Remind these bastards about Walter Duranty, Joe Stalin's pimp on the New York Times in the 1930s, and the pap he sent westward about pleasant life in the Russia of the de-kulakization and mass starvation era.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

A wee bit angry this morning, eh, Dean?

Happy Birthday!

Jeez. Decaf time, dude.

See you this evening. I'll be the one wearing a catcher's mask and pads.

Can we say Fuck You to the jackboots too?

Well said, Dean. And yes, the truth of statement is, indeed, self-evident.

Happy birthday.

As Derb might say in one of his Mandarin lessons for the day, "Zhu ni shenrgi kuaile."

The quote was dead-on the first time around.

Dean, I've always been some subspecies of conservative. But when I went away to college almost 30 years ago, I was a nice, moderate, cloth-coat Eisenhower Republican. It was running into attitudes in academia precisely like what you've just been encountering that drove me to subscribe to National Review, and to read Bill Buckley's Up from Liberalism and God and Man at Yale, and James Burnham's Suicide of the West.

Running into these "pas d'ennemi à gauche" attitudes was one significant factor in turning me into a much more hardcore species of conservative. I soon learned that any time I voiced any criticism of this or that jackboot Marxist-Leninist utopia, some liberal or leftist would tear into me with unbridled screeches of rage.

Funny, these people considered themselves paragons of open-mindedness and tolerance. Until, that is, somebody actually dared to disagree with them, or committed the unpardonable sin of anti-communism.

"No enemy to the left": I soon became thoroughly familiar with the attitude. And quite sick of it. Especially I became sick of their attitude of, "Well, the Soviet Union [or Castro, or the Sandinistas] may not be perfect, but it's mighty impolitic of you to point it out."

You go Dean. And happy birthday!

Dean,

Since you describe yourself as a liberal, I guess that you're currently being mugged by reality. In order to get really started into the whole being a conservative thing, I suggest Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind.

Happy Birthday!

What I find abhorrent is any environment where people are not permitted to share personal and possibly dissenting views. Often, people are expected to have particular "conservative" or "liberal" views simply because they belong to a certain race, religion, etc.

Years ago, I made the mistake of sharing my opinion about Affirmative Action with a group of gay friends. I was called a "Nazi" and a "racist" simply because I don't subscribe to the view that is accepted by or expected from this particular segment of our society.

I actually lost a couple of good friends over the issue -- not specifically because they disagreed with me, but because they wouldn't allow me to express my opinion without resorting to a personal attacks on my character or intelligence. (It was something similar to calling an African-American Republican a "race traitor.") This had a chilling effect on my ability of speak honestly about my political views that lasted for years -- I was a "closet conservative."

Then, I finally had the breakthrough that Dean expressed, "I'm tired of being such a fucking pussy...Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out..."

"Dean! Dean! Dean! Dean!" (The crowd goes wild!)

Aye laddie, a wee bit off the rocker are we? :-D

What I dislike about the Republican Party is that whenever they are subjected to such attacks like the ones Dean exprienced and several other commentators here, they backpedal and virtually betray the very principles they profess to believe in. Like with Trent Lott, he makes a stupid comment about Strom Thurmond and suddenly he's more pro-affirmative action than Ted Kennedy. I think the Fiji Islands heard the collective screams of those of us who felt such a thing amounts to a biased quota system.

It betrays a small but significant number of black Americans and other minorities that do not identify with the leftist/socialist/communist leanings of the Democratic party. We can't expect their numbers to grow if we continue to neglect them.

I've gotten smacked around by plenty of people who thought my ideological beliefs amounted to a form of tyranny. I honestly don't care. They were never my friends to begin with if they can't learn to respect my beliefs. Unusually enough my respct for other people's points of views have put me in a good rapport with a strange motley of people from diverse backgrounds. Except the French of course. ;-)

Fritz, I've experienced a similar phenomenon. I moved back to the town I currently live in in January 2000 after two years away. In that time, I'd become much more politically active and aware.

Before that, we were so unsophisticated that if the subject (read: politics writ large) came up and I said I was a libertarian, I'd just explain that see the libertarians are for drug legalization, and that smoothed things over.

My circle of friends for the first year after I came back were all quite liberal, and probably not in the way Dean uses the word. My best friend's roommate had a giant USSR flag draped across his wall. I was hanging with indie musicians, treehuggers who hated rich people, lazy people who thought the country owed them a living, hardcore Vegans, and rabidly anti-American newcomers to the fray.

Well, it was impossible to voice any dissenting opinions and not be persecuted by the whole lot. I liked these folks for the most part, even though I thought they were woefully misguided politically. But finally it was brought into the open during the elections when it came out that I had voted for Bush (gasp!).

Well, I lost some of those people as friends, but a few just wanted to learn more and have real discussions. I finally was able to write what I wanted to on my Diaryland site and to not hold my tongue at late night Denney's discussions. I'm impressed nowadays by the ability of some friendships to survive radically different worldviews and political philosophies. But hey, if you like the same band, laugh at the same jokes, enjoy the same games, have other similar interests, there are other things to focus on.

Happy Birthday!

Congratulations on hitting the ripe old age of "I'm too damn old to put up with that silly-ass crap!"

