Cold hubris: like Father (or Big Brother), the Left knows best
The Left likes to position itself as the champion of the underdog, the third world, the downtrodden, the oppressed.
Until, that is, someone from one of those countries has the temerity to disagree with the party line.
Just as the Left like to think every African-American in America automatically ought to be a Democrat–and, if not, that person is obviously to be ridiculed as a fawning tool of the Right (or, if you like, in less PC terms, an Uncle Tom or Aunt Jemima)–so it believes it has the answers for all the suffering people of color round the world.
That, by the way, is one of the reasons the Left hates–positively hates–neocons. Neocons actually have a competing theory about what to do about the third world, and it runs highly counter to that of the Left: it actually involves freedom, liberty, and protection of their rights within a democracy.
Whether the neocon dream is any more achievable than the dream of the Left (and I happen to think it is, because it is more attuned with the strivings of human nature) or any better morally (and I happen to think it is, because it is more respectful of individual and human rights) I’m not going to discuss here. That’s another topic for another time. My point is that it’s a vision for the third world that competes with that of the Left, and therefore cannot be countenanced by that Left.
To the Left, there’s almost nothing worse than an apostate. Neocons are viewed as apostates (some of them actually are; I personally, was never on the Left but always a mere Democrat of the liberal persuasion). Apostates who originate, or even still live, in third-world countries are a tricky proposition for the Left, as well. One would think that their membership in a minority group or race would get instant approval. But the contrarian nature of their viewpoints trumps race any day, and must be fought against with vigor. The gloves tend to come off.
Witness the following exchange the other day in the comments section, between Leftist commenter and troll DonkeyKong and commenter Huan, a Vietnamese-American. It was lengthy, so I won’t reproduce most of it here, but if you want to read the whole thing yourself go to the comments of this post on the State of the Union address.
Huan wrote:
As a Vietnamese expat and refugee from the US betrayal and abandonment of South Viet Nam, and knowing how the press misrepresented the progress of the war, i would say that Neo-Neocon is among the growing number of Americans who actually are coming to understand what really did happened to South Viet Nam 30 years ago.
But DK does not. I would recommend he starts by reading Vo Nguyen Giap.
“Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”
If Americans understood, America would weep in shame.
DonkeyKong (DK) responded thusly:
Haun, after the US fought for 10 years, expended 275 billion, and 58,000 of it’s countrymen, why did your government fall in 4 months (January 1975-April 1975.)
We didn’t betray you.
Oh I know, if we had only stayed another six months we would have won.
I think DK’s comment above encapsulates in a rather dense and representative packet (“dense” in more ways than one) the combination of ignorance and overwhelming arrogance exhibited by many (not all) on the Left.
DK trashes the feelings of a Vietnamese refugee about the American betrayal of Vietnam in 1974-5 (whatever happened to the Left’s tender regard for feelings?), as well as Huan’s take on history. It’s not so much the disagreement–it’s certainly possible to disagree with a Vietnamese-American about Vietnam, merely on the merits of the case, and to argue facts.
But do it in a respectful way. The element of juvenile taunting is unmistakable here, and especially reprehensible because–any way you look at it, any side you favor–the subject involves a tragedy of major proportions for the people of Vietnam as well as the US. In fact, more of a tragedy for the former than the latter.
The story of why the South Vietnamese government fell in four months is the point. I’ve written about it often (also see this for some background). But DK and his ilk aren’t interested in looking at that sort of thing. They know, they just know; better than articles by officers who were there, and most definitely better than Huan, an actual Vietnamese refugee but one who–like so many others–isn’t cooperating by parroting what DK wants to hear.
DK writes, dripping with sarcasm:
Oh I know, if we had only stayed another six months we would have won.
That’s not only a taunt directed at Huan, but at all those very threatening (and deluded, according to Leftist thinking) Vietnam “revisionist” historians–myself, of course, included (please read this post for a fuller discussion of Vietnam revisionist history). The idea that Vietnam might not have been a hopelessly lost cause at the end, worthy only of abandonment, threatens the Leftist “narrative” (love that word!) so strongly that it must be fought off at all costs, no matter where it originates, even from a Vietnamese-American. Or, rather, especially from a Vietnamese-American.
And what’s that “we” all about in Donkey Kong’s comment, anyway, when he writes “if we had stayed only another six months?” It seems that DK is unaware that the important “we”–our fighting forces–had left Vietnam years earlier (see this post that features a chart illustrating the pace of Vietnamization and the withdrawal of US fighting forces). What precipitated the downfall of South Vietnam was the withdrawal of our money, not ourselves.
After all that time, it really did come down just to money. Filthy lucre. And not a whole lot of it, either. As President Ford wrote at the time:
In South Vietnam, we have consistently sought to assure the right of the Vietnamese people to determine their own futures free from enemy interference. It would be tragic indeed if we endangered, or even lost, the progress we have achieved by failing to provide the relatively modest but crucial aid which is so badly needed there.
“Relatively modest but crucial aid”–that’s what it was all about, DK. Money. Money, weariness, and propaganda from the likes of you.
And people like me to listen to it, and to be taken in by it, to my sorrow. Like Huan says, at least I have the decency to weep in shame. What’s your excuse? Too young to remember?
This time, I’m not weeping. I’m writing.
I’ll leave the final words here to Huan, however, who addresses Donkey Kong in this way:
…but apparently you are incapable of learning from mistake, rather sticking with cold hubris, as you and your ilk are about to repeat the same mistake, abandoning the millions of iraqi to islamofascism and emboldening others to act against the US.
doesn’t matter how many suffers, as long as their skin is different, as long as they don’t meet your desired standards, as long as it is not in the news.
there is no shame to being ignorant, but it is shameful to cling to blind ignorance and let other suffer instead of you.
‘I’ve never heard Wm. F. Buckley call for bans on fast-food, or quashing right-wing radio as “hate speech”.’
I, on the other hand, have heard from a fairly large number of conservatives – Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza, Newt Gingrich, and others – that many types of speech are treasonous and should be punished in some manner, often by imprisonment or death. Charming company you keep, no? But again, the overriding feeling isn’t contempt, anger, or hatred, but rater: pity. If you really do live in a world in which you are a brave bastion of freedom struggling against the tide of The Left and The Left’s attempts to destroy all that is good in the world, then…well, you’re already punishing yourself enough.
Good for you, Neo, for showing exactly what those like DK really are, and how they actually think. (They are, in a word, contemptible, and they have no true feeling for anybody, despite all their bleatings about “the oppressed.”
And good for you, Huan, for telling us the truth.
I was just forced to give my first heave-ho to a commenter at my blog Bent Notes. In my case, the issue was Israel. I tried to respectfully engage thsi guy in a civil polemical exchange for quite a while, but the taunts and insults and reams of arcane documentation he demanded I respond to on a point-by-point basis became too much. His views make Jimmy Carter look positively Zionist by comparison.
I stop by here often, Neoneocon, and I think you run a very fair and grown-up operation.
Can we step back and remember, just for a moment, that a single commenter on a single blog is not synonymous, in any way, with any political movement, group, trend, or party? Anyone? Any takers? I realize how easy it must be to forget that there exists a reality outside of your computer monitor and the handful of blogs you people frequent, but seriously…seriously. Would you like me to write a few posts about how I’m a conservative and I hate black people and gays and want to rape the environment, so you can write a post about how evil The Right is? Would that be appropriate? Any takers?
Thanks for making DK a symbol of the unthinking callousness of the Left, or the anti war, or the Peace movement, if you will. I will stereotype all of them.
They are beneath even contempt. They are damned. I suspect more than a few of them know that and wish to take the rest of us with them.
Today a blogger asked how a Muslim fanatic could send her own son off to murder-suicide women and children. I say ask the Left in this country. They know.
Anon:
Suggest you take a look any day at DailyKos, DU, or Zombie’s site to see the photos of “protests” to see how accurate Neo’s description of the “left” is.
Read Nick Cohen’s “What’s Left?”
Can we step back and remember, just for a moment, that a single commenter on a single blog is not synonymous, in any way, with any political movement, group, trend, or party?
Certainly not “synonymous” but in this case very representative. Surely you do enough reading on your computer monitor to understand that donkeykong’s p.o.v. on Viet Nam, and his dismissive, sarcastic tone nicely encapsulates the prevailing leftist attitude.
DK’s … combination of ignorance and overwhelming arrogance
I have long regretted the lack of a single word to capture this increasingly common combination (found also on the right, and among fundamentalists of every stripe). The portmanteau ignorrogance doesn’t quite capture it, but it’s the best I can come up with.
The element of juvenile taunting
hmmmm and neo cons cant do this?
Hey, I got a bright idea. Here’s a message that I want to send to conned and justa. They might recognize some of their buddies here.
Link
Ymar | Homepage | 01.29.07 – 11:08 pm | #
Please don’t feed the trolls.
neo-neocon | Homepage | 01.29.07 – 11:14 pm | #
But facts will never matter to a dunce like you.
Victory is whatever pisses the Left off most and makes Neo happy.
Ymar | Homepage | 01.25.07 – 9:53 pm | #
You are without a doubt the densest of our trolls.
stumbley | 01.25.07 – 11:02 pm | #
maybe you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Yeah, I think that’s it.
Sally | 01.26.07 – 10:11 am | #
Well, anon, now that you,ve admitted that you’re a LIAR, it makes no difference. Anything you say is just simply dismissed as another lie.
Lee | 01.26.07 – 3:58 pm | #
How dare he leave me out, I am the original pyramid builder of skulls, people. Original.
Keep fighting the good fight Stumb, but one reason people don’t duel with chickens is that there is no honor in dueling an animal that doesn’t even understand the concept.
Ymar | Homepage | 01.25.07 – 11:20 am | #
You won’t be a lean, mean trigger pullin’ machine but you could be part of the logistical and administrative tail that support the sharp end. It would help if your clearance is either up to date or easy to do.
There are opportunities beyond the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.
Senescent Wasp | 01.25.07 – 11:51 am | #
I wouldn’t urinate on you if your caught fire.
Senescent Wasp | 01.25.07 – 6:45 pm | #
…the last one was addressed to me!
Yup you really do have some mature supporters with subtle and well sourced arguments.
Now scream TROLL! and press delete because you sure as hell are no use at debate.
stumbley | 01.25.07 – 9:45 pm | #
conned, cherry picking comments is the sort of thing I have come to expect from you and your ilk. My comments from the past on this blog dealing, in detail, with poltical, economic and cultural issues in the ME are ignored to make cheap ponts.
The left is truly composed of, “Mindless, booger eating, bed wetters.”
I know your comment will soon vanish but I coudln’t pass up the opportunity to let you know that everytime you come up online, someone, somewhere is watching. It’s a trivial excercise much like that used in instant messaging, but we like it.
The left is truly composed of, “Mindless, booger eating, bed wetters.”
or is it simply people who disagree with you? They may be right, they may be wrong but a quick flick through your postings on here show you cannot deal with those who have the temerity to disagree.
you stick to your fantasies of surveilling the world
After all that time, it really did come down just to money. Filthy lucre. And not a whole lot of it, either. As President Ford wrote at the time:
Money and air support, neo. The North could not invade the South with their tanks, regardless of how many they had, so long as America did a No Fly Zone (Iraq) in Vietnam.
Thanks for reposting my link, Conned. It is a very very good answer, no need for any comment from me concerning that.
Btw, mature content in that video.
“Now scream TROLL! and press delete because you sure as hell are no use at debate.
stumbley | 01.25.07 – 9:45 pm |”
Not me, sorry. And WR really is dense. I calls ’em as I sees ’em. Admittedly, I’ve succumbed to the “juvenile” taunts of the likes of you, for instance, but only when prompted by similar comments. If you could, for once, actually engage in a civil discussion without resorting to slinging epithets like “racist” around, maybe we’d be kinder to you.
