So Much For The Middle Ground

 

“You’re either with us or against us.” –George W. Bush, November 2001

Funny how such a childish sentiment can become the foundation of national policy over a few short years. At the time, it seemed kind of silly, but it truly has sunk into the hearts and minds of the nation. In even the most civilized debates, the sentiment quickly lodges its place and corrupts the dialogue. Everyone thinks the media has taken sides, and perhaps they are right. Perhaps the media had to in order to keep people reading, as the people seem incapable of accepting a balanced argument. While the international community scrambles to keep on our good side, or failing that lashes out with the same inane rhetoric, the people look to the President to tell them who we love and who we shall hate. Ever wonder whether this is really serving our best interests?

Back in the summer, I had a wonderful series of arguments with my father in law. He is an extremely intelligent, thoughtful man, and we never agree about politics. I always look forward to his visits.

This time, the discussions eventually turned to the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, which was very hot news at the time. As usual, we disagreed. His arguments were that Israel had a right to defend herself, that allowing Lebanese terrorism to go unchecked was fueling the fire that had once burned us, that Hezbollah was a threat not only to the Israeli people, but ultimately to the Lebanese people as well. My stance was that the Israeli retaliation had been over the top, and had caused great harm to the Lebanese people, and ultimately weakened the Israeli stance, as it would contribute fuel to Hezbollah’s cause. The stage was set.

We were arguing merrily (if passionately) along, when there came a show stopper. When asked if he understood my stance, he responded that yes, indeed he did: I supported the terrorists.

I was completely taken aback. I had never voiced approval of Hezbollah’s actions. I deplore violence in any form, and truly feel that it only ever leads to more violence. Yet, somehow, my stating that I believed that Israel was wrong had equated to my saying that Hezbollah was right. And this, from one of the people I respect most, both as a person and as an intellectual opponent.
How did this happen?

The same trend is prevalent everywhere I look. If you do not support one side, you must support the other. If you believe that Iran is not the Ultimate Evil, then you must believe they are the Ultimate Good. If you do not support the war in Iraq, you must support the terrorists. If you do not support the President, you must hate the United States.

Of course, it happens on the other side of the political divide, as well:
If you support the President, you must hate the Constitution. If you believe in Jesus, you must want to see the Middle East glassed. If you are against abortion, you must hate women. And so on…

It’s funny, because in talking with individuals, it is hard to find anyone who ascribes entirely to a pre-packaged belief system. Even the most devout conservatives often find fault with the current administration’s fiscal management. Even the most fanatical liberals may believe that a strong military is necessary for our security. There are Christians who believe Allah is the same as Jehovah, pro-lifers who want to see an extensive birth control education program, animal rights demonstrators who will eat free range meat. We are none of us a predictable algorithm.

What does this black and white view accomplish, and whom does it benefit? In a time plagued by violence and uncertainty, it breeds more violence and uncertainty. In a nation devoured by difficult problems, it prevents actual solutions. It feeds fear and hatred of our neighbors, and it benefits no one but those who are intent on bullying their way through to their vision of the future, those who believe that Might makes Right.

We are a young nation, but we are old enough to know better. Talking to others with an open mind does not threaten your own opinions, unless your own opinions are already flawed. Perhaps it’s time we asked ourselves what our goal as individuals and as a nation actually is. Do we want to find the right answer, or do we just want to win?

Diebold Electronic Machines Malfunction, Vote for Other Candidate

Cynthia McKinney, running for Congress in Georgia’s Fourth District, has released the following announcements on her website (copied over here for ease of reading):

(Decatur) After one hour of voting, the McKinney campaign has received numerous calls that the voting machines are malfunctioning. Voters casting votes for McKinney are reportedly having their votes switched by the machines for Hank Johnson. This is not a new problem with Diebold machines. Lawyers for the campaign have been alerted and said that if this situation is not corrected, Cynthia McKinney for Congress will be forced to take additional measures. Two Hours Into Voting, More Problems Recorded With Diebold Electronic Machines, Pollbooks

Just after the polls opened, numerous problems with Diebold electronic voting machines were noted. At one Rockdale precinct, reportedly a single Diebold machine malfunction affected the performance of the entire sequence of machines assigned to that precinct. Additionally, one machine didn’t have a plug and sat idle. In addition, workers were not adequately trained on the use of the electronic pollbooks, resulting in unnecessary voter frustration.

When one McKinney voter realized too late that her intended vote had been switched by the voting machine to a McKinney opponent, the polling place official’s response was “she needs to let us know next time before she casts her ballot.” McKinney campaign officials want to know, what about this time?

I know it’s all silly conspiracy theory…I know! But I can’t help but wonder:

What’s the most unbelievable conspiracy theory? Continue reading