On Communicating With Intellectual Rivals
Dean
Steven L. Taylor has an interesting piece on communicating with your intellectual rivals. It's written in response to a journalist Barbara O'Brien, who suggests that there are far more nasty right-wingers than nasty left-wingers.
Having been doused with an incredible amount of nastiness from left-wingers in the last year and a half, I could only drop my jaw in amazement.
But here's the thing: I notice that people on the left sometimes think someone is "funny" and "clever" when a lot of others think of that person as being "nasty" and "shallow." For example: I find Bill Maher as revolting and hateful as Michael Savage. Any time I watch that horrible show of his on HBO, I literally feel like vomiting. My wife, who occasionally enjoys it, will attest that I find the man so uterly revolting, so completely bigoted and downright vicious, that I have to leave the room if she puts it on. That the only reason I ever see it is because she puts it on. The only difference between us is that, while she finds Maher every bit as shallow, stupid, and nasty as I do, she's is convinced that guys like him are the GOP's biggest recruiters. So she watches and laughs and laughs and laughs. Meanwhile, I'm reaching for the Maalox and fleeing the room.
Furthermore: I find Michael Moore even more dishonest and vicious than Ann Coulter--in fact, I consider him the most hateful, dishonest man in America, a genuine living, breathing fascist propagandist. If I were to find myself in the same room with the man I would have to leave to prevent myself from spitting at him--and I won't even be friends anymore with someone who tries to apologize for him. You might as well be a white supremacist so far as I'm concerned.
Now, here's the think: why do I suspect that someone like Ms. O'Brien thinks my reactions are extreme? That she may even think that a Michael Moore is only guilty of being a little over the top, of exaggerating for effect? Whereas I see a genuine monsters with whom no decent person would ever voluntarily associate?
I view Rush Limbaugh with contempt. But I also think of a nasty little venom-spewing toad like Paul Krugman as being even more dishonest than a partisan hack bloviator like Limbaugh. I mean, Limbaugh may be a party-line-spouting robot, but at least he can laugh at himself. Meanwhile, I sense that Krugman's face would fall off if he were ever to crack a smile.
By the way, at this point I am trying to make Daily Kos and The Drudge Report the only weblogs I'm willing to criticize publicly on my own blog. I haven't always kept that promise to myself but I'm trying harder and harder to keep it. I occasionally slip when I perceive myself as having been attacked unfairly by another blogger, but I'm even trying to resist that. After all, there's only so many times you can be called a brown shirt, a nazi, a sellout, a liar, a racist, a sexist, a fag-hater, an "apologist for the religious right," a "Bush apologist," a "Bush worshipper," ad nauseum before you either quit blogging entirely or just stop caring what others say.
I mention that because I'm hoping this is not seen as an attack on Ms. O'Brien. It's an attempt to tell her my story, and how I see things. If anyone perceives it as an attack on her, I'll apologize in advance because that's really not my intent.
Still, Ms. O'Brien and her intellectual compatriots might want to be aware that in the last year and a half I really have been called all of the above, more times than I can count. I know other webloggers who supported Bush went through as bad or worse. Some quit because they couldn't take it anymore. Some just stopped talking politics. Some implemented comment registration. And some just embraced the hate and gave back as good as they got.
At one point it got so bad around here my lovely wife (a diehard Republican) quit blogging completely. She came back, of course, because she's too tough for that. She just decided that laughing at the left was more productive than crying.
Oh by the way? She calls herself "The Queen of All Evil" because some left-wing bloggers declared her to be evil. At first it upset her, but she decided it was better to laugh and embrace the label, as a sort of "in your face" backslap to her detractors--and not because she really thinks of herself as evil.
I think that Ms. O'Brien may also want to consider the possibility that, to those of us who supported President Bush this year, running a blog in which she claims to tell "The Truth About the Bush Administration," and defining herself as part of the "American Resistance," and then baldly asserting that if you voted voted for Bush it means you are "(a) ignorant of what's going on; (b) suffering massive cognitive dissonance; or (c) are a soulless sociopathic bastard," she isn't going to get very far convincing people that right-wingers are nastier than left-wingers.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the so-called "liberal" reactionaries who use phrases like "reality-based community" to describe themselves. Although I will say this: There is a lefty blogger out there who still, to this day, obsessively sends me trackbacks referring to me as representing the "Bush-based community" every time I mention good news from Iraq--and for the record, I really, really wish he would just go away.
On the other hand, I no longer find stuff like that to be more than a petty annoyance. It used to upset me, because I value reasoned discourse, and someone who indulged in that kind of shallowness on a regular basis (we all slip once in a while, I'm talking about habitual offenders) I actually felt betrayed. Now I just shrug, tell myself that we'll never get rid of nasty, irrational people, and I MoveOn.org.
And I admit it: I've seen horrendous behavior from all corners of the political spectrum, and I haven't always lived up to my own best aspirations. I'd like to see better from people, and myself. So I'd like to leave Ms. O'Brien with this thought:
I still consider myself a liberal--open minded, tolerant of disagreement on most issues, patriotic, not wedded to old ideas, open to ideas for reform. I voted for Bush, without any hesitation and with no regrets. I did so because I support him on a handful of issues I consider vitally important, on both domestic and foriegn policy. I fancy that I'm fairly well read, and that I am quite familiar with the left's arguments against the man. I simply find them wanting.
But I also, I admit, voted for Bush partly in reaction to what I see as far and way the most extreme stream of irrational vitriol ever heaped onto the head of a sitting President in my lifetime. If you scoff at that, I have only two words for you: Fahrenheit 9/11.
So, is this an impasse that's impossible to overcome? Are we doomed to a society where people just treat each other with contempt over honest disagreements?
I'm just not sure.
By the way, none of this is or should be seen as an "attack." It's an attempt to be honest about what I see.
You've raised so many good points I don't know where to begin.
Gerald Ford once remarked that "we can disagree without being disagreeable." However I believe he said that without considering extremists. I have to get disagreeable with people who advocate positions like blaming the Jews for everything, or shoving their version of G*d down my throat.
I believe that you can only have an intellectual debate with someone who agrees to a set of shared assumptions. For me one assumption would include the existence of a state of Israel. You accept that, and we can argue. You don't, and we can't.
Maybe you remember the early days of the Internet, when some people went online just to fight with people verbally. It became kind of a game, and in many cases was not to be taken seriously. But as more and more newbies showed up, people did start taking the flamewars-for-fun seriously.
In a lot of quarters these days, pure rudeness and nastiness is de rigueur. One of the reasons I rarely try to discuss anything with a feminist is that they so quickly fall back to sophomoric name-calling and personal threats, which I well recognize is nothing but talk.
None of these behaviors would happen I don't think, offline, in a 1-to-1 or group situation. The Internet still provides that cloak of safety for a lot of people, where they believe they can say anything they like and get away with it, even if they'd never act that way in person.
Ummmm, in my case it's (c): I voted for Bush, and I'm a soulless sociopathic bastard.
--|PW|--
Dean,
It's interesting semiotically to read diff blogs. I am a moderate. I discovered you via the Gandelman blog, and enjoy your breadth of subject matter.
However, like most blogs, you are at your worst in politics- not because of your views but the way you present them. Politics is prob the most base and cowardly of human endeavors. That said, as an artist, you can go to my site and see that the artists' world, filled w delusional Leftists that make your rivals seem sane, are always into utterly distorting people's views. I've posted whole pieces deconstructing the willful distortions others have made in emails and online. When I used to post email reactions to my puieces I would get venom to the point that several of the artists had nervous breakdowns and others used my site as a forum to make threats in the real world.
Knock on wood, you've not gone that far in the blogosphere. That said, I was disappointed to see you vote and defend Bush and the war. I supported going in, but once all the WMDs were AWOL we shd've gotten out. Yes, all the 'can't leave crap', we owe it to the people. Well, I recall Vietnam too well, and the exact same arguments were used by LBJ and Nixon, and they were wrong. Vietnam today is not what it was feared. I cd go on about the hypocrisy of our stance re: the Kurds, (recall them?- JFK wd prob wonder why we don't stand up for their independence) but the point is Iraq is a distraction and the lure of oil is why we're there now, and not in Sudan, and why we were not in Indonesia in the 70s for humanitarian reasons. Yes, the Left is filled w cowardly bastards- I argued w a guy who saw 9/11 as a comeuppance and called him repugnant- as if all those Starbucks waitrons were to blame for the Mid East's woes. Of course, folk who simplemindedly, on the Right, see this as a war on terror or Islam are just as bad- things are so bad in that region that the Girl Scouts could declare themselves an insurgency and they'd get recruits, just as most of the fighters for Uncle Ho weren't Commies, but hungry and scared.
I'm glad you run good news from Iraq, but in a sense it reminds me of LBJ and McNamara and their glowing assessments. There are some real sites by soldiers that tell about the good and bad that neither side reports. Too bad there's no one w the stature of a Cronkite who is believed by all. This is the blogosphere at its worst. There is no shared community of information and the ethics that come from news therefore diverge.