I've got to wonder how much Sullivan and his nutty Derbyshire Watch have to do with this. A lot of people cut Sullivan way to much slack and assume if Sully says it, it must be true. As much as I like Sullivan, he is guilty of intellectual laziness on a semi-regular basis.

One of my favorite sayings recently has been this: The truth hurts.

Just because something may offend someone, or even a great many people, does not mean it is any less true.

I've been a liberal my entire life -- both parents registered Democrats, though I never did -- and not once in my life have I heard anyone I know say that the USSR was great or that Castro is a man of the people or that the People's Republic of China really has the right idea about human rights. Never. Not once.

That's why Dean's statement is so appalling to me. There's been much talk in conservative circles about how the left have -- currently and in the past -- served as apologists for dictatorships. All I'm asking is for some quotes, Dean. No brand of political argument -- especially a tautological one like yours -- is self-evident. That's stretching credibility too far.

I want quotes. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.

Hey Dean:

Choir here, and regretfully I have to agree with John. I am very firm in my beliefs and they happen to coincide quite strongly with many or most of yours, but I don't expect anyone on the other side of the debate to take at face value anything I feel to be "self-evident." I don't think you should, either.

Now, I recognize that you are up-front, out-front in a running battle with a lot of uncomprehending-of-economics goofballs and intelligent-but-slothful leftists, as well as several guerrilla-debate lowlifes who fart off incendiary inanities and retreat to the bushes when it's time to own up to being wrong. All of this is grating, but it doesn't relieve you of your self-imposed responsibility to win converts to The Light by the application of cold and methodical Reason.

Rise above, Brother. We are counting on you.

John and Jonathan:

Check the archives of this site, especially the articles about Cuba. I think Dean's comment is intended to be taken in the context of those and a few other posts from the recent past.

John, you should find lots of quote material there regarding Castro, at least. As for the USSR: did you miss Arnold's comment at the top?

I was driving in the car with my family yesterday when we saw a bumper sticker that read "How Many Iraqi children have we killed today?" (along with, of course, "Impeach Bush" and other bumper stickers). After a bit of discussion my wife said that perhaps the people in the other car were "too idealistic." This is a common attitude and one that gives the left far more slack than the right ever sees.

No, with the echo-chamber denunciations of everything to the right of Ted Kennedy and the reflexive defense of hard-left dictators, leftism has fully earned Dean's "fuck you."

John, you may be a Democrat but if you haven't heard the pro-Cuba rant then you simply have not spent enough time amongst the hard left. I was there on the left (the marches, the attitude, the whole enchilada) and the insanities that Dean points out are endemic.

For example, last year I had a long debate with a few leftish types on whether America's freedom and wealth really made it a better country than Cuba. The person who initiated the thread insisted that Cuba was actually a happier place than America and that the *best* way to prove this was simply to look at the mental health and suicide statistics. Some of the thread can be found on Deja - here is one pointer:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=MDBritt+Cuba&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=puqdcu8ovpgbgl8n4dljjlnm8g7362eija%404ax.com&rnum=1

The thread was terminated abruptly when one of the leftist partisans posted a link to a world map of suicide rates that he claimed vindicated his position. Only - it didn't. It turns out that Cuba's suicide rate is higher than the US's and that he hadn't actually looked at the map. He had just assumed, once he found it, that it would bear out his contentions. When I pointed that the chart didn't support his position, I was accused of being rude and no one on the left would post any more.

Mark

Hmmm... I guess memory failed me a bit there. The start of the thread was another topic...

For those of you that have " not once in my life have I heard anyone I know say that the USSR was great or that Castro is a man of the people or that the People's Republic of China really has the right idea about human rights. Never. Not once." This is for you.

The U.S. State Department called the actions "the most egregious act of political repression in Cuba in the last decade." Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa said that Castro's draconian crackdown was the "natural progression of a dictatorship that has been oppressing human rights for years." The House passed a condemning resolution, 414-0, and Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and International PEN, among others, joined the chorus of condemnation.

Not, though, the Castro Faithful--the media moguls, celebrity journalists, filmmakers and Hollywood glitterati who continue to break bread with the Cuban dictator and idolize him as "one hell of a guy," in Ted Turner's words. No, they were silent. And given protest-happy Hollywood's long love affair with the unelected "President" Fidel--"one of the most mysterious leaders in the world," cooed Barbara Walters on ABC's "20/20" in October, as she puffed up his "personal magnetism" and supposed social triumphs--it's unlikely that there will be any expression of disapproval from these quarters soon.

As Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote this week, Castro can rely on "the unswerving naïveté and obtuseness of the American left, which consistently has managed to overlook what a goon he is." The list of those willing to keep Castro's good company, and remain silent when his actions revert to type, includes rich and famous celebrities who troop to Havana to pay their respects to the rich and famous dictator.

Perhaps they don't know any better, as they return with Cuban cigars and fawning praise: "It was an experience of a lifetime" (Kevin Costner); "he is a genius" (Jack Nicholson); a "source of inspiration to the world" (Naomi Campbell). But people who should know better make the pilgrimage too. Director Steven Spielberg, founder of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation and winner of an Academy Award for illuminating the horrors of the Holocaust, described his meeting with Castro in November as "the eight most important hours of my life." Never forget, indeed.

