Good grief, Eleanor, maybe you should calm down a bit before replying
What bothers me about your comments -- besides the extreme tone of voice
quite inappropriate to a reasoned discussion -- is your conflation of
In the U.S., you have Republicans and Democrats. There are no "liberals"
-- Democrats are neither similar to classic Jeremy Bentham Liberals nor
the Liberal Party of Canada nor the UK Liberal Democrats.
When I hear an American call supporters of the Democratic Party
"liberals", I hear the message that that person is trying to insult the
Democrats (tho personally I see nothing insulting in the political theory
of liberalism, even tho I don't agree with it). I also hear a person who
is not willing to argue the facts, or willing to accept criticism of their
Now surely you don't want to appear like that?
As for the results of your election, surely you must agree the margin of
victory was rather narrow? Having 49% of the electorate vote against you
(48% for the other major candidate) is hardly what I'd call an
overwhelming mandate, especially in a war situation. Furthermore -- as my
local right-wing newspaper pointed out in its Business section today --
Mr. Bush has certainly painted himself into a corner in terms of any
freedom of action with his ballooning budget deficits, balance of trade
deficits, and a very difficult-to-solve situation in the Middle East.
As for Democrats not accepting the results of the election, I honestly am
having problems thinking of any. Certainly not Senator Kerry or the party
itself. Not even Michael Moore.
And as for the Patriot Act: it's far more extensive than anything ever
done against drug dealers. Read the comments by the American Library
Association, showing exactly how the act can be used to track what
ordinary Americans read.
As for Pullman's quote, the record shows that George W. Bush has stronger
and more intimate ties with organized religion, and in particular what's
referred to as the "Christian Right" than any other U.S. president in the
last century at least. This has shown up with his strong support for such
initiatives as government-funded faith-based social services (i.e. the
Church runs the welfare system), or faith-based prisons (the Church runs
That being said, Pullman's an idiot. There are some very nasty extremists
who use the Christian Right as their ideology (i.e. James Kopp who killed
doctors who provided abortions), but Pullman's comparison is bizarre. It
insults both the huge majority of decent Christians and the huge majority
of decent Moslems.
As for injecting politics where it does not belong, perhaps it would have
been better for you not to fly off the handle, and either not respond, or
calmly say you thought the statement is inflammatory and inappropriate.
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Eleanor wrote:
> What a dilemma! The liberals, who think they know so much better than
> anyone else what is right and good and just, are being rejected in the
> wonderfully democratic system that they profess to hold dear. The problem
> can't be that they have gone off the deep end and turned liberal values
> into a convoluted series of litmus tests to determine political
> correctness. Of course not. It must be that 59 million Americans are
> stupid, bigoted, benighted fools who just won't LISTEN!
> Pity we can't just toss democracy and let the liberals rule by fiat. They
> are so much more enlightened than the rest of us.
> >I posted this because we have discussed Pullman, and his writing and beliefs,
> >here on GO, before. Interesting reactions.
> No, you posted it because you wanted to inject politics where it didn't
> belong and hoped to stir up some America-bashing where you thought it was
> safe to do so, on a list with relatively few Americans.
> >Since almost all of the media in the U.S. is owned by right-leaning
> >of Bu$hCo, let's not kid ourselves that there is much of a "liberal" media
> >today in the U.S.
> Oh, yes indeedy. Like CBS, with its fabricated National Guard memos, and
> then its little plan to run the Iraq explosives story--repackaged old news,
> in any event--two days before the election.
> >As the Patriot Act is expanded, the few dissenting voices will probably
> Guess we won't hear from you again, then. But of course you know that the
> Patriot Act merely allows the government, WITH specific judicial approval,
> to use tools against terrorists that it has long used against drug dealers.
> >America now has, effectively, a one-party system. This may not bode well for
> >future events. I think time will tell if Pullman's assessment is correct in
> >his opinions.
> And whose fault is that drift to one party? The Democratic Party, instead
> of trying to address the real concerns of what has always been its base,
> writes off those in the middle of the country and the South as stupid
> ideologues. Pity that the party of FDR and LBJ has deteriorated into what
> we see today. Be that as it may, reports of the death of the Democratic
> Party are still quite premature.
> I have faith in the system, even when it elects candidates I don't like. So
> many liberals seem to have none, with all their recent weeping and gnashing
> of teeth about the election results. This is a democracy and a republic; we
> went to the polls and elected our president--so deal with it.
> You know something? I really wouldn't have bothered to respond if Pullman
> had merely bashed Bush. But his idiocy in equating the "Christian right"
> with "Islamic fundamentalists" is simply too much to allow to go
> unanswered. It's the worst kind of garbage.
> That's all I'm going to say for now.
> Eleanor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> The Cherry Ames Page, http://www.cherryamespage.com
> Authors and Books for Children, http://www.elliemik.com
> Refined Ladies, http://www.refinedladies.com
"Suicidal glory is the luxury of the irresponsible. We're not giving up.
We're waiting for a better opportunity to win." Lois McMaster Bujold, "Barrayar"
Girlsown mailing list
For self-administration and access to archives see
For FAQs see http://www.club-web.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/girlsown/faq-0.htm