A Failed Revolution
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Friday 29 December 2006
http://snipurl.com/16a4x
After first attempting to deny the scale of last month's defeat, the apologists have settled on a story line that sounds just like Marxist explanations for the failure of the Soviet Union. What happened, you see, was that the noble ideals of the Republican revolution of 1994 were undermined by Washington's corrupting ways. And the recent defeat was a good thing, because it will force a return to the true conservative path.
But the truth is that the movement that took power in 1994 - a movement that had little to do with true conservatism - was always based on a lie.
[...]
As long as people like Mr. Armey, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were out of power, they could run on promises to eliminate vast government waste that existed only in the public's imagination - all those welfare queens driving Cadillacs. But once in power, they couldn't deliver.
[G]overnment by the radical right has been an utter failure even on its own terms: the government hasn't shrunk. Federal outlays other than interest payments and defense spending are a higher percentage of G.D.P. Today ... 14.8 percent in fiscal 2006, compared with 13.8 percent in fiscal 1995.
Unable to make good on its promises, the G.O.P., like other failed revolutionary movements, tried to maintain its grip by exploiting its position of power. Friends were rewarded with patronage: ... Adversaries were harassed with smear campaigns and witch hunts: Congress spent six years and many millions of dollars investigating a failed land deal, and Bill Clinton was impeached over a consensual affair.
[...]
In the end, Republicans didn't shrink the government. But they did degrade it. Baghdad and New Orleans are the arrival destinations of a movement based on deep contempt for governance.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Dyer Hope for Middle East
2006 Year-Ender
18 December 2006
By Gwynne Dyer
http://snipurl.com/16a0r
It is now clear that America's moment in the Middle East is coming to an end. It has been a rather long moment -- the United States has called most of the shots in the region since the 1960s -- but recently it has turned into a classic case of imperial over-stretch. So we will soon find out if a strong American presence really was vital for all of those years to keep the oil flowing, keep the crazies from seizing power, and keep Israel safe.
[...]
Will disaster ensue? Probably not, except in Iraq (where it has already arrived) and perhaps in Lebanon. Except for those two countries, the Middle East is a massively stable area where no regime has been overthrown since Iran in 1979. Many of the region's other countries also contain aggrieved religious and ethnic minorities, but the awful price that Iraqis and Lebanese paid when the status quo was destroyed makes people elsewhere very reluctant to consider radical change. The legions are going home, but the barbarians are not at the gates.
18 December 2006
By Gwynne Dyer
http://snipurl.com/16a0r
It is now clear that America's moment in the Middle East is coming to an end. It has been a rather long moment -- the United States has called most of the shots in the region since the 1960s -- but recently it has turned into a classic case of imperial over-stretch. So we will soon find out if a strong American presence really was vital for all of those years to keep the oil flowing, keep the crazies from seizing power, and keep Israel safe.
[...]
Will disaster ensue? Probably not, except in Iraq (where it has already arrived) and perhaps in Lebanon. Except for those two countries, the Middle East is a massively stable area where no regime has been overthrown since Iran in 1979. Many of the region's other countries also contain aggrieved religious and ethnic minorities, but the awful price that Iraqis and Lebanese paid when the status quo was destroyed makes people elsewhere very reluctant to consider radical change. The legions are going home, but the barbarians are not at the gates.
3 Funerals & a Vetting
James Brown – the death of America's Soul
Gerald Ford – the death of America's Moderation and Integrity
Saddam Hussein – America's attempt to kill its Shadow
... as vetted by Snerd
Gerald Ford – the death of America's Moderation and Integrity
Saddam Hussein – America's attempt to kill its Shadow
... as vetted by Snerd
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Quagmire on the Ground ... Grounded in the Mind
It seems to me that these Neocons have taken terrorism, which was a manageable threat and by ignoring Clinton's warnings, escalated it through hyping nonexistent threats, through denial of existing ones, and through bad policy even more badly implemented, raised it to heights unimagined before they came to office.
In the Arab world, before the 'Project for a New American Century', Islamists were clearly a threat, but minor and sidelined in terms of broad public support. With Bush's mono-dimensional PNAC foreign policy, Islamists have been able to lever the huge, heavy, colossal power of the west to do its bidding.