This week, as reported in Newsweek International's Global Buzz column, a pack of New York media VIPs, each willing to pony up $6,500 for travel costs, are set to jet to Cuba with Yoko Ono to meet with the Bearded One, just as his crackdown hits overdrive. Slate's blogger Mickey Kaus shrewdly comments: "It's especially ironic that press and publishing executives are paying an enormous premium to meet with a man who is busy jailing journalists and writers for being journalists and writers."

Here is the entire article

Here is a little more on the Dictator the Left Loves:

The stars have also praised Castro's economic system. Comedian Chevy Chase, at Earth Day 2000 in Washington D.C., said he believes "socialism works" and explained that "Cuba might prove that." Chase added, "I think it's conclusive that there have been areas where socialism has helped to keep people at least stabilized at a certain level."

American media moguls, including the president of CBS TV, the head of MTV and the editor of Vanity Fair, visited Cuba in 2001 and had nothing but praise for the Caribbean Island. One member of the entourage described Cuba as "the most romantic, soulful and sexy country I've ever been to in my life," according to the New York Post.

'Experience of a Lifetime'

Other Hollywood celebrities who have visited Cuba and Castro include Robert Redford, Spike Lee, Sidney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Shirley MacLaine, Alanis Morissette, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kevin Costner.

Costner visited Cuba in 2001 for the premiere of his film on the Cuban Missile Crisis, Thirteen Days, and attended a private screening with Castro. The film depicts the Kennedy administration behind the scenes during the October 1962 crisis.

Costner was clearly impressed with Castro, stating at a Havana press conference, "It was an experience of a lifetime to sit only a few feet away from him and watch him relive an experience he lived as a very young man."

Movie portrayals have also reflected Hollywood's enthusiasm for Castro's Cuba, even while infuriating cultural critics like David Horowitz, who called the 1990 film Havana, starring Robert Redford and directed by Sydney Pollack, "grotesque," for its pro-Castro sentiment.

Another film currently showing in the U.S. is called Fidel. The 2002 movie is being billed as a biographical documentary of Castro, featuring the Cuban dictator as well as Harry Belafonte and Ted Turner.

The movie presents such a favorable view of Castro that New York Times movie critic A.O. Scott said of the film: "This is an exercise not in biography but in hero worship."

Last week, one of the stars of Fidel, Belafonte, was back in Cuba for a film festival and told reporters that "every day, more and more Americans are opposed to the war machine being driven by George W. Bush," according to a report from Cuba's state-run Radio Havana.

Belafonte accused Bush of using the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to further his desire "to control the world militarily, politically, economically and culturally."

Among their key political causes, Hollywood activists are calling for the U.S. government to end the trade embargo imposed on Cuba in 1961. However, Bush has said he will not lift the embargo until Castro's government honors human rights, releases political prisoners and holds free and fair elections.

'Lovesick Rock Groupies'

Hays, executive vice president of the Cuban American National Foundation, an organization dedicated to fighting for democracy and human rights in Cuba, believes Castro's personal mystique may be blinding the celebrities to the harsh realities of life in Cuba.

"You have to remember that Fidel Castro is a cult leader, much along the same lines as Jim Jones or David Koresh. He's a megalomaniac with a messiah complex and people go and fall into his orbit," Hays told CNSNews.com.

He believes otherwise rational individuals can "lose all context of reality" in Castro's presence.

"People turn into lovesick rock groupies when they get into his presence. This is the impact that cult leaders have on people," Hays added.

Furthermore, he insisted, celebrities should not be praising Castro when they don't understand the situation in Cuba.

"It's very sad, and I wish Steven Spielberg and Danny Glover or any of these other guys would spend a little time with some of the political prisoners in jail before they make broad stroke comments about Cuba and Cuban society," Hays said.

He said he hopes celebrities will "open their eyes" before they promote Castro's Cuba.

"Remember, this is a man who has killed tens of thousands of his own citizens. He's killed over 30 Americans, he harbors fugitives from U.S. justice, he has supported terrorism and narco-terrorism throughout the hemisphere, causing untold thousands of other citizens' deaths," Hays said.

He described Castro's rule as a "ruthless dictatorship that denies people the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of association," and said he cannot understand how celebrities miss these points.

...Filmmaker Saul Landau, an Emmy award-winning filmmaker who produced four separate documentaries on Castro's Cuba for PBS and CBS, including a 1974 CBS documentary with Dan Rather, thinks Hollywood's assessment of Cuba reflects reality.

Landau rejects the idea that Castro is duping celebrities.

"How the hell is he duping them? They've got two eyes, they've got two ears," he told CNSNews.com.

"Cuba is the king of all of Latin American countries," Landau said.

He believes Hollywood stars have seen the truth in Cuba.

"You don't have millions of homeless people in Cuba, you don't have 42million people who don't have access to medical care," Landau said, comparing Cuba to the United States.

Cuba outperforms the United States "when you talk about the right to food, the right to shelter, the right to a job, the right to a retirement," according to Landau. These issues are "less than rigorously enforced in the U.S." he added.

Landau also believes Castro's detractors have exaggerated his human rights abuses.

"I have not seen any evidence that he is a sadistic monster or a brutal dictator," he explained, adding that he has little regard for Cuban American refugees.

"People in Miami who are running their anti-Castro lobby, are, in my opinion, not representative of the Cubans in the country," Landau said.