I do think when you use terms as hate-filled for some others' blogs you are just kyboshing your own claims. I've read Kos, and find some of it enlightening. Do I want him to run the Dems? No, but I'd just as soon be without the Bush crowd either- far more so for their utter incompetence than their views (Condi gets promoted for having overseen the worst domestic breach of security since the Civil War?). Having lived thru the Reagan 80s the domestic religious agenda of Bush is not so bad (but not good)- it's the far more dangerous corporate fealty he serves- as they are the greatest threat to civil liberties, and the major reason the Ugly American persists in Latin Am &the Middle East.
That said, I recognize that every Prez since Nixon &the Oil Crisis shares blame for why we're in Iraq now- not a one had the spine nor vision to embrace alternate and cleaner fuel sources. Say what you will about JFK (&I have) but the man had a forward vision. No Prez since has. Even worse is hiow, since then, any military action has been called 'Another Vietnam' or some such- from El Salvador to Gulf War 1 to even Grenada. This boy cried wolf hysteria has so inured the public that now, finally (ugh) when the parallels are scary, we don't see it.
As for actual poli-blogging, I'm sure you can point to many wrongly worded or presumed disses of yourself, as I can from countless bad artists and those who just disagree w my philosophy. My tack is to just logically point-by-point refute. It drives'em crazy. And when wrong, just admit it. Another of your tormentors I like as much as you (don't put me on yr shit list)- Oliver Willis- he's funny and passionate. I disagree w him about as much as I do you, and his blog has similar posts re: you that he can legit claim that his claims are as valid as yours- one bizarre rant you had against black people, where even some regulars distanced themselves. Having read your online bio and sen you were a Tourette's sufferer I'm able to just ascribe such to a weak moment. Too few are- either you, or Willis, or other bloggers. The point is that the Koses or Eschatons (he gets pissed being called Atrios) disagree, and distort, anf sometimes say bizarre things, as well. But to call them hate-filled is silly, and only gives fodder to them, and the cycle continues.
Thus it is w Moore. He sees lies and 1/2 lies from Bush (&they are) so feels justified in constructing 1/2 lies of his own. Columbine was shameful when he ambushed Dick Clark as if to blame for that terrible mother, and the Heston bit was terrible, too. But, then I look at sites that try to show his lies, and what do they do? they do the same thing- 1/2 lies &lies. Yet, the justification is Moore does it, who says Bush does it, &on. The Fog Of War is a great film because it is far more objective, McNamara is both eminently likable and detestable, as all but the Ted Bundys and Osama of the world are. As for the Coulters- stick an apple in her mouth and pull down the panties. I've read her, and her writing is bad- forget what she says, were she not a sexy blond she'd be nowhere. She's the Jillian Barberie opf the Beltway. Maher I've only seen a handful of his PI show, and he's simply not funny, esp. w politics. That's what amazes me. Rush- he IS funny, but the real ? is how anyone accords him anymore status than Howard Stern- despite the toilet humor there are moments of brilliance ethere, as well. It's a shame that he's been edged out of the free public domain.
I get pure hate sometimes when I deconstruct a bad poet that someone loves, but humor is the best defense to the irrational. Real hate is easy to find- there are White Power and Muslim (reg. &Black), not to mention Conspiracy sites filled with Illuminati, UFO, and other nonsense that truly is hateful and ignorant. There's just a disconnect in calling names. Yes, I think Bush is a moron, and I thought Kerry was a soulless mummy. But, I'd break bread w either. I voted for Nader the 3rd straight time, cuz if you read his views, 80-90% of people agree w them. They are common sense. But I don't wanna go 'I Am Legend' on dumb Dems or radical Reps.
I've never viscerally gotten this anger that folk get. I mean, I failed to make my high school basketball team- 26th cut out of 81 tryouts. I fell about 15 cuts short but did better than 55 others. Did I burn w envy? No, even though for 3 yrs I'd dreamt of being on the team and practiced my ass off. I found other things, where my talents lie. No, I never made the Knicks, but long after Michael Jordan is a ? folk will be reading my words- in poetry and prose. Why be angry over natural failures?
There's too much real BS in the world. What someone says or not is not so important. Merry Xmas (note I'll get grief from the Left for acknowledging the holiday and from the Right for using the X) DAN
I could only shake my head when I read some of the comments posted. And when I read the comment that she posted about you ... well, I felt compelled to leave this:
Keep up the good work, Dean, you "clueless, demented, evil" blogger!! LOL :))
Internet Message Board Wandering Monster Table
Hmm.. I think Dean would be a cross between a "Wizened Sage" and a "Champion."
This syndrome has to be recognized. It is very useful in responding to arguments and in dealing with name-calling in the same way.
One of the tactics the Left uses is, "there are more of you name-callers than there are of us name-callers." Or even "an equal amount". Who cares? The point of the tactic is to throw you off into worrying about this unsolveable claim, and to make them feel good about saying it and getting you to respond to it. It's a sign of chaos because the one saying it also believes it, usually, because it makes him/her feel good.
You can't fall for these claims or take them personally, unless the one who makes the claim has a good point. You must also always make good arguments, or be ready to if you yourself conclude that someone is a "moron", for example.
Another tack within the chaotic is to simply not get your point, just sliding over it, claiming "well what's your point", trying to change the subject, instantaneously arguing about something else, or calling you names. If I have really made my point, I do not respond further, except to say something like, "I have made my point and am not going to keep repeating myself." Sometimes you must restrain yourself from trying to cure these people, or from allowing them to play upon your weaknesses.
The tactics go on and on, including just trying to wear you down, but the main point is that you must recognize them, and that they are often tactics of truely chaotic minds. That's just the way it is, as I see it.
Many people seem to truely have a blank slate upon which anything can be written, then they take great joy in repeating it. But I, of course, am enlightened. Heh
Dean, in my part of Red America that is usually three words (some pronounce it as four.)
Other than that minor quibble I am with you 110%
1) Take the comment about Tourette's and stuff it, m'kay? Tourette's doesn't cause me to post anything.
2) My "Bizarre rant," as I explained, was a deliberate attempt to show the hypocrisy of a society wherein black people, especially comedians but also many others, get away with statements that white people can't--and to show how white people are honestly afraid to speak openly about race.
3) Willis still owes me an apology for that, but he's not man enough to do it.
As for the rest: Sorry Cosmoetica, I don't see Iraq as being much like Vietnam. The differences are too dramatic and too numerous. That said? Vietnam was a just and worthy cause in my view. One thing those who criticize that war still cannot get past--usually, even acknowledge--that because we cut and ran on the South Vietnamese, then cut off the funding we promised them to defend themselves, over a million of them were slaughtered by the communists.
But whatever.
Or if the need for control of oil is the alleged sufficient motive, what's wrong with this motive, if we allegedly need a reliable oil supply and can reasonably conclude this supply would be threatened if we did not act the way Bush is acting, somehow totally divorced from the terrorist threat to our oil control? [I'm having a hard time imagining the terrorists would not be a sufficient threat to our oil control, if a true need, so that we wouldn't have to make war upon them.]
If oil control is the [defective] motive, how do we supplant the motive? What alternative energy source do you favor, are you using it, and are you taking personal steps to minimize your own fossil fuel use, regardless? [I've been impressed that many who disparage the use of oil do nothing in their personal lives to actually decrease their own use of fossil fuels and their products.]
If the motive of oil control is defective, and the threat of the terrorists is not sufficient, then Bush is wrong.
As to Nader, he makes a good political argument for someone voting for him - that the Democrat and Republican Parties are the same - except that he relies critically upon the argument that Big Corporations are bad, which I just don't see, or see enough as a reason to vote for Nader, thus being thrown back to choosing between the Big Parties.
As I see it, capitalism is good, Big Corporations are necessary to capitalism, energy to create wealth is necessary to capitalism, fossil fuel has been so far necessary as an energy source, freedom is necessary for capitalism, capitalism is necessary for freedom. So significant threats to our access to oil are sufficient causes for war, and significant threats to us and our principles are sufficient causes for war.
The same goes for the World's freedom, and its need to create wealth, though nothing will be perfect. War is a valid option toward these ends.
In my opinion, the threat of the sadomasochistic Islamofascists justifies Bush's war, even apart from our alleged need to control oil, though the latter can easily be seen to justify war, again in my opinion.
I'm quite aware of this. It doesn't make the way it's now used any less obnoxious.
The point re: Willis is that he's still waiting for your apology, and that's the point. Is it worth it to play Michael Moore to his Jerry Falwell? Again, this is why blogs that obsess over politics end up preaching to their choirs, which fragment smaller and smaller over every issue- Right &Left become divided into shades and schools and isms. That seems antithetical to the very nature of a blog- to reach n more &more folks?
