Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, March 09, 2007 |
Fighting The Intellectual Beatdown Of "Freedom Isn't Free"
I've really had about enough of bumperstickerism passing as rational political philosophy:
Justin Speier is the kind of guy Lee Greenwood writes songs for, an American and proud of it, a pitcher whose political beliefs clearly lean toward the direction of the arm he throws with — the right.Except that — if you're going to try to make the connection between what goes on in the military and actual liberty, the problem is that the current scenario in Iraq has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with liberty. Iraq never posed a threat to the United States, either directly as a military force or indirectly through its alleged (and never proven) support of terrorism. With these words, Speier supports — whether he understands it or not — the empty posturing applauded by cowards like the Times' Jonah Goldberg, who, like legions of his Fightin' Keyboardists, can't ... somehow ... bring ... themselves ... to actually enlist. Like the "support the troops" demands that keep soldiers in the crosshairs of a civil war they cannot stop, this kind of thinking squanders American lives and treasure, and yes, ultimately, freedom. I understand perfectly well his desire to cheer on his leatherneck brothers still in country; but Semper Fi is not, nor should it ever be, a call to mindless suicide.But that flag the new Angels reliever wears on his sleeve is not figurative; it was stitched into the uniform Speier wore during three grueling months of boot camp as a U.S. Marine and his four-year stint with the Marine Corps Reserves, an experience that continues to shape the 33-year-old.
"I have buddies in Iraq right now, one who is flying C-130s for the Air Force, and he tells me stories of how he gets shot at — it's scary," Speier said. "Then you look at what we're able to do, and you thank God. You're grateful for being able to play a kid's game and go to bed at night in this blanket of freedom the military provides us.
"The sacrifices they've made … I'll never forget it. I have a lot of respect for the people who have served in Iraq, in Vietnam. I think people, regardless of their political viewpoints or agenda, need to show a little more respect for those fighting for our country. Freedom isn't free. It has to be earned."
Labels: angels
Comments:
I couldn't agree more, nor could I have said it any better. Thanks Rob.
# posted by 
: 3/09/2007 08:15:00 AM
: 3/09/2007 08:15:00 AM
Sanchez -- your arguments are nothing more than excuses for perpetual war, the kind of thing I've seen lately from Goldberg and the "throw some small nation to the wall just to show we can do it" bullyism that amounts to nothing more than might-is-right. That does not make it so.
Moreover, the "some responsibility" trope is really just a ruse for horning in on other people's wars. There's a strong case to be made that had the Europeans come to a mutual armistice on the grounds of mutual exhaustion, it would have been a lot fairer than what happened at Versailles... that they did not was largely due to American involvement in World War I. Wilson was in fact a deadly danger to the republic, as Bush is today and McCain will be tomorrow if he somehow manages to get elected.
Moreover, the "some responsibility" trope is really just a ruse for horning in on other people's wars. There's a strong case to be made that had the Europeans come to a mutual armistice on the grounds of mutual exhaustion, it would have been a lot fairer than what happened at Versailles... that they did not was largely due to American involvement in World War I. Wilson was in fact a deadly danger to the republic, as Bush is today and McCain will be tomorrow if he somehow manages to get elected.
Well, would Saddam have been in a position to attack Kuweit had he not been supported by the US (among others) in the golf war against Iran? I also don't think that since the end of the cold war, the US' problem is being percieved as weak by anyone. Right now, they are mostly being percieved as arrogant, egocentric, not trustworthy and short-sighted by friends and foes alike and the Bushes are a really big reason why.
However, this is probably not the place to discuss this and any discussion would likely not go anywhere anyway.
Regarding Speier, he's an athlete and I don't expect athletes to have superior insight in or at least be well-informed about politics. They should shut keep their opinions to themselves. There are times and places where a sentence like "Freedom isn't free. It has to be earned" is insightful, but the current situation in the Iraq sure isn't one of them. However, having friends over there, Speier can be excused when he wants to give their actions some meaning cause it makes it easier to bear. His remarks may be stupid, but understandable.
However, this is probably not the place to discuss this and any discussion would likely not go anywhere anyway.
Regarding Speier, he's an athlete and I don't expect athletes to have superior insight in or at least be well-informed about politics. They should shut keep their opinions to themselves. There are times and places where a sentence like "Freedom isn't free. It has to be earned" is insightful, but the current situation in the Iraq sure isn't one of them. However, having friends over there, Speier can be excused when he wants to give their actions some meaning cause it makes it easier to bear. His remarks may be stupid, but understandable.