The Islamist goal of a Pan Arab theocracy required the destablization of monarchies and secular regimes in the Middle East, for their project to have any possibility. Since they themselves lacked sufficient direct influence to bring this change about, they needed something or someone else to help them do it ... Enter an adolescent heroic archetype, a 1940's cinematic version of a western sheriff in the form of Jr. ... apparently too irresistible an image for the MSM.
However, out maneuvering the USA, Islamists have not only been able to create a destablized environment they can exploit, but also have been able to provide a 'good/evil' story line, where even moderate Muslims who do not support a radical Islamist theocracy, can still see the west as wrong, if not evil ... and to add ironically to tragedy, inflicted this storyline on the land where advertising is king. For the Islamists, it is indeed "Mission Accomplished"
One of the many justifications for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and for staying now, is the prevention of destablization and greater radical Islamist influence in Iraq and the Middle East. However, these justifications are now even more valid AFTER Neoconservative 'PRE-ventative' intervention. This regressive slide into a debacle, has concurrently now exhausted military options, as well as US public and world trust.
'Situations' such as this, often get the mind thinking in 'What if?' terms.
'What if Afghanistan had been effectively provided actual governance and economic development, before the Taliban had 4 plus year to re-establish themselves?' What if initial efforts had begun to altered the kind of poverty and exclusion from politics, that breeds the rational for radicalism?' 'What if', this 'o-mission' had been noticed while reconstruction was still possible?
But was exclusive Coalition 'Reconstruction' (grimy enticement and punishment offered up from the 'morality' of the 'Values Guyz') ever really an option in the Neocon tool box ... except as a means to obscene corporate profits?
Aside from the facts 'on the ground' that support this question, isn't it the neocon 'compassionate social mind' that wants to punish the disadvantaged, to 'awaken' them to their own responsibility, for the conditions of their poverty at the bottom of the capitalist pyramid? It is the sort of mind that now demands that Iraqis take responsibility for the chaos unleashed by the USA when it removed an existing social order (however troubled it was), and not replaced it with another (sans any US accountability for doing so).
'What if' , BEFORE incompetent implementation of negligently created policy, Bush had listened to Clinton and eliminated Bin Laden?
'What if' the MSM had dealt investigatively with Bush's 9/11, or with forces in the Middle East, as opposed to providing infotainment? 'What if' the MSM had provided actual facts around the Bush foreign policy, in other than talking points and public opinion polls that measure their dissemination? Would we now be in this position where we can NOT leave Iraq without creating catastrophe, while we can NOT stay in Iraq without furthering chaos?
To complicate matters, if Juan Cole is correct, we now have the Baker-Hamilton Commission attempting to create a realignment of the Administration's Middle East policy, with a return to a Bush Sr. orientation towards the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia in particular, and which would now also include Syria).
Whether that is so or not, it appears Jr. is attempting to prop up the Iranian aligned Shia government of Maliki, while being unwilling to accept Iranian involvement or victory as a consequence ... Is this even rational?
If NOT, is the MSM contributing to the hopelessness, from the apparent lack of 'viable options', by treating Jr's 'rhetorical re-tooling' of his 'stay the course' to 'success', as rational?
It seems clear at least up until now in the MSM, almost nobody in positions of effective responsibility are willing to make real contextual sense of the Administration's policy and actions. Up until now, everything was formed in faux values, with faux story lines. For example, the MSM ignored the interchangability of justifications for War, replacing one another virtually without any real accounting, and simply keying in on the 'new campaign' slogans ... Truly Orwellian!
But at some point, public pressure however it is constructed and however it is informed, will come into play in Iraq - just as the lack therefore allowed certain political options to be viable for the Neocons, going in to Iraq. It will again bring its influence to bear and allow another limited range of options, Bush's stubbornness included.
In part, this pressure will emerge from its own Green Zone like, MSM experience. It will be limited by a MSM intellectual environment, already polluted by its refusal to step outside the 'protective' walls of rhetorical talking points, to provided sufficient investigative facticity to allow for much more than the odd incursion into informed debate, from the periphery.
We also see the Democratic Party, victorious after running a no platform campaign, struggling to come to grips with its 'NOT (R)' mandate, attempting to create policy and direction out of the ambivalence it nurtured in the mid terms.