Perhaps Donkey Kong could have been a bit less ‘sarcastic’ in his response to regarding the fall of South Vietnam, but for his poor victim she must be aware that this is the type of discourse to be expected in this particular blog, unfortunately. That the ‘left’- the same homogenious, monolithic body of thought so unfortunately and disengenously portrayed by the author – has adopted the same prose so often used by the ‘right’ here(a cursory glance at any threads reveal the level of insults and sarcasm rife to this board)is cause for an examination of the incident and the portrayal of the Vietnam war that has become central to neoconservative mythology that blames the ‘left’ for the loss of the war in Vietnam and now in Iraq.
To begin we should note that the author affirms that the left “hates” neonconservative because they offer a narrative that competes with the leftist view of the third world – a view that is left to the reader to decide. A sharp plunge into a paranoid delusional world occurs with the claim that the left hates neonservatives because their theories “actually involve(s) freedom, liberty, and protection of their rights within a democracy.” a claim likely to get a hearty laugh were it offered to a junior in high school. But to offer any examination of leftist visions would eagerly contradict this claim; so we are left to ponder the powerful claim that it is a ‘competing vision’ and nothing else.
Apostates? Actually the left(again accepting the boundaries of the authors ‘definition’)has nothing to fear from them, as most would refer to the fact that most are from the opposite end of the political spectrums – of which the author can observe herself using the example of the national discourse of the Iraq war from 2003 to the present.
The author is probably correct in pointing to the tone DK uses when addressing his Vietnemse counterpart – but the insuatation -which we’ve seen before – that the personal claims of one or more people that tow the rightwing party line – initially denied and then paraded as truth, offering,
“That’s not only a taunt directed at Huan, but at all those very threatening (and deluded, according to Leftist thinking) Vietnam “revisionist” historians–myself, of course, included”.
If revising history is indeed viewed as threatening – personally I see it as the last scourge of the scoundrel – it is from it’s use to justify or give meaning to current events whose realities Americans suffer through each day, such as the tragedy that is the Iraq war. Or simply to obscure the realities of U.S crimes in Indochina of which the ‘left’ insists as the primary narrative – something about human rights and all that stuff.
And any history about the Vietnam war that ignores the 20 years of successive U.S presidents propping up South Vietnam – previous the fall of Saigon – deserves a certain amount of scorn. As it does when the Vietnamese populace’s quite observable views abo
As it does when the Vietnamese populace’s quite observable views about the regime are ignored in favor of the testimony of one individual’s memory of a traumatic episode. The real history of American leaders supporting various dictorial leaders(rigged elections etc) and pushing the population to war instead of recognition and reconcilliation; and even directly killing thousands and destroying the very country it purported to be ‘saving’- evidently irrelevant to the ‘real’ story of the American media with it’s defeatist views which could have saved the lives of thousands of Vietnamese – of which we now look back on in sorrow with tears – if not for the 4 million we destroyed in three countries by bombing the population centres of Vietnam to dust – including the tragic S.Vietnamese nation who we bombed into submitting to American rule…
I guess it all boils down to whether you think “words will never hurt me”, or “words will make you cry” I, myself, tend to engage ideological opponents on the level THEY pick(as an aside, I do find it strange that all of justaguy’s postings in a previous article were all deleted, while all my responses to said postings remained). The responses to such “insults”, however, seems to differ. One posting referred to me as “scumbag”; rolled right off my butt. neoneoconned says “Look what you said about ME”.
“Today a blogger asked how a Muslim fanatic could send her own son off to murder-suicide women and children. I say ask the Left in this country. They know.”
While not exactly equivalent, lots of Americans sent their sons to fly bomber missions in Germany with incredibly high casualty rates. Their bombs certainly weren’t discriminating between men and women or children. So, are you arguing that all of the American men and women who sent their sons to very probable deaths in order to drop bombs on women and children were Lefties? I think the Left would be happy to claim credit for the entire Greatest Generation. Thanks!
“his dismissive, sarcastic tone nicely encapsulates the prevailing leftist attitude.”
That’s a pretty big assertion there! I’m curious – could you define what you consider to be “the Left” (registered Democrats? people who voted for Democratic candidates in the last election? the readership of Indymedia?), and then could you please demonstrate how the prevailing atitude among these people is sarcastic and dismissive? Could you also explain why the Right never uses sarcasm? Could you also explain what they’re dismissing, and why dismissing things is bad?
Thanks!
Oh, I have another question! Could someone explain why, when someone quoted a brother in Iraq who said things weren’t going so well there, you all demanded proof that his brother really was who he said he was (to the point of demanding a name and other identifying information), but when someone else claims to be from Vietnam and have lots of bad things to say about life there because of American liberals, you all just assume he’s telling the truth?
I mean, they’re both assertions about personal experience that’s supposed to be relevant to the discussion, but there’s no proof given in either case. You asked for the name of the brother; has anyone thought to ask for Huan’s address and phone number and etc in Vietnam?
I mean, consistency folks! Don’t want to look like you apply arbitrary standards to information that disagrees with your assumptions about the world, do you? I didn’t think so!
“That, by the way, is one of the reasons the Left hates–positively hates–neocons. Neocons actually have a competing theory about what to do about the third world, and it runs highly counter to that of the Left: it actually involves freedom, liberty, and protection of their rights within a democracy.”
Actually, The Left hates The Neocon because of that time The Neocon borrowed The Left’s copy of “Talladega Nights” and never returned it, that jerk.
Or, it could have something to do with the way Neocons are always proposing and seeking to implement policies that cause more harm than they ever could good, either way.
S. Wasp:
Glad you’re back. Less glad you waste keystrokes sniffing out their holes. They aren’t even mosquitos, just exceptionally silly arrangements of electrons or whatever they’re called on our screens.
The scientific illiteracy of us Americans is scandalous; I am living proof.
“I personally, was never on the Left but always a mere Democrat of the liberal persuasion”
So wait, what the hell are we even talking about here? Either “the Left” is a big enough force to actually affect change, or it’s nothing – a tiny minority of idiots who read Indymedia and can’t get their shit together and who will never be taken seriously because they look like freaks and love street-theater self-congratulation. But if it’s the latter, why do you spend so much time talking about them and no, say, the Right (who, let’s say is, in this case, composed of abortion clinic terrorists and gay nightclub bombers and KKK members)?
Either you’re using The Left for shorthand to describe “anyone who disagrees with me,” or you’re using it to describe a tiny group of people with no real influence or power. What’s up with the obsession?
“This time, I’m not weeping. I’m writing.”
Well, I suppose I should be grateful someone is writing to expose the shamefulness of our withdrawal from Vietnam under a Republican president.
Anon, I think the main reason LA’s “brother’s” anecdotal testominy was challenged is because most soldier’s, sailor’s, airmen’s and marine’s personal testimonies from Iraq tend to come with names attached(or, if from a family member or friend, also usually given names) that can easily be verified by going to the source. i.e. “did you really say that?” While there are opposing testimonies from real serviceman as well, people from the left tend to refer to some “annonymous”(no pun intended) friend or family member. And, you’ll have to admit, in the case of LA, his story constantly changed the more his assertions were called to question( he’s a phychiatrist, he’s had basic training, he’s a counselor).
“Anon, I think the main reason LA’s “brother’s” anecdotal testominy was challenged is because most soldier’s, sailor’s, airmen’s and marine’s personal testimonies from Iraq tend to come with names attached(or, if from a family member or friend, also usually given names) that can easily be verified by going to the source. i.e. “did you really say that?” While there are opposing testimonies from real serviceman as well, people from the left tend to refer to some “annonymous”(no pun intended) friend or family member. And, you’ll have to admit, in the case of LA, his story constantly changed the more his assertions were called to question( he’s a phychiatrist, he’s had basic training, he’s a counselor).”
Actually, I’ve read quite a few commenters who write things like “all the soldiers I know
How many Anonymouses (Anonymi?) do we have on this thread, anyway?
However many you are, and whoever you are, you all sound hysterical, and more than slightly incoherent.
Try addressing some of the actual issues Neo raises, instead of lashing out hither an yon, okay?
Um, I’m not entirely sure she actually raised any “actual issues.” Declaring that “the Left” does this or “the Left” does that doesn’t really amount to much more than a sweeping and ultimately meaningless assertion.
I’ve noticed that, too, Anon. They tend to be Loyal Achates, Wild Rice, justaguy, etc.
Huan says |quote]as you and your ilk are about to repeat the same mistake, abandoning the millions of iraqi to islamofascism and emboldening others to act against the US.|quote]
The Iraq study (BIPARTISAN) group report prepared not only by dems & reps, military experts/other experts and consultations with Iraqis (which it lists) is hardly a Vietnam plan of abandonment.
There will only be a bipartisan solution or no solution though (IMO).
Just one word, to Anon (I usually don’t address anonymouses; too confusing).
If the Neo-cons are proposing bad policies, tell us what these policies are, and why they’re bad. It’s hard to believe, by the way, that they’d come up with anything much worse than what the Left has wrought over the decades—but tell us. Argue the point. Don’t just go on and on about how criticizing the Left is just being mean.
Of course, somuch left out the part where the ISG said they could support a temporary or short-term “surge” of troops to stabilize Bagdhad if commanders on the ground felt it could help( ISG Report pg.50).
Not to mention, Anon, the blog column we’re all commenting on is actually reinforced by your OWN defense of LA: (paraphrase)” I’d protect his annonymity from FREAKS like you guys on THIS blog, too.” As I said, a paraphrase, but close enough for gov’t work.
If I wanted to write a crueler parody of a statement by a neocon valiantly ignoring reality, I couldn’t have done it more perfectly.
‘Neocons actually have a competing theory about what to do about the third world, and it runs highly counter to that of the Left: it actually involves freedom, liberty, and protection of their rights within a democracy.’
Yes, that must be it… the Left (and the liberals, and the center, and most of the Right) is rebelling against Neoconservativism not because it has made the world a more dangerous place for America, not because it gives democracy a bad name without delivering it, not because it’s been a huge waste of blood and treasure to no definite purpose, not because it has emboldened our enemies by showing the limits of our power, not because its leaders are incompetent and duplicitous at best, in short, not because it has been a failure in every way, but because they hate freedom and democracy. But of course!
And, of course, it’s the Left that wants to tell everyone what to do, not the Neocons who favor a council of Wise Americans to dictate in advance what every ‘democracy’ should decide. Sorry, Neo, but hegemony doesn’t work that way. Pine all you like for American occupation of Vietnam, while Johnson and Nixon systematically devastated the country, cancelled all free elections for fear Ho Chi Minh would win, covered it in chemical weapons, slaughtered millions of Vietnamese, blocked all attempts at land reform, stifled all political dissent with imprisonment and assassination, and in doing so undermined all non-Communist factors among the North Vietnamese. Is that what democracy looks like?
If you want to know what neoconservativism – and yes, ’empire’ – mean, just go back and read the New Republic from the 30s and 40s, which asked rhetorically “What’s the difference between the imperialism of democratic countries and Hitler?”
I have never posted anonymously. Any ‘anon’ claiming to be me is a fraud.
Gee, TK, considering the postings were coming every few minutes a while ago, what do you think? Working hard to formulate a coherent, “rational” response to rebuttals?
Wow, the level of civility in discourse has deteriorated lately. We’ve done better around here, folks.
In defense of generalizations about The Left, and at least in theory, The Right as well: this has been an ongoing conversation over months. There have been many electrons sprayed here about the differences and overlap among progressive, liberal, Left, Democrats. Asking the hostess, or any other commenter to redefine those at every use is cumbersome, and leads to having the same discussion repeatedly. It might requiring going back into the archives, or heaven forfend, actually keeping silent and listening for awhile to get the flow of how the words are used here.
Given the limitations of all generalizations, those offered here have substance behind them. If one of the many anonymouses here believes that a particular generalization is unfair, a counterexample would be better than a mere complaint. For example, to say “one-third of Senate Democrats voted for X” is a fair counterargument to any claim that “Democrats don’t support X.” The generalization would still hold, but be properly qualified.
Well, lets see. Banning use of legal products consummed in public(tobacco, trans-fats, McDonald’s): left. Banning skinny models from work: left. Banning “right-wing talk radio: left. Support for dictators in name of self-governance: left. Support of genocide in Africa in name of “religious tolerance”: left.
