Years ago when I was teaching High School in New Jersey I had the kids do oral reports in a theology class. I was teaching in a Roman Catholic High School. One of the kids gave his report on Allah and he said, at one point, "Allah is inscrutable." I asked the young man what the word inscrutable meant as he was using the word in his report. I was met with a blank stare. I had the young man sit down and told me that he could do his presentation tomorrow when he knew the definition of inscrutable.
The next day he did his talk. He came upon the phrase, "Allah is inscrutable," I asked and he answered. He came upon another word in the report and I asked him what that word meant. He smiled and gave me a perfect definition with a, "I knew you were going to ask me that!"
I felt good that day. Some education actually did happen. I hope that this person, who would now be in his 40's, never uses words that he doesn't know.
And then there is Kevin James. Kevin James does a radio talk show on KRLA in Los Angeles. His background is as a prosecutor and and entertainment attorney. From what I gather, he does a conservative talk show and usually refers to legal issues.
But Kevin James appeared on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews is a person some people really like and some people really don't. There are two things about Chris Matthews that are pretty obvious. First, he's a smart guy. He knows what's going on and who is doing it. Secondly, Matthews does not suffer fools gladly. A clueless wingnut on his show is going to be called out.
Kevin James demonstrated, on national television, that he is a clueless wingnut. He decided to defend President Bush's inane use of the word "appeaser' and James really wanted it applied to Obama. Fair enough. He then likened Obama to Neville Chamberlain. At this juncture, Matthews, who had a hunch that he was dealing with a loud blow hard in an empty suit asked Kevin James a very simple history question. What was it that Neville Chamberlain did that was wrong.
Matthews repeated the question between 24-28 times to James who blustered away and finally answered:
The things that Neville Chamberlain supported energized, legitimized, and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced."
It was, obviously, the wrong answer. Matthews was looking to see if James knew the difference between negotiating, (talking) and appeasement, (giving something away) like Chamberlain had given away a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. James did not. He was using a word that he did not know the definition of. I suspect that his high school teachers, his college and law school professors looked on in horror to realize that a student who they had taught was little more than an ignorant blow hard on national television.
Something one learns in preaching class is that you do not use examples or stories about things you don't know about. The thing is, at some point, a person might actually ask you a question about something that you spoke about and if you don't know the answer you will be seen, properly, as a moron.
I respect that people have different opinions. I have little regard for clueless wingnuts who loves to speak and know little about that which they speak. I do have a character flaw. Like Chris Matthews I do not suffer fools gladly.
It would be nice if Kevin James' radio show vanishes because people realize that he has nothing to offer them. Sadly, I suspect, he'll be a national star, seen as a victim to 'liberalism' and filling the airways with nonsense.
If ignorance truly is bliss, I am always amazed how many happy people there are.
4 comments:
I am not weighing in on the appeasement vs. negotiation or talking debate, but I re-watched the second episode of the HBO mini-series John Adams.
John Adams, a person about whom you have spoke reverently of, was in no way interested in "appeasing", "neotiating" with, or "talking" to the British after they had attacked the colonies a handful of times. The question is; do all the dots connect to lead to Iran? If they do, and I am not convinced of this, historical precedent would argue that the time for talking is OVER. If the they do not, then let's talk. There is no reason not to.
There were many in the colonies that fought to negotiate for peace with, what history eventually revealed, a mad man. Wonder how things would have turned out, if they had prevailed in the early congress?
It is interesting, to say the least.
It's hard to say about connecting the dots to Iran. Or all the dots, at least. None of us are privy to the best intelligence in the region until after it is sifted by an administration that has lied in the past. I'd suspect (or guess) that there is Syrian involvement and perhaps some Saudi money on all of this. I cannot fathom why we believe that Saudi Arabia is our friend.
Interesting you mentioned Adams. Later on, in his Presidency, he kept lines of communication open with both England and France and kept us out of that war despite the fact that Jefferson wanted us to fight with France. Interestingly enough, Adams was successful at this and Jefferson's great relationship with France led to the Louisiana Purchase. They both disagreed on some major issues and history, interestingly enough, proved both of them to be right.
There were many in the colonies that fought to negotiate for peace with, what history eventually revealed, a mad man. Wonder how things would have turned out, if they had prevailed in the early congress?
I'm sure there are many in the Middle East who've had the exact same conversation v.v. the United States and our sitting president.
We've attacked and occupied another country, killing tens of thousands of innocents without direct provocation. Why should Middle Eastern countries appease or negotiate with us?
We were definitely provoked, but as I mentioned, Bush ran off half cocked and attacked the wrong enemy. Our issues with the "nation" of Iraq could have easily been dealt with without a full out invasion. The trouble is that our enemies, radical Islamists, are not contained within the borders of a single country. Dealing with them requires a much more deft approach than that of which Bush has to date been capable. His PR attempts (remember Karen Hughes) after blitzkrieging the region, naturally fell on deaf ears. I wonder how a more surgical military approach and that same PR campaign might have worked? I guess it is too late now. We have to move forward from where we are now.
Re-stating the obvious over and over again will not get it done. Where do we go from here? Do we do another knee-jerk; completely and immediately withdrawing from the region? Or, is something more thoughtful, strategic and measured called for? Knee-jerk reactions are what got us in this mess to begin with. We can’t keep lurching from one thing to another.
Post a Comment