Is this a public 'informed' by a MSM, as well as a Party, with insufficient 'command' of facticity to extricate themselves from the simplicity of rhetorical talking points? Are they too mired in this (and therefore their own), intellectual quagmire ... too stranded in faux Values, addressing faux events, and so only capable of seeing and supporting faux options?
If so ... one wonders where the events in the Middle East will stagger too next, if this is where public pressure and alternative policy emerge from ...
Snerd
In the Arab world, before the 'Project for a New American Century', Islamists were clearly a threat, but minor and sidelined in terms of broad public support. With Bush's mono-dimensional PNAC foreign policy, Islamists have been able to lever the huge, heavy, colossal power of the west to do its bidding.
The Islamist goal of a Pan Arab theocracy required the destablization of monarchies and secular regimes in the Middle East, for their project to have any possibility. Since they themselves lacked sufficient direct influence to bring this change about, they needed something or someone else to help them do it ... Enter an adolescent heroic archetype, a 1940's cinematic version of a western sheriff in the form of Jr. ... apparently too irresistible an image for the MSM.
However, out maneuvering the USA, Islamists have not only been able to create a destablized environment they can exploit, but also have been able to provide a 'good/evil' story line, where even moderate Muslims who do not support a radical Islamist theocracy, can still see the west as wrong, if not evil ... and to add ironically to tragedy, inflicted this storyline on the land where advertising is king. For the Islamists, it is indeed "Mission Accomplished"
One of the many justifications for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and for staying now, is the prevention of destablization and greater radical Islamist influence in Iraq and the Middle East. However, these justifications are now even more valid AFTER Neoconservative 'PRE-ventative' intervention. This regressive slide into a debacle, has concurrently now exhausted military options, as well as US public and world trust.
'Situations' such as this, often get the mind thinking in 'What if?' terms.
'What if Afghanistan had been effectively provided actual governance and economic development, before the Taliban had 4 plus year to re-establish themselves?' What if initial efforts had begun to altered the kind of poverty and exclusion from politics, that breeds the rational for radicalism?' 'What if', this 'o-mission' had been noticed while reconstruction was still possible?
But was exclusive Coalition 'Reconstruction' (grimy enticement and punishment offered up from the 'morality' of the 'Values Guyz') ever really an option in the Neocon tool box ... except as a means to obscene corporate profits?
Aside from the facts 'on the ground' that support this question, isn't it the neocon 'compassionate social mind' that wants to punish the disadvantaged, to 'awaken' them to their own responsibility, for the conditions of their poverty at the bottom of the capitalist pyramid? It is the sort of mind that now demands that Iraqis take responsibility for the chaos unleashed by the USA when it removed an existing social order (however troubled it was), and not replaced it with another (sans any US accountability for doing so).
'What if' , BEFORE incompetent implementation of negligently created policy, Bush had listened to Clinton and eliminated Bin Laden?
'What if' the MSM had dealt investigatively with Bush's 9/11, or with forces in the Middle East, as opposed to providing infotainment? 'What if' the MSM had provided actual facts around the Bush foreign policy, in other than talking points and public opinion polls that measure their dissemination? Would we now be in this position where we can NOT leave Iraq without creating catastrophe, while we can NOT stay in Iraq without furthering chaos?
To complicate matters, if Juan Cole is correct, we now have the Baker-Hamilton Commission attempting to create a realignment of the Administration's Middle East policy, with a return to a Bush Sr. orientation towards the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia in particular, and which would now also include Syria).
Whether that is so or not, it appears Jr. is attempting to prop up the Iranian aligned Shia government of Maliki, while being unwilling to accept Iranian involvement or victory as a consequence ... Is this even rational?
If NOT, is the MSM contributing to the hopelessness, from the apparent lack of 'viable options', by treating Jr's 'rhetorical re-tooling' of his 'stay the course' to 'success', as rational?
It seems clear at least up until now in the MSM, almost nobody in positions of effective responsibility are willing to make real contextual sense of the Administration's policy and actions. Up until now, everything was formed in faux values, with faux story lines. For example, the MSM ignored the interchangability of justifications for War, replacing one another virtually without any real accounting, and simply keying in on the 'new campaign' slogans ... Truly Orwellian!
But at some point, public pressure however it is constructed and however it is informed, will come into play in Iraq - just as the lack therefore allowed certain political options to be viable for the Neocons, going in to Iraq. It will again bring its influence to bear and allow another limited range of options, Bush's stubbornness included.