“Gravatar Well, lets see. Banning use of legal products consummed in public(tobacco, trans-fats, McDonald’s): left. Banning skinny models from work: left. Banning “right-wing talk radio: left. Support for dictators in name of self-governance: left. Support of genocide in Africa in name of “religious tolerance”: left.”
It doesn’t surprise me, Lee, that you are the way you are if you genuinely believe that there exists some group of people in America (the world?) who has done all of these things. Banning right-wing talk radio? That must be news to Rush Limbaugh. Supporting genocide? I would hate the Left too if I believe this patently absurd statement. Who does this? If you’re going to criticize people for their actions, it helps to list things they actually do, and not made-up stuff.
But I don’t believe things like this. I don’t believe that you, as a conservative, are responsible for things like the KKK, or abortion clinic terrorism, or gay nightclub bombings, or the myriad of horrors that have been committed in the name of conservative ideologies (Apartheid, etc.). Unless you actually do support these things, I won’t ascribe any blame or responsibility to you for the actions of people who have tangentially related political ideologies. If it makes you feel better to believe that there exists some “The Left” which commits all these acts and relishes in things like supporting genocide, fine, but it makes you a) wrong and b) look like an ass. Grownups should know better.
“…blocked all attempts at land reform…“:
I have got to disagree with you on this particular point. We did support land reform. The problem is that it was a side policy. We should have made it central to our involvement. Something like telling the GVN “If you do not implement land reform by next Thursday we are outa here by next Friday”.
The other policy we should have pushed, but didn’t, rest to restore elected village government.
The effective, but undeclared, policy was depopulation of the country. This was a very cruel and counter productive policy.
Actually, smoking bans HAVE been implemented in many U.S. cities and even states(by leftist Dems and Repubs), trans-fat bans are being advocated by leftists(the leftie Bloomberg in N.Y.C. even implementing one). I’ve never heard Wm. F. Buckley call for bans on fast-food, or quashing right-wing radio as “hate speech”. And while the “religious right” may have kooks, too, It should be noted that Apartheid is a Socialist system, slavery and Jim Crow laws were institutions of the Democratic Party’s South(other forms of Socialism), and Hitler’s ideology was “National Socialism”(as opposed to International Socialism: communism), and the last time I noticed, socialists tend to be leftists, not free-will, free-market, individual liberty advocates like most of the conservative right, Like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Kennedy. The groups you claim as mine are in fact YOURS. Stop your Goeggelsesque lies anon.
Whoops, Goebbelsesque.
“It should be noted that Apartheid is a Socialist system, slavery and Jim Crow laws were institutions of the Democratic Party’s South(other forms of Socialism), and Hitler’s ideology was “National Socialism”(as opposed to International Socialism: communism), and the last time I noticed, socialists tend to be leftists, not free-will, free-market, individual liberty advocates like most of the conservative right, Like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Kennedy. The groups you claim as mine are in fact YOURS. Stop your Goeggelsesque lies anon.”
And this, friends, is when the train departs Crazy Town.
Lee, again, if I believed, as you seem to, that every single bad thing ever in the history of the universe is the sole fault of some guy named “The Left,” I’d have a problem with “The Left” as well. So, the result is that I end up pitying you for your profound ignorance of history, etc. But if you honestly believe this stuff – if you know enough history to have some idea of who Goebbels is, and still manage somehow to believe that Jim Crow laws – a militant attempt to preserve class and racial privilege – or that Apartheid – a militant attempt to preserve class and racial privilege – are anything other than conservative, in both their literal and modern political meanings, then…well, there’s really no point in talking with you any more, is there? It’s like trying to have a conversation with someone who insists that his left foot is the Prime Minister.
Why, exposed your lies for what they are, and you can’t refute the truth? Fine, declare defeat and “cut and run”.
‘Why, exposed your lies for what they are, and you can’t refute the truth? Fine, declare defeat and “cut and run”.’
Was this directed at me? Does this, in some way, follow logically for you from what was said earlier? Again, Lee, not anger, but pity.
“…pitying you for your profound ignorance of history…“:
I think he was trying to be humorous.
In any case his left foot cannot be the Prime Minister. It is my left foot that is the Prime Minister!
I don’t follow the characters well enough to know if Lee is telling the truth or joking, but I really hope he’s joking.
Anon(yes, that’s right, directed specifically at you), don’t pity me, You’re the one that has nothing else to say other than “If that’s what you believe, than there’s no sense talking to you( in effect conceding, since history is on my side, and all the repetition of revisionism can’t change that).
If so, joke is, of course, on me for being a blowhard. Touche!
Anon, I’m as serious as a heart-attack. Deal with it.
Lee, imagine if a man were to approach you and announce that, last night, he had eaten the moon for it was made of lost hopes, and it tasted like marmelade. You would, I hope feel pity for this man for his utter disconnect from history. Now, analogize, and you will understand how I feel about you. Unless, of course, you’re not a native English speaker, and you have simply confused the words “the Left” for something like “bad things I do not like.” That would at least clear a few things up, and leave room for a discussion.
“…I’m as serious as a heart-attack.“:
Another attempt to be funny. In this case its dark humor.
What part of “Hitler was a leftist” don’t you understand? What part of “slavery is a leftist institution” don’t you understand? This isn’t about “green cheese” or “cows jumping”, this is correctly identifying where these groups actually are on the “political spectrum” as opposed to “projecting”(another Goebbels propaganda tactic) them onto the “right”.
Neo, I think it may be time for a spring Troll-cleaning.
As serious as a heart attack? Really? As serious as a medical condition which the blood supply to the heart is disrupted, with high risk of death? You’re that serious about commenting on a blog? You need to calm down, or you might…have a heart attack?
But honestly, Lee, I would seriously love to hear you make the case that slavery is a “leftist institution.” Or Apartheid, take your pick. Maybe both? I smell dissertation!
Anon, I smell BS. From you. Refute my assetions with facts, not poetic sophistry, and feigned pity.
However, the level of troll anger is proof that, once again, Neo uncovered some disturbing truths that many on the Left don’t like hearing.
(And her critique of WR’s condecension to Huan, as well as the mistakes about Vietnam, was spot on.)
No no, Lee, you misunderstand. Far be it for me to attempt to refute your assertions! What I am asking, genuinely, is for you to explain to me the very simple and otherwise obvious fact that slavery and Apartheid are “leftist institutions.” Please?
If you view the world ahistorically, pesky, loaded terms like ‘leftist’, ‘socialist’, ‘liberal’ become as light as air and will stick to whatever they’re thrown at. Slavery? a socialist system. Hitler? Total leftist. Abe Lincoln? Neocon. Churchill? Neocon. Marcus Tullius Cicero? Neocon. Why qualify or define these terms when saying them is so much faster?
Simple, anon, Apartheid was a system of “social interaction enforced by government”. Like Communism, National Socialism, slavery, and Jim Crow(separate but equal social interaction among black and white). Really not that difficult.
Very simple, and otherwise obvious facts.
“ Simple…“:
You see. What did I tell you. There is no way this guy can be for real. The is classic “Three Stooges” comedy from the 1940s.
UNBELIEVEABLE, INCONCIEVEABLE! Is this really the best you guys can come up with. I’ve explained myself over and over. Now it’s your turn, refute with facts, or shut-up.
Your Honor(the court of public opinion), I rest my case.
“…refute with facts…“:
I think that in the presence of a talent such as yours we can be no more than silent. We conceded. They’re all socialists. I have just one request. The beetles in my garden are socialists as well. Could you please add them to your list? Thank you.
Lee, you have bested me. Well played, sir. I doff my cap.
Drawing on the august body of work drawn up by Lee, I can conclude that conservatives are soft on crime. To wit:
Leftism is ‘”a system of “social interaction enforced by government”.’
Since imprisoning criminals is, in fact, a system of social interaction enforced by government, I can only conclude that conservatives want murderers and rapists to roam the streets, murdering and raping at will, because all else is terrible leftist enforcement by the government of social interaction in the form of a system. You people make me sick. For shame, conservatives! For shame.
“…conservatives are soft on crime.“:
I think not all conservatives. The “law and order” faction advocate locking people up for a very long time. Extreme social interaction enforced by government! They’re are more socialist that then socialists.
Anon, probably the smartest thing you’ve said all night. Convoluted logic and deflectionism, but in this sense, I agree. All forms of governmental regulation are “socialism”, but it is the degree of regulation that makes the difference.
Since all forms of governmental regulation are “socialism,” does that mean George Bush is a socialist?
No, George Bush is a President, the Chief Executive of our “limited government” experiment we call “Constitutional Republic”.
But George Bush participates in the formulation and execution of systems of government regulation, does he not? Apartheid and Jim Crow were also “limited government” in the sense that, as odious as they were, they were not totalitarian in any meaningful sense. Does this mean that our government and Apartheid South Africa are morally equivalent because they’re both limited, have constitutions, and are republics?
I think a serious problem you’re having, Lee, is that you have managed somehow to have not learned the definitions of some words. “Conservatives” like to conserve things; that is, they like to preserve political and social institutions as they are or were. Hence, Jim Crow and Apartheid, socio-political systems meant to preserve class and racial privileges against challenges to the status quo.
Socialism, on the other hand, doesn’t mean “government regulation” to any meaningful segment of users of that word. Socialism, which involves transfering ownership of the means of production from one class to another, is explicitly about not conserving a social system. That some who claim to be socialists actually ended up creating new classes and privileges which they then defended – “conserved” – by claiming to be socialists doesn’t change the meaning of the word itself.
Do you have access to a dictionary? I recommend you spend some time perusing it. I ask again, are you a native speaker of English? I certainly don’t have the time to help you out with that, but English classes are pretty easy to come by these days, thanks to liberals who like to help immigrants. Hurray liberals!
But, George Bush is not “the system” itself, but, again, despite any “dictionary” definition of the term, it can be twisted to mean almost anything. Jefferson Davis wanted to “conserve” slavery, Lincoln wanted to “conserve” the Union.
Not that this one-on-one tete-a-tete isn’t endearing and all, where are all the other opinionated jerks like us?
Or has this forum become the Lee and Anonymous show?
Oh,well, getting tired, going away. Anon, a worthy intellectual opponent, even if all we can do is agree to disagree. Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice: Pull down your pants and slide on the ice. ‘night all.
“Anon, a worthy intellectual opponent”
Lee…hardly.
Ok, not quite away yet. Being somewhat new to this forum, I’m still trying to figure out if I’m one of the “trolls” people seem to refer to around here.
lee you agree with neo therefore you are not a troll. Me i think she writes very well but is seriously wrong therefore i am. Other similar blogs, such as dr sanity are simply rants by bigots and not as much fun.
enjoy
Anonymous:
“could you define what you consider to be “the Left””
As Justice Stewart once said (regarding a subject similar to ‘the left’), “I know it when I see it.
It’s one of those terms you just can’t get a consensus definition of – no more than you could define exactly who is a member of ‘the right’.
“and then could you please demonstrate how the prevailing atitude among these people is sarcastic and dismissive?”
Sure! Mind if I borrow your words?
“So, are you arguing that all of the American men and women who sent their sons to very probable deaths in order to drop bombs on women and children were Lefties? I think the Left would be happy to claim credit for the entire Greatest Generation. Thanks!”
Next:
“Could you also explain why the Right never uses sarcasm?”
Why? Neo didn’t say that. Saying that sarcasm is one part of the prevailing attitude of leftist does not equal saying the right never uses sarcasm. Does that help? Or was that just a *sarcastic* comment on your part?
Next:
“Could you also explain what they’re dismissing, and why dismissing things is bad?”
Okay! They dismiss virtually everything that they disagree with. It is ‘bad’ because it shows a lack of respect for the person you are ‘debating’ and it strongly implies an inability to dispute those ideas with facts, logic and/or integrity.
“..explain why.. you all demanded proof that his brother really was who he said he was.. but when someone else claims to be from Vietnam.. you all just assume he’s telling the truth?”