As for Vietnam- the only two major diffs are the oil and that the opposition to the US was not nearly so splintered. There was basically the VC and NVA, which were two sides of a bad coin. The South Vietnamese were another coin, albeit as bad- a dictatorship that slaughtered millions, too. When two dogs fight in an alley, you avoid the alley.
Unfortunately the US, and all countries, are always motivated by self-interest. What is the diff between Iraq and the skirmishes in any # of African nations? Black oil and black skin. While the Left was wrong about Communism as a philosophy they were actually right about Vietnam. Even McNamara admits it. Even Westmoreland admitted we didn't have a clue.
Monomer: Obviously oil is a big factor- but there have been no links proved to Iraq being involved in 9/11. Sorry, but it's as likely the Romanovs were involved.
The fundamental misunderstanding is that these terrorists operate much like organized crime does. If Saddam were Al Capone then Osama was Dillinger or the Barker gang. Of course, they'll have commonalities &common folk, but there's no evidence that Capone and Dillinger worked together. By all accounts they loathed each other. But, with specious reasoning and a Six Degrees type game any crime historian could have you believe Scarface &Johnny were bed buddies. 'tain't so, though.
The rest of your argument is a nice feint, but a feint, nonetheless. I do not waste resources, and turn the thermostat down, and the lights off, but energy policy starts at the top. Had Nixon, Ford, Carter, et al., actually shown balls, we cd likely have told the Mid East to go fuck itself. W/o oil they're nothing. Do you think anyone but a handful of Christian Apocalyptics care about the Mid East? As a philosopher said a few centuries ago, if China fell off the planet would it really make a diff in your life? Not really, although Wal-Mart wd go bankrupt. Of course, you'd feel sorry, as we do for dying kids in other countries, but wd it really affect you? after a week there'd be something new to gripe over. How often do you weep if someone a mere three doors down is going thru some trauma?
So, to ignore real motivations and decades of our corporate greed staining our nation's rep is just a feint.
I believe in Capitalism, too. So did Jefferson- but small capitalism. Being pro-capitalism and anti-corporate is not a contradiction. To deny that is to go against what the Right always claims- to love small business. Do you think it's beter to have 2 or 3 titans dominate an industry, or 30 or 40 smaller companies?
Innovation thrives on competition- in all human endeavor.
But, to close on the Mid East &Vietnam- it still comes back to the many false claims of other mere crises being labeled Vietnams that has dimmed the real parallels here.
Although, I agree there are diffs:
1) we went into Vietnam after the Reds stormed the North. We were reactionary. In Iraq we took action w/o an aggressive move.
2) we've blown many chances in the past to democratize Iraq &other nations there. The Shah was our suckboy for years, but we weren't too anxious then. Why? So were Saddam, Suharto, Marcos, and on, our 'boys'.
There are others, but the point is not that Iraq is a Left-Right issue, but a dumb-smart issue. Kerry was no better- in fact, if one argues Bush was dumb and wrong, then Kerry's more reprehensible for knowing such, but signing on for political reasons. Had there been WMD I think we'd be justified in a pre-emptive war, but it's no grace nor honor to not have the rocks enough to say, 'Whoops!' It's good Saddam's gone, but we lived with him for decades. Osama was the real problem.
Yet, let's keep this in perspective- to equate the dying spasms of Islamic extremism w being as great a threat as the Commies or Nazis is silly. They've not the power, means, nor will. McWorld, for good or ill, will swallow them, and the sons of Osama will in a decade or two be asking their peers if they wanna super-size their Big Mohammads.
Just imagine, though, if Nixon hadn't been a paranoid. He was an intelligent man who wd prob have seen the need to wean ourselves off of oil. had he started that in the early 70s we'd prob have many viable sources of alternate energy by now. Don't think so? It was less than a decade we were told the Human Genome was undecodeable. I think we'd be well on our way to total independence by the 1st Gulf war. But, why didn't we?
Who had a motive to deny that progress? If we'd be independent and the MidEast oil meant nothing to the West, they'd not hate us, but be begging for our investment of time and money. While I realize to expect altruism from non-individuals is futile, there's nothing against thinking we cd've done far better in so many ways.
The scary thing, though is this- what Vietnam/Iraq awaits in 2035 due to the myopia of today? What Bush or LBJ then is gonna get thousands of young Americans killed simply to show 'he's a man?' I use that last sentence to show this is not a political issue, but an intellectual (small i) and ethical issue. The butterfly flaps its wings- head for the hills! DAN
-Sudan has large oil reserves.
-Sudan can be dominated quite easily. I'd been suggesting sending a force of about 5,000 marines for some time, myself.
-Dominating Sudan would go a long way towards gaining domestic approval with African American voters.
Ergo: Dominating Sudan is win-win all the way.
Which undermines your point, I think.Something else might be at work, and I think that the racism argument is not it.
I was raised Roman Catholic. On my mom's side of the family we have two nuns and a priest. But I haven't attended a Catholic Mass in over 4 years because The Church made things personal when I wanted to remarry. I won't be attending church tonite either. I believe a woman has the right to control their own body in regards to abortion. What does this make me?
The bald truth is that to be a Bush supporter means that you are (a) ignorant of what’s going on; (b) suffering massive cognitive dissonance; or © are a soulless sociopathic bastard.
I commented on an earlier thread about the problems with labels - applying one to a group of people inherently means they aren't individuals. Well, I am.
I approach every election with an open mind. I decide each election who I want to vote for. 2000 was pretty easy. Al Gore couldn't win his party's nomination in 1992. Not even with all of his service in the senate. Not even with his family history of public service. There's a reason for that... and for why he couldn't even win his own state in 2000.
2004 was much different. Yes, I started out from a stance of actually LIKING what Bush did in office. I felt I could trust the guy. But still... there were things I didn't care much for. Mainly domestic issues. So YES - I wanted to hear what the "loyal opposition" had to say.
Funny thing: they had nothing to say except "anybody but Bush". They had some people who wanted to say more.... Dean, Gebhardt, Clinton, even Edwards. But in the end the things I tried to say to them back in early 2003 through some blogs won out: they nominated a guy solely on the basis of beating Bush.
Another funny thing I guess: I worked through my "ignorance" and saw their candidate for exactly what he was - a politician who would say anything and do anything, depending on what the polls would tell him.
I'm going to listen to all sides again in 2008. The one Democrat who really impresses me (believe it or not) is Hillary Clinton. She started as the worst of politicians IMHO... moving to New York to win a seat in the Senate. But she's also been paying her dues properly since then. She's been a pretty good Junior Senator from New York. I think she has alot to say. I may not agree with it, but I will give her a chance.
But my fears are that they will field yet another run-of-the-mill politician. And when I am done listening with an open mind to what their candidate says, and if I should decide to vote for a Republican... I be toldd how "ignorant" I am for it.
Dean, your wife is right. The Democrats threw everything they could at Bush. Money, commercials, talk show hosts, TV networks, hell... evenn a full-feature movie. AND THEY STILL LOST. In facct, by more than they did last time around. Guess that says something for us "ignorant" citizens out here!
"If you voted for Bush without hesitation, you are either clueless, demented, or evil. There are no other explanations. And if people said nasty things to you, you deserved them."
Keep it up, Ms. O'Brien, and four years from now your party may win as many votes as Michael Badnarik got this year.
I don't read Leftist blogs for precisely that reason. Endless "you're a clueless, demented, evil, Bush-worshipping, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, Zionist, imperialist, fascist, Nazi..." ad infinitum, combined with "we're so progressive, enlightened, compassionate, tolerant, open-minded, liberal..." ad nauseum. Boring. Not even accidentally funny. I'd rather read "God Hates Fags" Rev. Phelps. At least he has better _style_.
To Hell with Political Correctness. Up With Beauty! God Bless America! Merry Christmas!
No, Cosmo.
Willis personally called ME a bigot. I called him nothing, I merely defended myself. In response, he even went on to defend black comedians who say and do things far more offensive than anything I EVER said.
So far as I'm concerned, since HE attacked me and I DID NOT attack him, he owes me the apology. If you can't see that, it's your problem.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your apology for your crack about Tourette's.
Is it worth it to play Michael Moore to his Jerry Falwell?
I won't dignify that with a response.
Again, this is why blogs that obsess over politics end up preaching to their choirs...
You will find that on this blog, as well as a number of other high-quality blogs, there is far more debate and far less "preaching to the choir." The claim that blogs are "echo chambers" applies to only the worst, not the best, in my experience.
I argue with my readers constantly on this weblog, and my readers argue with me constantly. Have you not noticed yet?
Regarding your generalizations about Viet Nam: I think you're badly misinformed. And rather racist I might add. Sad.
There are others, but the point is not that Iraq is a Left-Right issue, but a dumb-smart issue.
Ohhh, you really think this is going to improve the level of discussion, do you? Add this to your racist and bigoted (and deeply hateful, hurtful, and divisive) comment about "black oil and black skin," and I wonder--why am I even bothering to talk to you?