"Cuban human rights violations take the form of procedural violations. They involve legal and political rights rather than economic and social rights," he added.

Landau did not deny that Castro's rule has included suppression of a free press and multi-party electoral process, but said like in any revolution, "they broke a lot of eggs" to achieve their goals.

He also made it clear that he is no fan of President George W. Bush.

"It's very difficult coming from the U.S., to imagine a political leader with whom you could have an intelligent conversation. Well, I guess you could with Bill Clinton, but you certainly can't with the moron that is in there today," Landau said.

Castro has a "religious aura" about him, according to Landau.

"When he comes into room, a wind follows him. He intimidates people by his very presence, he emanates, he vibrates power," he explained

----------------------------

See article

Excellent! It is CLOBBERIN' TIME!

Along with "SO FUCKING WHAT?" may I also suggest the widespread use of the co-joined meme: "HOW ABOUT A NICE HOT CUP OF SHUT THE FUCK UP?"

I believe that, somehow, Mr. Kusch will manage a way to explain all this away... :)

Most of Rose's stuff is about Cuba. But it was also true of the Soviet Union while it still existed, and Nicaragua under Ortega, and Chile under Allende, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, Cambodia under Pol Pot. It still is true in the case of Yasser Arafat, who is often praised for his humanitarianism--has a Nobel peace prize in fact--because he distributes food, medicine, and runs schools, and despite the fact that he kills Jews regularly, and also runs an organization that tends to lynch any Palestinians who speak up for peace and moderation. He's a terrorist, gangster thug, and nothing but.

Casey, I suspect you're correct. Some people simply have their minds stuck in a state of "alter-is."

Material like what Rosemary posted above could be multiplied to book length-- and has been, in books such as Paul Hollander's Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, even Enver Hoxha's Albania-- they've all had their eager starry-eyed Western apologists, that variety of liberal that Lenin dubbed the "useful idiot."

Re:idealized views of Cuba and the USSR

Mona Charen wrote an entire book on the subject, entitled "Useful Fools". One does not have to agree with her political views to recognize the truth of what she has written. If you believe (as does John) that a significant portion of the left here in the United States were either apologists or advocates of the atrocities perpetrated under communism, you need to read her book. It might open your eyes.

Whoops, that should read...

"If you believe (as does JohnO that a significant pportion of the left here in the United States were NOT either apologists or advocates of the atrocities perpetrated under communism, you need to read her book."

One little missed word.

In case you're looking for it, Mona Charen's book is actually called Useful Idiots.

Since it took two posts and an assist to get it right, I apparently am a useless idiot. (grin)

Thanks for the correction, Jerry. (smile)

Since I already did this for Dean via e-mail I will do it for you Rosemary:
YOUR EVIDENCE via the WSJ Opinion Journal (a rightwingnut source)

1)Perhaps they don't know any better, as they return with Cuban cigars and fawning praise: "It was an experience of a lifetime" (Kevin Costner);
This total quote is included in the second article and it refers to the experience of sitting with Castro while he discussed the material for 13 Days. The movie about the Cuban Missle Crisis. This statement was about that specific experience as it relates to the movie.

2) "he is a genius" (Jack Nicholson);
Hannibal Lecter is a genius, Hitler was a genius anybody with an IQ over 141 could be considered genius. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS OR POWER. It has to do with intelligence.

3) a "source of inspiration to the world" (Naomi Campbell).
Naomi Campbell is a model. Is she a liberal? Is she someone that anybody knows or listens too? Is she a bimbo? What is this about?

4) But people who should know better make the pilgrimage too. Director Steven Spielberg, founder of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation and winner of an Academy Award for illuminating the horrors of the Holocaust, described his meeting with Castro in November as "the eight most important hours of my life."
NOW WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU? Did he agree with Castro's politics or his treatment of his people? I can't tell from this quote. Maybe they were the 8 most important hours because he learned to despise the man. Or he discovered why Communist dictators should be shot.

Whoever wrote this article left us with nothing to sustain his argument that liberal Hollywood types fall all overthemselves praising Castro. None of these remarks save the Naomi Campbell remark praise anything.

I find your articles from their famous Rightwing sources to be toothless when it comes to proving any point.

Barry

It's good to see the conspiracy fires burning again. Even if the WSJ quotes someone's own words, it's still not attributable? That doesn't make sense.

"I believe that, somehow, Mr. Kusch will manage a way to explain all this away... :)" --Casey Tompkins

Casey, don't be such a twit. You don't know me.

I did a lot of searching on pro-Cuba statements and I'm disappointed but hardly surprised. What to rich celebrities from Los Angeles know about what it's like to starve in a Communist dictatorship, to have your every thought and every word scrutinized by the regime, to go blind at an early age because of chronic malnutrition -- or really, to suffer any injustice other than a cappucino with too much froth?

I'm not surprised that celebrities who constantly circle at high altitudes would have very little real, firsthand knowledge of what it's like to live without having one's every desire indulged. This is not to say that some celebrities -- like Tom Selleck or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who are more conservative -- might not recognize injustice when they see it.