Easy one! If you ever raised a child, would recognize why immediately. When a child tells you something that, on its face doesn’t seem possible and is inconsistent with reality, you probe for details. Often, each probing question leads to more inconsistencies from the child, until finally it is clear (to you and the child) that he has been caught prevaricating.
Since this was not the case with Huan, we couldn’t called him inconsistencies that did not exist.
On the other hand, you will notice that LA, who WAS called out on inconsistencies, soon admitted to ‘misleading statements’.
Worked out great, didn’t it? Funny how it’s not even inconsistent, once you think about it, isn’t it?
Next:
“Either you’re using The Left for shorthand to describe “anyone who disagrees with me,” or you’re using it to describe a tiny group of people with no real influence or power.”
Are those the only two parameters you can think of? Strange…I thought you guys liked to claim that the ‘right’ sees the world as black and white…
I know *I* can think of more possible categories than “everybody” and “hardly anybody”. Strangely enough, I don’t accept your arbitrary limitations.
And Finally:
“Well, I suppose I should be grateful someone is writing to expose the shamefulness of our withdrawal from Vietnam under a Republican president.”
You might want to research that one, buddy!
Sorry, I meant to sign that last post ‘Tap’
HEY! It cut off the end of my post!
You might want to research that one, buddy. After all, I wouldn’t want people to think that you are sarcastic, ignorant or manipulating the truth!
Hey! THAT’s what Neo left out about the left – manipulating the truth through ommission and/or commission.
Yes, all forms of government regulation that infringe private property, freedom of assosiations, society self-organization, individual freedom, free speech, etc., are leftist by definition. Hitler did all listed above, that is why he, quite correctly, named his party National Socialist Workers Party. The only thing government should do is enforce law and order without harming unnecessary these basic freedoms. This is my definition of conservatism. And my definition of leftism is excessive regulation in futile hope to provide equality of results for everybody ignoring individual contribution to these results. With such working definitions it is possible to tell Right from Left.
In my country I met lots of leftists of any stripes, from Stalinists to Trotskysts and advocates of so-called “democratic Socialism”. But in spite of all their differences, there are several key convictions they all agree: society can be engineered to satisfy pre-conceived goals if enough regulation or/and repression applied; and these goals have priority above individual freedoms. This is litmus test of any leftist ideology. In practice such ideologies always results in mass murder and oppression on unbelievable scale.
A pointed and well-written post from neo, as usual — it’s point being amply demonstrated by the many gored lefties who have been squealing like stuck pigs in the comments. (And yes, that’s intended as an insult directed at the trolls who only come here to squeal — they know who they are.)
But why are there so many? Well, neo herself states the reason in her post — “To the Left, there’s almost nothing worse than an apostate” — but it’s worth a little expansion. An apostate is a particularly threatening figure to any belief system based more on faith than on reason or evidence, since the primary thing holding such a belief system together is just the solidarity of its constitutuents — the departure of one can undermine the existence of the whole. Belief systems that already feel themselves under siege — whose central values and notions of “truth”, in other words, are already being widely questioned outside the community and under growing doubt even inside it — are even more prone to vicious attacks on those they see as ex-believers. Witness modern day Islam. And its “spiritual” ally, modern day leftism.
“…and these goals have priority above individual freedoms.“:
But Leo Strauss is no proponent of individual freedoms. The opposite in fact.
I’m reminded of that scene from the Princess Bride where Fezig keeps saying ‘Inconcievable!’ until Inigo Mantoya replies “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
So… Hitler was a leftist? And anybody who ever used the government for any means instantly becomes a leftist too? Is Bush a leftist for icreasing spending and expanding federal powers? Does the fact that Hitler threw his resources full force against the Communist Stalin and social-democratic Roosevelt and Conservative Churchill, as well as eliminating communists, socialists, anarchists and liberals in his own country while relying on the support of the international business community makes him a Leftist? Are you kidding? It wouldn’t kill you to admit that Left and Right can both be totalitarian if they go too far, much like any ideology. But I guess then you’d have to admit that there might be a humanly conceivable situaiton in which ‘your’ side would be wrong.
You people are clowns. I can only hope that one day you will realize this and do something to save some part of your lives.
Sally, you’re right.
There are so many, because the one thing they can’t stand is an apostate—or criticism.
“But Leo Strauss is no proponent of individual freedoms. The opposite in fact.”
Source, please. That you call it fact do not make it fact for me.
Steven Smith question the link between Strauss and neoconservative thought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics. Those who do make such a link, Smith argues, misread Strauss’s published writings.
The mere fact that many neocons were Srtrauss students do not automatically make him true representative of neo-con thought.
I do not take “sides”, I defend principles, and for me it is completely irrelevant which side endorses these principles. Trotskists and Stalinists also are mortal enemies; but both are Left, just as Nazi, Baath, Chaves and swarms of others. And I see that now only neocons defend the same liberal principles that I find essential to the progress of humankind, and modern “liberals” reject them. And, of course, the criterion is not simply the size of government: it can be vastly enlarged when neccessary, in time of war, for example, but aims of it and proper balance of civil liberties and national security; some trade-offs are obviously inevitable.
Here’s a post I did about Strauss after I came across an article criticizing some of his works.
Link
It provides in more detail just what Strauss was talking because it actively engages his words.
Thank you, Ymar, this was informative source. But Strauss died in 1973, long before neoconservatism began to form. And he sounds to me more like paleocon; not so father of neoconservatism, but, rather, father of Reaganism, because of re-introducing of moral language into political discourse. Anglo-Saxon classical liberals were encapsulated in their own culture. Real challenge to this morality came when they were confronted with totally foreign culture of Indian mesolithic tribes. That is when real Jacksonian morality emerged. Now West due to globalization encontered similar challenge, and new Jacksonian impulse naturally is forming.
Anonymous of 9:49sm,
Might you be the same Anonymous to whom I earlier replied?
In furtherance of your (or his) enlightenment, allow me to use your newest words as an example of exactly those things Anonymous was questioning.
“You people are clowns.”
This is a display of dismissiveness. See? No facts or logic necessary. Just dismiss ’em.
“I can only hope that one day you will realize this and do something to save some part of your lives.”
Here we have a fine example of arrogance!
If you put the two together, there is also a strong indication of ignorance, as Anonymous finds it necessary to arrogantly dismiss others while displaying no ability to refute them.
When Jefferson send frigates to Mediterranean in order to liberate American sailors captured and enslaved by Arab pirates and slave-traders, they not only liberated these people, but also destroyed pirate kingdoms along all North African shore. This was very neoconservative gesture; and this was origins of Mariners, too.
You must have struck a nerve, neo. Look at them coming out from their caves to fling feces. It’s like a Kucinich campaign rally.
Trimegistus, yes, neo’s definitely struck a nerve.
And the trolls are getting less and less coherent.
Sergey, thank you for providing those valuable historical points.
Oh, I got it:
Neoconservative: all things good.
Left: all things bad.
Now it makes sense.
“Belief systems that already feel themselves under siege — whose central values and notions of “truth”, in other words, are already being widely questioned outside the community and under growing doubt even inside it ”
Well you’d be just a little more than familiar with that being on the right and supporting a war that began with something like 80+% and now stands at less 20 odd%.
Do you ever even stop to consider how ridiculous you appear when you right such hypocritical, worthless nonsense – while accusing others of ‘arrogance’??
Methinks not.
Well good for you….
“Do you ever even stop to consider how ridiculous you appear when you right such hypocritical, worthless nonsense – while accusing others of ‘arrogance’??”
Pot, meet kettle. I thought TC had calmed down some before…dashed hope.
The saddest part of this whole sad business is that people like TC ignore 75 years of the failed Soviet experiment, the inevitable slow decline of Socialist Europe, and the limited success (due to its forays into capitalism) of Socialist China. But “progressivism” is still the way to go!!
There are some great comments over at The Belmont Club (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/) under the post titled “Those Happy Faces”.
Example: “But here again we are the mercy of what Cosmo called the Western Pleasuredome. The Left is going to stop us from going after the killers, the very same killers who would “honor kill” these ladies in a heartbeat because they live in a world of fantasy. But the characteristic of fantasy is that, when reality comes, the adjustment is not only abrupt but often as unreasoned as the initial fantasy itself.
If, heaven forbid, a nuclear or biological attack should strike a Western city, these very same sensitive people, who only yesterday were worrying about whether their oranges were organically grown, will have to grope through a toxic, radioactive city. And they will respond with the same primal hysteria. My bet is that, in their fear and terror, they will demand that we kill “them” all. If Global Warming terrifies them, when they can only imagine it, wait until they walk through a city blinded, burned and faces slashed to ribbons by flying glass. Bummer, man.
In the end fantasy is maintained by ignorance. Living in a Bubble is not a condition, it’s a way of life.”
I very recommend a wise article about philosophical origins of neoconservatism:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7335
I gives real meaning to famous Churchill quote that democracy is the worst form of government, but all others even worse. This was not only a joke.
teecee: Do you ever even stop to consider how ridiculous you appear when you right such hypocritical, worthless nonsense – while accusing others of ‘arrogance’??
Ever tried saying things like that into a mirror? “Methinks not”, too.
LA: Oh, I got it:
Neoconservative: all things good.
Left: all things bad.
Now it makes sense.
Which aptly sums up the mental limits of the lefty trolls infesting the place. They’re getting dumber by the minute.
They are bipolar stumb. They don’t “calm down” permanently.
Yeah, LA, TC and Anonymous seem determined to prove Neo correct.
LA: Oh, I got it:
Neoconservative: all things good.
Left: all things bad.
Now it makes sense.
Dismissive? Sarcastic? Arrogant? Lacking in substance? Naahhhh!
Well you’d be just a little more than familiar with that being on the right and supporting a war that began with something like 80+% and now stands at less 20 odd%. (TC)
I didn’t vote in that poll, TC. IF AMERICANS were allowed to see the facts about Iraq, these numbers would mean nothing. No one supports surrender to terrorists. So let the Dems crawl the walls and yahoos yell. Mobs don’t run this country. And, while George Bush is CEO, neither does the MSM. The Media have tried to, haven’t they? George is more stubborn. I doubt polls at this late date will change his mind! So denigrate him, and US, and your military all you want. You’re little different from the hit men in Iraq. You hurt us, and hate us, and we don’t quit. Like it, love it, or shove it.
That is one of the better posts even among the rest of your impressive writings, Neo. And hats off to Huan as well.
Apparently very few of you can read.
The point I made about the war was to demonstrate(with embarrassing ease)that Sally’s comment about the left, apostates and “the growing doubt inside of it”(the left) has no basis in fact, reality or evidence.
But – rather than have this degenerate into a pointless slagging match – maybe Sally – or anybody – might provide an example of the ‘left’s’ “growing doubt(internal)” or demonstrate how, with examples and evidence, “those central values and notions of “truth”, in other words, are already being widely questioned outside the community”.
jgr – well than you’d be in that roughly 20% who still support the war – whatever your reason(which I’m not really concerned with – the point was about ‘apostates’). That’s all you had to say man! No big deal!
Stumbley – I don’t see any reason for you believe I’m not calm – I’m merely pointing to a clear example of hypocrisy and of offering claims that have little basis in reality. You may see it as a case of the pot calling the kettle black(to which I’d say “show me”), but I don’t.
You’ll have to fill me in too as to how I’m ‘ignoring’ the Soviet Union and China in my progressive leanings – I’d say one has very little to none to do with the other – nor do I see how it’s relevant to the discussion.
Your stream of consciousness seems to simply imply(very simply) that progressives don’t understand the ‘true’ threats we face. I disagree, and I’ve said why before but…
You might also say that today’s rightwing, pro-war anti-immigrant hack is one life-saving operation from being a full-blown progressive – or the victim of a terrorist attack.
It’s amazing what happens when people are actually forced to think about things for themselves instead of having it fed to them by Uncle Sam….
This blog’s neocon defenders did not even attempt to answer my earlier, more substantive posts and simply replied to all other criticisms with name-calling. In my book, that’s conceding the point. If you want to look at what I’ve written previously and reply to it, be my guest.