If you do not see the terrorists as a threat to our existence, as I put it above, that's your right, but you are wrong, or wrong until you prove I am wrong, or give me strong reasons to doubt my conclusion.
"1) we went into Vietnam after the Reds stormed the North." I have no idea what this means. We went physically into Vietnam sometime after Ho Chi Minh defeated the French, finally at Dien Bien Phu - where the French were literally defeated, having to surrender - which effected what was supposedly to be a temporary division of Vietnam into a North and South. We wanted to make the division premanent. Ho and other South Vietnamese did not want that. China was directly to the North. Etc..
I mention it to suggest that your disabusement of people of various postitions may not be as complete as you claim.
Likewise, reading your whole post I find no significant arguments against what I presented above, and no answers to my questions, except those which rival the significance of the fact that you turn down your thermostat.
For example, the Government went against a private corporation, Celera, in the genome contest and the Government lost. I don't know where Celera is right now, but it hoped to become a very big corporation. The profit incentive beat the Government, which is Socialistic, and therefore can't tell what to invest in very well. A non-paranoid Nixon would not have saved us.
Other corporations and even individuals are hoping to find clean, safe alternatives to fossil fuel, and nuclear energy, and hope to become big corporations. The populace has spurned conventional alternatives, and nuclear, which seems to be a big mistake. We can store nuclear waste pretty safely, but nimba.
No one is willing to say which Big Corporations are the bad ones, apart from the ones they abitrarily focus on, such as Walmart, this being another manifestation of irrationality, since we are talking intellectually. Nader went against Ford [+/-/or ?], and not many people ever wanted to get rid of it, or want to get rid of very many current Big Co.'s.
The Oil Companies are there because someone has to handle oil, and there is a big profit incentive to do it. Not all oil companies are big.
People also make a lot of money selling at low profit margins, such as Safeway, Schnucks, Albersons, and in selling one half-assed unnecessary product, such as does Heinz.
McDonalds makes people fat. Right. Are there not enough fast food corporations so they then would be little enough corporations, with some small c's, to make Nader and you happy?
Etc., etc..
Like DaveD above, I voted for Barry Commenor [sp] and LaDonna Harris once, and even cast the only vote in my county for Jesse Jackson in a primary once! Ugh. We learn.
The place I call home has no electricity, but a plentitude of wood, unending and in need of constant removal. Otherwise, it will all burn down anyway. I could get electricty from developing water power there, but it's not necessary, and might not even be efficient compared to the oil cost of the system, since we use so little electricity, and not much wood. We have thought of harnessing lightening bolts, but no one will volunteer to fly the kite.
There are thousands of people dying every day, [.008 X 7,000,000,000/365] thousand per day, if memory serves me here, about 160,000. I know they die.
And so on.
The Evil Cato! Cato the Elder, the Lesbian-worshipping, man's-man-admiring, myth-based egoist. And HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL....!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!! Merry Christmas!
> sociopathic bastard.
Paul Burgess for President in '08.
Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to read your post. Shorter, please, and with real paragraphs, and I'll try again.
I'm getting old now, and minutes count. I'm serious, girl. I can feel the crap accumulating in my joints as I type. You know all the news about Celebrex and shit like that? It's because us old farts just sit and hurt, for no reason.
You have so much to look forward to in your life, but get it early. Enjoy your youth while you have it.
'Again, this is why blogs that obsess over politics end up preaching to their choirs' Your reply makes my point since I applauded you, initially for not being so, and warned against it. There are still points from my 1st post in this thread unaddressed, which is why many blogs also descend into cable talkese- selective dialectics. Ignoring a point does not refute it.
As for the Tourette's comment- you're the one that lays that out. That you see that as a crack, rather than a comment is your interpretation. I recall many a female I dated who wd tell me allof their sexual pasts' traumas, or artists who wd list their bipolarity, ADHD, etc. I used to think this was because they trusted or respected me. No, it's just a mechanism to avoid responsibility. If such is so on a 1-to-1 basis, what is it on a million-to-1 basis.
The racism 'crack' is utterly silly, but I'll get back to that.
Urthshu: to the contrary, you've made my point. Iraq is now, we're told a humanitarian issue, right? Arabs are Caucasians, the vast majority of Sudanese are not. The black skin remark was to state that we won't go and help suffering blacks, not that we're still in plantation mode. Again, you've read into what I've said what you wanted to hear.
Monomer: Exactly what Bush Doctrine? I doubt Monroe and Truman wd be impressed w its jelly-like nature, and ever changing rationale. I stated I initially supported going in to Iraq, w the proviso that what was told was true. I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, even after all that's gone down, that he was wrong, and the CIA incompetent, rather than he maliciously lied. The Left wd oppose almost any war. They see the USA as all evil. The Right sees it as angelic. True moderates see the shades between. If you grant that Bush's info was mere error, then there's the rationale. You pull out. LBJ made this error, and there are far more parallels to Vietnam as to how we conduct ourselves than on the enemy's side. Do you really want to watch a Frontline report in 20 years that shows that Bush knew far more than he let on, that Cheney's ties to assorted contractors were far deeper? I really don't want to see a Fog Of War 2030. with a doddering Rumsfeld admiting all, and asking for lenience, do you?
'If you do not see the terrorists as a threat to our existence'- where did I say that? All assumption, to cloud the issue. Why are there terrorists? Why were there terrorists in Latin America? Are the theo-terrorists of the Taliban really worse than the narco-terrorists of the poppy fields? Is Osama bin Laden really worse than Pablo Escobar was? My point is that we are stumbling and bumbling our way, w no clear plan. Had Bush 1 Mussolinied Saddam in '91, with the world's support, this wd not be happening, yet he then feared it, when there were far less odds stacked against us.
As for racist? I've not heard any on the Rigght, or general war supporters, argue for Kurdish independence. Why? Is a Kurd not entitled to self-governance? I don'r believe the Right believes that, but it just goes to show how easily, and reprehensibly racism charges can be tossed.
As for Vietnam- of course, Vietnam was a trickle. But Tonkin Gulf may never have even happened, and this ism BTW, another reason why people are resisting the Vietnam parallel- because 9/11 was vivid, on our turf. There are deep reptilian needs for vengeance, against someone, whereas Vietnam was not. But, the US rationale was the Domino Theory, which again McNamara &co. have admitted had fatal flaws, not to mention racial biases, assuming that all 3rd World countries were alike and equally gullible.
Most corporations are bad, the Peter Principle reigns supreme. In fact, most big bureaucracies- even gov't- it's in the makeup of human beings to find the Lowest Common Denominator- thios is why group think ias almost always 'dumber' than any individual- even the least bright out there. But, since they are fictive entities they should be curtailed, and broken up once they reavch certain thresholds of dominance, so that bad products like Microsoft puts out, don't force out the Linuxes or Mozillas. Is this not a good approach, Monomer? Do you really want to state that corporations are engines of efficiency and innovation. If so, little I say can dissuade you, but it's not the world I've worked in for decades.
I'll ask you. or Dean what I ended the last post with- 'What Vietnam/Iraq awaits in 2035 due to the myopia of today? What Bush or LBJ then is gonna get thousands of young Americans killed simply to show 'he's a man?''
Let me ask you, is this not the sort of discourse that the original post desired? Simply dismissing other opinions, or trying to cast them into pre-conceived blankets doesn't work. That's why I read Dean, Gandelman, Willis, &a few other blogs. Nort regularly, because the fatal flaw of most blogs of all stripes is their unoriginality- merely ads for what others say, and most developing the habit of sportswriterese. Which is why, in a few years they will likely be supplanted by another, as yet to be determined online mode. I wd, however recommend Rachel Lucas- an avowed Right Wing gun-toter, for her humor, and a handful of other blogs re: science. Merry Xmas. DAN
I have to think most of your opposition to the Iraq liberation is based on a similar bigotry, especially one towards Arabs and Kurds. Bigotry is so often based on fear and ignorance and prejudice--and ignorant you are, for almost everything you have said about what we war supporters believe is simply wrong.
Regarding my Tourette's: I have not ever "laid it out." I have mentioned a few times, briefly and in passing, that I have it. I have also just explained to you that it does not cause those of us who have it to type things. Your condescending tone saying that I only raised the issue of racist double-standards (racist double-standards that both you and Willis apparently embrace, but which I'm glad to say most of my friends regardless of race reject) bespeaks your own ignorance about this medical condition.
You obviosly did not bother to read or listen anywhere near enough to the discussions with war supporters, and you obviously don't know much about the extensive plans that were in place before we went in and that are being carried out now.
One thing I have learned, though, is that arguing with people who are badly misinformed but have no interest in learning why they're misinformed is a waste of time. You are obviously not "discussing" issues, you're rendering large blanket statements about those of us who disagree with you, and then presuming no rational person could possibly diagree with you.
