Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?

First, let me remark that I found it highly interesting that this meta-discussion did not begin until I had posted articles that referenced the growign democratic successes of the present administration's policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan - successes that could neither be rationally disputed nor reasonably ignored. When another person presented the opinion that the alert levels were being politically hyped, I referenced a New York Times article that refuted that, as well. (BTW - Howard Dean had his own allegations in that direction rejected by none other than John Kerry himself).

You very well know the problem here,, Elven - or on the slight chance that you don't, please permit me to enlighten you.

Walter Watts:
Anything is better that arguing about that goddamn &%^* and the mot&)er fu*(er in the white house.

(My answer: anything is better than slandering a successful war that liberated 24 million people and hyping that demagogic and opportunistically appeasatory co#*%uk!r who is willing to promise to do anything, however damaging to the maintainence and expansion of freedom it may be to the defeat of the terrorists and the safeguarding of America, just to get his sick and cynical ass elected).

Bill Mackinnon:

Walter for President!
"Better Lies, For a Better America"

Bill MacKinnon

REMEMBER --

GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T NEED YOUR VOTE TO WIN

And all this (on a small so far response) thread that is intended, for very good reasons, to get past the divisive politics and back to creating the memetic foundations necessary for us to construct a stronger and more resilient CoV.

The problem is that the Bush-bashers on this list cannot for the very life of them restrain themselves from administering snide kicks to the gluteus of the present administration, and those of us who hold a different view of the wisdom and efficacy of the present administration's actions against the global terror network that plagues us cannot, in all good conscience, allow such slurs to pass unanswered, for silence indicates assent. It seems to us as if they are either wilfully ignoring the vicious tactics that the terrorists are employing or are embracing submission in the face of those execrable tactics, to the point of embracing the dhimmitude and slavery that are entailed in allowing these bloodthirsty and brutal terrorists to dictate to us who our next president should be. It almost seems as if the far leftists on this list are willing to embrace on bended knee the agenda of their absolute nemesis - a terrorist Islamofascist Puritanism - just so they can replace someone who has shown true resistance to and achieved progress against such twisted people - people who view individual freedom of any kind as a shari'a-violating anathema - and replace him with a person who seems willing to bow this country down on bended knee before an impotent international body that has been both bribed and terrorized into acquiescence to the terrorists' foul and totalitarian designs. And even work to advance that demented agenda.

This whole situation is complicated by the fact that those of us who see Al Qaeda as (still) a clear and present danger also see those list members who do not agree with them as once-again-slumbering narcoleptics who have forgotten, excused or discounted the horrors of 9/11 and reverted to a pre-9/11 politics as usual, and who are allowing their disagreement with the present administration's domestic social policies (a disagreement which I share) to bleed over and illegitimately effect their stances as to who would be better able to successfully pursue our present necessary actions against the very terrorists who perpetrated that vile atrocity.

Your suggestion seems to me to be an attempt to purify the list of those who deeply perciece the clear and present danger and reserve it for those who do not view the continuing terrorist threat as indeed a genuine and authentic one - a position already historically taken by Bill Clinton with disastrous 9/11 results.

In the interests of fairness, either there should be no comment from either side of this debate, or it should be open to comments from both sides. Either alternative can be adopted on this list, without the superfluity of creating another insular forum.

But the first of these two alternatives is going to be surpassingly difficult, simply because both the contentions betwen the islamofascists and the west, and the disagreements within our own country on how best to respond to the jihadist threat - or, after 9/11, incredibly, even whether we should - are eminently memetic discussions, and furthermore, discussions that are referencing a memetically virulent religious variant, which should rationally entail that they are not only contemporarally germane, but that they are entirely within the purview of a list the express function of which is to construct a memetically successful pfaith - one that adheres to the kind of free inquiry, secular, egalitarian, democratic and science-friendly values which are anathema to the terrorists who are attacking the American basiton of these values. I find it quite incomprehensible that the leftists on this list, who ostensibly inculcate such values within their own positions, should be making agitprop common cause with the very terrorist who would insist upon their conversion, enslavement or execution were they to be in power.

This is supposed to be a list that critiques memeplexes rather than one that adheres to one, and yet I find here, outside a very few, precious little criticism directed at the most dangerous and noxious memeset of the present day, a plethora of vitriol directed at an administration that has vigorously opposed it, and a flood of irrational ad hominem attacks directed against that very administration, and in favor of a candidate that seems to think that these people will stop killing infidels in the name of their eternal deity and simply go away if he gives them and their political surrogates and apologists free rein.

If there is a need for another brahch of the CoV, its prime purpose should be to analyze and categorize this senseless paradox.