TC:
I’m being fed nothing by “Uncle Sam”. You responded to what you thought was “juvenile” criticism by calling the poster’s comment “hypocritical, worthless nonsense” and implied that the poster was “ridiculous”…and then complained about his “arrogance”. Hypocrisy? Naaaahhh…
Interesting also that your incessant carping about how “neoconservatives” generalize about “the Left”, and then spout something like “today’s rightwing, pro-war anti-immigrant hack”, as if all conservatives were pro-war and anti-immigrant.
Hypocrisy? Naaaahhhh….
As to the Left’s growing doubt, read Nick Cohen.
That would be Nick Cohen’s book “What’s Left?”
TC has a certain naive charm, I’ll grant — for example in his simple and self-serving use of the word “progressive” as synonymous with the left. In fact, as most not on the left know, the left has been actively regressive for much of its history — and today, most of its remnants have sadly degenerated into a fundamentalist parody of even that reactionary past. But once upon a time there was a left that at least held a certain ideal, however utopian and wistful — it was called “socialism”, and it was as fervently believed in as any god. But a while ago, historical events put an end to that belief, and all that remains of it now is a kind of walking corpse that gets propped up from time to time as merely “anti-capitalism”, “anti-globalization”, “anti-industrialism”, etc. What lies beneath such banners and bumper stickers is “anti-West” and “anti-human”. Calling this mess “progressive” is just a cruel and bleak joke.
TC:
“Progressive” today seems to mean what Sally has said above: anti-capitalist, anti-globalization and anti-industrialism. As to your “progressive leanings”, I have detected a strain of all of these in your comments. I refer to people like you as “ignoring” the lessons of Soviet Russia and China, in that it’s pretty clear from their examples and the the example of the declining EU that socialism simply doesn’t work. In no society that has tried the “socialist experiment” for any real length of time has it been shown to improve the lives of citizens living under its tenets by any great degree. By any measure, capitalism has improved the lives of more people than socialism ever did.
But it’s apparently too late for you, and if you can’t understand the gist of Neo’s post, it’s just another example of someone who’s keeping the faith long after reality has torn the religion to bits.
So those are our only two options, huh Sally? Neoconservativism and Stalinism? Stalin and Mao are dead and good riddance, but that doesn’t mean that the riddle of history has been solved. Globalization, religion, the environment, technology, and a hundred other factors still present us with challenges which are to be struggled over and which lay waste to ideology. If you think a certain sheeplike obedience is admirable in the majority of human beings just come out and say it.
“If you think a certain sheeplike obedience is admirable”
Seems to work for you….
And again with the name-calling.
Obama doublespeak in the EXAMINER.com
“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year. “Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal.”
Stating that you are “liberal” does not “ground your arguments in “reason and fact” — However, “Stating your arguments in reason and fact” qualifies one as a Classical Liberal.
Note the word “unreconstructed” — synonymous with Classical Liberal.
Obama either misstated the meaning or has no comprehension of the meaning.
More here: http://www.examiner.com/a- 538596…s__reality.html
“And again with the name-calling.”
So labeling you with the name you called someone else is “name-calling”?
I see. Do as I say….
…but not as I do. Did you ever hear about the man who walked down the ally and brick hit him on the head, yet every day he walked down the same ally with the same results — day after day after…
If you think a certain sheeplike obedience is admirable in the majority of human beings just come out and say it.
No, Loyal, the “riddle of history”, as you call it, hasn’t been solved, even though most of the world, thankfully, has at least awoken from the dream/nightmare of the leftist “solution”. History isn’t really a riddle to be solved, in any case, but you’re not likely even to improve upon it by merely reacting, in a reflex, knee-jerk manner, to those who are trying to do so — those, for example, who are standing up to the world’s thugs, tyrants, psychopaths, and terrorists. So no, I don’t actually think “a certain sheeplike obedience is admirable in the majority of human beings”, and that’s why I have such little use for the modern day left.
Sally, the left actually has a great deal of affection for sheeplike obedience, when it’s directed at their preferred tyrants, i.e. Castro, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Vietcong, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yassir Arafat, Kim Jong, the “Dear Leader” of North Korea, etc., and, depressingly, so forth.
“But a while ago, historical events put an end to that belief”
Sally,
I think you’re wrong about that…listen to your average leftist college professor.
They know historical events put an end to any wide acceptance of that belief, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t still believe it, despite their lyin’ eyes.
It’ll be different THIS time. After all, THEY’LL be the ones in charge.
They still want the same thing. They just think they’ll have to trick us into getting there.
Neo, I can’t believe the poor quality of the trolls here. They don’t even seem to suspect that they are out of their depth. They seem to regard a list of informal fallacies as a cookbook, instead of a set of cautionary examples.
Trolls, let me just point out that sneering is not a legitimate form of argument. If you have a point to make, make it in such a way as to convince your opponent, not to demean him. If you can’t, you had better have another, more skeptical look at your beliefs.
Welcome back, Loyal Achates. So, tell me, is your brother still taking it to the insurgents single-handedly(considering all the other soldiers in Anbar are so incapacitated)?
Anyone who wants to read a fascinating analysis of the failure of socialism and communism, and how the Left has reacted to these failures by embracing postmodernist bluster, would do well to read this book, Explaining Postmodernism.
Hey Neo, I said this at blackfive, that you get the most venomous and abrasive trolls that I’ve seen so far. Dedicated, stubborn, and tenacious. Far better than the trolls at blackfive, in terms of sheer loyalty. Your trolls come back again and again, throughout the years, posting and posting. Blackfive’s trolls burn out in a few weeks if not days.
As neo-neocon pointed out, she’s the “apostate”.
I know it’s off subject, but has anyone noted the goings-on in Boston today? Ironic that the lefties accuse the right of “manufacturing fear”, while fellow leftie Ted Turner actually HAS manufactured fear.
“Conservatives” like to conserve things; that is, they like to preserve political and social institutions as they are or were. Hence, Jim Crow and Apartheid, socio-political systems meant to preserve class and racial privileges against challenges to the status quo.
Hmmm…. So every administration is conservative, because they try to preserve their own power. I.e., those in power are always conservative. E.g., Clinton was progressive when elected, but conservative afterwards. Hmmm… methinks this is a simplistic definition of ‘conservative.’
Another example: Hitler was progressive when he was trying to change the status quo of the Weimar Republic, but then became conservative when he actually held power and tried to maintain it.
Socialism, which involves transfering ownership of the means of production from one class to another, is explicitly about not conserving a social system.
No, actually, once the means of production have changed ownership, socialists then do try to preserve their current system, hence, successful socialists inevitably become ‘conservative’ by your definition. Now methinks your definition of ‘conservative’ is absurd.
Those old enough will remember how the left excoriated the Vietnamese boat people.
As living reproaches to the left’s view, they could not be allowed to have their own story. Instead, they were the oppressor class getting out ahead of the justice they so richly deserved.
It would have been disgusting if it had not been so amazing, or maybe the reverse. Or maybe so predictable that it was neither.
Not every belief system is hateful to apostates, only those that are on pre-enlightenment stage of development (Muslim, for example). What really makes Leftists so angry at ex-Leftists? My hypothesis is that they do not consider their convictions as a belief system (which it really is), but prefer to think of it as scientifically, empirically and logically based. So those who simply reject it are, in their view, stupid or ignorant. But if somebody who previously adopted this world-view suddenly reject it, this fact reveals that it is a belief system, too. The last refuge of the left is to explain it by mental disease. So the hate: do not blow my house of cards!
Yes, Richard, I do remember the demonization of the boat people, who spoiled the Left’s narrative of heroic Vietcong saving Vietnam from corruption.
And if my memory flags at all, I can just go back and read the exchange between Huan and WR, which was the subject of this thread. Amazing. I’m afraid there’s no level to which the left won’t stop to hang onto its myths.
If it didn’t add to the WaPo’s blog hits (and therefore benefit them), I’d suggest that a wonderful example of the Left’s arrogance and hubris is the blog post by William Arkin at his “Early Warning” site. Please access what he’s written by going to James Lileks’ dissection of it at lileks.com (“The Bleat”), as to read the original in the Post tends to legitimize it, and the blog entry is so contemptible that I’d really rather the Post get no credit.
There’s also a discussion of the post and Arkin’s response today at “Little Green Footballs”.
After reading it, you’ll probably agree with me that Arkin is beneath contempt.
Yes, do take a look both at Lileks, and LGF! Arkin is being disected fast and furiously over at the latter!
“I’m being fed nothing by “Uncle Sam”. You responded to what you thought was “juvenile” criticism by calling the poster’s comment “hypocritical, worthless nonsense” and implied that the poster was “ridiculous”…and then complained about his “arrogance”. Hypocrisy? Naaaahhh…”
Stumbley – I don’t think ‘juvenile’ was in my original post – though I did call the poster’s fallacious argument(talking apart a straw man)ridiculous – which I think they are. But I didn’t call the poster arrogant – I commented that it was hypocritical to claim arrogance on the part of the ‘left’, considering the tone and lack of coherence in what she had written.
Sally – seeing as how you can’t or won’t provide example/evidence that I suggested above, I’m probably whistling in the wind to ask you provide for this comment(but I will anyway):
“But a while ago, historical events put an end to that belief(in socialism), and all that remains of it now is a kind of walking corpse that gets propped up from time to time as merely “anti-capitalism”, “anti-globalization”, “anti-industrialism”, etc.”
You seem to have a firm belief in what you are saying so I can only assume that you have good reasons for making such claims.
But if you don’t provide examples – even brief references – than the discussion isn’t going to get very far, and we continue this merry go round of rhetorical floundering and ad hominum attacks.
Or is that the way you prefer it?
Either way – I’m very interested in why you think the way you do, for what it’s worth…
“Either way – I’m very interested in why you think the way you do, for what it’s worth…”
Most of your comments on posts contained in this blog, TC, indicate the exact opposite of what you’ve stated above. Try reading any of Neo’s archival posts in the “A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change” series to see why she, and most of us, “think the way we do.” You’ll get your answers. You might even be encouraged to think a little bit differently yourself.
But then again, probably not.
BTW – It has been suggested here by this blog’s author and by some in this thread that the ‘left hates apostates’- using the example of herself(Neo); it also has been claimed or suggested that this phenomenha is particular to the ‘left'(for various reasons i.e 9/11, ‘growing up’etc).
I claimed that I felt it was much more prevelant to the ‘right’ – and I used the example of the dwindling support for the Iraq war as one example.
The example I’ve given is concrete, undisputable, statistical evidence – yours is anecdotal evidence based on the claims of a handful of individuals. How are you able to justify your claims based on this?
I don’t think that’s true at all Stumbley.
I don’t agree with you on many things – but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in why you think the way you do. And I didn’t ask about Neo – I asked Sally.
And I asked about a specific comment she had made – about a defining historical moment(s) where socialism was abandoned by the ‘left’ for less ‘idealistic’ pursuits.
Which doesn’t require reading an entire essay – I’m talking about evidence.
Yes I’m on the left – but I’m trying to build bridges here man!!
I just want to be friends(sniff…)…
“The example I’ve given is concrete, undisputable, statistical evidence”
Oh, I don’t know…do you have the poll questions? The methodology? The sample particulars? Remember Mark Twain’s marvelous statement: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
And dwindling support for the war from some on the right leads you to believe that the “right” is castigating those whose support has dwindled as apostates in the sense that Neo describes here? Evidence?
“where socialism was abandoned by the ‘left’ for less ‘idealistic’ pursuits.”
Neo (not Sally) may have provided you an answer…but then you’d not only have to read an “entire essay” (actually a series of essays, TC), but an actual book!
“Anyone who wants to read a fascinating analysis of the failure of socialism and communism, and how the Left has reacted to these failures by embracing postmodernist bluster, would do well to read this book, Explaining Postmodernism.
neo-neocon | Homepage | 01.31.07 – 9:50 pm | #”
Additionally, 9/11 was kind of a “defining moment” for a number of former lefties, including Christopher Hitchens.