I might suggest an alternative: start asking quetions under the presumption that someone may have attitudes or beliefs you don't yet understand, and showing a willingness to shed your preconceptions. Otherwise, we don't appear to have much to talk about on this subject, because you appear to be too bound up in prejudice and misconceptions to have a discussion with.
But Merry Christmas. :-)
I'll ask you. or Dean what I ended the last post with- 'What Vietnam/Iraq awaits in 2035 due to the myopia of today? What Bush or LBJ then is gonna get thousands of young Americans killed simply to show 'he's a man?''
What awaits Iraq in the coming years is pluralism and democracy, a thing it has never had before--and had we not done the horrible, inhuman, evil thing and abandoned the South Vietnamese, fewer of them would have been slaughtered and fewer of them would have lived in repression.
Thank goodness we are doing the right thing, and ignoring the racists who say that Arabs are incapable of democracy and freedom and self-government. Unlike Vietnam, we will not be cutting and running on those who seek freedom. I am very glad for this, very proud of it, and I'm very glad that those who said we should leave Iraq immediately did not and will not get their way. It would be a crime against humanity if we did.
You really have a lot of misconceptions and prejudices you need to shed, Cosmo.
An acquaintance fwded me an argument thread he had re: arts minutia, and I wa struck how similar all online arguments on. Topic does not matter. I'd post it yet he's chided me b4 about putting his stuff online, esp. at blogs, so I do not want to violate that trust. Still, fascinating- I recall going to a Mensa meeting where 2 nerds almost killed each other over who was the superior Confederate General- Stonewall Jackson or Lee? Hilarious.
Before I get to comment on the general topic of the thread let me address Dean's last point.
Dean, given Viet's long history of mercantilism and independence is it not obvious, now, that the civil war there was, indeed a civil war? Yes, they're bloody, but we and the Soviets made it about 'our' diffs, not theirs? As things turned out it wd not surprise me if they become an economic power in the near future- and a democratic one. This all after the 'Commies' won! In a sense their South's values seem to have emerged as the winner, as did our South's. You're rt- it's a shame that so many innocents died when we left. But, how many more wd have not died had we not stuck our noses in there in the 1st place? C'mon, if McNamara can admit they were wrong, there's no need for apologism now. Ho was ripe for the intellectual taking, had we foresight, after WW2. They were not 'Communists'- thus my statement re: the Girl Scouts. Were there some diehards? Sure. Do you really think all the extremists in the Mid East care of Allah and the afterlife? No, they've nothing now. I suspect Homer Simpsonism is as big a competitor for the religiots in Islam as it is here. Full bellies and minor comforts are amazing weapons against tyranny. Or do you believe that Islamic extremism is so seductive that all these kids are mmaking WHOLLY irrational choices? Those Moslems just can't help themselves....that's silly. There are far more complex reasons for the extremism, and our hand in its tragic rise. Or, was Nat Turner or John Brown merely criminals, w no redeeming qualities? Or is their a chance that the answer lies between? Neither Left nor Right want to grant that- do you?
Back to some other points. I'm sorry if you took my Tourette's thrust the wrong way. Online words sometimes carry no timbre, nor modulation. It was not an attack, merely an example. I accept my point failed- that was to prove that you're no better or worse re: making assumptions as to intent. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
The major thrust of this piece was how diff POVs can disagree, and I chose you and Willis because while you lean right and he left, believe it or not, you are far closer than Rush &Moore. That's what makes your diffs, and hostilities all the more relevant to the point of this thread- no? How can the racebaiting Rushes and deceptive Moores find common ground if you &Willis cannot?
You're angry because he called you a racist, rightly or wrongly, to his perception. You called him a spoiled brat, or the like, and assailed his upbringing, with no facts, and he held that against you. Yet, neither claim, about racism nor his family, were likely true, as were your claims of racism against me. Unlike you or Willis, I'm not invested in such things because you, he, nor any other insubstantial (in an online existential mode) has any truck in the realities of my own daily do- health, financial, &other issues. But, again, the relevance is that you both erect barriers that de-facilitate the purpose of your blogs- to communicate ideas, and even whims.
One simply cannot make sweeping statements based upon a few disagreements. Am I malign because I think you're wrong about Iraq, and think history will bear that assessment out? Or am I not, if you read my whole-hearted agrement with your take on Che Guevara? Or, am I, or anyone else, who modulates there views pers subject matter, and not ideology, mere pretenders, or wishy-washy, or more damnable? That is what moderate is about. Yes, there are 'extreme' opinions I take. I'm pro cap punishment, and also pro-abortion (I detest euphemisms). I favor civil over corporate liberties, and am an agnostic when it comes to religion. I revile tree huggers who spike trees and ant0abs who bomb clinics, yet respect Julia Butterfly Hill and many mainstream pastors who speak out about abortion. yet, I'll disagree w them. I respect others' rights to be religious, but not the beliefs themselves, and expect my right to criticize their beliefs to not be mislabeled as mere bigotry, esp. since it's the claimant's burden to make a case, not the agnostic's to disprove.
Or should I say take that Butterfly girl out, and crucify her as a wacko peacenik? 60 lashes for the pastorate!
Why is saying something a dumb/smart issue a bad thing? There are certainly choices with shade in them, but many are stark. Is not your current wife better than your 1st- to you? does that mean I'm stating your 1st spouse be damned to a certain circle of Hell? If so, why wd you see it that way- or would you be imbuing? If so, cd that fact, imbuement, play a part in our dialogue, or perhaps others' you've had? Or do we just switch gears and talk about racism where none applies. How about those Hunnish Germans in the Great War? They sure don't make barbarians like that. Gets pretty silly, eh?
The case for the Iraq war has been severely undermined, and a humanitarian cause, de facto, necessitates us becoming TR's cop of the globe- to be consistent, unless we determine non-Iraquis, like Kurds, Turkmens, and dozens of other peoples, are somehow less worthy of US humanitarianism. If that's what the nation wants, then so be it. But, I object, and just hope that such sweeping generalizations about all Americans are not made by the new antagonists we create, although history shows I'm as likely to end up on the pile as the warmonger two doors down. Or, as Geoger Romero said so well in Night Of The Living Dead- 'Here's another one for the pile!'
I don't think oil is the dominant issue, merely the primary issue. If one grants a dozen or so possible reasons I'd state oil is still the top reason, even if it's only 20 or so %. Is anyone really arguing oil plays no part? That just seems naive in light of the folk running this war, and our own history, and the well documented statements from returning soldiers that the oil fields are far more well-guarded than, say, tent commissaries.
Am I a traitor for pointing this out? Am I a Leftist? Then how to reckon my damning the Left after 9/11, and up till we found there were no WMDs. It's a bit more complex than that. But, now, the burden has shifted. It's the Right that needs to be held accountable. Yes, the Left 'lucked out' that all of Bush's claims were wrong, and they'd still oppose the war even had we found a nuke on Day 1 in-country. None of that, however, changes subsequent history.
That's an acknowledgement of the reality. Is this occupation on par w Hitler or Stalin's worst forays? Of course not. That's ludicrous. But, false claims from the other side do not make false claims on the Warrior side correct. That's specious logic. Surely you, and others see that.
I argue my position is the consistent one, with all the known facts as they evolved. The Right is now where the Left was pre-invasion, and I don't wanna be there anymore than I did on the Left's side b4. There's no good solution to iraq- only a myriad of bad and worse ones. But, we need to acknowledge our role and culpability, minimize the damage, and try to go after the real bastards.
It does no good to toss up epithets. There can be genuine misunderstandings. Like, as example, my not putting 'the Reds stormed the North' re: Vietnam in quotes, since I meant that was the Right's rationale, not mine. It all gets back to my idea of the interestingness of semiotics.
The point being that we all tend to want to see what we want, in others- be it you or Willis, or any other blogger, or me, or the other posters- but it's the ability to simmer down, and reflect that separates the rational from the not.
Or, to paraphrase Linus Van Pelt, 'That's what this thread is all about, Dean Esmay'
Now, on to the Proenneke review! DAN
Of course, after decades of oppression and genocide at the hands of the evil communists, they have (after mostly surrendering the failed Marxist paradigm) become a democracy that respects human rights. Had we not so immorally abandoned them and, worse, broken our promise to help them arm themselves and fight against the communist aggressors, they would have been a free democratic Republic long, long ago. Just as South Korea is now, thanks to our (also very moral and completely justified) intervention in that so-called "civil war."
McNamara was right in only one sense: he managed the war badly, and it's very arguable that political realities here at home made it impossible to conduct that war properly. And we certainly made mistakes in what we did. But hindsight is 20/20, the domino-effect was proven to be correct--and we did a truly shameful thing when we left but promised to give aide to the South Vietnamese and then broke that promise and cut them off.
In any case, none of this is anything like the situation in Iraq. It's silly to say otherwise.
As for whether it's right to say it's a dumb/smart thing: You're very ill-informed and say a number of patently false things which have been debunked many times here on this blog and on many others. You're poorly informed and so, I guess, it's true, this is a dumb/smart thing. Unfortunately, you're on the dumb side of the argument.
