Hillary then? Now there's two people who toe a party line, lol.)

"I guess that would depend on your idea of what abuses of human rights entail."

Exactly! So maybe you won't have to "marvel" at people who don't approve of what has gone on at Gitmo anymore, because you'll realize that they have a valid point of view as well? It's likely based on the same principles as your own, but it just comes to different conclusions. These things are more complicated than either side likes to admit.
Posted 5/8/2008 1:36 PM by KariStar86 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit hopelikefeathers's Xanga Site!
Whew. Time for a group hug.

I just wanted to say I love the 80's Montage! :) Gem and the Hollograms was truly truly truly outrageous. I also had a She-Ra costume I wore often and had no qualms telling people I was the princess of power. In fact, I think I'll start saying that again. Maybe request it as a byline in my articles or something.
Posted 5/8/2008 2:07 PM by hopelikefeathers - reply

Visit MikeknaJ's Xanga Site!

Which means that what I know of you is what you post here, and what you post here recently shows no evidence of considering non-conservative points of view.

No, you just assume that is the case. And if you look closer, you would've seen that's not true since I often times reference liberal blogs I read, link to them, and post video from pretty much everyone except Fox News.

I know that at least a few of your readers converse with you mainly through this blog. I'm not sure why you're getting offended over the fact that I'm drawing logical conclusions from what YOU are choosing to let me know about you.

You're not sure why I'm offended that you tell me I don't think for myself and believe it just because a conservative says it's true? Nevermind...

When I said I shouldn't assume, I was talking about assuming that people who DO stay close to the party line aren't informed or critical thinkers. I shouldn't assume that, and I also shouldn't assume that you haven't come to your own opinions about these things. But should I then assume that you HAVE formed your own opinions, since you don't give evidence of it?

And that right there is the problem. You say I don't give evidence of forming my own opinions, so you simply assume that I have not. You give me no benefit of the doubt.

Nevermind all of the years that I wrote opinion/editorial for various ccm websites, which should've given you a glimmer of an idea that I was at least slightly thoughtful. Nevermind the fact that usually when I do post a political post it contains lengthy commentary that I write myself.

What you're saying essentially is that since my conclusions and opinions end up being conservative, you automatically just assume that I did not form them myself since they "toe the party line" too much for you. Essentially, my conservatism ends up being evidence of lack of thought for you. I wonder, if my commentaries ended up being more politically moderate in their conclusions would you have assumed the same? If on all of these issues I would've blogged about positions that agreed with where you stand, would you automatically have jumped to the conclusion that I can't think for myself and am not nuanced?

To answer your last question there, yes. And I would assume the same of you - that you have formed your own opinions - because I thought I knew you on some level and that on some level we were friends. That's what friends do. They give the benefit of the doubt.

I can give you the benefit of the doubt, based on what I remember of how you have been in the past. But when it's over and over and over and over and over again, it makes a person start to wonder.

Well, why would it be any different? My core values and my worldview do not change greatly each month. So if I was conservative in the past, why would I not still be conservative today? Why should I have to continue to prove that I still think about things, just because my posts were and continue to have conservative values? How ridiculous is it to assume that just because a person's values do not change that they must have stopped critically thinking?

I'd also be interested to know what you disagree with the Republican party about... out of curiosity and for the sake of knowing where you're coming from. It might help me to understand you better.

Short list:
Environment: I am back-and-forth on global warming. I'm for conservation and protecting the environment in most cases, but will make exceptions. I'm for finding alternative fuels and energy sources and while I don't think that oil companies are evil they get too many favors and special treatments by our government.

Guns: I'm moderate on gun control. I believe in the constitutional right to bear arms, but I think that has a logical limit. What that limit is can be debateable for me, but in general I don't think that private citizens have the right to assault weaponry, and background checks are a good thing.

Foreign Policy: I am not a neo-conservative, and I do not believe in spreading democracy by the point of the gun.

Gay Marriage: I'm against gay marriage, because I believe that marriage is an institution created by God. But if America wants to create civil unions I don't have a problem with it.

Capitol Punishment: I am neither for nor against capitol punishment. I do not believe that the Bible gives us evidence to conclude it's wrong, but at the same time I don't believe it says it must be used. So I can go either way, and I understand the arguments on both sides. If citizens of a state want it to be used, I'm okay with it, but if they choose life in prison instead, I'm okay with that too.

Illegal Immigration: I'm against amnesty, in any form. Because I believe in the rule of law. But I'm fine w/ creating work permits, to allow those who want to work here and fill job needs the opportunity to earn a better living. And if they, then, wish to work towards citizenship after meeting a specific list of criteria they should, then, have the chance to do so.