“Oh, I don’t know…do you have the poll questions? The methodology? The sample particulars? Remember Mark Twain’s marvelous statement: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.””
Unless you seriously doubt that support for the Iraq war has dropped massively since when it started, I’ll just skip that one(while taking note of your ‘objection’ to my ‘methodology’).
About your other comment: I don’t think there is widespread castigation for left-to-right apostates. In fact I’d suggest that the reasons for the mobilization of the public to support state-santioned terrorism and crimes is a process that has less to do with rational or logical deduction and more to do with the government/corporate media campaigns that quite deliberately and very effectively to invoke fear and play on nationalistic sentiment – using very effective mean s of propaganda. And so for most leftists the goal is to expose the means by which governments are able to this. So I’m saying that for most ‘leftist’ or ‘progressives’, most apostates are victims(although quite predictably they don’t see themselves as such – and I know I sound like an arrogant SOB saying this- which is only likely to reinforce your negative views of the ‘left’- but I see this as a more accurate version of the topic; as limited as it is by the boundaries set by Neo’s argument).
Neo has used examples of comments from posters on this board. And some leftists are rude, obnoxious, chew with their mouth open or pick their nose in public.
But should that really be the framework for discussing ideological divide on issues of massive importance?
“and I know I sound like an arrogant SOB saying this”
Yep. One of the main markers of people we are currently referring to as “Leftists” is this belief that they have all the answers, and the rest of us rubes just need them to take care of us before we hurt ourselves through our boundless stupidity.
And your persistent belief in the “government/corporate media campaigns that quite deliberately and very effectively to invoke fear and play on nationalistic sentiment – using very effective mean s of propaganda”…boy, you must be reading different papers and watching different TV than I am, because I certainly don’t see a “corporate media campaign” designed to instill fear in the proles. Just the opposite, in fact: it’s much more like “9/11? Just an aberration. Islamic radicalism? Tiny fraction of the religion…nothing to see here, folks, move along.”
And I’ll agree that support for the war seems to have dropped…according to polls, but what questions are they asking? Who are they sampling? After all, polls told us that Al Gore was going to be President, remember?
What is Hitchen’s saying lately?
He supported the war because he bought the neoconservative ‘humanitarian’ argument(bringing democracy, liberty and freedom to a grateful and loving Iraqi nation)as a way to address the reasons for 9/11 and to prevent further terrorist attacks – like alot of people did(I didn’t – and was neither here nor there on Sept 10 – I was probably centre left, but frankly I just didn’t care either way).
The problem was/is is that (I believe)the reasons for 9/11 were ignored and the motivations and arguments of the neoconservatives were
quite seducing after the fall of the twin towers(the motivations were never properly considered). There wasn’t a whole lot of thinking going on at the time – and absolutely no introspection.
And I think things have changed – alot….
Stumbley – I don’t know what you watch but if there’s one thing I can say – and which has been studied extensively – is the media after 9/11 and the campaign of fear(terror alerts anyone? Anthrax anyone? A great story that was all over the news, headlines in the front pages of every newspaper in America – until it was revealed that it had come from an American lab and not from Iraqi sources – then POOF! – gone, never to be heard from again – it’s usefulness quite apparent to those(the ‘left’)who were watching….
“reasons for 9/11”
Which were? I’m really interested in your thinking here. Were they the same reasons as those for the bombing of the Khobar Towers? The missile attack on the USS Cole? The first Twin Towers bombing? The bombing of night clubs in Bali? The hijacking of the Achille Lauro? The taking of the Israeli wrestling team hostage at the 1972 Olympics?
Or were they just that Islamic fundamentalists have been at war with the West for 1400 years?
BTW – I don’t have all the answers. And I’m not an expert on anything. I’m a concerned citizen like you.
And I want the truth – and I don’t like be lied too….
“and which has been studied extensively”
Evidence?
“until it was revealed that it had come from an American lab and not from Iraqi sources ”
Which proves? Your point? We have American terrorists, too. Timothy McVeigh?
“and I don’t like be lied to”
This canard has been debunked over and over. If you cannot accept that the French, German, Russian, British and American intelligence agencies either were all in collusion (the French, German and Russians had very good reasons to oppose the war, rather than collude to provide bogus reasons to start it), or, as is most likely the case, made egregious errors, then there were no “lies” about WMDs, merely mistaken intelligence.
Or, of course, the alternate explanation…since Saddam had four months to prepare, the WMDs were moved out of the country, either to Syria or Iran. And lest you think that Saddam would never have confided in Iran, remember where some of his Air Force planes went during the first Gulf War?
Let me put it this way, Stumbley(and then I’ve got dinner to go to) – 9/11 effected me deeply just as it did you and others – certainly a defining moment for me as a person too.
But the first question I asked was “why”?
And one thing I know is that people generally don’t run suicide missions in airplanes because ‘they hate our freedoms’.
The people of that region has clear and legtimate grievances. There are also people in the region who are religous fanatics. When the two are put together you have a rather grave situation. You have both the means(grievances)and the ends(the fanatics).
When the narrative focuses only the ends(as it did after 9.11)you aren’t properly addressing the problem – you are making it worse and allowing for our own fanatics to take advantage of the situation(the Iraq war, domestic totalitarianism etc).
And while you hear the rightwing narrative claim that they aren’t painting the entire muslim world(or Islam)with a broad brush – I don’t see it in practise.
I know you don’t agree Stumbley – but I’ve no axe to grind with you – and I am trying to understand you more – but I’d prefer to be involved in the discussion…
“The people of that region has clear and legtimate grievances. ”
Name one “legitimate” grievance that involves the US.
“Which proves? Your point? We have American terrorists, too. Timothy McVeigh?”
No – that it ceased to fit into the official narrative that we were under unrelenting attack from Islamist terrorists – and so became less newsworthy.
I believe there was plenty of dissenting voices in the CIA, from the IAEA, weapon’s inspectors that Iraq had no signicant weapons programs – and that these voices and evidence were knowingly and purposely ignored. I believe certain elements in the Bush administration knew very well they were lying and did it anyway. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld. That the other intelligence agencies you mention(Russian, etc) did not dispute the Bush administrations claims doesn’t mean they had access to their own ‘mistaken’ intelligence – they just didn’t dispute U.S claims – Saddam wasn’t a choirboy after all. There is also damning evidence that proves that the Bush co. knowingly exaggerated the threat e.g The Downing Street memo – and others.
Colin Powell before his infamous presentation to the UN was purported to have said “I’m not reading this shit!” And it just goes on and on Stumbley – from Hans Blix to Joe Wilson to Scott Ritter – all unceremoniously and in most cases ridiculously, smeared for their affinity to the truth.
U.S support for Israel is one grievance.
Gotta go man! Sorry…..
“all unceremoniously and in most cases ridiculously, smeared for their affinity to the truth”
Joe Wilson lied. Washington Post:
“Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.”
full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
Scott Ritter lied.
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm
The above is a pretty scathing indictment of Mr. Ritter, using his own words against him. Ritter is also being paid by the Saudi royal family. I wouldn’t trust his opinion on anything.
Again, TC, you’ve drunk the kool-aid.
And if the US’ support for Israel is your “legitimate” justification of terrorist acts against us, then I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that as a “grievance” that could possibly justify the scale of Islam’s responses.
Surely this excuse seems pathetic, even to you.
Why don’t they just use nuanced diplomacy?
“I believe certain elements in the Bush administration knew very well they were lying and did it anyway.”
I don’t see this, Anon. Instead those who wish to ignore the hard reality of Islamic fascism, turn to facile reasons for doing so. They accuse everyone. The MSM has lied about almost every aspect of Iraqi liberation. I suspect you are ensnared in their lies, and thus accuse others of what they have made you accept.
It’s not good to live in the real world. Few people really want to. But the threats will not go away–Iraq then and Iraq in the future when we surrender. Iran on the front burner, but more beyond them. It’s the world of survival. We either fight to stay free, or they dictate to us. Darwin could be right on after all.
… I know I sound like an arrogant SOB saying this….
Not really, teecee — you just don’t sound very bright. As in:
Yeah, it’s the corporations, man — it’s, like, they mess with your MIND! I mean, they run EVERYTHING!! They want to make us their SLAVES!!! And Bush LIED!!!! And their Mothership is hiding behind a COMET!!!!!
TC, “why” you ask? Read what they say: Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq pg.208-“When Allah gave permission to his apostle to fight, there contained conditions involving warr which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound ourselves to war against ALL mankind for Allah and his Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammed no matter how evil the circumatances.” Qur’an Surah 8, verse 7: “Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last!'”. Surah 8, verse 39: “So, fight them til all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.” Surah 8, v59 : “The infidels should not think they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.” Surah 8, v70 : He will give you mastery over them.” For the sake of brevity, I,m not going to list the other 900 or so similar Quranic verses or thousands of other quotes from the Sira, Sunnah, or Hadith. It should be obvious to anyone who can read: They kill us because their god commands them to. Simple as that. No geo-political interaction, no avenging the exploitation of the west, or any other rationalization the left tells them to tell us. READ the Qur’an and hadith for yourselves.
Oh, and as for my assertions concerning the death of the socialist “ideal” and its zombie-like perpetuation as “anti-capitalism” at the various lefty trash-fests like world trade talks, etc. — you’re quite right, for once, to say that “I can only assume that you have good reasons for making such claims”. Not only that, TC, but by your amusing efforts at a faux-earnestness I think you’re well aware of those good reasons and you know they’re more than “claims” — I think you know they’re the painful truth.
Oh, and as for my assertions concerning the death of the socialist “ideal” and its zombie-like perpetuation as “anti-capitalism” at the various lefty trash-fests like world trade talks, etc. — you’re quite right, for once, to say that “I can only assume that you have good reasons for making such claims”. Not only that, TC, but by your amusing efforts at a faux-earnestness I think you’re well aware of those good reasons and you know they’re more than “claims” — I think you know they’re the painful truth.
neo-neocon–
Beautiful post. This is pure gold:
“hat, by the way, is one of the reasons the Left hates–positively hates–neocons. Neocons actually have a competing theory about what to do about the third world, and it runs highly counter to that of the Left: it actually involves freedom, liberty, and protection of their rights within a democracy.”
The same follows in other realms. Writers like Julian Simon or Bjorn Lomborg have written extensively on how the state of the world is rapidly getting better decade after decade in almost all categories from starvation to literacy to life expectancy.
The left absolutely HATES this aspect of neoconservatism for the same reason– it questions the divine guidance of the self-anointed liberals, who think mankind is composed of victims who cannot survive without the help of an Enlightened bureaucracy.
“It has been suggested here by this blog’s author and by some in this thread that the ‘left hates apostates’
I claimed that I felt it was much more prevelant to the ‘right’ – and I used the example of the dwindling support for the Iraq war as one example.”
The example I’ve given is concrete, undisputable, statistical evidence – yours is anecdotal evidence based on the claims of a handful of individuals. How are you able to justify your claims ”
TC,
Can you explain your thinking here? Because A)it is not “concrete, undisputable, statistical evidence”
for all the reasons Stumbley gave and a few more.
One is that the poll does not address WHY support is dwindling. I happen to know more than a few people who fit into your 80% category, but for the opposite reason you assume – because they feel that the war is being prosecuted in a PC way that is destined to fail.
In other words, if we aren’t going to get serious and fight to WIN, then we shouldn’t be doing it at all.
There is no logical reason to assume dwindling support for the Iraq War means people are newly adopting a leftist philosophy or becoming apostates of the right.
Now here is the question I’m really hoping you’ll answer, even though you’ve evaded it several times.
How does dwindling support for the war equate with the right hates apostates????
“I think you’re well aware of those good reasons and you know they’re more than “claims” — I think you know they’re the painful truth.”
If I knew I wouldn’t be asking you Sally. Those reasons are your own – and I’m not a mind-reader.
But if you’d prefer to keep them to yourself, I’ll understand.
…I’ll understand.
You don’t understand much, Tc, but you do understand the hollowness of the contemporary left … and that’s why you’re here, isn’t it?
