Jim Prues asked an important question. Here’s my reply.
Yesterday, the Fourth, my post, “Today is the Fourth. Stand up. For at least once in your life STAND UP!” was main headlined. A reader, Jim Prues responded, “I’m all for standing, and understanding, but where do we go from here?”
_
(Parenthetical note: The times require those with the backbone to confront them. Replying to an opinion, or posting one, or forwarding one while hiding behind the anonymity of made up Internet usernames is an egregious act of timidity, of cowardice that besmirches the very “home of the brave” proposition. I’ll no longer respond to those who lack the fortitude to properly identify themselves, nor ought anyone else.)
_
Everyone has experienced a toilet backing up, overflowing the rim and spilling onto the floor. Each and all who seek to demean someone(s) and/or government programs with loose generalities that are without the first mote of attributed fact as substantiating evidence are as toilets erupting with the most noxious of vile spewage. To Jim, and to everyone who encounters overflowing toilet-mouths, assertively request specificity. Follows are a few examples.
_
“The troops want to finish their mission, and come with victory and honor.” Really? Well, “the troops,” as used here, supposes that 100% are of a single mind. Having been one, I can tell you that that’s an absurdity. So, how many “troops” do you know? Give me the names of those you know, and how it is you know everyone of the rest are lockstep on that.
_
“All politicians are the same, they’re all corrupt.” As with “the troops,” that’s just plain stupid. Some may be, yet many are not. I can’t locate the first spot of corruption in Jim Webb, or in Chuck Hagel, or John Warner. I literally leapt with a cheer when George Voinovich entered the conference room, broke with the sycophants in his party and declared that no way could he support John Bolton, Bush’s nominee to be UN ambassador. So, if “all” are this or that, how do my exceptions work in with the utterly insipid remark?
_
“Reagan was a ‘great’ president!” That lowers the bar to an excavated depth. Two long and deep recessions, and a stock market crash, the crash of 1987 being the “greatest” since 1929 and the recession, the most pronounced since the 30s, a tripling of the national debt, the S&L scandal that bankrupted half the savings banks in the country and required $124.6 billion in taxpayer bailout (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ai96123.pdf), more members of his administration criminally investigated, indicted, and either tried and found guilty or pled to lesser offenses than any before or since, and on it goes . . . In light of such darkness, demand to know from the dolt how he or she defines “great.”
_
Any time you hear “the liberal media” or “the liberal press,” demand examples; not merely the names of the sources, but specific examples with dates and the titles of the articles and the broadcast or cable reports that inarguably support the generalized proposition. Furthermore, do NOT back down in the demand. You’re dealing with a fool, let him or her know that is precisely what he or she is. Regardless of your relationship with the person, this is not the time to let him or her off the hook.
_
“McCain is a maverick,” or “He has leadership experience,” or “He has ‘experience,’” or “He was a POW for 5½ years and is a war hero.” Not only has the ‘maverick’ missed more votes than anyone in the senate (59.7%), when he did bother to vote, he voted with George Bush 95% of the time. As to ‘leadership,’ what has he ever led? Concerning ‘experience,’ Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had experience, and look where that’s put us. Relative to the POW and military service status, I will take nothing from John McCain there, but exactly how does crashing three military aircraft, getting another shot from under him, and being chained for any period compose foundations for the presidency, or even meet minimal standards for “hero” acclamation. (I [RA 16 805 398] was in the army, in the infantry, in the Cav, from June 1964 through mid-June 1967, and to my mind, being somewhat inept in one’s MOS, or in a circumstance one could do nothing to alter, is — in the absence of an incredible stretch — hardly the definition of “hero.”)
_
“More money is not the answer, there’s so much fraud and waste . . .” While that is true, rarely will you be engaging that with someone who can point to GAO reports that note specifically where and to what specific sum of dollars extent the “fraud and waste” occur(ed). Additionally, you will frequently hear that generalization in the context of one of the government’s domestic programs, most likely referencing one of the government’s social programs; health & human services, education, etc. Demand to know precisely the programs he or she is referring to, the precise sums he or she is trying to deprecate, and the attribution that will enable you to confirm the allegation(s). Is it cancer research at the National Institute of Health? The road repair work on the freeway he or she uses most often? Bridge inspections and repair? Which programs would he or she cut, and to what extent would he or she cut them? Funding for FDA inspections? FAA funding?
_
“Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim who trained in terrorist madrasas.” This is so pernicious and diabolical and just plain stupid that it shouts for an emphatic response. I know folks have heard this excreta, but hearing a thing does not render it the least tolerable. The difficulty for me is, the entire mantra derives from such a vile base of racial bigotry (NO! Hell NO! It’s got nothing to do with either the first genuine speck of anxiety over Obama’s religion or a fear of surreptitious terrorist infiltration — It is 100% a most cowardly effort to toss a racial epithet without being caught on that no longer acceptable behavior.) that I’m unable to conjure a response that could leave the offending speaker emotionally intact. The only response I can imagine is to destroy utterly and with extraordinarily extreme prejudice the very last shred of ego of the offender.
_
The points I attempted in “Today is the Fourth,” and what I say to Jim Prues, were to encourage folks to summon the deepest intolerance for the assaults on America’s most precious ideals, regardless of the sources of those assaults, be they relatives or other personal relationships, and, with the fortitude manifested by those who founded this “land of the free and home of the brave,” to courageously, indignantly confront those who propound so offensively. You don’t have to march anywhere. And don’t refuse to pay the taxes you legitimately owe. Just stand tall, stand up. For just once in your life, grab the guts to call a dumb sonofabitch, a really dumb sonofabitch! When the value of a relationship trumps principles of basic human decency . . . You really so self-respect impoverished that you need a friend that desperately? Because if you are that desperate, please remain seated during the National Anthem, because the refrain “home of the brave” does not refer at all to you.
_
— Ed Tubbs
Oakland, CA