Health Care: While I'm against nationalizing the heathcare system, and I'm against mandated care for everyone, I'm fine with some sort of assistance for lower income people who cannot afford basic healthcare for themselves or their children. I think some requirements should go along with it but the basic premise of offering care to the poor is a good thing to me.

Foreign Aid: I think what George Bush has done for funding AIDS relief in Africa is wonderful. We need to do more of that kind of thing in the world, on top of everything we already do. The US should always strive to be a humanitarian leader when a need arises.

Genocide: I believe in a more aggresive policy when it comes to documented genocide. I don't understand why Rwanda happened, and I don't understand why Darfur continues to happen. I don't understand why we do not either work to intervene ourselves in cases like this or, prefereably, pressure the rest of the civilized world to be more aggresive and intervene sooner when so many innocent lives are being slaughtered. We can do more, politically, economically, and militarily.

That's a short list for you.

Just because you don't write my name doesn't mean you're not "insulting" me just as much as I'm "insulting" you, if that's what I've actually done.

Did I ever tell you that I don't believe you can think for yourself? That you just mimick what you're told? No. You can disagree with me all you like - and I think I've been extremely blatant about this - because I respect people who thoughtfully disagree. I never said Obama was stupid or that he doesn't know how to think. I just said I think he's wrong. Sometimes very wrong. Wrong about history. Wrong about how judges are supposed to operate. Wrong about a lot of things.

(And that's the crux of a lot of your Obama criticisms - that he's a liberal and has liberal views. Wow! Who knew? Why don't you write more about Hillary then? Now there's two people who toe a party line, lol.)

I can write about what I want to write about. It's my blog. I don't understand why you continue to criticize my choices in topics. I have no equal time obligations. I write about Obama because he's the one likely to get the nomination and he's the one who bugs me the most. If you remember I wrote a fairly lengthy post last month about Hillary and her Bosnia sniper fire comment, if that counts for anything.

Re: Obama, he's liberal, who know? Actually, a lot of folks are claiming he's conservative. Even my buddy Josh Hurst likes to tell me how conservative he is and how I should support him. So it's not as obvious a point as you say.

Exactly! So maybe you won't have to "marvel" at people who don't approve of what has gone on at Gitmo anymore, because you'll realize that they have a valid point of view as well? It's likely based on the same principles as your own, but it just comes to different conclusions. These things are more complicated than either side likes to admit.

I can marvel all I like. Because I disagree with the opposing viewpoint. And I think it's dangerous in application. So I marvel. And I will likely continue to marvel.

This is why politics is, sadly, a taboo topic in polite conversation these days. People quickly go from talking about ideas and issues to talking about people.

Well, that's what you've been doing. All of these conversations could've been avoided if you simply responded with a "hey, I disagree w/ you about such and such, here's why," instead of "you don't think for yourself and just parrot Sean Hannity" types of responses.

I'm not saying that everyone talking about politics has to "play nice" and be politically correct. I just... it's getting tiresome to essentially be told that I'm somehow defective for holding certain political views every time I read your blog - basically, for not being a conservative.

I never said you were defective. I might think some of your views are wacky if they're opposite of mine, but, again, it doesn't mean I don't respect you the person or think that you don't know how to think because you hold those views. Obviously you think a lot of my views are wacky too. And I greatly respect a good counter-argument - when it doesn't at the same time tell me I don't know how to think for myself, or that I'm dishonest, etc.

The bottom line is that if you were jo-shmo off the street, you could say what you want about me and I wouldn't care. I wouldn't take it personal. But since you were someone that I considered a friend, regardless of how close that friendship is, I do take it personal, and it does bother me when you decide to just assume the worst about me, not give the benefit of the doubt, and jump to the conclusion that I can't think for myself simply because I have conservative ideals.

Posted 5/8/2008 2:46 PM by MikeknaJ - reply

Visit iceybloop's Xanga Site!
"Even my buddy Josh Hurst likes to tell me how conservative he is and how I should support him."

I don't think Hurst's opinion is that Obama is conservative, from what he's written. Take his last post on Roe v Wade, for instance. He said that reversing Roe v Wade would be good, but it may not be (and hasn't been) the most fruitful strategy for reducing the number of abortions.

That said, I would guess that if the current justices revisited Roe v Wade, they would very likely overturn it.

Also, I think Kari is making a lot of good points that are being overlooked (or over personalized). I don't have a lot to add to what she said, because I see the matter in a very similar manner.
Posted 5/8/2008 3:59 PM by iceybloop - reply

Visit MikeknaJ's Xanga Site!