Stick around — you may actually begin to understand.
Stumbley – Wilson did’t lie. And he was vindicated by the fact that there was no weapon’s program and no credible evidence – “credible” – to warrant the claim that Saddam tried to purchase uranium. That’s what this is all about stumbley. And today another of the attempts to smear Wilson was predictably shot down when it was revealed in court that it was Cheney who requested Wilson be sent to Niger, and not his CIA operative wife. Wilson stood nothing to gain from the conclusions of mission – Cheney and others stood to lose(or should have)if there was no evidence of a claim that Bush had used in a SOTU speech as evidence requiring the nation go to war. It’s pretty obvious what happened if your not letting Uncle Sam do your thinking for you(I know you don’t).
And I’ve heard the Ritter thing before. Have you actually read or listened to what Ritter – a weapons inspector for years in Iraq and a decorated military man – had to say? Minus the fictional hack-job? And then weighed that against the fact know WMD were found. This man is extremely credible. That’s the truth in the real world stumbley – in the world of Uncle Sam that is always good, pure and only doing things for the good of America he’s an Al-qaeda operative doing the rounds on U.S television jeperdizing his career and family for Saudi(who always were huge fans of Saddam Hussein)mega-bucks.
But fine – I’ve drunk the kool-aid, if you like.
And I didn’t say U.S support for Israel was “my legitimate grievance”.
You simply asked for one grievance. It’s their legitimate grievance. And they feel that way because of the double standards applied to Israel – U.N resolutions are ignored; Syria is required to end the ‘occupation’ of Lebanon, while the U.S vetos U.N resolutions requiring Israel to stop pounding Lebanon and Gaza with bombs.
Israel recieves billions in aid; Bush presents his ‘Roadmap to Peace’ and says nothing while Israel demolishes homes and evicts Palestinians in the West Bank for settlers who want to live Judea and Samaria. Bush calls for democracy in Palestine and when Hamas becomes the official government refuses to engage. Because it’s a ‘terrorist organization’ – completely ignoring how Hamas functions. Meanwhile Israel daily bombs, shoots, beats Palestinian civilians.
So that’s one of their reasons. That’s not mine. It’s theirs. And the examples I’ve given are just documented facts. Their not ‘mine’ either.
‘Nuanced diplomacy’? Gee – you might want to vist Gaza or the West Bank one day and let them in on that one.
Anyway – I’d hope stumbley that you can at least see that I’m as concerned about these issues as you are and for the same reasons, namely our self-preservation….
“They want to make us their SLAVES!!! And Bush LIED!!!! And their Mothership is hiding behind a COMET!!!!!”
Is that what you hear, Sally?
It’s O.K. it’s not a conspiracy you can relax. Its’ what people who study how the corporate media functions and how the government reacted during the months following the 9/11 attacks conclude – as you would to if you were to take the time.
But it is a little scary. And you’ve got enough fears waiting for Islamic militants to swim over the Pacific(do they allow camels on flights nowadays?) to invade and conquer sleeping America, and then we’re all being forced to covert to Allah less we be beheaded.
But I appreciate your light-hearted take on things – always the sign of a well-rounded person with just the right amount of self-esteem.
Not like us arrogant leftists!
“You don’t understand much, Tc, but you do understand the hollowness of the contemporary left … and that’s why you’re here, isn’t it?”
Well I understand – or I like to believe that having a productive dialogue helps me to understand those who don’t share the same view on things as me. And yes I also like to believe that I might be able to help those who don’t appreciate – or might be threatened, even- my views have a little bit better understanding of mine.
But there doesn’t seem to alot about the left that you don’t know Sally.
You know when it became tired and old – but apparently it’s your own little secret.
It’s good to have secrets – to be mysterious, like….
…people who study how the corporate media functions and how ….
Oh, those people. Riiigght. Well, if I’d known they were your source, I wouldn’t have been so dismissive.
Truth to tell, I don’t doubt there are swarms of those people, just like there are herds of mediums, fortune-tellers, and fakirs. Nor do I doubt that you, unfortunately, have taken the time with them, as you put it. I just think it’s too bad you couldn’t have found a better use for that time.
Tap – I havent’ evaded the question of methodology – I pointed to the fact that most polls show a distinct drop in support for the war – and that is more credible evidence than one individuals’ testimony – especially if your going to come to conclusions like these apostates are a growing trend and the like.
But your right – it was a general point that doesn’t confirm by itself, that there are more right to left apostates.
And the types of questions asked in the poll could be one of the ways to detemine that. And yes some people support the war and not the way it was prosecuted. And some people supported the war because they felt that Iraq was a distinct threat to the security of the United States. And then realized it was not – which presents alot of questions that many were not interested in during 2003 – but I’m just speculating.
But it’s not beyond coming to a more concrete and statistically significant conclusion, I think. You can find out what type of questions are asked at what polls. And you can look at other polls like those that ask whether Bush ‘lied’. Or – was the U.S justified in invading a sovereign nation without Security Council authorization?
Let me ask you something – if a person disagrees with the war because the feel it was fundamentally(immoral, criminal) wrong- would yo say that person is on the ‘left’?
I didn’t know that was your problem Sally – you should have said.
There are media groups that monitor the msm and note trends and topics, for example the number of government sources for information as opposed to others; the number of rightwing think tanks and ‘experts’ appearing on newsshows for analysis -as opposed to the centre or left; the length of time allocated to certain voices; the framing of the debate; repetition can be noted etc.
Then are those who study who owns the media.
Yep – sounds crazy – but it really does happen. Not as fun as just calling it the way you’s see it, I know – but certainly if you were looking to learn something you might want to talk to these people.
If you know the right code.
Good night, Sally.
There are media groups that monitor the msm….
Funny that you don’t name those “media groups”, though, isn’t it TC? Could it be that you don’t really know any such “media groups” after all? Or, could it be that you’re just a little embarrassed at naming them? At then being exposed as a full-fledged “Indymedia” tinfoil-hatter? Hmm?
TC did you actually read my citations wrt Wilson and Ritter? If you had, you’d realize that Wilson lied and that Ritter did a complete about-face wrt WMD…which is either admitting real stupidity or lying, take your pick.
The “Plame” trial is a joke…a political “hack job” if there ever was one. Plame hadn’t been a “covert” agent for more than five years, so the “outing” of her position wasn’t a crime…not to mention Joe and Valerie had made no secret of her job for years in official Washington. And TC, she did send a memo recommending Joe for the trip. That’s a documented fact. You’ll find that the trial exonerates everyone charged.
It’s not important Sally – what is is that there are(quite a few), as you are probably aware. Which negates the need for your sarcastic comments – which have made any chance of having a meaningful discussion impossible.
Which is probably your intention.
BTW – are you going to get around to give us your historical insights on socialism and the left, or are you too embarrassed?
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://www.tandl.vt.edu/Foundations/mediaproject/
http://www.scn.org/news/newspeak/
http://mediastudies.com/
http://www.propagandacritic.com/
http://www.prwatch.org/links/pr.html
Your sounding a little desperate stumbley from where I stand – but I’ll give it a chance a read through your stuff….
http://www.medialens.org/about/the_point.php
Well I read your article about Ritter – read a few others – and appears Ritter did change his tune. And failed to account for it, which cost him alot of credibility I concede.
But that he did change his mind doesn’t change the fact that he was right. And the fact that the U.S was going to war and presenting outdated UNSCOM finding and exaggerating them probably had alot to do with it – I seem to recall that being one of his arguments at the time.
As far as the stuff about Wilson goes it’s he said/she said stuff – but as I say Cheney is alreadly being pegged a liar in a courtroom as we speak so I’ll leave it at that.
And again – Joe Wilson was right.
The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe.
This is just one article that shows there was no consensus about Iraqi WMD intelligence even in U.S – let alone the international sphere.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html
Excuse me, TC, but Joe Wilson was WRONG. Saddam had attempted, and was continuing to attempt to buy uranium from Niger and other sources. Wilson himself ultimately admitted this. The Plame case is a crock. But you obviously know better. And as for intelligence being disputed, that’s par for the course in the intel business. It depends on the information the analysts get, and is always a “best guess” scenario, unless there’s actual humint (human intelligence, i.e., spies) on the ground in the affected area. Since no one had such agents in place before the invasion, the CINC followed a prudent course; as he stated in the speech leading up to the invasion, “We can’t wait until a threat is imminent.”
The left always wants to wait until there’s evidence that something’s happened—but a nuked city, to my mind anyway—is way too much evidence, and way too late.
“Let me ask you something – if a person disagrees with the war because the feel it was fundamentally(immoral, criminal) wrong- would yo say that person is on the ‘left’?”
My, my, aren’t we condenscending?
You want me to determine someone else’s political ideology based on one stance? I think I’d like to hear a little more first.
But, if I need to make a guess based on only one such stance, I’d need to at least have a clue about that person’s reasoning. For instance – if he was against the war because it is ‘criminal’, then my snap judgement would be that this person is probably either A) ignorant and repeating what he has heard or B) likely to be a leftest.
This is based on my judgement that such nonsensical tripe has been one of the left’s talking points. (Though I have met a few on the right that are not happy about the fact that our Congress no longer bothers with the declaration of war that the Constitution requires.
So are you still evading your earlier statements (to the effect that your poll proves the right hates apostates)? I’m still interesting in your reasoning on that. You know, if you have realized it was a silly statement, you could consider retracting it. 🙂
Oh, and TC, you are saying that “Cheney is being pegged as a liar” even as we speak…perhaps you’re mistaking I. Lewis Libby as Cheney? The Vice President has not testified in the trial (nor is he expected to). Are you sure you’re following the same trial?
“You are you still evading your earlier statements (to the effect that your poll proves the right hates apostates)? I’m still interesting in your reasoning on that. You know, if you have realized it was a silly statement, you could consider retracting it.”
I never said it did Tap. And you apparently haven’t read my response to you.
And it’s no more silly than positing that individual testimonys are proof of widespread left to right apostates – which had been implied or claimed.
But as I say I’ve already addressed this above so..
Sorry you found my question condescending. But you answered quite competently – thanks.
The Iraq was was a crime according to international law, the UN charter and the U.S constitution, the Geneva Conventions – that’s what a crime is – a breaking of laws and/or agreements – and you think this is ridiculous tripe?
On what grounds?
stumbley – watching msnbc yesterday somebody’s(I’m not sure who – caught the tail end of it)testimony revealed that Wilson was requested by the VP office to do the Niger thing.
Cheney has always claimed he didn’t send or even know Wilson = Liar.
Lee | 01.30.07 – 11:18 pm | #
“What part of “Hitler was a leftist” don’t you understand? What part of “slavery is a leftist institution” don’t you understand?”
I understand your argument but I think you have part of it wrong.
Hitler was Euro right winger IMO. While yes, the Euro right shares many many features with the Euro left which can cause confusion on the issue (including that they believe they are Socialists)… On the other hand, being the child of a Euro immigrant who has spent time back in eastern Europe… While I can see the similarities between Euro right and left, I also see their differences (which are substantial enough to make them separate entities IMO)… so.. I’d argue that maybe the problem is what we call right wing in the United States should not be thought of as such? I’ve noticed that while I’m called conservative, right wing, and libertarian in the US… the people who believe the same things as me in Europe call themselves Liberals… It seems to be that outside of the US and UK, liberal means what we call moderate conservative with libertarian traits here… I’d note that even in English speaking Australia, that ‘conservative’ John Howard’s party is called the liberal party…
In my opinion, US conservatives are called both conservative and right wing because the left bestowed those terms on them… and they / we took them up and accepted them…
The Vice President’s office i.e., Scooter Libby okayed the request by the CIA i.e., the memo written by Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife to send Wilson to Niger. Cheney didn’t lie. His office okayed the request; Cheney wasn’t even aware of the mission until later. The mission was requested by Plame—sending her husband was her idea—precisely so that Joe Wilson could lie to discredit the administration.
When the trial is over, and no one is convicted, you’ll understand.
