Thursday, February 21, 2008

What Will The Neighbors Say?

The title of this post is a line that for many would be answered, "I don't care what the neighbors say." Everybody likes to think that they are unaffected by the opinions of others when that body has reasoned his position correct. They won't change their sartortial style or the style of their hair if they truly believe it looks hip. Offense is taken when parenting choices are questioned by others. In almost any arena, each of us likes to believe that we act on principle, conscience, or personal taste, and that's where it ends.

Now if we looked at this from a political perspective, which side takes this more to heart? Without having any research or studies to back me up, I'd have to say that liberals more proudly and loudly proclaim their total independence. They like to think they take the road less travelled. They like to think they have struck out on their own and will push on in the knowledge that they are unaffected by the warnings of old fogeys who find their uniqueness troubling. That's fine. Though much of their "independence" is juvenile and meaningless, kudos to them for standing on their own. (And good luck getting anywhere looking like that.)

But when it comes to world opinion, my goodness how the left worries so. They suffer from the vapors to think that Europe might look down their noses at decisions of our government. Of course, seeing as how the left is nothing if not contrarian towards anything that emanates from the current administration, they will naturally be inclinded to agree with ANYONE who craps on America at this time, and most others.

(The latest idiot to trash talk the country was Sharon Stone during an interview with some Arab periodical during the Dubai Film Festival. She has journeyed to Iraq to see for herself...and of course sees what she wants to see.)

But in this Bush has done just what libs claim they support, doing what he believes is right and doing so in spite of public or world opinion. For Bush, this position is prohibited. He is to do only what the left believes is right so that our foreign friends don't think badly of us. Nonsense. This is one of Bush's best characteristics. And frankly, I couldn't agree more. I don't care what the world thinks of us if we are engaged in doing right, which we have been. Our Democratic nominees hope to have the chance to raise up our image in the eyes of the world and to that I have to wonder just what will be given up, what will be compromised, how closely will we have to be like them in order to succeed in this endeavor? I shudder to think.


Dan Trabue said...

Could we agree that when it comes to doing right, we ought not care what others think, but do it regardless?

But that when it comes to working as one part of a larger group - whether that group is the global community or within our church or city - that it is important to build consensus and not dictate to the group what they have to do?

That makes sense to me.

I'm opposed to going along with the crowd if it's doing something wrong.

I'm opposed to totalitarianism - demanding it's MY way or the highway of a larger group. And I'm especially opposed to doing so at the end of a rifle (literal or economic).

Marshall Art said...

Sorry Dan. But in a democracy, or democratic republic, much is decided by the majority and that is the end of it whether the minority likes it or not.

As to your original question, I agree entirely as suggested by my post. I don't know how your second paragraph is worth a damn. Right is right, good is good, and the numbers of people on board don't freakin' matter. What we discuss and where we compromise is on issues not involving moral right vs wrong. Our entry into Iraq was the right thing to do for all the reasons so often brought up for reminders for people like yourself. It is still the right course and will be proven so as long as the lefties don't get their way.

Your talk about being part of a larger group. A soldier is not required to engage in activity that is illegal whether the office in charge and the rest of the group believes otherwise or not. America, as part of the global community, is not required to hold back until there's some kind of consensus worldwide. Nothing would ever be accomplished. It would be a slightly different story if the rest of the world shared our concerns. They don't. They have their own and are every bit as likely to act unilaterally as anyone should circumstances provoke them.

Apparently anarchy would suit you better, if you are willing to label as totalitarian those who take the lead on an issue where you find yourself opposed. Sounds like it is YOU who insists on having things one way, yours.

Les said...

"Our entry into Iraq was the right thing to do for all the reasons so often brought up for reminders for people like yourself."

Says you.

Doc said...

It just reminds me that there were ever so many pundits claiming that Bush was entering the war only for personal political gain (remember those high approval ratings?). I remember a discussion I had with a liberal-minded relative at that time that this war would likely harm Bush politically in the end, unfortunately.