In part, this pressure will emerge from its own Green Zone like, MSM experience. It will be limited by a MSM intellectual environment, already polluted by its refusal to step outside the 'protective' walls of rhetorical talking points, to provided sufficient investigative facticity to allow for much more than the odd incursion into informed debate, from the periphery.
We also see the Democratic Party, victorious after running a no platform campaign, struggling to come to grips with its 'NOT (R)' mandate, attempting to create policy and direction out of the ambivalence it nurtured in the mid terms.
Is this a public 'informed' by a MSM, as well as a Party, with insufficient 'command' of facticity to extricate themselves from the simplicity of rhetorical talking points? Are they too mired in this (and therefore their own), intellectual quagmire ... too stranded in faux Values, addressing faux events, and so only capable of seeing and supporting faux options?
If so ... one wonders where the events in the Middle East will stagger too next, if this is where public pressure and alternative policy emerge from ...
Snerd
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Z a c c a r d e l l i ... i l l e d r a c c a Z
Z a c c a r d e l l i ... knew
I l l e d r a c c a z ... didn't know then, that I'd know it later
Z a c - d e l l i - c a r ... now I know, that I didn't know when I knew, now that I know what I knew when I didn't know, but thought I did ...
Resignation
Coming
Most
Probably
Snerd
UPDATE:
Apparently Zaccardelli showed up for work this afternoon after resigning this morning. He claimed he did not know this afternoon, that he'd resigned this morning, but said he remembered it tomorrow.
I l l e d r a c c a z ... didn't know then, that I'd know it later
Z a c - d e l l i - c a r ... now I know, that I didn't know when I knew, now that I know what I knew when I didn't know, but thought I did ...
Resignation
Coming
Most
Probably
Snerd
UPDATE:
Apparently Zaccardelli showed up for work this afternoon after resigning this morning. He claimed he did not know this afternoon, that he'd resigned this morning, but said he remembered it tomorrow.
RATIONALITY and SSM ... Mutually Exclusive, Phil?
I did not want this attempt at a discussion with Phill from http://defend-canada.blogspot.com/, to get lost in accumulating threads there and in cumulative obfuscation, be it intentional or not.
The topic of SSM was covered very well by Red at http://redtory.blogspot.com/, and so it is not my intent to repeat the content here. Instead, I am interested in exploring 'how' Phil establishes his 'content', his position … and am interested in engaging Phil in that process. So, I am presenting it here in its own thread.
THE CONCEPTUAL 'PRESENTATION' … to date
1. RESPECTING MARRIAGE (R)-Goo-Ment
Phil: You do not respect marriage as something between a man and a women, so why respect marriage between two people?
vs
SG: You do not respect marriage as something between two people, so how can you respect marriage between a man and a women?
The QUESTION (presented now for the F-O-U-R-T-H time to Phil) is, given the structure of the (R)-Goo-ment you've chosen Phil, isn't it a proof of bias rather than an argument proving its so called conclusion?
Since the argument works in reverse, doesn't it show one's axiomatic starting point is one's axiomatic conclusion - and therefore there is no difference between the two. So, isn't the (R)-Goo-Ment and therefore its conclusion ONLY a reflection of 'original bias', and NOT an argument at all?
In fact, I think it is a stronger case to say 'appreciating the general case for Love and Marriage between Any Two People (ATP) includes the particular Hetro Sex Marriage (HSM)'
BUT
Only appreciating the Particular (HSM), because it rejects the General, Any Sex Marriage (ASM), is minimally deficient in its appreciation of Love because of this exclusion, and so is a deficient position on Love and Marriage, if the two have any link.
The failure to admit the Love-Marriage link, heads us down the road of Traditional Arranged Marriage and the possible legislation of cultural and religious preference …
So isn't your '(R)-Goo-Ment' not only NOT an argument, but when examined points to ASM as a stronger case?
2. If SSM, then NO MARRIAGE at all
The SSM = Polygamy + Man/Dog Marriage (R)-Goo-Ment is ...
'If you don't draw My Line (HSM), then you can draw Any Line' … if you do not arbitrarily hold the line at 'Straight' marriage, then you CAN NOT draw any line at all, demarcating Marriage. You CAN NOT draw the line (arbitrarily and/or volitionally), say at Marriage is between Any Two People.