TC,
“The Iraq was was a crime according to international law, the UN charter and the U.S constitution, the Geneva Conventions – that’s what a crime is – a breaking of laws and/or agreements – and you think this is ridiculous tripe?”
ummm..breaking an agreement is criminal? okaaay…can we agree for you not to question my judgement anymore? It would be great to make that a crime! (for me at least..)
Really, TC, that’s the kind of wordplay that puts leftists in a bad light.
Let’s start with the U.S. Constitution. Are you saying that the Iraq war is unconstitutional because Congress did not declare war? That’s true, but it is also true of every conflict we’ve been involved in since WW2…and some before. So I think it is disingenious to that the Iraq War is a ‘crime’ because of that. I don’t like that they do it this way, but it is nothing new.
If you want to attach the word crime for that reason, you have already diluted the meaning of the very word, so what is the point?
As far as international law, the UN,and all that jazz, rather than argue any specifics, let me put it this way:
They have no sovereignty over this country. They may not like what we do. They may pass ‘international’ laws to their little hearts content, but until the day they take over this country, their laws affect the right of the U.S. to make its own decisions not at all.
Of course, we enter treaties and such. BUT. Any treaty we ever entered that could be read as abrogating our right to self-defense was entered into unconstitutionally.
Our government does not have the RIGHT to place me, you or our national defense under the laws of a body that does not represent me. The President must ‘protect preserve and defend’ the constitution of the U.S and the constitution provides for the defense of our country.
In other words, our Government does not have the RIGHT to abrogate its national defense duties. Not without my permission (and all the rest of you, of course).
Until such time as the ‘U.N.’ or whatever other body that may create ‘international laws’ has the ability to enforce those laws over the U.S., it’s a little disengenuous to suggest they hold the weight of LAW in this country or to say we ‘broke the law’.
I could as easily accuse you of being criminal for breaking ‘the law’, ’cause I just passed a law against anyone going by the moniker of ‘TC’ on the internet. Are you a criminal now? Or is it absurd of me to call you such? If it’s absurd, why? Only because I don’t have the power to enforce my law, that’s why.
We have NO duty to turn over our national defense to anyone outside this country and our own government has NO right or legal ability to do so. It does not have the right to subject U.S. citizens to the whims of ANYONE other than itself. No one has any authority over us that we do not have the right to hold accountable.
This is probably the thing I really despise about the left…attempts like th
Way to go, TC! You got busy and dug up some of those “media groups”, didn’t you? Did you notice, though, that they all share a common political bias? Well, probably not. Anyone who, without blushing, can use the word “progressive” in conjunction with the left isn’t likely to notice much, especially when it comes to bias.
That’s why it’s a bit pathetic to see you ask repeatedly for my “historical insights on socialism and the left” — you’ve had the benefit of them numerous times already, and they seem to sail right over your head each time. I’m afraid asking for them again won’t help.
“…Cheney is alreadly being pegged a liar…“:
I think the most important aspect of this is to look at when this was happening. The period we are talking about was the middle of 2003. It is in this period that the insurgency in Iraq was just starting. And what was Cheney’s priority? It was to discredit one of the administration’s critics.
Since that time some 600,000 Iraqis and 3,000 American service men and women have died. The cynicism and irresponsibility of this administration is beyond comprehension.
“..Cheney is already being pegged a liar..”
Funny that. I would think that the most important aspect of this is that it is a lie.
The second most important aspect of this is that, when presented with evidence that it is a lie (stumbley | post at 7:39 pm) , leftists ignore the evidence.
This explains a lot.
The third most important aspect of this is that when presented with evidence of what these attempts to discredit the administration and the war actually do (Wild Rice10:46 pm), leftists will STILL continue to undermine the war effort regardless of the costs.
This goes to further support the supposed stereotype of leftists being Anti-American.
Yeah that’s about what I thought ‘Tap’.
Upsets you when people point out the war is criminal. I don’t blame you.
See Tap you might not get this but when you attack other nations with bombs and kill them in large numbers, force your rule upon them and steal their resources – thats a crime in anybody’s book. And you know that yourself – it appears you like to play around with words too. Not bright, friend.
You should be upset – not at me for pointing out a fact, though…
Best wishes to you and your family.
Is that evidence Tap?
That’s an assertion – you sure do like play with words don’t you?
Aren’t you following the Libby trial?
Are you defending the integrity of the Vice President? Do you feel he has any?
If so – please share it with us – now that should be interesting….
Sally – I’m detecting a wee bit of bitterness in your tone.
Would I be correct on that one?
Are you a happy person or a sad person?
TC
“thats a crime in anybody’s book”
Ahhhh…the ole “everybody knows it’ defense. VEEELY impressive, TC! After all, why bother with the details.
“You should be upset – not at me for pointing out a fact, though…”
Well, I have to agree that I shouldn’t be upset at you for pointing out a ‘fact’. I realize in lefty land ‘anybody’s book’ may seem to be as concrete a fact as any other ‘facts’ you know, but when you leave the reservation, that no longer applies.
I’m just guessing here, but since you didn’t even try to refute anything I said, I suppose that means you can’t.
But you didn’t let that stop you! Oh no, in keeping with the title and content of the post we are talking about, you did not disappoint.
“And you know that yourself – it appears you like to play around with words too. Not bright, friend”
” Is that evidence Tap? That’s an assertion – you sure do like play with words don’t you?”
Project much, TC? Who is playing with words here?
Oh, and thanks for holding up the ‘leftist’ standard once again. You sure don’t like to disappoint, do you?
Here’s TC: “ummm let’s start by not acknowledging that I am NOT acknowledging that someone pointed out facts that don’t align with what I claimed.”
“Follow this up with a weak attempt to distract..umm I KNOW! I’ll quibble over the meaning of a word! Bet they never saw a leftist do THAT before!”
“Now, let’s distract a little more by asking questions that show no sign that I read anything contradicting my claim!”
TC, the only way you did fail to live up to the hype is in the name calling department. I mean, sure, you said I’m ‘not bright’, but that’s just love talk coming from a leftist.
Iraq, and Analysis, Revisited.
“…that when presented with evidence of what these attempts to discredit the administration and the war actually do…“:
Actually do? What are you claiming that “these attempts to discredit the administration and the war” do, other than discrediting the administration and the war?
TV: Sally – I’m detecting a wee bit of bitterness in your tone.
Okay, that’s at least a wee bit funny. Hang in there, and who knows — you might actually hit on something that’s correct, too.
Yeah right – it’s a crime in everybody’s book except the criminals – and their fans.
I think I refuted what you had to say – but to be frank you didn’t really have a whole lot to say…..
And the Iraq war is criminal by definition. Probably described somewhere in the U.S constitution – certainly in the U.N charter and the other treaties I mentioned.
Agreed?
Shake on it…..
And the Iraq war is criminal by definition
The Iraq intervention was just and necessary. The occupation has been a screw up no thanks to terrorist cheering committee (so-called anti-war movement)
“I think I refuted what you had to say”
Okay, at this point you have become a waste of time.
‘The Iraq intervention was just and necessary. The occupation has been a screw up no thanks to terrorist cheering committee (so-called anti-war movement)’
It is one thing to say that you support the war in general but are dismayed by the errors that have been committed during it, but what cowardice to lay the blame democratic dissent and questioning of authority for the incompetence and stupidity of the leaders you supported.
Ah, yes, because despite being the ‘nuanced’ thinkers that you are, you still manage to think that you operate in a vacumn and nothing you do or say affects anything.
“Probably described somewhere in the U.S constitution…“:
The UN Charter is incorporated into US law. The US government and, in particular, the administration are bound by it.
There is certainly a prima facie case that certain members of the administration are war criminals in violation of US law. US prosecutors are required to prosecute violations of the law.
Tap, I dare you to find a single instance of American criticism of Bush or the war having caused the chaos, death, and mismanagement in Iraq.
but what cowardice to lay the blame democratic dissent and questioning of authority for the incompetence and stupidity of the leaders you supported.
Funny you should project your cowardice — if you were truly concerned about peace you’d be pointing your disdain towards the Iranian and Syrian embassy. Masquerading with some more courage blaming America is total capitulation — you must enjoy being bent over.
certain members of the administration are war criminals in violation of US law
Could that possibly be Clinton’s authorization of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act?
Wild Rice — everyone in the world is a war criminal except you right?
The UN Charter is incorporated into US law.
It should therefore be easy for you to provide some evidence for that statement. Why don’t you?
“Tap, I dare you to find a single instance of American criticism of Bush or the war having caused the chaos, death, and mismanagement in Iraq.”
HLVS
HLVS, I dare you to find a single instance of American criticism of Bush or the war not having caused the chaos, death, and mismanagement in Iraq.
Tap
OK:
-It wasn’t the antiwar protesters who decided to disband the Iraqi army
-The Left never claimed we’d be greeted as liberators
-It wasn’t Barack Obama who thought 150,000 troops would be sufficient to pacify the whole country and defeat the insurgency
-Code Pink isn’t the one abusing prisoners and setting up car bombs
-The Baker-Hamilton commission hasn’t failed to train Iraqi soldiers and policemen who don’t act as part of the insurgency itself
-Molly Ivins didn’t tell us Iraq had WMDs
Tsk Tsk Tsk.
Are you logical skills that poor or are you just obfuscating?
Stating what the left did NOT do in no way proves that what they DID do did not lead to chaos and death.
Um.
So basically you’re asking me to prove that the Left did not do what the Neocons did?
“So basically you’re asking me to prove that the Left did not do what the Neocons did?”
Nope. If I meant to ask you that, you may be sure that I would have. However, I did not. Anything else you’d like to bring up, since you apparently cannot answer my question?
I was the one who asked the question, Tap, in case you forgot. I asked you to find an instance of American criticism of Bush or the war having caused the chaos, death, and mismanagement in Iraq. You cleverly shot back with “Can you prove it didn’t?”
Rather foolishly, I admit, I tried to play your game and prove a universal negative by listing what I thought the causes of trouble in Iraq were and that the Left did not cause them. Since then, you have simply repeated that i didn’t answer your question while not even attempting to answer mine. Since I asked first, and you find my answers so unsatisfactory, would you care to prove how right you are and show me how the American Left is the real cause of trouble in Iraq?
“Rather foolishly, I admit, I tried to play your game..”
It may have been foolish, but it was not my game. You set this game up. I just played by your rules.
Personally, I’d much rather engage in honest discussion and debate. When that’s not possible, I admit I do get a bit of fun out of turning the tables on those who are playing games.
So you admit that you can’t answer me, then?
Shams – Ahlan Ezzayak (feat George Bush).
“So you admit that you can’t answer me, then?”
Yep, you’re right, you win!! Yayyyy!!
Will you go away now?
‘Will you go away now?’
Will the Neocon movement at large admit its errors?
If not, and they are still in power, i see no reason to ‘go away’ because it is my democratic right to stay here. If you’d prefer a Neocon paradise where the free market is booming, they don’t worry about the environment, the death penalty is in full swing and political dissidents ‘go away’ then move to China.
No, HLVS, I would prefer a comment environment wherein the commenters actually wanted to engage in a reasonable discussion of Neo’s posts, rather than drop in from time to time, leaving rancid little pellets of leftist tripe. That’s why the request to go away. You are perfectly welcome to ascribe to your outdated and discredited philosophy as much as you’d like, just take it where it’s appreciated, like DU, Kos, etc.
So you admit that you can’t answer me, then?
No.
So you admit that you can’t answer Tap, then?
It seems to me that I answered Tap perfectly well to my own satisfaction. In this whole exchange I’m the only one actually bringing up issues of substance; if you don’t feel like actually debating the present-day issues to which our various ideologies pertain, be my guest, but don’t pretend it’s my fault.
“It seems to me that I answered Tap perfectly well to my own satisfaction.”
Then you must have remarkably low standards for yourself. You never addressed the issue at hand.
“In this whole exchange I’m the only one actually bringing up issues of substance;”
Is that so? Funny, ’cause the only thing you ‘brought up’ was a reponse to me…worded in such a way as to preclude any possibility of discussion – as you found out to your evident dismay when I turned your own wording on you.