So, in short Casey and Dean and any others who aren't interested in arguing with a liberal who can actually think straight: of course I think Castro's regime is awful. Communism is an awful idea, because it assumes the best about human nature and does absolutely nothing to defend against the worst in human behavior. Without principles, groups become mobs, and mobs become gangs, and eventually, survival depends upon aligning one's self with the proper gang. Definitely not a system that smiles upon individual liberties.

But apologism really does extend both ways. I'm sure many here are frustrated that the left won't speak out more strongly against Communism, while some people like me are frustrated that the right won't speak out more strongly against religious fanaticism at home, as opposed to that which is practiced in foreign countries.

So now that we've established the easy-to-establish -- namely, that a lot of celebrities really don't know much about anything -- here's another challenged for Dean and Rosemary: find me some U.S. Congresspeople, Senators, current or former administration officials, or governors who admire Castro. While Hollywood represents the left of the left of the left, our governmental institutions tend to more realistically reflect what's really happening in the American mind. Show me the Democrats who love Castro.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Esmay
To: Barry Bozeman
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: Jackboots and free healthcare and education

Well now isn't that interesting.

You acknowledge the people have said these things, then just question whether they're real liberals.

A real liberal is an open-minded person who's tolerant of dissent, and has a passionate committment to the truth. This includes not accepting lies or covering for people just because they're on your side of the battlefield.

I can give you more references if you like, but you don't get to just sit there and say, "well yeah, but those people don't count." They do count, they're real, and they aren't going to go away.

Go pick up Ron Radosh's book Commies. Read the report on Walter Duranty I just published this morning. These people are real, they did exist and in some cases still do. Why on Earth would you defend them?

Dean

__________________________________________________
Did I.Q's drop suddenly while I was sleeping?
come on Dean read and comprehend.

Sure I question Naomi Campbell as a liberal but the rest I question how what they said constitutes "praise" of Castro's policies and actions.

"He's a Genius" does not mean anything other than that the guy is intelligent. That is not a commentary on his political action or dictatorship. Hitler was a genius. Stalin was a genius. Bush is no genius Clinton was a genius Goldwater was a genius Solomon was a genius
I am talking IQ here Dean not politics or leadership style. Has nothing to do with Jack Nicholson's politics.

Or Costner's "It was an experience of a lifetime" ; doesn't say anything about Costner's opinion of Castro's leadership of Cuba. It is a comment about the experience of sitting with the man who lived through the 13 Days he had just made a movie about.

Or Ted Turner - maybe Castro is "one hell of a guy" Maybe he is fun to hang out with if you are Ted Turner. He has remained in power for a very long time with the USA doing everything in it's power to destabilize his country and destroy him. I think that does take "one hell of a guy" but that does not mean I approve of his military dictatorship.
Hell I don't even approve of our leadership and aside from Ashcroft I don't think they are as Iron Fisted as Castro.

--"one of the most mysterious leaders in the world," cooed Barbara Walters on ABC's "20/20" in October, as she puffed up his "personal magnetism" Likewise these comments do not support Castro's policies. They speak to his "personal" attributes. So what?

Now if you want to reply to my criticism of the articles you offer and continue to question my liberalism over a discussion of the quality of these articles as support for your point then at least get what I am saying right.
What I am saying is that aside from Naomi Campbell (whose political liberal credentials I question) NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS RISE TO THE STANDARD OF APPROVAL OF CASTRO AS A POLITICAL LEADER. They speak to his personal attributes. They are not political statements.

Is that clear enough Dean? - Because you did not get it the last time. THESE COMMENTS SIMPLY ARE NOT RESPONSIVE TO WHAT I WROTE:

"These people are real, they did exist and in some cases still do. Why on Earth would you defend them?"

I am defending nothing. I am questioning the content of the WSJ Opinion Journal as supportive of your thesis that the words the WSJ attributes to Costner, Nicholson, Turner, Walters, and Spielberg rise to the description "Praise of Castro as a political leader of Cuba"
I think that is what is important here not descriptions of Castro's personality attributes.

"I think GWB is an idiot and a bumbling fool" does that mean I am a liberal or a conservative?
Dwight Eisenhower was said to have liked Castro personally. Was he a liberal or a conservative?

If Nicholson had said "Fidel is a great leader of his people and should receive the support of the USA"
Or Costner had said "Fidel has done wonderful things for the people of Cuba and I would like to live here"
Or if Turner had said "Fidel is a model of modern political leadership"
or if Speilberg had said "Fidel is a great humanitarian and a wonderful leader"
There would be a point to the article.

Instead they said
"He is a genius" meaning he is very intelligent
"It was the experience of a lifetime" meaning it was a very memorable experience
"He is one hell of a guy" meaning absolutely nothing - could be taken either way
"It was 8 hours I will never forget" meaning what? other than I will never forget these 8 hours.
"one of the most mysterious leaders in the world," meaning that she had to wait for hours and set up several interviews to see Castro since he is still in fear for his life from American assassination attempts.


Those are the quotes Dean look them up again and tell me why they mean these people regardless of their political persuasion are praising Castro's leadership. I do not know Nicholson's, Costner's, Spielberg's or Walters politics. Ted Turner I know little about as well in terms of his politics. But their politics have nothing to do with these comments. Whether they are liberal or conservative their comments are not "DEPLORABLE" Dean. Their comments are perfectly rational and acceptable. There is nothing to deplore in them.
Why don't you explain why you find the comment "He is a genius" deplorable coming from Jack Nicholson ?
Why don't you explain why you find the comment "It was the experience of a lifetime" deplorable coming from Costner?
Why don't you explain why you find the comment "He is one hell of a guy" deplorable coming from Ted Turner?
Why don't you explain why you find the comment "---one of the most mysterious leaders in the world" deplorable coming from Barbara Walters?
I would truly like to know how a "true liberal" can arrive at the conclusion that these people are "DEPLORABLE" for these comments.