Marshall Art said...

Truman had the same trouble regarding Korea. But his actions stopped the spread of communism in Korea (though it did little else) and Bush's actions have been a major thorn in the side of Islamoscumbags who seek to spread their version of how the world should turn. A truly righteous decision and should the next prez, whomever that might be, continue what Bush started, you'll see that brand of Islam fold up at the futility of messing with an America that will no longer suffer terror tactics lightly. For this Lord we pray.

Dan Trabue said...

Right is right, good is good, and the numbers of people on board don't freakin' matter.

So let's say there are one million abortions performed every year. The vast majority of those abortions (let's presume) are for frivolous reasons. Let's say that 700,000 of those are done by women who don't want to have stretch marks.

Well, the vast majority of the US can agree that that's a horrible reason for having an abortion. Perhaps we could come to some agreement as a nation that would say, "Abortions should not be performed merely to avoid stretch marks. As long as abortion remains a legitimately available medical procedure."

But the so-called Pro-lifers are adamant. They say, "NO! We won't talk about limitations on abortions or working with pro-abortion folk for any reason. They're evil and support a wicked action. Righteous can not mingle with unrighteous. Snark! Snark! Snark!" And on and on they drivel.

As a result, no consensus is achieved and next year, another 700,000 babies are aborted to avoid stretch marks.

Is consensus valuable or evil in that circumstance?

I say stiff-necked self-righteousness is a great wrong and contributes to all manner of evil. Agree or disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

Right is right, good is good, and the numbers of people on board don't freakin' matter.

Another thought: Your comments make absolute sense in a world populated with Good People and Badevil People.

We don't live in that world. We live in a world of people, all of whom are sometimes wrong in their actions and attitudes. All of whom have the capability of being wrong, of making mistakes - even deadly and inconceivably bad mistakes, and taking actions - even deadly and inconceivably evil actions, entirely convinced that they are being righteous.

In THIS sort of world, peopled with flawed humanity all around, it makes a good deal of sense to build consensus. Which is not to say that sometimes we'll have to make a judgment call and act against consensus, but consensus should still be sought for many logical and very moral reasons.

Marshall Art said...

"So let's say there are one million abortions performed every year."

There are.

"Let's say that 700,000 of those are done by women who don't want to have stretch marks."

Let's say that we protect all those who's existence doesn't threaten the life of the mother. Let's start at that end for a change. You seem to believe I should put on equal footing the lives of other human beings against the whims of those who would see them dead. There's no such thing as "compromise" when people's lives are on the line. And don't kid yourself about which side is most adamant in their beliefs. The pro-abortion people, a group for whom you certainly are not in a position to negotiate, believe we've no right to defend the lives of these most vulnerable and innocent lives. They are the side that lies about whether or not these unfortunates are persons equal to ourselves.

"Another thought: Your comments make absolute sense in a world populated with Good People and Badevil People."

My comments make absolute sense, period. They make sense to people who are insulted by the attempts to somehow whitewash the severity of the crime. It is the most abhorant act perpetrated upon one soul by another and there's no excuse for it. You want our side to bargain with the lives of babies with people who won't control their urges. Are you actually trying to be serious here?
And you can take the rest of that last comment and save it for Obamarama supporters. They'll buy into anything.

Dan Trabue said...

Whatever. You can take it up with a new president in 8-16 years - after President Obama and perhaps his vice president have had a chance to turn around the evil/dumb/ineffective policies of the Bush administration.

It'll take at least that long for We, the People to be ready to give a Republican a chance again. And that Republican had better be more of the Old Timey-type Republicans (Lincoln, Rockefeller, Hatfield, Stassen). We've had enough of the Neo-con types to last for a century or so.

God willing.

Marshall Art said...

Nice dodge. So you are supporting this man for president and his views on human life mean nothing to you. OK. Got it.