Or that's the position I'm forced to take if you insist on calling this dumb/smart. Besides, it's very dumb in my view to compare any of this to Vietnam.
Does this smart/dumb paradigm of yours really lead to enlightening discussions, in your view? I'm willing to concede that thoughtful people can disagree over Iraq, but as soon as you say it's dumb vs. smart, all potential for mutual understanding goes out the window in my view.
And you're the one coming in here making sweeping statements--dumb/smart, comparisons to Viet Nam, suggesting we're just there because the President wants to be tough, etc. Sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization. That's not conversation.
Regarding oil: so far as I'm concerned it's not even in the top 5 issues, except inasmuch a Saddam would never have become the power he was if it weren't for his oil. But our invading had nothing to do with wanting his oil. This is ridiculous. Saddam offered repeatedly to give the U.S. eclusive and unlimited access to his oil if we'd just leave him alone. We turned him down, and were right to do so.
Regarding Willis: he's attacked me more than once, in unprovoked fashion, and the final straw was when he called me a racist. I lashed back at him. Motherfucker owes me the apology, period.
Back to Iraq (you really ramble a lot, and it's hard to answer all your points when you pack in so much, and so many are based on presumptions I consider ill-informed): we are proceeding according to plan, the same plan we had before the invasion started. We are going to do our best to help them to become a free and independent Republic that respects human rights and joins the modern world. This is a noble and necessary cause--and it would be a horrible crime against humanity for us to leave.
I'm afraid the Domino Theory was not borne out. Even Mcnamara admits this. Dictatorships replace other dictatorships- &they've been around long before their 20th C. incarnations. Do you have information that McNamara does not?
1- a Prez who acts on specious information.
2- a nation that does not empathize w the enemy. (One of Mac's pts in the Morris film) Imagine had Bush been Prez in '62! Oy!
3- an incompetent and/or corrupt intelligence community.
4- insurgents that embody 'evil'
5- a non-conventional frontless war.
6- a cowardly opposition party, who will only stand up against the war when it senses that the tide has turned- reps in the 60s, Dems now.
7- a red under every bed and terrorists everywhere.
8- ulterior motives abounding under stated reasons for the war.
9- relentlessly sunny claims about the war made by an administration that are palpably false, or mostly false.
10- a total denial of seeing our role in the underbelly of things.
That's ten parallels, w/o breaking a sweat, and I'm sure others could lop far longer and detaile dlists in a heartbeat. It still does not deal w the fact that the rationale to go into Iraq was wrong. Period.
If you expect the Left to admit their obvious faux pas, you have to do the same. How can folk converse when the facts that can be ascertained are not admitted? having information means nothing if you don't recognize them- ala LBJ, or Bush.
How wd you have rsolved Vietnam? Wd we still be there? You have to admit errors when they occur. Nixon's chance for immortality came when he cd have been the Prez to stop the war, and say to the world, 'We were wrong.' He cd have pilloried LBJ, with all rectitudem but ego- the famed, 'I'm not gonna be the 1st Prez to lose a war' hubris got to him, as it did LBJ. Yet, we lost, even though we never lost a battle, and killed 10-20 of them for every one of us, to be conservative. We lost.
Another query unasked is- while I agree all people long for sovereignty and freedom, is Wester USA Democracy the only answer? 200+ years and we're still struggling to get it right. If you state it is then you show both a nationalistic and chrono-provincialism. I wonder what scholars in 2500 will make of such a claim? Will they laugh or cry.
Again, the point is these are far bigger issues than the presumed exigencies of today. If human nature and history are not to be used as guides then what is? That seems unalterably dumb. And history shows Vietnam was an error. It was no noble WW2. You cannot accept that, but people far more intimate with it now do- who has the better insight?
I've pointed out specific, not generalizations, and you've again feinted away from the specifics of the topic- re arguing sociably.
'Motherfucker owes me the apology, period.' is not sociable discourse. Period.
To end w Iraq. Of course it's noble to want to do what you suggest. But, do you really think that the bringers of this are a bunch of Peace Corps idealists, or a bunch of military men, backed by that very monster old Ike, in his wisdom, railed against? If the former, let loose the doves, and we can tell all the dead Americans' relations' that their doubts were foolish. If the former, which is more in line with human nature, history, and US history- then what?
I live in TX, but were your paradigm true it would be Mexico. Aside from how you would have ended Vietnam, how would you get us out of Iraq? Wd it not have ben wise if the generals who recommended more troops have been listened to? Or do we just go with the wind? Good intentions mean little to the cold eye of history. This is why Bush is where he is now, granting him that favor, that the Left refuses. Give me a competent realist over a starry eyed dreamer every day, and I'll show you the difference between Uncle Billy Sherman and Robert E. Lee.
I'll take the former. Who wd you take? DAN
1) In the Morris film MacNamara posits these 11 things:
1) Empathize with your enemy
2) Rationality will not save us
3) There is something beyond yourself
4) Maximize efficiency
5) Proportionality should be a guideline in war
6) Get the data
7) Belief and seeing are both often wrong
8) Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning
9) In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
10) Never say never
11) You can't change human nature
I'd say they are good points, and overlooked in the current admin &war. Any other referents beside Dean &I wd be welcome.
2) Do I get a pass for being 'informed' as you re: Che? Or is it possible our convergence there &divergence here has some significance? And wd that not argue against the 'generalizing' charge?
Again, the point is we can reasonably disagree w/o name-calling- no? And, if I'm not reasonably disagreeing then who can, w/o being tarred? DAN
This begins to seem like a pointless conversation. However:
1) I challenge you to tell me where McNamara ever said the Domino Theory was false.
2) Even if he did say it, it would be asinine since the domino theory was PROVEN CORRECT by the quick falls of Laos and Camobodia in the aftermath of our retreat, and Thailand nearly fell. that's a fact, and not something you can wave away with airy generalizations.
3) The modern Vietnamese may try to save face by pretending they were "playing" the Soviets, but they're full of it. We now know that Ho Chi Minh was a KGB operative who took power in North Vietnam using their extensive assistance, and with the same techniques the Soviets used to take over many, many other countries, before or since.
4) Most of your 10 parallels between Vietnam and Iraq strike me as both sweeping generalizations and rather shallow. Even if I were to grant that all of them are true (I don't, but let's pretend I do) this doesn't change the fact that the differences are far greater.
5) The rationales for going to Iraq--we were given well over a dozen by the Administration and by the bi-partisan congressional resolution--were quite justified so far as I'm concerned, up to and including the WMD issue--which the left speciously claims was our primary motivation for going. This has always been false, but as they say, if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. But it's still a lie.
6) How would I have resolved Vietnam? We made several mistakes in Vietnam that could have made that situation better. However, assuming we are talking about the 1970s endgame, I would have kept our promise to the South Veitnamese to arm and supply them so they could continue defending themselves. We broke that promise, even while the Soviets and Chinese kept arming and supplying the North Vietnamese. The Congress broke its promise despite the near-hysterical objections of President Ford--and as a result over a million innocent Vietnamese were slaughtered, while hundreds of thousands spent the rest of their lives in communist concentration camps.
7) To the question of whether democracy and freedom and human rights are "the only way"--this is a spurious question. The Iraqis will find their own way. But I cannot take seriously anyone who does not believe that democratically elected governments, rights for women, rights for minorities, free speech, and free press are not always and everywhere preferable to brutal dictatorships. If we cannot agree on this much then we seriously have nothing to talk about--but I would go back to agreeing that your "smart vs. dumb" paradigm is perfect, only it's not your side that's very smart.
8) People who are far more intimate with Vietnam than either me or you STILL DEBATE the morality of Vietnam, and many still believe it was a moral cause, including many Vietnamese. If you think otherwise, you are ill-informed.
9) It happens to be the case that we are making incredible progress democratizing Iraq, which almost everybody in Iraq knows. If you don't know this then, again, you are ill-informed.
10) To the question of the endgame in Iraq: I expect them to continue their strides toward Democracy. If the elections in January fail, we are going to have to re-evaluate and possibly leave it as a UN protectorate. Otherwise, I expect elections to go off at least as well as they did in Afghanistan, even if one or two provinces may not wind up fully participating. The vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, pluralism, and a free and united Iraq. We will help them in that regard. We may need to bring in others to help us after the elections, or we may not. In any case, I expect we'll have troops there for the next 20-30 years, much as we did and do in places like Germany and South Korea.
11) To your claim that "Motherfucker owes me the apology, period.' is not sociable discourse. Period." Neither is your "dumb vs. smart" rhtetoric, neither are your cheap shots about my medical background (which you still haven't apologized for or retracted), and neither are several other things you've said. In any case: Oliver started with the insults and mudslinging. I have no reason whatsoever to be sociable toward him until the does the honorable thing and retracts his remarks. So I dont' give a flying fuck if it's sociable discourse--I have no reason to be anything OTHER than unsociable toward that racist, prejudiced jerk.