Barry

John: So, in short Casey and Dean and any others who aren't interested in arguing with a liberal who can actually think straight...

Excuse me? That's a bit of a cheap shot.

Does a person who's thinking straight take my comment personally, or instantly deny it? Especially when it is a self-evidently true statement?

Did I say "all liberals always do that?" I most certainly did not. I pointed out the horrifying fact that happens, much too commonly among people who claim to be for the poor and oppressed, and they usually get off scott-free with it. It's a point of embarassment for me since I used to be one of these idiots. Several other people in this thread are telling you of their own personal experiences, and recommending references on the subject. Why isn't that making a dent? Why are you being defensive?

If you did your own homework, and didn't just kneejerk react when you heard a criticism of liberals, perhaps you would become as horrified as I did when I learned more and more about this. Because you'll find plently of examples if you just start looking. If you want a fantastic starting point, there would certainly be Ron Radosh's book Commies. I haven't read the book Paul Burgess mentioned above, but I'm willing to bet it's good.

And yes, you'll find plenty of examples of elected officials who were part of the lunacy, and sometimes still are.

I also don't believe that religious extremism in the United States is anywhere near the threat that you do, John. In fact, I've already said that most of the fear is based on what looks like religious bigotry to me. [shrug] But will I condemn religious extremism in the U.S.? I have many times, so why would I stop now?

Barry B: You, my friend, are simply not rational. Let me know when you want to get rational and we'll talk. I'll recommend Radosh's book Commies again. Then I'll recommend Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrows, Gregory Wolfe's biography of Malcolm Muggeridge, Sam Tanenhaus' biography of Whittaker Chambers, and David Horowitz' Radical Son. You might also want to look for George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

It is a fact that there was not a single case of a brutal dictator of the last 100 years who someone on the political left was not praising or defending--some much more stupidly or fawningly than others, of course. Even Hitler had his defenders on the Left.

Is it true that some right wingers have also defended dictators. Yes. Not all of them, of course. But then, I never so much as implied that all lefties defend jackboots, either. Just a disturbing number of them.

Admitting the simple truth is a good way toward becoming more honest about the world, yes?

Short answer: yes. The truth, whether pleasant or unpleasant, is never a Bad Thing. People need accurate information in order to deal with life. That's something I'm not likely to question.

Getting to the heart of why a phrase phrase like "well-heeled Western liberals" would cause people to reflexively defend themselves: the phrase is is incendiary. Implicit in the syntax is a disdain for liberals in general, and not just for that tiny sliver of a minority (since the super-rich are a minority in this country) who out of either ignorance, hostility or both support totalitarian regimes.

By using such strong, partisan language, you essentially take up a leather glove and slap the cheeks of every liberal who finds value in the term liberal. In the same way that you criticize gay activists for their confrontational style, wouldn't it serve your interests better to use honey and not vinegar? To acknowledge that the group you're referring to is a significant minority that most self-respecting liberals would disagree with? To acknowledge and criticize the specific viewpoints and not the entirety of liberal politics?

Maybe I think that anti-gay religious fanatics are more dangerous than you think they are because my self-interest is more immediately threatened by them than yours is. You're already married. You have children. Your sex life isn't a matter of legislation. You aren't being accused of destroying Western civilization.

In the same way, I think that radical leftist Communist apologists aren't that big of a problem. Most of them are pampered in one way or the other -- university or Hollywood -- and they have little understanding of how democracy really works. Most of the college kids grow out of their radicalism once they have to pay rent. As for the Hollywood elitists? Well, conservatives are shown to have plenty of cash themselves, and they do a very good job of contradicting Left Coast jargon when it goes too far (see Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lucianne Goldberg and Baby Jonah, etc.). And while Hollywood is a liberal haven, the films they produce just as often reflect conservative family values as they do liberal ones.

Because films cater to a market, and the market has plenty of conservatives.

While it's true that Jack Nicholson might admire Fidel Castro, I remember seeing a photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. I'm more comfortable with some doped-up actor praising a dictator than I am with a U.S. official giving one weapons and money.

When it comes to U.S. foreign relations, there are hardly any good guys.

Dean, It is a rare treat to find a new "friend" who begins a friendship in this manner.
An ad hominem attack on my rationality is no substitute for a defense of your assertion that Nicholson, Costner, Spielberg, Walters, and Turner are "deplorable" for their comments about Fidel Castro.
Once you have disposed of those specifics I will be more than happy to debate other specifics with you Dean.
That is what IS rational Dean. Specific words and references and their meaning - not some wholesale generalities based on books by the likes of David Horowitz.
When you get ready to talk specifics I will be glad to talk. In the meantime you can read my post today at http://rushlimbaughtomy.blogspot.com

We can debate "deplorable" all you want.

your friend
Barry

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Esmay
To: Barry Bozeman
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: Jackboots and free healthcare and education

Seriously, man, you're defending the indefensible, and not even looking to be reasonable.
Go do your own homework. I've given you the references.
Dean

Dean,
You sent me two references (the WSJ and Global Exchange)
I replied
You accused me of not reading them
I replied specifically
You accused me of being irrational
I got even more specific about the references and the statements contained therein
Now you want me to go do some homework.?????