This is a silly argument and collapses upon itself, with minimal thought ... if applied that is ...
Nevertheless, it is curious how the Arbitrary Absolutists continue to see changing a boundary equating to NO BOUNDARIES at all. Or conversely, if one does not adopt their boundaries, then NO BOUNDARIES are possible.
Arbitrary Absolutists reserve the right to draw this line, for themselves ... exclusively. They are able to have particular boundaries, but 'anyone else' is NOT ... WHY!?
There is no logical justification for this exclusivity. And since there is none, what's the logically constructed case for the inclusion of their double standard, then?
... The 'thoughtless' I L L O G I C of FEAR ... EXCLUSIVELY ... I think ...
Snerd
The topic of SSM was covered very well by Red at http://redtory.blogspot.com/, and so it is not my intent to repeat the content here. Instead, I am interested in exploring 'how' Phil establishes his 'content', his position … and am interested in engaging Phil in that process. So, I am presenting it here in its own thread.
THE CONCEPTUAL 'PRESENTATION' … to date
1. RESPECTING MARRIAGE (R)-Goo-Ment
Phil: You do not respect marriage as something between a man and a women, so why respect marriage between two people?
vs
SG: You do not respect marriage as something between two people, so how can you respect marriage between a man and a women?
The QUESTION (presented now for the F-O-U-R-T-H time to Phil) is, given the structure of the (R)-Goo-ment you've chosen Phil, isn't it a proof of bias rather than an argument proving its so called conclusion?
Since the argument works in reverse, doesn't it show one's axiomatic starting point is one's axiomatic conclusion - and therefore there is no difference between the two. So, isn't the (R)-Goo-Ment and therefore its conclusion ONLY a reflection of 'original bias', and NOT an argument at all?
In fact, I think it is a stronger case to say 'appreciating the general case for Love and Marriage between Any Two People (ATP) includes the particular Hetro Sex Marriage (HSM)'
BUT
Only appreciating the Particular (HSM), because it rejects the General, Any Sex Marriage (ASM), is minimally deficient in its appreciation of Love because of this exclusion, and so is a deficient position on Love and Marriage, if the two have any link.
The failure to admit the Love-Marriage link, heads us down the road of Traditional Arranged Marriage and the possible legislation of cultural and religious preference …
So isn't your '(R)-Goo-Ment' not only NOT an argument, but when examined points to ASM as a stronger case?
2. If SSM, then NO MARRIAGE at all
The SSM = Polygamy + Man/Dog Marriage (R)-Goo-Ment is ...
'If you don't draw My Line (HSM), then you can draw Any Line' … if you do not arbitrarily hold the line at 'Straight' marriage, then you CAN NOT draw any line at all, demarcating Marriage. You CAN NOT draw the line (arbitrarily and/or volitionally), say at Marriage is between Any Two People.
This is a silly argument and collapses upon itself, with minimal thought ... if applied that is ...
Nevertheless, it is curious how the Arbitrary Absolutists continue to see changing a boundary equating to NO BOUNDARIES at all. Or conversely, if one does not adopt their boundaries, then NO BOUNDARIES are possible.
Arbitrary Absolutists reserve the right to draw this line, for themselves ... exclusively. They are able to have particular boundaries, but 'anyone else' is NOT ... WHY!?
There is no logical justification for this exclusivity. And since there is none, what's the logically constructed case for the inclusion of their double standard, then?
... The 'thoughtless' I L L O G I C of FEAR ... EXCLUSIVELY ... I think ...
Snerd
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment
Iraq What Next? By (R) Vet http://snipurl.com/13dhb
1. Do NOT ... I - N - V - E - S - T - I - G - A - T - E
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
Those who believe that the President, "lied, " will continue to do so regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Those that support the reasons we fight in Iraq will continue to do so regardless of the opposition ... Why we are there and how we got involved is a moot point […] The majority of the American people though weary of the situation in Iraq are not in favor of pulling out of the country so continually presenting this as an option by those on the left in this country does nothing but embolden those fighting against a free Iraq.