Rob you do a fine job covering my beloved Dodgers, as someone who lives in Canada far from LA I am greatly dependent upon your efforts and those of your blog friends covering the Dodgers. So thank you. However, you remind me of my simple minded liberal friends from my university days (1980s) who were so easily manipulated by USSR front groups operating in the West. Or for that matter those in the early 1950s and the later 1930s who refused to recognize the clear and present dangers that the Stalinist and Nazi regimes respectively provided. If you examine the archival documents now available, including testimonials of former senior officials, that the key to defeating the West was to manipulate the liberal elements in the West to undermine those nations' defenses. Read up on literature written by former KGB generals living in the West today (before Putin kills them off one by one) on their objectives and tactics.
Read Churchill and understand the Gathering Storm and recognize what a visionary he was, your liberal friends in the 1930s called him a war monger, sound familar, now he is seen as a great statesman.
Let us be clear, I am a conservative who saw the War on Terrorism as a necessity in the late 1970s when barely a teenager (I was political aware in my pre-teens), I have calling for this battle for almost 30 years and when I hear liberals say there is no War on Terrorism that it is a minor issue or that it only exists in Afghanistan, I think that here is someone who has no understanding of history. Read the history of Islam from the early 600s to today, listen to what they say in private how the West will be burned down and the infidels slaughtered, this is not the Dutchy of Fenwick talking. These are people with money, institutional power, an intellectual base 14 centuries old, and a determination to reverse the losses of the Ottoman Empire.
I have gone on too much already, will done Sanchez for holding up our side, Rob this is too important for silly partisan games the Hate America Left may drift without a rudder but it can do enormous damage, please think about what you say, words matter.
At least you do not appear to associate with those Hollywood self-indulgent morans, I will give you that.
Have a nice weekend
Read Churchill and understand the Gathering Storm and recognize what a visionary he was, your liberal friends in the 1930s called him a war monger, sound familar, now he is seen as a great statesman.
Let us be clear, I am a conservative who saw the War on Terrorism as a necessity in the late 1970s when barely a teenager (I was political aware in my pre-teens), I have calling for this battle for almost 30 years and when I hear liberals say there is no War on Terrorism that it is a minor issue or that it only exists in Afghanistan, I think that here is someone who has no understanding of history. Read the history of Islam from the early 600s to today, listen to what they say in private how the West will be burned down and the infidels slaughtered, this is not the Dutchy of Fenwick talking. These are people with money, institutional power, an intellectual base 14 centuries old, and a determination to reverse the losses of the Ottoman Empire.
I have gone on too much already, will done Sanchez for holding up our side, Rob this is too important for silly partisan games the Hate America Left may drift without a rudder but it can do enormous damage, please think about what you say, words matter.
At least you do not appear to associate with those Hollywood self-indulgent morans, I will give you that.
Have a nice weekend
# posted by : 3/09/2007 02:59:00 PM
: 3/09/2007 02:59:00 PM
Christopher -- if there's going to be sanctioned killing going on, it had better be for a damned good purpose. "Because they could do something bad" does not rise to a casus belli, but it's what Bush and his pals used as an excuse. Your example of the Soviet Union hardly stands up to even the flimsiest scrutiny; where were Iraq's nuclear-tipped ICBMs? Where was their army threatening Europe? Where was their globe-spanning navy? This is silly. The two situations aren't even remotely comparable.
Well said. Freedom may not be free, but the minute someone decides whether someone else should be free or not, freedom goes out the window.
# posted by : 3/10/2007 02:26:00 AM
: 3/10/2007 02:26:00 AM
Rob-
I understand your distaste for Goldberg, even if I don't share it. But I don't understand your willingness to call him a coward and call into question the motivations of those who advocate our stay in Iraq.
Goldberg's latest comparison of the possible aftermath of early withdrawal war in Iraq to the aftermath of the Korean war, and especially his criticism of being willing and eager to enter civil wars across the globe - as long as they aren't in Iraq - may be completely shortsighted, thoroughly wrong, and dangerously misinformed. Perhaps Rob's 'flimsy scrutiny,' with which you dismissed Christopher's argument, could dissolve Goldberg's theses as well. Perhaps not. He could, in fact, be right about Iraq.
But either way, there's no points to be won nor made by calling Goldberg and others like him "cowards" and pretending that their viewpoint, however incorrect, is tarnished because of their supposed "unwillingness to enlist." Enlistment isn't a prerequisite for rational thought on the war or on foreign policy. I listen to and consider what you say with no knowledge of your military background.
