Battle of the Letters Part 2

Well, I've gotten into another letter to the editor war. I'm going to put all the letters here and then my response to her most recent missive.

*************************************************************************************

When WWII veterans say the atomic bombs were justified because they saved their lives, they're saying it was all right to burn thousands of innocents because they put themselves above them.

That's hardly heroic. And now we live in terror that terrorists will drop such a weapon here. Whose fault is that? When Pandora opens the box, Pandora is to blame.

Anyone who has it will use it -- as we did. Now our hands are as dirty and bloody as those of our enemies.

The army tested the bomb on helpless farm animals and radiation on our own unsuspecting citizens. And you wonder why I don't feel protected?

This war is no different from Vietnam. It is illegal, it's wrong and it has no end. And terrorists are more numerous and dangerous than ever. And the government will hide in shelters while citizens pay the price.

Call me an ingrate. Call me a traitor. But you're nuts if you continue to support Bush, his war and his warriors. Yes, his warriors. They voted for him and they're fighting his war quite willingly.

M.J. CLINE, Topeka

*************************************************************************************

M.J. Cline seems to be confused in a recent letter. She starts off by decrying the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan as a horrible decision that the United States is to blame for. She then goes on to say that if a terrorist organization uses nukes on the U.S. that the U.S. is to blame for that as well. Do you not realize how contradictory this is? Who gets the blame for bombings now? The person pulling the trigger or the victims?

In the case of the Japan bombings, you say the bomber is to blame, but then you say that if the U.S. is bombed it's our fault. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

In reality, Ms. Cline is showing her true colors here. She's part of that crowd that believes that everything the U.S. does is wrong. She completely ignores anything that would threaten that view, such as the inherent contradiction within her own letter, because that particular crowd doesn't operate under the banner of logic or reason. They can't let silly things like facts get in the way of their opinions.

I find it most ironic that Ms. Cline feels the need to voice her opinions as gospel considering her history of issues with people who believe in the Gospel. Hopefully, one day people like Ms. Cline will start looking at those troublesome facts and truths before forming their opinions instead of the other way around.



*************************************************************************************

No, Scott, my letter was not self-contradictory. Whenever a country uses an atrocious weapon on another country it will have that same weapon thrown back at them sooner or later. It's fact of life. Read history.

No, I do not present my word as gospel, nor do I fight with anyone else for believing in the Gospel. You attempted to put me in some "crowd" to discredit my views. It was a favorite trick in the '60s to identify anyone against the Vietnam War with a handful of violent pretenders in order to discredit them. It worked for a while, but they eventually overcame. They turned out in the end to be the true majority.

The troublesome fact that people like you don't want to face is that most Americans now want out of this mess in Iraq. You just can't set up democracy in a country that doesn't know the meaning of the word. Apparently you don't either. Dissent is our sacred right.

M.J. CLINE, Topeka

*************************************************************************************



Ms. Cline, you continue to make me laugh. I appreciate that. Your most recent example of your sense of humor was when you said that a democracy can't be established in a country, you were referring to Iraq, that doesn't know the meaning of the word. I suppose you could have been serious when you said that but that would require that you pay no attention to what's going on in Iraq now. You know, those pesky free elections that are one of the hallmarks of democracy. I guess the 70%+ turnout of voters in Iraq just shows how much they don't want democracy. Since that's a higher voter turnout than we've had in this country I would think that would be ample illustration that the Iraqi people want democracy, but that may just be me being brainwashed by the evil right-wing conspiracy machine.

I'm not going to even bother addressing the rest of your statements. If you're so willing to completely ignore basic facts such as the massive involvement of the people in Iraq to establish a democracy then no actual fact will stand in your way. You don't have time for facts when you have your opinions.

*************************************************************************************


This is the primary series of letters. There were some side letters involving throwing the word traitor around along with freedom of speech and I'll include those in another post. These are what I'm concerned with now.

