Good stuff from Orson Scott Card

The falsehoods are thick on the ground, and contrary to the impression some might try to give you, they are not conducted equally by both sides.
When they trumpet examples of Republican “lies,” they usually turn out to be in the following categories:
1. Statements that turn out to be wrong, though they were believed to be right at the time they were spoken. (In the rational world, we call these “mistakes.”)
2. Statements that interpret legitimate data in ways that support the Republican view. (In the rational world, we call these “differences of opinion.”)
3. Statements that point out obvious contradictions between what the Democratic candidates say and what they have said and done in the past. These are called “negative campaigning” and “mudslinging” and “distortions” and, of course, “lies,” but these countercharges are offered instead of coherent explanations.
Meanwhile, the Democrats engage in wholesale, flat-out lying, ranging from Kerry’s false charges against America’s soldiers in Vietnam, his phony claims about Christmas in Cambodia and what it was he threw over the fence when he said they were his medals, to present charges that Bush has blocked stem-cell research and that if Kerry were president, paralytics would rise up and walk.
If a Republican had said these things, the media would throw him into the flames, never letting us forget these ridiculous and contemptible lies for a second. Instead, we get the ABC News memo that makes it clear that Republican distortions are to be trumpeted, while Democratic ones are “not central” and therefore can be ignored.
The Ornery American – Orson Scott Card

In another column:

From the second debate between Bush and Kerry, when Kerry was asked about abortion:
“KERRY: I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
“But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.”
Let’s see. Religion leads John Kerry today. Who knew?
But apparently his religion doesn’t cause him to support laws that would stop people from killing even perfectly viable, full-term babies in the midst of being born. Because murder isn’t murder if the victim’s beating heart has not yet pumped blood charged with oxygen drawn through the victim’s own lungs.
What I want to know is how you can possibly legislate anything at all that does not involve taking your personal belief about what is right and wrong and punishing those who don’t go along.
Did John Kerry not vote for the notorious “hate speech” laws? Didn’t he decide that certain words and ideas were so evil and loathsome that people who say them while committed a crime should receive extra punishment?
Didn’t John Kerry support the ban on peaceful demonstrations anywhere near abortion clinics? Didn’t he impose his beliefs on those who hope to save innocent lives by kneeling and silently praying in front of abortion clinics, when he voted for the law that allows them to be arrested for that?
Perhaps he abstained from forcing his beliefs on others because those laws are in direct violation of the actual written words of the Constitution, as opposed to the fantasy clause that protects “abortion rights.” I’d have to check the record on that.
When Kerry really believes something is wrong, he does not hesitate to call for laws to ban it. What he’s really saying is that it’s illegitimate to ban something you believe is wrong if — and only if — your belief in its wrongness comes from your religion.
So in his worldview, only religious people are forbidden to impose their beliefs about right and wrong on others. As long as you have no religion behind you, you can force your beliefs about right and wrong on anybody you want.
The Ornery American – Orson Scott Card

Though here I think Kerry’s position is less clear than Card thinks. In that debate he also said that his legislation in other areas like the environment were based his religious beliefs. I think Kerry’s actual position is actually more along the lines of “I won’t legislate articles of faith unless I can get people to vote for me by doing so.”
In another column Card deals with Iraq quite well:

Of course, the stupid answer to what I just said is, “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore footage of 9/11 has nothing to do with this war.”
But this war is not about punishing Al-Qaeda — that’s what the anti-war people claim.
This war — including the large campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq and the dozens of smaller campaigns that we don’t hear about — is about preventing international terrorist attacks against anyone, anywhere.
Since the war is not yet over, of course our enemies are still mounting terror attacks wherever they can.
Again, the stupid response to this is, “See? The war is provoking more terrorism, not preventing it!”
But we endured repeated attacks against soldiers and civilians until 9/11 finally made us say when. Is there anyone who seriously proposes that if we had not launched our war on terrorism, the 9/11 attacks would have been the last terrorist attacks anywhere in the world?
Terrorism was happening anyway. But now, instead of freely going where they want to kill whomever they want, the terrorists are now desperate to show the Muslim world that they’re still effective. In fact, however, they are severely limited in what they can do outside the Muslim world.
That’s why they’re reduced to murdering Iraqi soldiers now — fellow Muslims whose only “sin” was to volunteer to defend their country against Syrian and Iranian murderers and homegrown revolutionaries.
Dead Iraqi soldiers. That’s going to play so well in the streets of Iraq.
But they’re not trying to win Iraqi hearts and minds anymore. Now they’re trying to terrify Iraqis into not supporting the interim government. That’s a very different project, and it is a clear sign that the terrorists know that the Iraqi people have turned against them.
Instead of “defenders” of Iraq against “American aggressors,” they are now revealed as the would-be oppressors of Iraq, showing the Iraqi people how brutally they intend to rule over them if they get the chance.

What a strange world Kerry lives in. He has a plan for everything, but can never tell us what it is — probably because it’s so complicated that we stupid people simply couldn’t understand the subtleties of his unfathomable wisdom. We just have to take it on faith that his plan will be wonderful and makes us all happy and thin. (But not rich — or not for long, anyway.)
And since Kerry has so many secret plans, he is convinced that Bush must have secret plans, too. Plans for a draft. Plans to wreck Social Security. Evil, terrible plans that will destroy the world. He has no evidence for this — but then, we have no evidence for Kerry’s plans, either, yet he believes in them.
Here’s the gist of Kerry’s secret plans: Whatever Bush did, Kerry would have done differently.
But what I don’t get is: If Bush is out of office and Kerry is in, how will Kerry know what Bush would have done so that he can do the opposite?
The Ornery American – Orson Scott Card

All three columns are worth a read. The third in particular has a good section on how the Left assumes their voters are too stupid or lazy to be able to vote in the correct fashion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *