Cheerleaders are dancers gone retarded
Mar. 19th, 2003 08:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockYeah I finally got to see "Bring it On", cute movie.
'Course I still hate cheerleaders.
Anyway, I went to the library last week to try to track down Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and all the copies were out so I started glancing around the section and landed on Bill O'Reilly's books "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The No Spin Zone". Some library-oriented deity must've been laughing its ass off when I checked those two out. Hey, if you spend all of your time only reading one side's perspective you don't really learn anything. So I decided to give the books a read.
I would say that I disagree with a great many of his points and opinions, but I found myself startled that I agreed so strongly with others. His views on SUVs had me downright howling, and I found myself nodding quite often when I read his chapter on parenting. I know, how scary is that? But the one chapter that actually honestly resonated for me was the "Friendship Factor".
He started out by saying that friendships differ from "acquaintances" in that they should be fewer, and that the standards for the former should be much higher on both sides. That the basis for true friendship started with personal responsibility, making promises and sticking to them, being reliable and true to your word. After that came loyalty, and of course honesty.
He commented that true friendship isn't always easy, nor should it be. That sometimes you have to do things for your friends that are inconvenient or difficult. Indeed sometimes you have to do things that scare you or make you uncomfortable, and anyone not willing to be inconvenienced for you should probably be slipped into the "friendly acquaintance" category.
High standards, he maintained, were not a bad thing, indeed anything less and you were selling yourself and your friends short.
I felt as if the Hallelujah Chorus was playing in the background as I read this. For a very long time I bought into the words of so many ex friends, "You want too much, you expect too much, I can't live up to your standards." Well maybe if I weren't offering the same in return, I'd agree with you. But I expect no more than I'm willing to give.
One last thing on the subject, this is a general philosophy that I'm discussing here, not a veiled attack on any of my current friends or acquaintances. Please do not take this as something directed at anyone personally, it's not meant to be, it's just an overall outlook, that's all.
Much thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tamago for this interesting article:
Waging War: Bush's impossible dream By William S. Lind,
it does indeed sum up some issues I've been struggling with over the past few weeks, namely:
America is to become not just "the only superpower" but a "hyperpower" which no one can hope to resist. China is to be cowed by an arms race she cannot afford; non-state elements will fall to American Special Forces; the U.N. will be a tool of American world dominance.
and
What finally stopped Hapsburg Spain and, later, France under King Louis XIV and Napoleon and Germany under Hitler from establishing the universal monarchy was a fundamental characteristic of the international state system: whenever one nation attempts to attain world dominance, it pushes everyone else into a coalition against it.
The thinking seems to be, if you're not with us, you're against us. If you disagree with our choices or decisions or motivations then you must support Saddam/an evil dictator/a mass murderer. It couldn't possibly be that on some level maybe the other nations of the world are starting to fear us. Not just the banana republics and petty dictatorships that we've attempted to keep under our collective thumb for the past few decades, but actual first world nations too.
The truly scary thing is that some people seem to be aware of this international response and are actually pleased by it. Like rabid fans at a sporting event they wave their flags and chant "We're Number One!" Our former allies are now identifying us as the New World Order...go us.
Another piece I found quite interesting is Metaphor and War, Again By George Lakoff, I think his discussion of the peace movement and what its ultimate goals need to be are definitely on target:
First, the anti-war movement, properly understood, is not just, or even primarily, a movement against the war. It is a movement against the overall direction that the Bush administration is moving in. Second, such a movement, to be effective, needs to say clearly what it is for, not just what it is against.
Third, it must have a clearly articulated moral vision, with values rather than mere interests determining its political direction.
As the war begins, we should look ahead to transforming the anti-war movement into a movement that powerfully articulates progressive values and changes the course of our nation to where those values take us. The war has begun a discussion about values. Let's continue it.
I think to a great degree he's right, in that the war has become an issue that has opened up conversations about just what our national and personal values are. Or perhaps what we feel they should be. I've found, in reading responses from bothfilidh and mallen, that our disagreements go much deeper than pro/anti war. The war has almost given us an excuse to actually discuss more fundamental beliefs, those that go right to the core of who we are. I've found the discussions quite enlightening, and while we do seem diametrically opposed in many ways, I don't think that's a bad thing.
So many people today seem to see disagreement as an insurmountable barrier, and argument as something to be avoided at all costs. Personally I see it as something of a challenge, can I listen, really listen to someone with whom I totally disagree, and even more than that, can I respect and like them in spite of that. Respect is the tricky part, it's so easy to just shrug off someone who is diametrically opposed to the things in which you believe as "stupid" or "uninformed". It takes a lot more work to try to understand where they're coming from and why, and to honestly agree to disagree rather than dismiss.
In another sense, it makes me think about my own opinions, consider why I have them and what may have formed them. Contemplating long held beliefs, bringing them out into the light and really looking at them instead of taking them for granted, well that seems to me like the duty of every intelligent being on this planet.
In my humble opinion, of course *G*
'Course I still hate cheerleaders.
Anyway, I went to the library last week to try to track down Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and all the copies were out so I started glancing around the section and landed on Bill O'Reilly's books "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The No Spin Zone". Some library-oriented deity must've been laughing its ass off when I checked those two out. Hey, if you spend all of your time only reading one side's perspective you don't really learn anything. So I decided to give the books a read.
I would say that I disagree with a great many of his points and opinions, but I found myself startled that I agreed so strongly with others. His views on SUVs had me downright howling, and I found myself nodding quite often when I read his chapter on parenting. I know, how scary is that? But the one chapter that actually honestly resonated for me was the "Friendship Factor".
