Get It Right

I've finally figured out why conservatives are such chronic liars. No one seems to challenge their lies. This morning, I read a full-page ad in the Washington Post paid for by a former metallurgist and titanium entrepreneur named George S. Esseff, Sr. It's a classic example of conservative lies and half-truths, and I, for one, cannot let them go unchallenged. What Esseff asserts about conservatives is in italics.

Who we are … are people who believe that the true measure of an individual is determined by his or her values ... not their color, ethnicity and/or political affiliations;

Values? The party of Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Tom DeLay, the Bushes, and Dick Cheney (to name just a few)? They talk the talk of values, but they cannot walk the walk. Gingrich and Giuliani (who, I suspect, laughed when Jimmy Carter said he had lusted in his heart) have proven unable to keep their penises in their pants and remain faithful to their marriages. For the sake of the argument, and only for that reason, I'm willing to drop DeLay, the Bushes, and Cheney if any conservative will come forward and explain to me what can be worse than breaking of a vow made before God. And by the way, Mr. Esseff: You claim to be a devout Catholic. Your church regards marriage as a sacrament. What's it's take on adultery?

Who we are … are fathers, husbands, mothers, sons and daughters who understand that America is at war with an enemy that will employ any and all opportunities … and exploit any perceived weaknesses … political and psychological … to kill Americans, whenever and wherever they find them… and destroy those very principles, freedoms and ideals which protect us … and upon which this great nation was founded;

Let's recognize here that to fundamentalist Muslims, we are an enemy, currently employing any and all opportunities to exploit any perceived weaknesses to kill their people whenever and wherever we find them and destroy the principles and ideals that shape their culture. But the terrorists are like rattlesnakes: most dangerous when they are provoked. The Bush doctrine has only strengthened the view throughout the world that the United States is bent on world domination.

Moreover, the terrorists are not out to destroy America. They need America desperately. It's crucial to their collective identity, recruiting, and fundraising that they stand against something, and there's no other something as big or as aggressive as the United States.

Who we are … are citizens, tired and disgusted with the political left’s, “Blame America First” crowd, who eagerly rush to judgment (and the nearest camera) to blame this country and her people for all the world’s ills, from … Global Warming to International Terrorism;

It's not a rush to judgment to consider evidence from a variety of perspectives and then draw a conclusion that based on that. People like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush make it even easier. Look, I'm a teacher and I have to point out students' mistakes to them all the time. I do that in the same spirit and hope with which I criticize my country: I know it's possible to do better. The problem here is that conservatives tend to think that we're all as harsh as they are in our judgments. All of their judgments are summative--they are final. But some of us make formative judgments--judgments meant to set a course toward improvement, based on the recognition that circumstances change all the time.

Who we are … are Americans who are grateful for a President who understands that National Security must come before Political Correctness;

Would this be the President who has allowed warrantless eavesdropping that his own Justice Department says are illegal in numerous cases, on American citizens. Would this be the President who doesn't understand the part of the Constitution that makes him responsible for seeing that laws are enforced instead of issuing signing statements that explain that he's not going to stick closely to the letter or spirit of the law? National security begins with "uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (Italics mine) Is it now okay to flout the Constitution as long as you're shaking your fist at some external enemy?

Who we are … are parents who recognize that our children are America’s most precious asset. That’s why we are so vocal against the Media’s obsession with Hollywood’s perversities … and the morally corrupt, socially inept “Pop Culture Icons” it incessantly creates for our youth.

You certainly are vocal on that point, never quite realizing that parents have the responsibility for raising their children. I suspect that I know a lot more young people than Mr. Esseff does; after all, I'm in the classroom with them every day. And my students represent a cross-section of the United States. They know who the pop culture icons are, and they either scoff at them or express disgust with them. Mr. Esseff, did it occur to you to find out anything about young people before you wrote this one?

Who we are … are political voices, many of whom are former Liberals, who now recognize our actions must be based on realities … unlike today’s Liberals who seem content to act on “feelings” and speak only in platitudes;

It was, I must point out, the current liberals who doubted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That wasn't a feeling. Current liberals realized that as despicable as Sadaam Hussein was, he was not even friendly with the likes of Osama bin Laden because they represent different religious doctrines. If someone strikes me and I strike back without first making a realistic assessment of the situation, that's acting on feelings. That's what Bush did after September 11. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, we still don't have Osama bin Laden. Sadaam Hussein is dead, and his execution didn't do anything to calm the Middle East. I wish Bush had based his responses on reality.

