Treason and Partisanship
ChefJef opines as follows:
Okay, the "art" piece was cheesey, insofar as it purports to be a "work of art." But I don't see how it is treasonous. If the guy truly thinks that Bush's war policy is similar to Hitler's, how is he a traitor? Just becuase W is the President of the United States doesn't mean to oppose him, be it on one issue, several issues, or all issues, is somehow treasonous.
Furthermore, there is a grain of truth to the assertion. Am I saying Bush is a Nazi? Of course not; that's insane. But, the German blitz - among other things -was imperialistic in nature. The "Bush Doctrine," as it were, is also imperialistic. Now, whether or not the Doctrine is justifiable is another question. A pre-emptive strike is a pre-emptive strike; some are justifiable while others aren't, but those that are justified do not, as a result of so being justified, somehow become "un- preemptive."
My concern, though, is two-fold. The first is the apparent lack of academic standards at the boys' school. Again, his work, under any objective art analysis, is terrible. I sincerely hope that academic standards in other disciplines at his school are much more stringently manitained. In addition, given the lack of artistry refelected in his work, there is a strong possibility that the work received high marks because the evaluator(s) found its political message agreeable. This disturbs me.
On the other hand, I am guessing there are many people who would find the work disagreeable, yet similarly have no problem with the occasional "FemiNazi" rantings of Rush Limbaugh - that is when he is sober enough to babble-on. This equally disturbs. And therein, my-friends, is the real issue here. PARTISANSHIP. Partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, that is so strong that otherwise intelligent, reasonable people either love Bush and hate Clinton, or hate Bush and love Clinton, when both are palpably pathetic and not remotely worhy of what was, for a time, an Office of passionate statesman.
Chefjef
Okay, the "art" piece was cheesey, insofar as it purports to be a "work of art." But I don't see how it is treasonous. If the guy truly thinks that Bush's war policy is similar to Hitler's, how is he a traitor? Just becuase W is the President of the United States doesn't mean to oppose him, be it on one issue, several issues, or all issues, is somehow treasonous.
Furthermore, there is a grain of truth to the assertion. Am I saying Bush is a Nazi? Of course not; that's insane. But, the German blitz - among other things -was imperialistic in nature. The "Bush Doctrine," as it were, is also imperialistic. Now, whether or not the Doctrine is justifiable is another question. A pre-emptive strike is a pre-emptive strike; some are justifiable while others aren't, but those that are justified do not, as a result of so being justified, somehow become "un- preemptive."
My concern, though, is two-fold. The first is the apparent lack of academic standards at the boys' school. Again, his work, under any objective art analysis, is terrible. I sincerely hope that academic standards in other disciplines at his school are much more stringently manitained. In addition, given the lack of artistry refelected in his work, there is a strong possibility that the work received high marks because the evaluator(s) found its political message agreeable. This disturbs me.
On the other hand, I am guessing there are many people who would find the work disagreeable, yet similarly have no problem with the occasional "FemiNazi" rantings of Rush Limbaugh - that is when he is sober enough to babble-on. This equally disturbs. And therein, my-friends, is the real issue here. PARTISANSHIP. Partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, that is so strong that otherwise intelligent, reasonable people either love Bush and hate Clinton, or hate Bush and love Clinton, when both are palpably pathetic and not remotely worhy of what was, for a time, an Office of passionate statesman.
Chefjef
posted by Monk | 13:47