Evidence: CNN Poll Nov. 17-19, 2006
16%- Send More
21%- Keep Same Number
27%- Withdraw Some
33%- Withdraw All
3%- Unsure
2. Syria and Iran, The 'SPOKE' of Evil
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment: [Opposing the President], does nothing but embolden those fighting against a free Iraq. It also gives Syria and Iran the notion that they can now position themselves to control a country that they both have designs on
SG: And to think, it took opposition in America for them to get that notion … Boy! IF they'd known about this American democracy thing and how it weakened itself with differing opinions earlier, just imagine what devilish stuff they coulda got up to ...
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment: Handling this situation is precarious at best but involving them as an active partner is worse. Closing the border between the two countries and Iraq to stop the flow of material' and fighters should at least be a first step quelling the current situation but with relations established between Iraq and Syria closing that border that is not likely now.
SG: Ahhh … So NO Bake(R) Commission, NO solution, but Do NOT Negotiate ... Just sorta i-n-v-e-s-t-i-g-a-t-i-v-e the coulda, shoulda, woulda of it? Oooops! You forgot we weren't suppose ta do that! Remember, 'Why they are there and how they got involved is a moot point.'
3. TERRORISM
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment: It is also a misconception that our involvement in Iraq creates terrorism. Those opposed to Iraq seem to forget that terrorist attacks and terrorism existed long before we entered Iraq and that we too were attacked before Iraq became a battlefield.
Evidence: Newsweek Poll Nov. 9-10, 2006
"Do you think the war with Iraq has made the U.S. safer or less safe from terrorism?"
35% - Safer
56% - Less Safe
7% - No Change
2% - Unsure
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
As in any war situation more soldiers are deployed by an enemy as the fight continues. Our presence in Iraq does not , "create, " terrorists but it does deploy terrorists to the fight which is why more have been found in Iraq.
Evidence: US intelligence report:
A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse. […] the NIE document, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," says the war plays a much more direct role in the spread of Islamic radicalism around the world than has previously been indicated by the White House, or in a recent report by the US House intelligence committee.
The Christian Science Monitor, Iraq war breeding more terrorists By Tom Regan - http://snipurl.com/13d8j
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
Our involvement and that of our coalition partners does prevent the utter chaos that would ensue were we not there. […]they are what is keeping this fragile country in any resemblance of security and stability
Evidence: Newsweek Poll Nov. 9-10, 2006
"All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?"
30% - Making Progress
63% - Losing Ground
7% - Unsure
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
the President … as Commander in Chief he has the final word.
Evidence: Pew Research Center 11/9-12/06
"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"
19% - Has a Clear Plan
74% - Doesn't Have a Clear Plan
7% - Unsure
SG: Ahhhh! The W-O-R-D thing. Well I understand he is consulting his father on that ... though the area code he's using is a bit more secular, this time!
Snerd
1. Do NOT ... I - N - V - E - S - T - I - G - A - T - E
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
Those who believe that the President, "lied, " will continue to do so regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Those that support the reasons we fight in Iraq will continue to do so regardless of the opposition ... Why we are there and how we got involved is a moot point […] The majority of the American people though weary of the situation in Iraq are not in favor of pulling out of the country so continually presenting this as an option by those on the left in this country does nothing but embolden those fighting against a free Iraq.
Evidence: CNN Poll Nov. 17-19, 2006
16%- Send More
21%- Keep Same Number
27%- Withdraw Some
33%- Withdraw All
3%- Unsure
2. Syria and Iran, The 'SPOKE' of Evil
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment: [Opposing the President], does nothing but embolden those fighting against a free Iraq. It also gives Syria and Iran the notion that they can now position themselves to control a country that they both have designs on
SG: And to think, it took opposition in America for them to get that notion … Boy! IF they'd known about this American democracy thing and how it weakened itself with differing opinions earlier, just imagine what devilish stuff they coulda got up to ...
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment: Handling this situation is precarious at best but involving them as an active partner is worse. Closing the border between the two countries and Iraq to stop the flow of material' and fighters should at least be a first step quelling the current situation but with relations established between Iraq and Syria closing that border that is not likely now.
SG: Ahhh … So NO Bake(R) Commission, NO solution, but Do NOT Negotiate ... Just sorta i-n-v-e-s-t-i-g-a-t-i-v-e the coulda, shoulda, woulda of it? Oooops! You forgot we weren't suppose ta do that! Remember, 'Why they are there and how they got involved is a moot point.'
