How I got myself in trouble most recently

[kellinator]

So, I made a long rambling phone post yesterday, and rather than attempting to transcribe it, I'm going to attempt to write it out a little more clearly.

Or more than likely I'll get pissed again halfway through the writing and I'll just half-assedly throw it on the page to get it out of my system...

Yesterday afternoon I was getting back in my car after picking up some gaming treats to take to Athens and I saw two women getting out of a car. I had to squint to read the bumper sticker, it was all so shoved together:

10 out of 10 terrorists agree... Anybody But Bush

I started to just roll my eyes, get back in my car and play some loud music, but I figured they'd seen me, with my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker, gawking at the car already, and, well, it's one thing to run my mouth on LiveJournal where I know that a lot of people agree with me, but have I really tried to make a real difference?

So I approached the car, and as politely as I could, I said, "Excuse me, ma'am, but if you're so certain that the terrorists don't want Bush, why is it that our one big terrorist attack came while he was in office?"

One woman looked like she might have been ready to at least offer some reasoning, but the other one, who was obviously in charge, snarled "Oh please!!" and stomped off. The other woman, who was mumbling something along the lines of "I don't really like him but..." looked at me semi-apologetically as I turned and yelled over my shoulder "A mind is a terrible thing to open!"

I then got in the car and left scarcrest a voicemail of which he later said, "I understood my name and that was about it."

...Was it the right thing to do? I don't know. All I know is that I felt that I had to say something, to at least attempt to start a dialogue. It's all very well to post links and rants here, but I don't think I'm making anyone think.

...At the same time, I seriously doubt I made them think, and I definitely raised my blood pressure, which is something I've been trying not to do during this election.

I don't know if there really can be open dialogue at this point anymore. We're too divided. And I include myself in that group. Certain things are like waving a red flag in front of me these days. I honestly don't understand how anyone could vote for Bush. And I suppose that makes me part of the problem.

Comments

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Hell, woman! It's hard enough to change yourself, let alone change someone else who may not want to change. But maybe you planted a seed.

If enough of us calmly placed little morsels for the less informed to chew on, slowly they might be better informed.

I had a conversation with a friend the other night, and it was clear there was a lot he did not know, and there are a lot of lessons in our own history he has forgotten.

It's an uphill battle, and the results may not be immediately present, but someday their mind just might open enough for more light to come through.

And you know, in time, we will find some of our ideas were misinformed, too. It's bound to happen in this day and age of mass media and misinformation.

kellinate indeed...

[cotharyus.livejournal.com]

Why don't you explain why the attack happened while bush was in office? I don't think it's a clever motto. Nor do I think "There's dirt under every bush" as as clever as people think it is either. I don't think anyone in particular being in office is going to cause or prevent another terrorist attack, I think that's up to the people. Of course, the terrorists can't be happy about bush's policy towards them, but I doubt they'll say "ok, we'll stop then" if kerry pulls troops out of (whereever) and makes life less difficult for them.

Re: kellinate indeed...

[rocketmelee.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall something about reports on potential terrorist activity being ignored... but that's not really the point.

Is it a coincidence that this attack occurred when Bush was in office? Possibly. Do we have any reason to believe that Bush is the one and only thing standing between us and the terrorist masses? Absolutely not.

However, catchy slogans are a way of life. They are used to shape opinions and to demonstrate a common ideology among groups or subgroups. What Kelly did was earnestly question the veracity of a slogan in a manner intended to cause a particular root ideology to be questioned. When this happens, people will generally either walk away, or will look for something to attack. Or, you know, both.

It is still an important thing to do, though. In order to effect change in ideology and/or world view, you have to understand how to invalidate propaganda or use it to your best advantage.

Re: kellinate indeed...

[gaiagurl.livejournal.com]

no, it's not just that bush was in office, it's that he ignored everything the outgoing clinton administration told him about terrorism being a major issue and about how he should be keeping an eye on bin laden. and then... boom. same year he took office.

what galls me is that his people blame clinton for the attack. hell, even snopes says otherwise.

Re: kellinate indeed...

[orfeo517.livejournal.com]

Bush did seem to ignore everything important about the Clinton administration when he and his boys came into power, didn't he? One of the last things Clinton did, as he was fighting the battle over his infidelity, was to warn of the impending threat of terrorism as one of the main concerns in the new world. At that time, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. were already obsessed with with Iraq, over half a year before September 11, 2001.

[sirinek.livejournal.com]

I dont think you did anything bad at all. Its not like you scolded them or was otherwise nasty. I agree 200% about the division thing. I hear a lot of stories from the political communities here as well as the people who show up to volunteer events I go to.

Jane and I even went so far as to drop a couple local friends on here because of their extremely intolerant views among other things, though we are friends with several people (both on and off LJ) who disagree with us politically but are otherwise good people, so they do exist. :)

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

What about the first two terrorist attacks, the WTC bombing and the Oaklahoma City bombing?

Not saying anything for or against anyone, just thinking you didn't make an entirely fair statement.

And weren't the plans for 9/11 in the works long before the 2000 election?

Just wondering.