Sorry to take such a combative tone... I really do enjoy your blog, foreign policy to technology to baseball. I just don't like to see you fall into ad hominem criticism of things about which you care deeply.
I understand your distaste for Goldberg, even if I don't share it. But I don't understand your willingness to call him a coward and call into question the motivations of those who advocate our stay in Iraq.
Goldberg's latest comparison of the possible aftermath of early withdrawal war in Iraq to the aftermath of the Korean war, and especially his criticism of being willing and eager to enter civil wars across the globe - as long as they aren't in Iraq - may be completely shortsighted, thoroughly wrong, and dangerously misinformed. Perhaps Rob's 'flimsy scrutiny,' with which you dismissed Christopher's argument, could dissolve Goldberg's theses as well. Perhaps not. He could, in fact, be right about Iraq.
But either way, there's no points to be won nor made by calling Goldberg and others like him "cowards" and pretending that their viewpoint, however incorrect, is tarnished because of their supposed "unwillingness to enlist." Enlistment isn't a prerequisite for rational thought on the war or on foreign policy. I listen to and consider what you say with no knowledge of your military background.
Sorry to take such a combative tone... I really do enjoy your blog, foreign policy to technology to baseball. I just don't like to see you fall into ad hominem criticism of things about which you care deeply.
John -- Goldberg and his jingoist cohorts have been all too happy to invoke Churchill and World War II when describing the most recent Iraq war. They do this to inflate their cause and to bully those who question their motives and abilities. Not every opportunity to go to war is an automatic choice of fighting a Manichean battle-to-the-death of absolute good versus absolute evil — or capitulation. Ultimately, they understand this, because if it truly were a life-and-death scenario, why, then, aren't they hoisting arms and marching to the front?
The answer is because they view war as a kind of Nintendo cartridge, a fun and expensive video game to be played by others while they plump their fantasies of manliness. Don't know a Shiite from shinola? No problem! We'll invade anyway and they'll throw roses at us. The level of ignorance men like Goldberg bring to the table is simply astonishing. Their histories begin and end with superficial treatments of World War II and Churchill, but they forget Churchill's less satisfactory efforts in reorganizing the middle east to suit British interests. The problems he encountered (and had a big hand in creating) dog us today, and Goldberg's crew have learned nothing from it.
The answer is because they view war as a kind of Nintendo cartridge, a fun and expensive video game to be played by others while they plump their fantasies of manliness. Don't know a Shiite from shinola? No problem! We'll invade anyway and they'll throw roses at us. The level of ignorance men like Goldberg bring to the table is simply astonishing. Their histories begin and end with superficial treatments of World War II and Churchill, but they forget Churchill's less satisfactory efforts in reorganizing the middle east to suit British interests. The problems he encountered (and had a big hand in creating) dog us today, and Goldberg's crew have learned nothing from it.
Rob - My point, originally, wasn't to defend Goldberg. Nor do I feel good about continuing to criticize what you're saying while stepping around how you feel. But:
"The answer is because they view war as a kind of Nintendo cartridge, a fun and expensive video game to be played by others while they plump their fantasies of manliness."
Come on. Nobody who argues thoughtfully against the war in Iraq has any time to be told that they are "forgetting the lessons of men like Churchill." Nobody who rationally and passionately cries out at the perceived waste of life in Iraq has any business being criticized on shallow grounds. You know perhaps more about Goldberg than I do, and I'm even willing to admit (though I doubt it to be the case) that Jonah himself may view the world like it's Sky Kid, or Metroid, or 1942. Maybe he finds himself inclined to plump his own fantasy of manliness as a career. Maybe he's just as shallow as you imply.
But I cringe at "men like Goldberg" and "jingoist cohorts"... terms and generalities of that type seem to me no better than me calling you a "bleeding-heart liberal," a "coward who doesn't care about the men and women dying for you," or just coming out and saying "liberals like you have no understanding of history." I won't say it's inappropriate, it's just persuasion by argumentative means that are, at best, difficult to prove or apply... and at worst, misleading, ingorant, and ultimately insulting.
"The answer is because they view war as a kind of Nintendo cartridge, a fun and expensive video game to be played by others while they plump their fantasies of manliness."
Come on. Nobody who argues thoughtfully against the war in Iraq has any time to be told that they are "forgetting the lessons of men like Churchill." Nobody who rationally and passionately cries out at the perceived waste of life in Iraq has any business being criticized on shallow grounds. You know perhaps more about Goldberg than I do, and I'm even willing to admit (though I doubt it to be the case) that Jonah himself may view the world like it's Sky Kid, or Metroid, or 1942. Maybe he finds himself inclined to plump his own fantasy of manliness as a career. Maybe he's just as shallow as you imply.