3. TERRORISM
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment: It is also a misconception that our involvement in Iraq creates terrorism. Those opposed to Iraq seem to forget that terrorist attacks and terrorism existed long before we entered Iraq and that we too were attacked before Iraq became a battlefield.
Evidence: Newsweek Poll Nov. 9-10, 2006
"Do you think the war with Iraq has made the U.S. safer or less safe from terrorism?"
35% - Safer
56% - Less Safe
7% - No Change
2% - Unsure
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
As in any war situation more soldiers are deployed by an enemy as the fight continues. Our presence in Iraq does not , "create, " terrorists but it does deploy terrorists to the fight which is why more have been found in Iraq.
Evidence: US intelligence report:
A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse. […] the NIE document, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," says the war plays a much more direct role in the spread of Islamic radicalism around the world than has previously been indicated by the White House, or in a recent report by the US House intelligence committee.
The Christian Science Monitor, Iraq war breeding more terrorists By Tom Regan - http://snipurl.com/13d8j
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
Our involvement and that of our coalition partners does prevent the utter chaos that would ensue were we not there. […]they are what is keeping this fragile country in any resemblance of security and stability
Evidence: Newsweek Poll Nov. 9-10, 2006
"All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?"
30% - Making Progress
63% - Losing Ground
7% - Unsure
Republican Vet'd (R)-Goo-Ment:
the President … as Commander in Chief he has the final word.
Evidence: Pew Research Center 11/9-12/06
"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"
19% - Has a Clear Plan
74% - Doesn't Have a Clear Plan
7% - Unsure
SG: Ahhhh! The W-O-R-D thing. Well I understand he is consulting his father on that ... though the area code he's using is a bit more secular, this time!
Snerd
16,000 Single Moms in Iraq
Yearning to Be Whole Again
By Donna St. George
The Washington Post
http://snipurl.com/13d0n
Friday 24 November 2006
[...]
When war started in Iraq, a generation of U.S. women became involved as never before - in a wider-than-ever array of jobs, for long deployments, in a conflict with daily bloodshed. More than 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among their ranks are more than 16,000 single mothers, according to the Pentagon, a number that military experts say is unprecedented.
How these women have coped and how their children are managing have gone little-noticed as the war stretches across a fourth year.
"It has to be one of the hardest things that a mom and her children have to go through," said Steven Mintz, a University of Houston professor with an expertise in family life. "You can't cuddle a young child over the phone, and you can't cuddle a child through e-mail."
In the military, parental status is not a barrier to serving in a war. All deploy when the call comes - single mothers, single fathers, married couples - relying on a "family-care plan" that designates a caregiver for children when parents are gone.
SG: HMMMmmm .... Family Values, a 'POOR Example', I guess.
Someone ought ta try and get another 'Murphy Brown'-like quote from Dan Qyayle on this. Since his Family Values were so disturbed by Single Moms, how would he feel about No Mom, PARENTLESS Families ... keepin' Tax Cuts for the (R)ich Safe in America
Snerd
By Donna St. George
The Washington Post
http://snipurl.com/13d0n
Friday 24 November 2006
[...]
When war started in Iraq, a generation of U.S. women became involved as never before - in a wider-than-ever array of jobs, for long deployments, in a conflict with daily bloodshed. More than 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among their ranks are more than 16,000 single mothers, according to the Pentagon, a number that military experts say is unprecedented.
How these women have coped and how their children are managing have gone little-noticed as the war stretches across a fourth year.
"It has to be one of the hardest things that a mom and her children have to go through," said Steven Mintz, a University of Houston professor with an expertise in family life. "You can't cuddle a young child over the phone, and you can't cuddle a child through e-mail."
In the military, parental status is not a barrier to serving in a war. All deploy when the call comes - single mothers, single fathers, married couples - relying on a "family-care plan" that designates a caregiver for children when parents are gone.
SG: HMMMmmm .... Family Values, a 'POOR Example', I guess.
Someone ought ta try and get another 'Murphy Brown'-like quote from Dan Qyayle on this. Since his Family Values were so disturbed by Single Moms, how would he feel about No Mom, PARENTLESS Families ... keepin' Tax Cuts for the (R)ich Safe in America
Snerd
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Lost in the Desert - Dowd
Lost in the Desert
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times
Wednesday 22 November 2006
It's hard to remember when America has been so stuck. We can't win and we can't leave.