Who we are … are the sons and daughters of immigrants, many of whom came to America themselves to escape tyranny and discrimination in their own homeland … but they came here legally! As Conservatives, we demand our lawmakers take any and all steps necessary to immediately enforce our laws, secure our borders and protect our nation;

Let me offer myself as a case in point: My ancestors arrived between the seventeenth and early nineteen centuries. They probably had as much documentation and as much permission to be here as most of the illegal immigrants do now. It was 1887 when the Statue of Liberty, a welcome to immigrants, was dedicated. Only during the twentieth century did Congress pass tight restrictions on immigration, and the whole point of those laws was to minimize the number of non-Anglo Saxon immigrants, particularly Jews, who could immigrate here.

Who we are … are voters who demand that far-reaching governmental policies must be based on fact … not feelings … and debated on the merits of science and pragmatism … not political correctness … nor expediency;

Science and pragmatism? Is that why embryonic stem cell research is unfunded? Actually, it's not science and pragmatism; it's theocracy at its worst, and it exposes the worst of the conservatives: It's apparently more respectful to dump unimplanted embryos in the biological waste disposal than to use them in research that might help millions.

Who we are … are people of faith who believe in the sanctity of life, the blessedness of marriage and the preservation of the family. We also hold that abortion is immoral … and partial birth abortion is nothing short of legislative genocide;

The sanctity of life--and creating chaos in Iraq. The blessedness of marriage--and the denial of its benefits to many loving and committed couples even while your own leaders conduct extramarital affairs and refuse to stand up for their own gay and lesbian children. The preservation of the family--and the striking number of instances of divorce and adultery among conservative leaders. There's nothing wrong with thinking abortion is immoral; there is something wrong with trying to ban it because you believe that women cannot make moral decisions. Partial birth abortion? Doctors perform it only when it is medically necessary to the mother, and they perform it so seldom that "genocide" is an inaccurate characterization.

Who we are … are constituents disgusted by the posturing of liberal politicians who seek only to exploit the horrors of war through the debating of defeatist Resolutions. Resolutions proposed by Liberals for no purpose other than to embellish themselves with the far left, while embarrassing the country and our military … without any care nor regard as to how their actions may demoralize our troops … and encourage our enemies!

The purpose of United States servicemembers in Iraq seems to be to serve as targets for Sunni and Shia militants. If they are withdrawn from this shooting gallery, the combat deaths and wounds to Americans will stop. The Iraqi forces, which so far have been unwilling to do their jobs because it's a lot easier to have Americans die for your country than for you to do so, will have to secure their own country.

Who we are … are concerned individuals who recognize that the Left’s mantra “I support the troops but not the war” is an oxymoron perpetuated by those whose only intent is to weaken the war effort and demoralize our fighting forces. It’s impossible to separate “the warrior from the war” and if you don’t understand that fact, then re-think your position, because the fastest and most effective method of defeating an army is to destroy its morale by questioning its mission … just ask our enemies!!

If a foreign army invaded my country without provocation with the stated intent of disarming the armed forces, toppling the established government, and compelling reconstruction according to its own perceptions of how things should be, I would resist that army. That is what our troops are doing in Iraq, and what I would not support others doing to me I cannot support my country doing to others. The ultimate mission in Iraq is so unclear that the troops cannot move toward it, and thus they are suffering and dying for nothing more than George W. Bush's oedipal issues. No one should have to die for that.

A friend of mine, a National Guardsman, left last week to deploy to Iraq. He is quick to point out that this is not what he enlisted to do. Reservists and National Guardsmen and their families have suffered a great deal. You, Mr. Esseff, need to demonstrate compassion toward them instead of demanding their death.

Who we are … are Americans who sadly recognize with War comes casualties. But we also recognize day, after day, after day, that to only report the deaths of America’s bravest … while completely ignoring the successes, achievements and objectives for which they died … is a disgrace of such proportion that it makes us wonder …. On whose side is the Media?

Tell me about those successes, achievements, and objectives. One of the things that I don't understand at all about conservatives is their tendency to claim that the media do not report accurately--yet the only way they could get information to discern this would be. . . from the very media they condemn. And how do you know that your sources are credible? Are you at all familiar with the editorial process that major media use to ascertain the accuracy of their reportage?

Who we are … are people proud that under the Bush Administration, despite numerous attempts, not one single terrorist attack has occurred on our soil in over 5 ½ years; our economy has climbed to an all time high; taxes and inflation are at twenty year lows; Federal tax revenues are the highest in our nation’s history and the deficit is down by almost 50% (as predicted by the President). Yet, despite all this, the liberal leadership in Congress is threatening to “take America in a new direction”!