He started out by saying that friendships differ from "acquaintances" in that they should be fewer, and that the standards for the former should be much higher on both sides. That the basis for true friendship started with personal responsibility, making promises and sticking to them, being reliable and true to your word. After that came loyalty, and of course honesty.
He commented that true friendship isn't always easy, nor should it be. That sometimes you have to do things for your friends that are inconvenient or difficult. Indeed sometimes you have to do things that scare you or make you uncomfortable, and anyone not willing to be inconvenienced for you should probably be slipped into the "friendly acquaintance" category.
High standards, he maintained, were not a bad thing, indeed anything less and you were selling yourself and your friends short.
I felt as if the Hallelujah Chorus was playing in the background as I read this. For a very long time I bought into the words of so many ex friends, "You want too much, you expect too much, I can't live up to your standards." Well maybe if I weren't offering the same in return, I'd agree with you. But I expect no more than I'm willing to give.
One last thing on the subject, this is a general philosophy that I'm discussing here, not a veiled attack on any of my current friends or acquaintances. Please do not take this as something directed at anyone personally, it's not meant to be, it's just an overall outlook, that's all.
Much thanks to
tamago for this interesting article:Waging War: Bush's impossible dream By William S. Lind,
it does indeed sum up some issues I've been struggling with over the past few weeks, namely:
America is to become not just "the only superpower" but a "hyperpower" which no one can hope to resist. China is to be cowed by an arms race she cannot afford; non-state elements will fall to American Special Forces; the U.N. will be a tool of American world dominance.
and
What finally stopped Hapsburg Spain and, later, France under King Louis XIV and Napoleon and Germany under Hitler from establishing the universal monarchy was a fundamental characteristic of the international state system: whenever one nation attempts to attain world dominance, it pushes everyone else into a coalition against it.
The thinking seems to be, if you're not with us, you're against us. If you disagree with our choices or decisions or motivations then you must support Saddam/an evil dictator/a mass murderer. It couldn't possibly be that on some level maybe the other nations of the world are starting to fear us. Not just the banana republics and petty dictatorships that we've attempted to keep under our collective thumb for the past few decades, but actual first world nations too.
The truly scary thing is that some people seem to be aware of this international response and are actually pleased by it. Like rabid fans at a sporting event they wave their flags and chant "We're Number One!" Our former allies are now identifying us as the New World Order...go us.
Another piece I found quite interesting is Metaphor and War, Again By George Lakoff, I think his discussion of the peace movement and what its ultimate goals need to be are definitely on target:
First, the anti-war movement, properly understood, is not just, or even primarily, a movement against the war. It is a movement against the overall direction that the Bush administration is moving in. Second, such a movement, to be effective, needs to say clearly what it is for, not just what it is against.
Third, it must have a clearly articulated moral vision, with values rather than mere interests determining its political direction.
As the war begins, we should look ahead to transforming the anti-war movement into a movement that powerfully articulates progressive values and changes the course of our nation to where those values take us. The war has begun a discussion about values. Let's continue it.
I think to a great degree he's right, in that the war has become an issue that has opened up conversations about just what our national and personal values are. Or perhaps what we feel they should be. I've found, in reading responses from both
filidh and mallen, that our disagreements go much deeper than pro/anti war. The war has almost given us an excuse to actually discuss more fundamental beliefs, those that go right to the core of who we are. I've found the discussions quite enlightening, and while we do seem diametrically opposed in many ways, I don't think that's a bad thing. So many people today seem to see disagreement as an insurmountable barrier, and argument as something to be avoided at all costs. Personally I see it as something of a challenge, can I listen, really listen to someone with whom I totally disagree, and even more than that, can I respect and like them in spite of that. Respect is the tricky part, it's so easy to just shrug off someone who is diametrically opposed to the things in which you believe as "stupid" or "uninformed". It takes a lot more work to try to understand where they're coming from and why, and to honestly agree to disagree rather than dismiss.
In another sense, it makes me think about my own opinions, consider why I have them and what may have formed them. Contemplating long held beliefs, bringing them out into the light and really looking at them instead of taking them for granted, well that seems to me like the duty of every intelligent being on this planet.
In my humble opinion, of course *G*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2003-03-19 01:14 pm (UTC)Anyway. Sorry for the rant. It's just kinda hard keeping it in check these days.
No apology necessary, particularly as you and I would seem to agree entirely on our viewpoints regarding the war. I think that there were some folks at the march I attended who were starting to get the right idea and think about the bigger picture. They were under the banner, "Patriots for Peace" and their outlook seemed to be that we support our country, but we do so with eyes wide open. We don't believe that America is always right, and we do worry that the country is definitely being perceived by others as an imperialist nation...and we're beginning to see it that way too.
When we stop asking questions and simply believe everything we're told by our leaders and the media, well we might just as well give up the power of speech entirely and settle for a soft "moo" as we join the herd. I have no more blind faith in the president and his policies than I do my own religion. I constantly ask questions, probe, consider, to do otherwise is, in my opinion, foolish.
So we're asking questions and facing some unsettling realities, now what do we do about it? Well I think we do start by talking, and I don't mean falling back on rhetoric or shouting slogans. And that goes for both sides of the debate. We need to talk to likeminded folks and we need to talk to the opposition. We need ideas, good ones, strong ones that stand up to debate and prodding. And dammit we need leadership. I have yet to see anyone from either party pick up the baton, so to speak. Indeed so far the response to the direction our country is taking from those who are troubled by it has been rather passive. We need somebody a little more "aggressive", you know?
I keep hoping that somebody will step up in the Democratic party, that is the best place for organized opposition to take root. It's also a place where we're going to find someone to run against Bush in 2004. I'm not overly impressed with the options to date, but I'm just naive enough to hope that that might change.