I don't think Hurst's opinion is that Obama is conservative, from what he's written.

We've chatted back and forth in messaging and he does take a position that Obama's stances are largely reflective of true conservative principles. We obviously do not see things in the same regard on that one.

Posted 5/8/2008 5:08 PM by MikeknaJ - reply

Visit KariStar86's Xanga Site!
Thanks bloop...

By the way, I've said this same kind of thing to other people who repeat rhetoric from either side. It's not meant to be personal. Most of the things I said were matters of fact - you are toeing the conservative line on xanga, and you are posting attacks on Obama all the time on xanga, and you aren't writing much on xanga that Republican talking heads haven't said. If that doesn't reflect who you are, then fine - I'm just wondering why you write that way when you aren't that way, then. I never said you couldn't think for yourself - the one troublesome phrase I used was "you seem to think that just because a conservative says it, it's true." I meant the word "seem" to indicate that that's what your WRITING shows, but it came out more like a personal attack. I never meant to say that you couldn't or didn't think for yourself, only that there wasn't much to be shown for it on your blog lately.

"Nevermind all of the years that I wrote opinion/editorial for various ccm websites, which should've given you a glimmer of an idea that I was at least slightly thoughtful."

Of course, that's assuming that I read them... :P I tried to read your writing when I remembered, but TRu can tell you that I'm not always good about keeping up with that stuff.

"Did I ever tell you that I don't believe you can think for yourself? That you just mimick what you're told?"

Just because you haven't said the exact same things I have doesn't mean you haven't been insulting or dismissive. I'm finding it hard to believe that you're actually trying to use this as an argument.

"Re: Obama, he's liberal, who know? Actually, a lot of folks are claiming he's conservative."

I have never heard of a single person who thinks Obama is conservative, and I've talked to quite a few people about him, and listened and read a lot of commentary. You're either misinterpreting the person you mentioned, or the person has quite unusual ideas about the left/right scale. Either way, that doesn't represent "a lot of folks" by a long shot.

"I wonder, if my commentaries ended up being more politically moderate in their conclusions would you have assumed the same?"

Well, there aren't very many moderate ideologues out there that anyone would be parroting, are there? I probably wouldn't be as averse to your views if they were politically moderate, but there is no Moderate Party, so your question isn't really answerable.

"Well, why would it be any different? My core values and my worldview do not change greatly each month. So if I was conservative in the past, why would I not still be conservative today? Why should I have to continue to prove that I still think about things, just because my posts were and continue to have conservative values? How ridiculous is it to assume that just because a person's values do not change that they must have stopped critically thinking?"

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I referred to "the past" I was referring to when your posts were still conservative, but showed more careful thought, and the Barack Obama Sucks Show didn't exist yet. When I said "over and over again," I was talking about when you keep saying things that conservative talking heads say - not just in passing, but what they say all the time, as Republican/right-wing rhetoric. For the past several posts, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, after our last disagreement. But post after post has gone by, and Barack Obama is apparently still the antichrist (aka liberal), and you still haven't provided a reason for it that isn't part of the rhetoric. Maybe it's just unfortunate coincidence, but I'm just telling you how it looks from here.

"I never said Obama was stupid or that he doesn't know how to think. I just said I think he's wrong."

It doesn't seem that way from here. Again, I'll point to the "complete and utter lack of comprehension" remark. It's also a tone and wording thing, which I understand is problematic over the Internet, but you seem to always be basically saying - "How utterly ridiculous and inept this man is! No intelligent person could think he'd be a good president. And look at these crazy liberals doing outrageous things! They should be locked up in a psych ward." That's a far cry from "I disagree with this man's views, and I don't think he'd be a good president. Also, I don't think this group of liberals has good ideas." If you're meaning to convey the latter, then I completely understand, but it's not getting through to me that way.

I did forget about the sniper fire bit - you did write about Hillary once. I think that was when I was telling myself not to comment on political stuff, so I might have skimmed it.

About your list... that was interesting, thanks. :) Some of them still sound close to Republican party platforms, but finally there's the much-discussed nuance I was looking for.
Posted 5/8/2008 5:22 PM by KariStar86 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit KariStar86's Xanga Site!
And... as bloop said, I'm not the only one who has noticed these things. Please don't take it as a personal attack. If we're going to talk personal issues, if I didn't care about you or respect you at all, I would've just dismissed you as a Republican parrot instead of trying to talk to you. I know I can say things in ways that I shouldn't, and I deserve to be called out on that. But you're reacting as if I'm betraying you somehow and I don't understand that.