As you can see, Ms. Cline and I have nothing like common ground here. As far as I'm concerned, she's off her rocker. In my last response to her I ignored a couple of her points cuz it was obvious, to me, that she is not the type of person to acknowledge facts that are contrary to her viewpoint. I'm going to address those points here.

First, she tries to maneuver out of her earlier statements saying the US would be to blame if an nuke was used on us. Her earlier statement was that, "now we live in terror that terrorists will drop such a weapon here. Whose fault is that? When Pandora opens the box, Pandora is to blame." That statement doesn't simply deal with the possibility of an atomic weapon being used it places the fault for it squarely on the US. her last letter stays away from playing the blame card and instead says,"Whenever a country uses an atrocious weapon on another country it will have that same weapon thrown back at them sooner or later. It's fact of life." Basically she realized playing the blame card didn't work and tried to backtrack. Problem with that is that she made a completely asinine statement. She tells me to, "Read history." for examples to back her statement up. Well, here's some history for her. The Japanese used kamikaze pilots to attack the US in WW2. Did the US, or anyone else for that matter use kamikaze against the Japanese? The answer is no. In Gulf War 1, Saddam used various nerve agents against our troops. Did ANYONE use those against Iraq in the first or second Gulf War? Again a no. How about in Vietnam? The Vietcong used torture, poisoned traps, and car bombs against the US. Did we use the same tactics against them? No, we didn't. History doesn't back you up Ms. Cline. I suggest you read a bit more before you try to argue a historical point.

The US passed out blankets infected with smallpox to the Native Americans at one point. By Ms. Cline's logic that justifies anyone to use bio-weapons against us. Eco-terrorists have spiked trees and laid traps for loggers. By Ms. Cline's logic the loggers are fully justified to retaliate in kind. By Ms. Cline's logic the US would be justified in hijacking airliners and flying them into major cities of countries that support terrorism. You'll have to forgive me Ms. Cline, but I'm playing the BullShit card on you and your argument here.

She does make one semi-valid statement in her most recent letter. She claims that I put her in some 'crowd' to discredit her views. While I did say she was part of a particular group she is wrong in assigning blame to me for her being there. Her comments and views put her there, not me. Considering her habit of labeling all who disagree with her as brainwashed Bushites I think it's amusing she has issues with being put in a 'crowd.'

Finally she claims that "most Americans now want out of this mess in Iraq." this is demonstrably false as even the MSM has shown. A recent poll by CNN shows that 59% of Americans don't believe US troops should be pulled out of Iraq until our goals are reached. Only 35% wanted to set a specific timetable for withdawal. I realize that numbers are sometimes difficult for people to deal with so I'll spell this out. In order for Ms. Cline to be right, more than 50% of the population would need to want out of Iraq now. In face, the opposite of Ms. Clines views is the correct one as a clear majority of Americans disagree with her. I don't expect her to acknowledge this fact however. I truly expect to see these facts ignored or that she'll make a poor attempt at discrediting the poll cuz we all know what a right-wing media outlet CNN is.

I'm pretty much done with trying to debate with Ms. Cline in the letters anymore. She has made it painfully obvious that responding to actual facts and figures isn't what she's interested in. All she can do is try the old magicians trick of drawing your attention away from the real action. She figures if the quality of her arguments is bad she can make up for it by yelling and calling names at the top of her lungs. But what do I know? According to her I don't know what democracy is simply because I called on her to deal with facts instead of opinions. Think she's got it a bit confused?

What's good for the goose....

Well, I didn't get to finish up my thoughts on the reality denying viewpoints that I mentioned in my post the other day and something new has caught my attention so I'm going to have to put closing that out for a bit. Instead you get to read some more about Mirecki.

For those who aren't familiar with the situation Paul Mirecki was chair of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas. He wrote an e-mail that expressed his opinions about intelligent design and his desire to teach a class that would expose ID for the poorly masked religious doctrine that he believed it to be. This e-mail was released publicly and due to the inflammatory wording he used and constant name-calling throughout the text he attracted quite a bit of negative attention. In all fairness to Mirecki, I agree with him that ID is not science and is essentially creationism in a new dress. That being said, you cannot resort to the sort of mocking and blatant disrespect that he engaged in without expecting some consequences.

