May 2005

This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.

<livejournal>

<entry>

<itemid>6001</itemid>

<eventtime>2005-05-31 13:22:00</eventtime>

<logtime>2005-05-31 17:23:22</logtime>

<subject>A Response to "Smart Land"</subject>

<event>

The following is a response to a <a href="http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rnr/75781695.html">recent post</a> by Orson Scott Card regarding the Muslim reaction to desecration of the Koran. <lj-cut> First, let me explain a bit of my background with the man. I have no standing in the same way he does. I am not a published author, nor do I claim the same level of financial or cultural success that he does. Furthermore, his own book "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" has had a tremendous impact on how I write fiction. The man taught me how to write a story. Having said all that, I will call a spade a spade when I see it. And I will also say that the bit in particular about 'Rioting doesn't accomplish anything but make you look stupid and like you are having a temper tantrum' is something that makes sense to me. Furthermore, I will not denigrate the man because he uses analogies popular to our time. If he wants to use the term 'smart land' to describe his political opponents, or 'jedi' or whatever, then that's fine. Mocking him because he uses an analogy of popular culture and fiction, especially when Lucas pretty much blatantly DOES use political commentary in SWIII (and if you don't think he does, then you haven't read the interviews he's given in which he flat out admits it), is a sign of a weak argument. Indeed, one could argue that taking the Sith vs Jedi idea and turning it around by saying the Jedi have flaws is an interesting one. Except for two things; first of all they are making a very ironic statement by doing that, and second, Lucas himself has deliberately implied that the 'dark side is simply misunderstood' especially at the conclusion of 'The Unifying Force' which essentially (to date) wrapped up the Expanded Universe series of his books. None of which has anything to do with what I'm planning on writing about, but it is not simply rambling either. It is my belief that if more of us took the time to state what our position was ahead of time, then we could reach a common accord that much quicker. There are things that people are willing to listen to you about and then there are things that people generally have their mind made up about no matter what you say. Many of those people might not have bothered reading this far.... Call it a litmus test, though it was not an intentional one, because, lets face it. I do ramble. Sometimes rambling has a point though, and I'll deal with that later (probably). For now, however I will do what I set out to do with my initial post and counter some of Scott's postings regarding 'Smart Land'. First of all, I must say, that as potentially brilliant as I find the turn around of the 'jedi vs sith' analogy that he uses, I find the use of 'Smartland' vs 'Heartland' to be about the brilliant equivalent of coming up with an organization named "Impure Doctors Ignited Opposing Tariffs" (and in case you didn't notice that spells I.D.I.O.T.) Painting one's opponents as 'smartland'? What else do you expect them to do but turn around and say that you're representing 'Dumbland'? And PS....there is a rather hearty difference between Heartland and Dumbland. Call a southerner 'ignorant' and just see what kind of reaction you get. One can be a member of 'Heartland' as you like to describe it and still be a member of 'smartland'. Indeed, I personally think you can't REALLY be a member of Heartland unless you're a card carrying citizen of Smartland either. See, here in Heartland, we understand that freedom comes at the price of eternal vigilance and respect for your opponent. We understand that believing in the flag is important, but only if you understand what the flag represents. If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it. But knowing and understanding history is something that's endimic with smartland. See, if you were truly attempting to assault the psuedointelectual elite (and they -DO- exist, make no mistake about that), you'd compare, 'Brainland' to 'Heartland', because that is a far FAR better comparison. 'Brainland' is full of people who believe that emotions are stupid, and that believing in something that you feel but can't logically explain is dangerous for society. 'Brainland' thinks it knows better than other people, because they have more 'brains'. And yet; one of the most conservative friends I have (well...recent friends until I found out our friendship only went so far as long as I was willing to accept his version things. You can talk 'tolerance' all you want, but it is your actions, not your words that demonstrate your true intent.) recently made fun of 'liberals' because they follow their 'feelings' rather than using their head. See, citizenship in 'heartland' is not mutually exclusive to 'smartland'. However, 'brainland' and 'dumbland' are self isolated communities. Yes, it is true that you must show unity in the face of the enemy when fighting a war, but when the person leading you is unwilling to show respect to the opposition then that respect goes out the window. George W. Bush had his people trying to push his domestic political agenda ONE MONTH after 9/11. If you are a member of 'dumbland' questioning anything ever is bad. If you are a member of 'dumbland' then you are only righteous if you toe the political party line. 'Dumbland' is an equal opportunity employeer. If you refuse to expose yourself to any ideas or thought patterns outside of your own point of view, you might be a citizen of 'dumbland'. If you are automatically offended because someone makes fun of your ethnic, religious, or cultural background, you might be a citizen of 'dumbland'. If your automatic reaction to anyone who disagrees with you is to SHUT THEM UP, you might be a citizen of 'dumbland'. I could go on and on. There are t-shirt manufacturers and comedians for that kind of thing. The principle of 'unity at times of war' goes both ways. It requires a respect of the party in power FIRST, not an automatic birthright. It also requires a definable enemy, a definable timetable and a definable agenda. You cannot demand national unity in 'The war on drugs'. What drugs? When is victory declared? Who decided? You cannot demand national unity on 'The war on Terror' when you reserve the right to maintain the nation in a state of perpetual alertness with no hope of victory. When do we have to stop being unified and toe the line? When there are no more insurgents in Iraq? Why should my right to free speech be determined by a bunch of Al Queda terrorists in Iraq? If I have to SHUT UP so that our soldiers can fight over there, haven't our soldiers already lost? There is a MAJOR difference between the Nazi's and between Al Queda....and that is that there was a point at which you knew Naziism could be defeated. Now if we're going to declare war on radical Islamists and occupy every Islamic dictatorship in the world, that's just fine. We would then know that when we have occupied and reordered the government of Pakistan, Uzbeckistan, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia that we have successfully won. Oh. Wait. That would require no longer allying with tyranical governments. That would require actually meaning what you say when you declare 'war for Democracy.' Right. I'll maintain my card carrying citizenship as a member of BOTH 'Heartland' and 'Smartland'. </lj-cut>

</event>

<security>public</security>

<allowmask>0</allowmask>

<current_music/>

<current_mood/>

</entry>

</livejournal>