12) Would it have been wise to listen to the generals who said we needed more troops? Perhaps. But many conveniently forget the OTHER generals who said we DID NOT need more troops, and still OTHER generals who have said that more troops would only present more targets and create more casualties and that the best way is to keep the troop strength we have. That may need re-examination, but it's just another sign of how ill-informed some people are that they think that there was ever any universal consensus at the Pentagon that we needed more troops. We may or may not need them; so far we're doing spectacularly well with what we have so I'm willing to let the Pentagon and the people who know more make the tough decisions and not second-guess them.
1) I agree with 1-11. Good thing we're doing most of those in Iraq. You ought to try applying some of them to yourself and your own thinking, though.
2) If you realize that Che was a psychotic murdering monster, that gets you major points in my book.
I haven't called you any names. But you HAVE made sweeping generalizations--things you just assume everyone should agree with. But I don't. Neither do a lot of other quite well-informed people, whether you think we're "dumb" or not.
1) In Fog Of War Mac admits it was a failed theory, in a nicely staged piece replete w falling dominoes.
2) Shining Path failed, Solidarity won. Vietnam was Americanized after we left. Most folk rejected Communism w/o us or our presence. And reagan didn't win the Cold War, either. Unless you think the Prez's from truman to Carter did nothing.
3) Ho was begging for help in Vietnam for decades, from anyone. This is pre-WW2 knowledge. He was not Castro nor Che. Again, you have to see shades.
4) Well, we disagree. I hope you're right, but....
5) I think you've bought the back-tacked and edite lie. But, let's stay humanitarian. Then, you have to insist we go from nation to nation, lest we'd be racists to not wanna free other peoples. Correct? Is that wise? Will you encourage your kids to fight an endless war? Maybe, but will others?
6) You ignore the fact, though, that the South was never gonna win w/o us. Not to mention they were a brutal dictatorhip that slaughtered millions. Our tinpot is better than theirs? Yet, we now see it was wrong when Carter looked the other way in Indonesia? See what I mean? Or was the South filled w angels &Indonesians irredeemable scum?
7) Show me where I stated or even implied 'cannot take seriously anyone who does not believe that democratically elected governments, rights for women, rights for minorities, free speech, and free press are not always and everywhere preferable to brutal dictatorships' C'mon Dean, you're reaching. The q was is ours the only way? Is that cultural bias? The Swedes and French and Japanese have nothing on us, in any way. I agree we might be the best right now, but that does not mean there is not better. And how will the Iraqis find their own way if we are not there to prop them up? In Afghanistan Karzai is a puppet. This is not to say he might not be a good man, but wd he last till teatime w/o us? Are they finding their own way? And suppose, they choose a theocracy- not a radical one, but one guided by Koranic law, that requires things we deem not American?
8) Sure, and there are still Flat Earthers and folk who feel they've been raped by aliens. Being on the fringe is not de facto being wrong, but it is more often than not.
9) There is progress, but to overlook the retrogresses is not a good thing. Two steps forward here, and three back there, well....kind of sounds like the defense dept. Briefings, circa 1966.
10) I guess it's great you are so upbeat. What more to say?
11) You are wrong, and I guess you do not read your postings thoroughly. See anove. Freud wd be smiling over such a slip. Or was 'Back to some other points. I'm sorry if you took my Tourette's thrust the wrong way. Online words sometimes carry no timbre, nor modulation. It was not an attack, merely an example. I accept my point failed- that was to prove that you're no better or worse re: making assumptions as to intent. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.' a mirage? Will you, then, stop generalizing about, and falsely hurling racism charges?
12) Which bunch of generals is looking wiser?
On to tract 2:
How have we empathized w our enemy? Have we recognized our part in the Mid east tragedies? The 2nd one has to do w understanding that our rationality may not be true rationality. Bush cannot think outside this cultural box. To many of these 'nuts' suicide is eminently rational. To me and you it's nuts, but I think that's o for 2.
3 is a wash, 4- I say no (see the generals things above), but hope I'm wrong. 5- a brilliant sequence in the film where Mac compares the sizes of fire bombed jap cities with Am cities. 4k+ Ams lost in 9/11 and the wars vs, an unknown toll so far on the collective 'their side'. It may be worth it, but keep that pt in mind. 6- Get the data- to me, the absolute most crucial element as relates to Iraq. We failed. 7- self-explanatory. 8- even you have to admit Bush &co. fail this. 9- a very cogent and moving point in the film. Those who pillory Truman for the bomb shd rethink things, but it's apropos to Iraq, Viet (esp. our expansion into Cambodia and support for the genocidal South- yes, they were also baddies of the highest order- Fascism ans all) 10- a wash. 11- imp. to remember, because occupiers have a dismal history in war- and most follow the same pattern of eventual retreat, and revision of history, even the few claimed noble ocupations, as this.
'I'm willing to let the Pentagon and the people who know more make the tough decisions and not second-guess them.' I believe old Teddy Roosevelt, the last great Republican, said something to the effect that such an attitude was damn near treasonous- save that he was referring to folk who said he, the Prez, should not be above crit. Quite a change in POV in a century?
Thanks re; Che (ah, poesy). Q- do you admit the South Vietnamese were psychotic, fascist, dictatorial, murderous thugs?
I've said positions were dumb, no person. Wd you not be justified in calling me dumb were I to laud the Turner Diaries as great literature? DAN
That merely explains why I'm spending my holidays tormenting hapless posters in online communities... *snicker*
Merry Christmas, Dean. [I know, not quite the right thread for it, but Happy Holidays to you and the Queen anyway]
1) You certainly do a lot of worshipping at the shrine of McNamara--a man who fucked up Vietnam royally. But he is not the be-all, end-all expert on Vietnam, sorry. And given how bad he screwed up, I'd be more wary of just taking his word for everything if I were you.
2) That's a strange bunch of incoherent generalizations there. I don't particularly feel the need to respond beyond that.
3) Once again, history has left you behind. Ho was, as I told you, a KGB operative. Claims that he was "begging for help for decades" are simply communist propaganda--which is now verified by the opened Soviet and Comintern archives. He was a KGB agent and a Soviet stooge from day one. You need to learn more about history.
4) Me too.
5) I know for a fact that I'm correct, and that you are the one who's bought into historical revisionist lies. It's easily proven by anyone who wants to examine the historical record.
As to the matter of humanitarian intervention: We haven't the resources to use military force in every situation in the world. But since we had well over a dozen reasons for action in Iraq (all of them expressed by the administration, as well as teh Congres), it was the right thing to do. And those of you who opposed it, sadly, are on the wrong side not just of history, but of human rights and human progress.
We will continue to act when we need to military, diplomatically, and otherwise. Ask me on a case-by-case basis; it is a logical fallacy to assert that if we cannot invade every human-rights-oppressing nightmare regime, that means we have no justification for intervening in any of them.
6) Do not accuse me of "ignoring" things. This is a very cheap shot way of debating. You cannot reasonably expect me to write a book for you. The South was doing fine in defending itself until we took away their funding and their arms. And because we did that, Americans--and especially the entire anti-War Left--have the blood of countless innocents on our hands. Which in my view is far more immoral than our actual intervention in the first place.
7) Show me where I stated or even implied 'cannot take seriously anyone who does not believe that democratically elected governments, rights for women, rights for minorities, free speech, and free press are not always and everywhere preferable to brutal dictatorships' C'mon Dean, you're reaching.
No I am NOT reaching. In amongst your many sweeping generalizations, you said THIS:
"...is Wester USA Democracy the only answer? 200+ years and we're still struggling to get it right. If you state it is then you show both a nationalistic and chrono-provincialism. I wonder what scholars in 2500 will make of such a claim? Will they laugh or cry."
That is a clear suggestion that our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq may not be preferable to what came in Iraq before then.
I'm not "reaching." You, on the other hand, are throwing up dozens of arguments and generalizations at once, then making sprious allegations about me becuase I don't answer everything to your satisfaction.
This is a very cheap trick, if common. If you'd be so kind as to stop it and stick to ONE POINT AT A TIME, perhaps this would be worthwhile. But otherwise this is increasingly starting to feel like mental masturbation.
8) You are incredibly ill-informed about Viet Nam. This is obvious the more you write. If you'd like a suggested reading list I'll be happy to help you fix that.
9) Nobody ever said there were no stumbling blocks or places where we've had trouble. But we are most definitely, by any rational or objective measure, making far more strides forward than backwards.
10) I am far more than just "upbeat." I am rendering a judgement based on knowledge.
11) Oh, right, somewhere in those long, rambling, barely coherent messages you issued a half-assed retraction. If I blinked I would have missed it. Excuse me for having failed to take great notice. Perhaps if you'd learn a little discipline, stick to one point at a time, and be less insulting and condescending perhaps I would have been more impressed with it.
12) It's still not clear.
