Arguing with Jim

My good buddy, Jim, has posted some provocative anti-Bush administration stuff lately (is that a fair description, Jim?). Though I'm not a Bush supporter, I don't fall in with Tom Tomorrow or Keith Olbermann either, and I said so. So Jim posted more about his intentions, and I made this comment, that I crosspost here:

hmm. are you driving me a little crazy? maybe, but maybe i was taking this too seriously. maybe i should not have assumed that these videos were representative of your views, or close to them.

you and i have very different positions on this. i *despise* the 'entertainment/politics' of the right and left; Rush, Coulter, O'Reilly, Franken, Moore, whoever. not only do i have no use for these people (and Olbermann in this op/ed), but i think they do the electorate a great disservice by representing themselves as sincere. they may be self-consciously entertaining, but too many people take these people's word as gospel. i have no use for those who contribute more noise than signal to the political discussion.

i think it's fascinating that you view the media as soft on Bush, while those on the right constantly decry the 'liberal media'. i tend to think the media is fair to hard on Bush. my diagnosis? you'll hate it... it's the people who don't care. we get the media, and the government, that we want and deserve.

'The government has engaged in some dangerous, and illegal activity since 9/11 as well as making some terrible mistakes.'

i fully agree. further, i agree that we could easily overreact in the war on terror and move toward tyranny and fascism. indeed, this would be a partial fulfillment of the terrorists' desires.

though i disagree with these specific calls to action, i greatly respect your intention and desires. i would not say you are not good at pushing people. you pushed me ;-)