My great-grandchildren will be paying for the folly of the Bush administration. To credit the administration with the absence of terrorist attacks is to overlook that the terrorists make their attacks expecting to become martyrs. They simply haven't been interested in attacking. Don't believe me? Nine years passed between the bombing of the World Trade Center and the attacks of 2001. While the economic picture may look rosy, I'm seeing college graduates struggling to find work and finally accepting work that offers few or no benefits and little or no stability. Perhaps it's better for titanium entrepreneurs who are wealthy enough to buy full pages of the Washington Post, but I'm no better off than I was at the beginning of Bush's misrule. In fact, you could say that I'm worse off because my retirement is in stocks and mutual funds--managed by TIAA-CREF--and I have had few good quarters since 2001.

Who we are … are freedom loving individuals who are opposed to activist Judges who seem determined to impose upon us their failed, liberal policies through judicial edicts … rather than our legislative processes;

Another cute thing about ignorant, lying conservatives: they don't seem to realize that lifetime appointments free judges to make decisions founded on the law. And if you're going to hate activist judges, you're going to have to hate the conservative activists, too.

Who we are … are compassionate people who have always practiced what Arthur Brooks’ book “WHO REALLY CARES”, recently confirmed. Namely, when it comes to helping the poor … across the board … Conservatives, from the working poor to the wealthy … consistently give more of their money … and their time … than liberals do! Not surprising, these studies confirm what many of us have known for decades … namely, that liberals are quick to give away other people’s money but reluctant to part with any of their own!

I haven't read Brooks' book, but it appears that it may depend heavily on statistics. A statistician I work with me has instilled in me a strong belief that statistics are subject to abuse and statistical studies are frequently poorly designed. As a liberal who tries to be generous in helping others, I think Brooks may have overgeneralized.

Who we are … are historians who recognize that the Liberals’ plans for “appeasement” and “cut and run” are not new ones! Britain and France did it in 1914 and their “success” resulted in World War I; Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did it in 1939 and his “plan” ignited World War II. Because of today’s high tech weaponry, our world is a far more dangerous place; consequently, victory is our only option!

I'm a Ph.D. cultural historian, and I know something about historiography. There are far too many variables in history to draw comparisons like this. The fundamental stupidity is evident: World War I did involve appeasement, but the appeasement was of an enemy visibly striving for world domination. That is not the case in Iraq. The only ones bent on world domination are George W. Bush, his minions, and his sycophants. A world founded on peaceable principals is also an option--except to conservatives who must have an enemy to validate their existence.

Who we are … are people to whom every life is precious, but we also recognize that freedom is fragile. In a world where the Media’s “perception” becomes the public’s “reality”, it’s easy to forget that in America’s last great struggle, 407,300 of our fighting forces gave their lives … so we could have ours. Our losses averaged 298 a day … for each and every day of World War II. In comparison, our Iraqi losses have averaged fewer than 3 a day… and as tragic as that is… it’s up to each and every one of us to make sure none of them shall have died in vain.

If life is truly precious to you, then one unnecessary death is too many. My uncle died fighting Hitler and I'm grateful for that sacrifice, but we aren't fighting a Hitler. The psychopath we're fighting is a religious fanatic whom we armed in Afghanistan in the days of the Soviet invasion, and he wants Americans to leave him and the Muslim Middle East alone. Unlike Hitler, he has no designs on world domination, contrary to the conservative mythology. He doesn't have to dominate the world; he has the obsessive attention of the United States, and that's leading to the destruction of the economy through profligate government spending on wars that can't and shouldn't be fought and tax cuts for people who don't need them.

Who we are … are a population grateful to this nation’s men and women (and the families they left behind) who sacrifice their blood, sweat and tears to defend America … her people … and her way of life. To you, we say “thank you” ... and to God, we pray for your blessings … protection … and safe return.

If you were that grateful, you wouldn't want the war to continue. If one of your friends or loved ones were in Iraq, you might feel very different.

Who we are … are people firmly committed to Jefferson’s belief … “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press…” (Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786). But when the press abused the public’s trust, he also wrote, “A truth now and then, projecting into an ocean of newspaper lies, serves like headlands to correct our course” (Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1815).

Conservatives have to get over the media. They also need to get over the fact that advanced education--the education that teaches respect for evidence, research, and critical thinking--appears to correlate pretty strongly with liberalism. If you look at Jefferson's writings, you can find a quotation that appears to support or attack whatever you want to support or attack, especially if you don't worry much about context.

I have paid for this ad with my own money, in hopes that this too will serve as a “truth” to those needing a course correction.

It's good that you put quotation marks on "truth." You probably believe that I need a course correction, and I'm certainly open to one. But it will be a response to facts, not the infantile, deceitful rantings of a conservative ideologue who is unable to see the logical flaws and factual errors in his twisted arguments. It's frightening, however, to realize how many conservatives have the kind of money it takes to buy a page in a major newspaper.

George J. Esseff, Sr