Dean it is clear from your responses that you do not want to defend your comments based on these articles. I do not blame you. The WSJ piece is weak on specifics and long on generalities.
The Global Exchange piece is a hit piece for Michael Medved and David Horowitz.
Both use fair and generic comments by celebrities I have specifically referenced.

Answer my questions Dean
What is deplorable about Nicholson's remark
“He is a genius”
Costners remark
Turners remark
Walters remark and
Spielbergs remark.

When you reply to my specifics you will have done your homework.
Until then quit trying to change the subject.
Quit trying to dismiss me for specifically answering your missive.

My homework is done
My argument is complete
My points are made.
Address them and we can continue.
That is how debate is done
Point and counterpoint.

I am debating this based on your comments and the articles you supplied.
I think you are wrong and I specifically told you why.
You have not stayed on point
You have not replied to what I had to say.
You know it and I know it.
Barry

Answer my questions Dean
What is deplorable about Nicholson's remark
"He is a genius"
Costners remark
Turners remark
Walters remark and
Spielbergs remark.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked

When you reply to my specifics you will have done your homework.
Until then quit trying to change the subject.

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix

Quit trying to dismiss me for specifically answering your missive.

angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...

My homework is done
My argument is complete
My points are made.
Address them and we can continue.

who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated

That is how debate is done
Point and counterpoint.

who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war...

I'm sorry, Barry, but you simply are beyond being taken seriously. And that's your load of baggage, not ours.

What comes next? "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?

However, I will grant you this: your email to Dean reminds me (and not unfavorably) of the poetry of Allen Ginsberg. Which I interleave for purposes of comparison. Or whatever.

(Dean: I know, I know, "Please don't feed the energy creature." Sorry! But for once, I just couldn't resist. :)

This is Dean's response to my comment above:
It fails to address my comments or my argument in my opinion. As far as I am concerned it closes the matter in this debate. I have countered the WSJ Opinion article and the Global Exchange article he gave to me as validation of his claims.
That is all I am prepared to do.
Dean obviously does not want to debate the points he raised to me.
I don't blame him. He lost.

Good day Dean.

Oh and one other thing. I certainly don't need Dean Esmay to tell me whether or not I am a liberal. For one thing is clear; Dean Esmay is not unless sycophants of Medved and Horowitz are now considered liberals.

_________________________________________________
Dean's remarks

My goodness, man.

You've already admitted there are liberals who do this. Now you want me to say why calling a man a "genius" is not to praise him.

(no Dean - I want you to admit that saying that Castro is a genius is a comment on his intelligence not his leadership.

Okay. Whatever.

(Is that an admission?)

You've admitted that my basic statement is in fact correct, and now you're picking at nits because you don't believe the praise was good enough, or don't believe all the liberals mentioned count as real liberals.

(Yes I question model Naomi Campbell's liberal credentials and I have no idea what the admission or praise refers too)

In the meantime I've given you several books to read if you're liberal enough to open your mind and question what you think you know. It is not, otherwise, my job to teach you everything--and if you're going to be so irrational and obsessive over this, I have no interest in spending the time with you.

(I know you must consider yourself a great educator and teacher Dean. I have not applied to the Dean Esmay school of politics and I do not intend to. Nor do I intend to read David Horowitz in order to debate with you. Just google my name Barry Bozeman if you want my educational credentials.)

Read the message we posted this morning entitled "Harvest, Lies, and Sorrow." Start following the links. Look at what's there. Go read Ron Radosh's COMMIES, and see what's in there. Go to www.cubacenter.org and start following the links from there.

(I alway just jump at the chance to read David Horowitz or Ron Radosh just like I love listening to Limbaugh or reading Coulter. Front Page magazine may be required reading for you Dean but it is not for me.)

If you can't deal with the fact that the left has a problem with this, then you're not a real liberal, and never will be. Ditto if you do things like slam a perfectly respectable source like the Wall Street Journal just because it's a conservative source.

(Dean Esmay - final arbitor and judge of liberals
an interesting thought but I think I will look for a second opinion. And the WSJ is a propaganda tool of conservative Rightwingnuts Dean no better than the Washington Times or Fox News - sorry none of your liberal fans have filled you in on that thus far.)

Now I've had enough. I want no more mail from you on this unless you've got the guts to tell me youv'e done your homework--which so far, you haven't.
(To use your term Dean So Fuckin What? You have shown your true colors Dean - good day to you sir.)
Regards,
Dean

Paul

Thank you for the poetry and the reference.

"Beyond being taken seriously"

Sounds oddly Ari-esque.

"I think the burden is on those people who think
Barry is "Beyond" being taken seriously to tell the world how they plan to tell the world how they expect him to be capable of regarding their comments seriously. Seriously.

You might be a hail fellow well met under different circumstances Paul but I have trouble with the seriousness of a Mountain Man from Iowa being an East Tennessee Mountain man myself.