Here's what's happened to Mirecki so far. After a meeting with his faculty he drafted and signed a letter resigning his position as chair of the religious studies department. He requested that the class he mentioned in his e-mail be cancelled. He reported being assaulted by two men early one morning. He has since gotten an attorney, claimed he was forced to resign and threatened to sue the university for failing to support him. He has also expressed displeasure with the way the local authorities are investigating the attack.

I'm going to go through this one point at a time. Mirecki wrote, and signed a resignation letter. He now claims that he was forced to do so. The problem I have with this is that everyone involved in the discussion agrees that they thought it would be better if he resigned but that the choice was, in the end, his alone. In fact, his fellow professors have stated that Mirecki admitted that his resignation would be the way to go. Now he wants to cry foul? KU has multiple avenues for a professor, let alone a dept chair, to pursue if they feel they are being unduly pressured to step down. Mirecki availed himself of none of those options. Is that proof that he wasn't forced to resign? No, but it is suggestive, and coupled with the many accounts where Mirecki was the one to make the final decision about his resignation I think this point is settled. Mirecki resigned voluntarily.

What about the class he had scheduled? Why was that cancelled? It was cancelled because Mirecki and KU both decided it was a good idea. For different reasons I'm sure but both parties agreed on this. In fact, KU has stated in no uncertain terms that they like the idea of the class and feel it should be taught in the future. Given the attitudes at KU right now regarding the class it just makes sense to put it off for at least a semester.

Now we get to the assault. Mirecki's story has small changes here and there, but that's to be expected with the situation and multiple retellings. Early iterations of the story had Mirecki taking a pre-dawn drive to "clear his mind." Later versions he was on his way to breakfast. The general area of the attack is south of 31st street in Lawrence and that is an almost rural area. Few, if any, streetlights and sparse housing. Mirecki stated that a pickup truck was tailgating him. He pulled over to let them pass. When the truck stopped and the men in the truck got out Mirecki did the same. That's when they proceeded to beat him. I have a few problems with his story, but nothing insurmountable. His first story of a drive to "clear his mind" makes sense given the area of the attack as it's a very peaceful area to drive through in the early AM. If he was going to breakfast, as he later claimed though, I'd wonder what he's doing that far south as there's really nothing out there. My main problem with his story though is the timeframe. The attack is listed as early in the morning when it was still dark. If that's the case then how did the guys in the truck know it was Mirecki in front of them? Mirecki's report doesn't sound like a chance encounter but if it wasn't then how did they find Mirecki? Follow him from his home? Why? If you've made the decision to assault and intimidate someone then it would make more sense to do it in their home away from a chance car driving by. Those questions aside, I see no real reason to doubt Mirecki's story at this point. Could he have made it up? Of course. It's also just as likely that some pinheads beat him down too. We'll have to wait and see.

My problem with Mirecki now is his response to the situation. Threatening to sue after voluntarily resigning isn't appropriate. Threatening to sue because KU "denied me my Constitutionally protected right to speak and express my mind" is laughable. If they were going to deny you your right to speech then you never would have been able to write the e-mail that started all this hoopla. If the University disagrees with the position you put forth they are under NO obligation to support you. You're a big boy now stand up for yourself.

The thing that most annoys me right now about Mirecki is his response to the police. He's loudly complained about the sheriff's investigation claiming that being questioned for several hours about his story is being "treated more like a criminal than a victim." I'm not sure what Mirecki expected the cops to do, but last I checked, going over the story to make sure nothing was overlooked is just good procedure. Mirecki also claims that the sheriff's seizing his car and computer made no sense to him. I'm going to assume that Mirecki had a possible concussion cuz I can think of three or four explanations for either just off the top of my head. Mirecki's complaining is, in the end, going to do more damage to him and his reputation than the beating ever did. Shut up and let the cops do their job. You are not a cop, you are a professor of religious studies so you do NOT know what the cops need to do. I don't care how many episodes of CSI or Law & Order you've watched.