But I cringe at "men like Goldberg" and "jingoist cohorts"... terms and generalities of that type seem to me no better than me calling you a "bleeding-heart liberal," a "coward who doesn't care about the men and women dying for you," or just coming out and saying "liberals like you have no understanding of history." I won't say it's inappropriate, it's just persuasion by argumentative means that are, at best, difficult to prove or apply... and at worst, misleading, ingorant, and ultimately insulting.
John -- what part of any of those phrases are untrue? Find me an Iraq war supporter who doesn't resort to childish oversimplification... Goldberg is bad, but without even breaking a sweat, I could name a half dozen others at least as awful: Mark Steyn, Glenn Reynolds, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin... all of them feature the same sort of trivialization as Goldberg did when the subject of the war first came up:
Q: If you're a kid and you've had enough of the school bullies pants-ing you in the cafeteria, what's one of the smartest things you can do?
A: Punch one of them in the nose as hard as you can and then stand your ground.
That's a call to constant war, endless homicide, and uncontrollable government. As for your objection to my characterization of Goldberg and his cohorts as treating war like a video game, read Glenn Greenwald's account of Joe Lieberman at a movie theater and say that again. The neoconservative movement is as intellectually empty as it is bloodthirsty.
Q: If you're a kid and you've had enough of the school bullies pants-ing you in the cafeteria, what's one of the smartest things you can do?
A: Punch one of them in the nose as hard as you can and then stand your ground.
That's a call to constant war, endless homicide, and uncontrollable government. As for your objection to my characterization of Goldberg and his cohorts as treating war like a video game, read Glenn Greenwald's account of Joe Lieberman at a movie theater and say that again. The neoconservative movement is as intellectually empty as it is bloodthirsty.
rob - i don't know what to tell you... I suppose I don't know enough to refute your claims about Goldberg, nor any of the "neocons" you mentioned. Maybe you're right.
I guess all I'm railing against is the tendency that most conservative commentators have to assign motive and blame to ideas and positions taken by their opposition. Rush Limbaugh is the absolute embodiment of this... you can't go fifteen minutes with that guy without hearing "my friends, what *these liberals* want to do is.." "the reason *liberals* think that way is.." "these *liberals* all want big government because they want to take control from YOU.." etc. His characterization of the opposition is mistaken for evidence against the position with which he argues.
I'm struggling with how the absolute conviction that Goldberg - nay, ANY war supporter, presumably including my dad - is an intellectually empty, bloodthirsty, ignorant blowhard is any different. No matter who's doing it, it's the bane of debate. Goldberg may very well have bad ideas, and he may be an ignorant fool, but his ignorance and his foolishness, however reflected in what he says, aren't actually what make them bad strategy. I'm just asking to hear you, if you apply your obviously learned critical thinking to the war or the situation in the middle east, limit your criticism to the idea, the strategy, the flawed plan, seperate from your theory about the personal flaws of whoever you disagree with.
Even if his era has passed him by, I really only make time for William F. Buckley's column, since his rational thinking doesn't seem to be impeded by his commitment to civility.
I guess all I'm railing against is the tendency that most conservative commentators have to assign motive and blame to ideas and positions taken by their opposition. Rush Limbaugh is the absolute embodiment of this... you can't go fifteen minutes with that guy without hearing "my friends, what *these liberals* want to do is.." "the reason *liberals* think that way is.." "these *liberals* all want big government because they want to take control from YOU.." etc. His characterization of the opposition is mistaken for evidence against the position with which he argues.
I'm struggling with how the absolute conviction that Goldberg - nay, ANY war supporter, presumably including my dad - is an intellectually empty, bloodthirsty, ignorant blowhard is any different. No matter who's doing it, it's the bane of debate. Goldberg may very well have bad ideas, and he may be an ignorant fool, but his ignorance and his foolishness, however reflected in what he says, aren't actually what make them bad strategy. I'm just asking to hear you, if you apply your obviously learned critical thinking to the war or the situation in the middle east, limit your criticism to the idea, the strategy, the flawed plan, seperate from your theory about the personal flaws of whoever you disagree with.
Even if his era has passed him by, I really only make time for William F. Buckley's column, since his rational thinking doesn't seem to be impeded by his commitment to civility.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.