[stronae.livejournal.com]

I really hate to get into these, but there's something interesting here. I'm not attacking you or anything -- I'm just seeing something being formed in my head based on your comment, above.

just thinking you didn't make an entirely fair statement.

Would the statement have been more fair if kellinator had said
"Excuse me, ma'am, but if you're so certain that the terrorists don't want Bush, why is it that our last big terrorist attack came while he was in office?" (bolding being mine)?

I'd bet you'd say 'yes', because it's true.

Now, would either of the other two persons' reactions have been any different with this slight change in language? I'd bet you'd say 'no, not really'. Thus, it really doesn't matter how fair her original comment was -- even if she put things in the fairest way possible, it would still be met with the resistance it had been.

So, having dispensed with the 'fairness' claim straightaway, let's turn our attention to your citations of the WTC bombing (hereafter, WTCb) and OKC. The bumper sticker seems to have the effect of saying, at the very least, (a) "terrorists don't like Bush", and at the very worst, (b) "if you don't vote for Bush, you're a terrorist," both being pro-Bush sentiments. There might even be something like (c) "Bush does something about terrorists" in there somewhere. Let's look at each of these three.

Given your citations, it's plain that terrorists don't hold their actions until a particular president comes along. Thus, (a) is refuted.

If we examine (b) and do a brief statistical count of the 2000 election, (b) would have us believe that slightly-more-than-half of America is comprised of terrorists. This is plainly ludicrous. Also, (b) itself is inflammatory and fear-oriented. Thus, we can refute (b).

Now (c) is a little more interesting. Sure, our troops went into Afghanistan, but where's Osama? In Pakistan! (At least, at the time, there were reports that he fled there.) Bush chose not to invade Pakistan, so he instead invaded a country that has nothing to do with Al Qaida whatsoever. Sure, he's "doing something about terrorism," but I believe that that "something" isn't particularly more effective in the grand scheme of things than the other presidents during WTCb and OKC. (I'll also casually mention that that ineffective "something" put us in debt for a long, long time, and leave it at that.) Hence, we may refute (c).

Therefore, I can conclude this: The basis for the bumper sticker is entirely refuted, leaving it hollow and weak. Please bear in mind that I'm not refuting *you* or anything -- I'm just using your evidence to help kellinator render a bumper sticker meaningless.

[gaiagurl.livejournal.com]

in both those cases, the terrorists responsible were caught and brought to justice.

and clinton warned the incoming bush administration that bin laden was a threat, and that they should be focusing on terrorism as the most important foreign policy issue. he was ignored.

[sage-and-sea.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I think we are too divided, however, that doesn't stop me from trying to make a difference. And good for you that it didn't stop you. It was at least an attempt at dialogue. At the State Fair last week, I tried the same thing with a pro-Bush girl who proceeded to scream at me for a few minutes.

[serendipitymet.livejournal.com]

Right on, woman! Like I just posted...sometimes one conversation CAN make a difference. And knowing I got even one extra voter to the polls to vote for Kerry does my heart good.

[kelvinator.livejournal.com]

Kelly - thank you. Thank you for trying. I can't do it myself - but I seriously feel it is the responsibility of every American not only to not vote for Bush, but to do all he/she can to educate those people that do. Your comment may or may not have worked - but you never know. If you stay silent, nothing changes :)

[zanzara.livejournal.com]

I sure love you.

Have you seen this? http://www.n3t.net/humor/Seriously.mpg

[winterbadger]

I think I might have opened it up a bit more slowly, but you could also have been much more confrontational about it. I'm just not sure that people who already have seriously factional bumper stickers on their cars are the people to really talk to. I don't think they're terribly likely to be willing to examine other positions; either through careful thought and examination or through knee-jerk reaction, they;ve already staked themselves to a public statement of their beliefs, pershaps (depending on the sticker) a pretty extreme one.

If one wants to get a productive dialog going, I'd think there might be more benefit to volunteering with a political party (whichever one one prefers) or with civic and grassroots organizations that help sponsor and organize debates or town hall meetings. Stop someone to speak to them about their bumper sticker and, no matter how nicely you do it, they're probably going to be defensive. Or want to proselytize you to their POV.

[whorlwind.livejournal.com]

The whole damn thing is so stupid... anyone but bush, anyone but kerry, and while everyone's busy voting for the lesser of two evils the evil just keeps growing each round.
How long before we get to pick between stalin and hitler?

Have people ever thought that.. I don't know, maybe we should vote for someone who's actually a freaking good person for a change? No, THAT would be throwing our vote away. Humanity really makes me sick sometimes.

[crowyhead.livejournal.com]

The lesser of two evils is still less evil.

[whorlwind.livejournal.com]

This is the reason we were never meant to be a deomocracy by the founding fathers (who were actually well educated).

[winterbadger]

Have people ever thought that.. I don't know, maybe we should vote for someone who's actually a freaking good person for a change?

It is to my mind a pleasant circumstance of Fate that, at least in this election, I can do so.

[whorlwind.livejournal.com]

If you really believe in kerry's political standing and think he has the integrity to follow up on them, then go you.. vote, be in peace.
I don't agree, but I have no problems with people voting for someone they believe in.