As for Tract 2: You know what? I'm tired of this game. You have unfortunately shown yourself to be terribly ill-informed on the Iraq situation, and I am not going to make it my business to educate you. Continue reading the blog. We have and are doing most of the things you say we should, and if you think otherwise it speaks to your own lack of knowledge and experience.
If you have SPECIFIC questions for me, please bring them up ONE AT A TIME. It is not my job to write essays-on-demand for you.
McNamara was a phony- and the film shows him to be little better than Brutus to LBJ's Caesar, or Bob Ford to his Jesse James. What reason could he have for lying about knowingly deceiving the public now? History's already damned him. And what of South Vietnam- they were not murderous thugs, but 'doing well'? Not in this timeline, nor athat of the Vietnamese and Viet Vets I knew. I grew up and went to school w many Viet refugeees, and knew some later on, all from the South, and all had horror stories. Almost all were on atrocities and murders committed by the South, against them, because they were peasant farmers and suspected of being VC. Why would they lie? These folk were just looking to get along.
In all your knowledge of Vietnam you've not recognized we supported a tyranny- but our tyranny. I know it did not matter, as a way of comfort, to the Viets I knew that their loved ones were killed by fascist thugs, not Commie thugs. Both sides were brutal, and in a death match for the nation. To say we were better, or our guys, is ignoring history. That can offend you, but I doubt not as much as your not recognizing that fact does to the dead of those I knew. Unless they were lying, of course, as part of a geopolitical plot. It seems that you have alot invested, emotionally, beyond reason, in your ideas on Vietnam. Why?
Che was bad. Will you agree that these dictators we supported- Batista, Pinochet, Suharto, Marcos, and even Sukarno- were mass murdering thugs? Or is there a plot out to smear US lackeys thru the decades? You can't have it both ways. If Castro and Saddam and Che are scum, so are the aforementioned. Yet, why did we support them? Fascism and communism are merely shades of totalitarianism, unless you want to argue Hitler and Mussolini are superior dictators to Stalin and Mao? All Presidents before Bush were not as 'gifted' w morality as he? Realpolitik is a thing of the past? Please, let's join in forming a lynch mob for that war criminal, Kissinger, then, since we are now so enlightened. He's as bad as the rest!
In # 6 you say 'Do not accuse me of "ignoring" things.' yet in # 2 you state 'I don't particularly feel the need to respond beyond that.' Need I comment?
In # 7 you know I was stating that to believe that we in America are the epitome of Mankind is silly, yet you try to take that to show me favoring fascism. That's not a cheap trick?
That you deny Ho's past and blame all on the Reds shows you are not as informed as you think on him, nor the War.
As for #11- I'm glad you admit you overlook what's in a dissenter's post. Now, with that out of the way, the q is- is that the 1st time, and if not, are there less obvious instances?
Ah, for the days of the old Bill Buckley debates. Even though I often disagreed with him you couldn't but help love the guy. My guess is he'd have asked you to sit and watch the Master.
Seriously though, you dismiss as unreasonable very reasonable propositions, you argue specious facts, and some that simply have been disproved- re: Vietnam, but most of all, you seem to counter the very thing you put forth in your post. Unless, of course, that's the point, and you've intended to show the difficulty many have in bridging honest differences. I retract- it's a brilliant move! You have made your point. Instead of recognizing that there are honorable and ethical and reasonable and patriotic ways to view a situation differently you have shown that dissenters are not any of those things. A conference table in Versailles awaits, for that ideal has been tried before.
I wd state it is you that argue selectively, and not nearly as thoroughly. There's no dishonor in stating a position was wrong- like my initial support for the Iraq War. Bush may believe that by saying something enough it'll be true, but it's not so, and I wonder what LBJ and Nixon, if they cd do it again, wd do? I hope they'd see what their folly cost. True wisdom can often be gleaned by not only learning from personal errors, but others. But, I guess old Lyndon doesn't even get that solace re: his fellow Texan. Poor bastard! DAN
But if you first cannot wrap your mind around the concept that the communists were worse than we were, worse than the South Vietnamese regime, it's probably a waste of your time.
It seems that you have alot invested, emotionally, beyond reason, in your ideas on Vietnam. Why?
Yet another cheap debating trick. I am only "emotionally invested" in the historical truth. You have a shallow, ill-informed view of the Vietnam conflict, one that dishonors history, dishonors the fallen, and dishonors those in the mass graves and those trapped in totalitarian societies.
You are ill-informed on Vietnam, and have accepted a terribly lopsided and rather hateful view of your own nation. No one's told you this before? You've never considered the possibility that it might be so?
Let me put it this way: I used to believe everything you believe now. 10, 15 years ago I was saying all the same sorts of things you are. I changed my mind when I realized I'd accepted a terribly slanted and distorted view of history. Want to know more? I can still provide you with that reading list I offered.
Che was bad. Will you agree that these dictators we supported- Batista, Pinochet, Suharto, Marcos, and even Sukarno- were mass murdering thugs?
Yes and no. Pick your thug. All were thugs. But Batista was not one tenth the monster that Castro was and is. Pinochet? Not 1% as brutal as Ho Chi Minh. Marcos? Based on body count alone, add up Batista, Pinochet, Marcos, and Suharto, it doesn't match the number of people Uncle Ho massacred in his concentration camps. If you can't face up to that, I don't think we have much else to discuss.
The fact of the matter is that when you're involved in a war—hot or cold—you are sometimes required to get into bed with unsavory people. However, as a rule, the regimes we allied with were far less tyrannical and murderous than the communist regimes they fought, which was why it was right for the U.S. to support them. A madman as bad as Hitler was our ally in World War II—his name was Stalin. But it was necessary to ally with him for a greater cause, the defeat of Japanese and German totalitarianism.
It's sad to me that people today such as yourself are still buying into ridiculous communist propaganda about the likes of Ho Chi Minh. I mean, you still actually believe that pathetic lie that Ho Chi Minh "spent decades" asking for help?
In # 6 you say 'Do not accuse me of "ignoring" things.' yet in # 2 you state 'I don't particularly feel the need to respond beyond that.' Need I comment?
Yet another cheap shot. Your #6 was an incoherent mess of half-formed statements strung together. It also appeared to be a continuation of the cheap trick--one you use constantly--of slapping together several different issues at once and expecting me to answer for all of them. Which, as I already explained, puts unreasonable expectations on whoever you're talking with.
In # 7 you know I was stating that to believe that we in America are the epitome of Mankind is silly, yet you try to take that to show me favoring fascism. That's not a cheap trick?
Incorrect. You made that statement in direct response to my assertion that we're working to bring democracy and human rights to Iraq. Are you saying now that that was not your intention? That I took you out of context? Then what was the context you intended?
Ah, for the days of the old Bill Buckley debates. Even though I often disagreed with him you couldn't but help love the guy. My guess is he'd have asked you to sit and watch the Master.
You know what? Coming in here, condescending to me insulting me (which you've done at least a half-dozen times now) is no way to move forward a discussion. Now you bring up Buckley? It's doubtful if Buckley would have even attempted to argue with someone who argues like you to, slapping together hundreds of barely-related points and half-veiled intimations and then pouting when someone doesn't write you a detailed, point-by-point analysis of every single statement.
No mature debater attempts such things.
Instead of recognizing that there are honorable and ethical and reasonable and patriotic ways to view a situation differently you have shown that dissenters are not any of those things.
Oh, yet another cheap shot. I've done no such thing. There are reasonable and patriotic ways to view a situation differently. You haven't shown yourself to be either. Not so far anyway. Here's my suggestion again: pick ONE or a FEW points, and let's examine those, rather than this "throw fifty items up in the air at once and then act snide when the other party doesn't answer them all to your satisfaction" method you seem so fond of.
If your'e willing to stop with the cheap tricks, start bringing up points in a reasonable way that can actually be discussed, feel free. But only if you can consider the remote possibility that what you think you know about a subject might possibly be misinformed or that an intelligent well-informed person might think you're wrong.
"Arabs are Caucasians, the vast majority of Sudanese are not. The black skin remark was to state that we won't go and help suffering blacks, not that we're still in plantation mode."
Haitians and Somalis are black. How do you account for that?
(Just for the record, Bush is biased in FAVOR of Arabs?)
Besides, did we invade Iraq because it has oil or because it's Caucasian? You've got to make up your mind before you can be refuted!
The hard left always works under the assumption that America is inherently racist. This leads them to say, without irony, that we went to war in Iraq and Vietnam because they weren't white people and therefore we felt we could kill them, and then to say we did NOT go to war in other countries because the people there were not white.
The worst among the hard left actually suggest that we only used the atomic bomb on Japan because they were not white, and that we never would have used an atom bomb on the Germans. Which is utter nonsense of course, but it's illustrative of just how deeply hateful toward America some on the left have gotten.
Mind you, there are those on the hard right who also hate America. Conservatives should acknowledge that they have such people in their ranks too.