To sum up: Mirecki mouths off; resigns as dept. chair; cancels class; gets beat down; complains to any and all who will listen. In the end, Mirecki has hurt himself far more than any of the 'fundies' he was ranting against in his e-mail.

One more interesting point in all of this. There is no call to understand the cultural mores of the guys who beat Mirecki down. If they were muslim and this had been a riot, honor-killing, violent rape(see Sweden), or murder of a film director we'd have heard hundreds of talking heads going off about how it wasn't the muslims fault. That Mirecki should have been more sensitive to their culture. Double standards anyone?

I was asked today why I haven't posted lately. While a part of it was the fact that I'm almost constantly busy, the other part was that I've had a hard time putting anything together to post that wasn't based purely on anger. In all honesty part of my anger was frustration with myself and where I was that I was redirecting at others. That's one of the reasons I held off posting because I do NOT want to use others as a scapegoat for my personal frustrations. Since I've managed to work myself past that point I'm back to posting.

What I'm going to touch on briefly tonight and will, hopefully, have time to address in more detail tomorrow is something that became apparent to me only recently. What I've noticed is the fundamental problem in modern politics and, by extension, policies. There are basically two types of people out there right now. Those who see reality for what it is and try to deal with it rationally, and those who ignore reality as it is and insist that the world is how they think it should be despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. If you're feeling defensive right now then you are probably in the latter category.

One prime example is on the matter of gun control. There's been a lot of hoopla lately over Martin's declaration that he will call for a ban of handguns in Canada. A quote from the article on the Liberal party's website states that "By banning handguns and enforcing a comprehensive policing efforts, the Liberal government will get these dangerous weapons off our streets and help to stop gun crime." For the logical readers the obvious flaws in this statement need no explanation. For those that are 'rational-thought challenged' I'll spell it out for you. Gun crime is, by definition, committed by criminals. Criminals, again by definition, are those who have ignored and broken the laws of the society within which they exist. Making yet another law for them to break will NOT decrease gun crime.....unless you count the citizens who will refuse to turn in their guns for fear of having no way to protect themselves when one of those criminals shows up on their doorstep. This is an example of someone who defies reality as it is and is insists that the world MUST be as they see it instead of as it actually is. Those in the US in favor of gun control should take note. I, for one, will refuse to abide by any legislation that takes away my ability to protect myself from someone who is threatening me or mine. Period.

Another example is the war in Iraq. Despite many positive changes in Iraq, despite the number of soldiers and Iraqis proclaiming that Iraq is better off than it was and is becoming a nation of people proudly involved in the direction their country is heading the mass media in this country insists that Iraq is a 'quagmire' and that the entire war is a farce designed to strengthen Bush's administration. Given Bush's approval ratings this is demonstrably false. If Bush wanted to simply strengthen his adminsitration he would have stopped after Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was political suicide. The politicians do NOT care how many people in Iraq Saddam had killed. They do NOT care about actually furthering democracy in the world. All they see is a chance to score points with the voters with carefully chosen soundbites. They refuse to accept the facts of what is truly going on and instead insist that what they believe to be happening is actually the truth no matter what evidence you use to prove them wrong.

The final example I'm going to use tonight is the group of loud-mouths on the far right crying out about a 'War on Christmas.' They say that people using 'Happy Holidays' or 'Seasons Greetings' is proof that there's a vast conspiracy against those of the Christian faith. Get it through your skulls that Christmas is NOT the only holiday to be celbrated at this time of year. The world does NOT revolve around you and your 'sacred' institutions. I could just as well proclaim that Christians are involved in a war against the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. That statement would actually be more accurate, all things considered.

Learn to face facts and deal with the world AS IT IS. You'll find that you can accomplish more of actual value that way.