Is this an entire nest of Horowitz Radosh FrontPage reading Michael Medved WSJ Opinion Washington Times quoting "liberals" I have stirred up with a rather mild disagreement on the meaning of some celebrity quotes on Castro?

Well that is 'liberal' for you in the liberal translation. Or another Ari ism for you

"I think the burden is on those people who think they are liberals to tell the world how they find David Horowitz, Ron Radosh, Front Page Magazine, the WSJ Opinion Pages and the Washinton Times fitting fodder for liberal debate."

Nice chatting with you Paul
Barry at http://rushlimbaughtomy.blogspot.com

Rush Limbaugh: "Modern-day liberalism is like a disease or an addiction that literally has the power to destroy the character of the person who falls under its spell. Liberalism is seductive and insidious. It can take hold of you before you realize it. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t take any guts to become a liberal. All you have to do to be a good liberal is to say yes to everything except cutting spending and downsizing government."

Barry B. “Limbaughtomization is a disease and an addiction that literally destroys the character of the person that falls under its spell. Limbaughtomization is seductive and insidious. It can take hold of you before you realize it. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t take any brains to become limbaughtomized. All you have to do to be Limbaughtomized is to listen to Rush Limbaugh."

Could the same be said for overexposure to Horowitz Radosh the WSJ Opinion Pages and Dean Esmay?

I guess you have to figure out for yourself which of us is right.

Talking about political ideology as subsersive psychosis is rather far beyond the pale. Liberalism destroys character? It sneaks up on you when you least expect it? I mean, how much guts does it take to believe anything in our culture, considering how removed we all are from one another. It's one thing to write on the internet, but in person, our beliefs and the manner in which we express them require a far higher degree of personal responsibility.

I think it takes courage to act upon your convictions, even when it's difficult and unpopular. Such courage doesn't belong specifically to conservatives or liberals. Even if your values are "wrong", if you live by them truly you have integrity. Whether you are moral is another question -- a question that happily cannot be made for anyone. We all have to figure it out ourselves.

I'd certainly like someone to tell me why anything Limbaugh says is worthy fodder for debate. He isn't any more interested in reality than any other pundit of any other stripe. It's all about mindshare. I'd prefer my mind stay off the market.

Dean, you don't have to apologize to ANYONE about being a classical liberal. Not to leftists who've hijacked the name, not to simplistic "conservatives" to whom "liberal" is just a scare-word (or, at best, a straw-man). Both sides are far more interested in partisan diddling with each other than they are in anything else.

To all you friendly neighbourhood political warriors out there:

Castro's a genius. So were Hitler and Lenin-- So fuckin' what? They are all tyrants. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

American foreign policy is cynical. Omigod, really? I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

Free markets and private property are two of the necessary drivers of civilization. Deal with it.

Liberalism is not a disease, or treason. If you want to be a real conservative, support the reversion of the US to a monarchy. Your ancestors were wrong to revolt against King George III. Reestablish the Episcopalian Church as the official state church. Restore feudalism. Eulogise the hangman as the only guarantee of the continued survival of civil society, like a true conservative: the philosopher de Maistre (look it up, people).

It's funny; here in Canada, some families descended from the Tory loyalists kicked out of the US by the American revolutionary mobs have a class action suit going against the US. They're demanding restitution of property expropriated by the rebels (Think Helms-Burton Act). No US "conservative" is going to say "Well, we were wrong!"

PS Barry, yes we are all Fascists. Say your little cant phrase, and go back to your Party meeting. Stop trying to pass yourself off as a Liberal. John Stuart Mill is turning in his grave.

Here's that assignment you asked for, Mr. Kusch. Do I get an "A"?

John K explains that it's okay to call Castro a genius. It isn't really praise. After all, Hitler was a genius, too.
Sure.
But try saying that out loud.
"Hitler was a genius" and see if everybody says, yes, by IQ, he probably was.
See if nobody objects on the grounds that you're praising Hitler.
As if John K didn't think of this. He hoped we wouldn't.
But he knows.

"John K explains that it's okay to call Castro a genius. It isn't really praise. After all,"

(John K did not explain that I did.)

"Hitler was a genius, too.Sure.
But try saying that out loud.
"Hitler was a genius" and see if everybody says, yes, by IQ, he probably was.
See if nobody objects on the grounds that you're praising Hitler."

(Why would I care if someone "OBJECTED" to the truth?)

As if John K didn't think of this. He hoped we wouldn't. But he knows.

(I do not know if John K thought of it or not but he did not say it I did and it does not matter to me when someone objects to the truth.
They can object. Why would I care?)

Comprehension requires only limited reading and interpreting skills.

Hey, I hate Castro like the plague, but Rumsfeld has shaken hands with worse. Reagan has funded worse. Kissinger has installed worse. And these guys are not just a bunch of idiot celebrities. They are the leaders of the Republican party. And at least the moronic left tries to make up excuses for loving Castro. Anyone here want to defend Pinochet?

Hey, I hate Castro like the plague, but Rumsfeld has shaken hands with worse. Reagan has funded worse. Kissinger has installed worse. And these guys are not just a bunch of idiot celebrities. They are the leaders of the Republican party. And at least the moronic left tries to make up excuses for loving Castro. Anyone here want to defend Pinochet?