When someone disagrees with us, there is a natural tendency to assume the worse about them. Since anger and hatred get in the way of rational thought, this is something we each must guard against. However, some folks do not seem to understand what hatred does to us. Thus I got I link to www.bushflash.com in my mailbox. Specifically, I got a link to this video (here). So I decided I might illustrate how hatred undermines our mental processes by doing a review.
What the Video is About
The video begins in Arlington National Cemetery. Here we are reminded once again that war is bad. People do not kill people; war kills people. So we must end war. Unfortunately, there are people who favor war, Republicans.
Then the video transitions to a Young Republicans Convention. Here, obviously misrepresenting themselves, the intrepid video crew puts some college students on the spot and films them.
First the video shows that these young Republicans support the war. Then it proceeds to “demonstrate” their hypocrisy with this question, “If you support the war, why are you not serving in the military?” When some of the young Republicans claim medical reasons, the film crew notes a curiously high rate of medical problems.
Then the video crew briefly covers how Republicans are ANTI-GAY religious bigots and other such social issues.
Finally the intrepid video crew produces some silly theatrics when they are finally recognized and gently tossed out of the convention hall.
Why the Video is Stupid
When we busy ourselves by accusing others of hypocrisy, we often fail to grasp the faults in our own notions. Hence we should seriously consider the ideas of others without hostility. When we do not listen to others objectively, we tend to produce amusing self-contradictions.
- Undoubtedly, the folks who run www.bushflash.com think everyone has a right to vote. Nonetheless, that is not the presumption in this question, “If you support the war, why are you not serving in the military?” Otherwise, where is the hypocrisy? If you have to serve in the military to advocate our military’s presence in Iraq, doesn’t that suggest that only military members have the right to vote. Perhaps we should go back to the time of feudal lords and put our generals in charge of the country.
- Currently, we have a relatively small military force. Less than one percent of our nation is in the military. Nonetheless, contrary to the film’s suggestion, Republican officers outnumber Democrats 8 to 1 (see here). Young Republican college students do join our military. Where are the Democrats?
- As their own video demonstrates, the intrepid video crew interviewed its victims under false pretenses. If you are going to conduct an interview and then accuse others of hypocrisy, …..
Where the video crew erred was in its choice of objectives. Instead of evaluating our military policies in Iraq, they set about proving Republicans are bad. What they proved is their inability to consider the issues involved objectively.
Anyway, I hope that none of those interviewed for the www.bushflash.com video feel ashamed for expressing themselves. Anybody with half a mind knows these young people were bushwhacked. Any mature and experienced adult who would victimize college students this way should be ashamed.
You’ve been tagged.
http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2007/07/since-you-asked.html
I can’t believe you were so disturbed by that video that you had to blog about it.
That video caught my attention, because of the gang that ran the College Republicans back in the bad old days (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/index.html), Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist, whose ties to Abramoff will probably get them thrown in jail along side him.
The video seems to indicate the same kind of entitlement and shirking of responsibility in that organization.
Disturbed? Your video begins with name calling and accusations of hypocrisy. Then you add charges of guilt by association and threats to throw people in jail. Why shouldn’t I be disturbed when people resort name calling, accusations of hypocrisy, charges of guilt by association and threats to throw people in jail, and so forth in preference to reasoned discussion? Because of PBS’ Bill Moyers? Yeah, there is a paragon of objectivity. News funded by our government. Exactly what we need to retain a free press.
First of all, that’s not MY video. I didn’t make it. I merely forwarded it to you. And I’M not threatening anyone, just speculating based upon the evidence, emails, etc., which Moyer AND OTHERS have presented in the media. It’s interesting that you accuse me of “guilt by association,” yet summarily dismiss everything NPR and PBS reports.
And I happen to think Moyers is one of the last of a dying breed of true journalists left. Just because you don’t like PBS getting a small amount of funding through government grants, doesn’t mean everything they present is biased. If you look at the figures, PBS and NPR raise a majority of funds through public donations – isn’t that the kind of funding conservatives are in favor of? Or should we just rely on Ruppert Murdock and Clear Channel to OWN the message and fill their programming with infotainment for the flabby brained masses?
Americans are already so isolated and arrogantly ignorant in their world views – THANK GOD FOR NPR AND PBS. They aren’t beholden to anyone and can report without the ratings pressure, agenda, and talking points memos Murdock issues.
You know, words do matter, and they have specific meanings, so stop twisting mine to fit your predetermined biases.
Teresa Beau — You sent me that video. I did not ask for it. When you sent me that video, you made it your argument; you endorsed it. The same is true of the stuff that followed. In the process, you got so busy propagating accusations, you forgot your original purpose.
Here is what I think of PBS.
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” — Thomas Jefferson
You buy a newspaper? You pay. You subscribe to cable TV? You pay.
But the true meaning of the word “free” in the context of “free press?” doesn’t refer to cost. It means free, unfettered. PBS and NPR are a true representations of “free press” in that context.
When too much of the power of the “free press” is concentrated or controlled by a few companies or men, then it’s no longer “free.”
Teresa Beau — When I buy a newspaper, that is my choice. I do not pay for cable TV. I think those choices belong to me. Do you think I should be forced to buy particular newspapers and a particular cable TV system for others? Apparently, you do. Why?
We do not need government to entertain us or to provide us news. We do need government to protect our rights. How does compelling people to pay for the propagation of ideas they abhor protect their rights?
Protecting our rights does involve regulating our commercial markets, and I agree that includes making certain that the news media is not owned by just a few companies. However, I cannot begin to fathom how you think government ownership of the mass media helps solves the problem mass media monopolization. Would you like to explain that?
When we add up Federal, state, and local funding, about 40 percent of the funding for public broadcasting comes from taxpayer dollars. That makes politicians by far the largest group of donors to public broadcasting. You do not think these donors get something for these contributions? Do only Republicans scheme?
Government does not “own” NPR and PBS and you know it, but we’ve been having this debate for decades. You’re not going to change your position, and neither am I. I just think you’d do better to complain about funding pork, like bridges to no where, than Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and dozens of the other groundbreaking education programs free to all children with a TV set. I personnally like the journalistic programs and others like Nova, Hearts in Space, etc.
Faux Noise is dangerous propaganda, not NPR and PBS.
Curious how you started this debate of on Iraq and a stupid video, but now you are so happy to talk about PBS and NPR.
Teresa Beau, I did not say the government owned NPR or PBS. What I suggest is that politicians are NPR’s and PBS’ largest customers and that these folks must be getting something for “their” money. I also asked you to explain how compelling people to pay for the propagation of ideas they abhor protects their rights.
Again, you switched the subject. You try to defend the news programming with the “its for the children” argument. That is nonsense. There was no educational programming before the government subsidized it?
The reason there is relatively little educational programming produced now without direct government subsidies is because the government has driven private producers out of this market. The government spends a huge amount of money on programs it chooses. Moreover, government owned or subsidized agencies use much of the educational programming that is produced. This relationship is incestuous. Thus, alternative private efforts have a hard time competing.
Nonetheless, in spite of the huge sums spent by government alternative programming still exists. To a large extent, these programs exist because many Christians have such a low opinion of government-run educational programs.
Just the same, those who prefer and pay for their own alternative educational choices are still forced to pay for government programs they do not like. Why? The justification comes down to the raw exercise of power, an abuse of power. In spite of the fact you claim to be terrified by politicians like President George W. Bush, you seem to be more afraid that other people might be able to choose for themselves. Shame of you and those who share your bigoted fears.