Just saw Snopes’ post on Ben Stein’s commentary on the Oscars and the politics of Hollywood, including this rather disingenuous statement:
Basically, the sad truth is that Hollywood does not think of itself as part of America, and so, to Hollywood, the war to save freedom from Islamic terrorists is happening to someone else.
Sure, he’s talking about Hollywood specifically, but it’s the kind of "You’re not really American" rhetoric we see a lot in political polemic.
Has it occurred to people on the right that us "lefties" (which seems to mean anyone who is less conservative than President Bush) do think that fighting terrorism is a good thing, but that our nation is currently going about it the wrong way? That maybe invading Iraq wasn’t the best way to curtail global terrorism? That it might be possible to spy on terrorists without bypassing that Constitutionally-guaranteed "due process of law" in a way that sets precedent for warrantless spying on citizens who aren’t terrorists?
We don’t hate America, but we’re not particularly thrilled about some of the things our government has been doing lately.
I do agree that the Academy Awards are pointless in the grand scheme of things, but I’m sick and tired of the false dilemmas rampant in what passes for political discourse these days.
okay, just leave the oscars alone. Let the war be the war, and let the oscars be good entertainment where we can gossip on the best and worst dressed stars.
Today, everything just has to have another angle. A cat drinks water from the tap, then all of a sudden, wow that cat is living too liberal a life, and why doesn’t he care about what’s going on with Iraq?!? It’s just getting silly.
The right loves to do this. It’s their way of trying to relegate liberal thought to the domain of “those crazy celebrities”, instead of what an everyday, rational American might think.
Didn’t Bill Clinton say it’s impossible to love your country and hate your government?
I hadn’t heard that one, or didn’t remember it, but some googling turns it up on some reputable enough sources. I disagree with the statement, though.
The choice of quote, and the context, seems to imply that if I don’t support Bush 100%, then I must have supported Clinton 100%, catching me in a contradiction. This, of course, is another false dilemma.
Under the Clinton administration we had stupid things like the push for the V-chip, cryptography (you know, that thing that makes e-commerce possible) classified as munitions, etc. And every once in a while, Bush manages to do something I agree with. Overall, though, I much preferred our last President, for all his flaws, to our current President, who has spent the last six years pushing the country in a direction I don’t want to see it go.
The choice of quote is meant to imply that jingoism is not the exclusive province of the “Right”.
[…] what little respect I had left for Ben Stein is rapidly evaporating. Apparently it’s not good enough for him to claim that […]