I think if we were having this conversation in person it would go very differently... nonverbal cues and all that. :) I try to be precise with my wording but there's only so much that can be conveyed, you know?
Posted 5/8/2008 6:06 PM by KariStar86 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit ChristianFictionQueen's Xanga Site!
That "Yes We Shall" video is genius!!
Posted 5/8/2008 6:16 PM by ChristianFictionQueen Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit curlyprincess's Xanga Site!

I saw my favorite 80's cartoon in that...Ninja Turtles! It's the only cartoon I ever watched as a kid...........lol

I did sucky this year in the idol game. : ( No one picked Syesha to win LOL maybe because she should have been gone weeks ago!!

Posted 5/8/2008 8:31 PM by curlyprincess - reply

Visit KNIGHTOWL4's Xanga Site!
Wow.   I actually read every word of the whole MikeKanj vs. KariStar86 debate here. I definitely have a lot of time on my hands tonight, huh?  Well, anyway, it was good drama I think.....kinda like watching two people take turns poking each other with a  sharp stick. You just can't find that kind of entertainment anymore.     Well, unless you go see Iron Man.....which I highly recommend.  Great flick.  Robert Downey Jr. really comes across strong here.  And I'm not even a fan of that genre of movies......comic book superhero movies just don't do much for me.  There are exceptions though......The Crow (dark), The Punisher (dark & campy), Batman Begins (dark & smart).  And now Iron Man (just....cool).     However, one thing bothered me during the movie and that is... I couldn't figure out Iron Man's political views during the course of the story and specifically whether he thought Obama maintained credibility on the role of judges in the American legal system and, even more specifically, if Obama knew his history and the specific roles of FDR and Truman in maintaining diplomatic contact with Germany and Japan, particularly in light of the international consequences resulting from overt violations of the Treaty of Versailles.     Those kind of things just tend to bug me when I'm watching a man decked out in an iron suit fly around the open skies, ya know?     Anyway, back to the main subject matter.....as someone who's known Mike for awhile and had a few civil online debates with him back in the day, I can pretty much testify that the guy thinks for himself.  He's definitely got a sharp mind so I think he probably gives more thought to the issues than the constraints of an online blog indicate.     That said.....I admire KariStar's spunk here and I empathize with her views.  She wrote.....     <>     OK, I feel where she's coming from here.  No, I'm not referring to Mike specifically here, cause I know him to be a caring and compassionate guy who thinks things through.  But I am referring to a lot of conservatives in general (think:  talk radio)  And I think it can be a big problem with them (and let's face it......liberals sure ain't immune to it either).     It's why I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh for more than 5 minutes, even though I might find myself agreeing with much of what he says.  However, his "I'm absolutely right and there's no other valid viewpoint" tone just completely turns me off.  It's arrogant and condescending.  I don't think Mike has that kind of attitude but he does take a pretty strong stand on things at times, ya gotta admit.     In that way, Mike is very much like Iron Man.  Only he doesn't weigh as much.  And he's Asian.     But back to my point.      Which was........     I found this great quote from Robert Downey, Jr. a few weeks ago.  It almost ties into this subject.  Check it out......     Robert Downey Jr.....     "I have a really interesting political point of view, and it's not always something I say too loud at dinner parties here, but you can't go from a $2000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal.  You can't.  I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics ever since."     I don't know how that exactly fits in here, but I like the quote and wanted to use it.  Tony Stark would approve, I believe.     But anyway, all of this is just to say....     I enjoyed this debate.  I want to defend Mike cause he's my friend and I know he has a good heart and a sharp mind and we need more of that today.  But I also want to defend KariStar, who I don't know but who brings to light a very valid point about how some political commentators can quite often be extremely narrow and condescending in their viewpoints.     But most of all, I just want to say......go see Iron Man.  It rocks.     Oh...and for the record.....I'm (mostly) conservative and voted for Bush in both of the last elections.  And I absolutely cannot wait for that man to leave office.  Obama may not be the answer to all our nation's problems, but at this point, my campaign button simply says "Anybody But Bush".  
 IRON MAN & JANKE IN 2012 !!!   David O.
Posted 5/8/2008 10:37 PM by KNIGHTOWL4 - reply

Visit dsemsen's Xanga Site!
Dude. I haven't watched survivor. NO SPOILERS!!!!!
Posted 5/9/2008 2:52 PM by dsemsen Xanga Premium Member - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to MikeknaJ's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in MikeknaJ's local time zone:
GMT -08:00 (Pacific Standard - US, Canada)

Counters
Unique Visits since 1/5/04