The good news is that the election finished what Katrina started. It dismantled the president's fake reality about Iraq, causing opinions to come gushing forth from all quarters about where to go from here.
The bad news is that no one, and I mean no one, really knows where to go from here. The White House and the Pentagon are ready to shift to Plan B. But Plan B is their empty term for miraculous salvation.
(Dick Cheney and his wormy aides, of course, are still babbling about total victory and completing the mission by raising the stakes and knocking off the mullahs in Tehran. His tombstone will probably say, "Here lies Dick Cheney, still winning.")
Even Henry Kissinger has defected from the Plan A gang. Once he thought the war could work, but now he thinks military victory is out of the question. When he turns against a war, you know the war's in trouble. He also believes leaving quickly would risk a civil war so big it could destabilize the Middle East.
Kofi Annan, who thought the war was crazy, now says that the United States is "trapped in Iraq" and can't leave until the Iraqis can create a "secure environment" - even though the Iraqis evince not the slightest interest in a secure environment. (The death squads even assassinated a popular comedian this week.)
The retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who thought Mr. Bush's crusade to depose Saddam was foolish and did not want to send in any troops, now thinks we may have to send in more troops so we can eventually get out.
[...]
At a Senate hearing last week, Gen. John Abizaid sounded like Goldilocks meets Guernica, asserting two propositions about the war that are logically at war with each other. He said we can't have fewer troops because the Iraqis need us, but we can't have more because we don't want the Iraqis to become dependent on us.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times
Wednesday 22 November 2006
It's hard to remember when America has been so stuck. We can't win and we can't leave.
The good news is that the election finished what Katrina started. It dismantled the president's fake reality about Iraq, causing opinions to come gushing forth from all quarters about where to go from here.
The bad news is that no one, and I mean no one, really knows where to go from here. The White House and the Pentagon are ready to shift to Plan B. But Plan B is their empty term for miraculous salvation.
(Dick Cheney and his wormy aides, of course, are still babbling about total victory and completing the mission by raising the stakes and knocking off the mullahs in Tehran. His tombstone will probably say, "Here lies Dick Cheney, still winning.")
Even Henry Kissinger has defected from the Plan A gang. Once he thought the war could work, but now he thinks military victory is out of the question. When he turns against a war, you know the war's in trouble. He also believes leaving quickly would risk a civil war so big it could destabilize the Middle East.
Kofi Annan, who thought the war was crazy, now says that the United States is "trapped in Iraq" and can't leave until the Iraqis can create a "secure environment" - even though the Iraqis evince not the slightest interest in a secure environment. (The death squads even assassinated a popular comedian this week.)
The retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who thought Mr. Bush's crusade to depose Saddam was foolish and did not want to send in any troops, now thinks we may have to send in more troops so we can eventually get out.
[...]
At a Senate hearing last week, Gen. John Abizaid sounded like Goldilocks meets Guernica, asserting two propositions about the war that are logically at war with each other. He said we can't have fewer troops because the Iraqis need us, but we can't have more because we don't want the Iraqis to become dependent on us.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Incommensurability - Christianity and 'Difference'
ER: Homosexuality - The issue of the century for Christianity
from "When Religion Looses Credibility" at, http://eruditeredneck.blogspot.com/
SG: I think you're on to something here, ER. However for me it is not the content of this issue (one's sexual orientation), which is the critical issue, it is the structure of the 'problem', of the 'mind' exposed by it, which is at the 'heart' of the 'crisis'.
It seems to me that those who profess to be Christians are essential one of two sorts. They are either focused on Love and it inclusiveness, or they are focused on Evil and its exclusion. The languaging of the former, of Love, is "We & Us". The language of the latter is "Them & Us".
Pointing the Love alternatives out to the "Them & Us" folks and suggesting the "We" alternative is not only more positive but more Christian, does not provide convincing evidence at all. Incommensurably, quite the contrary.
It seems to provide evidence that you are arguing for the inclusion of Evil … which 'they' claim to Hate, as an act of luvin' God … a God who either was insufficiently Omniscient to realize Evil was sneaking into His creation from just beyond Omnipresence OR a God who intentionally created Evil so that He could replace the Omnipotence of Unconditional Love with Conditional Love so that everyone could squabble about having special access to and knowledge of 'IT', like a buncha seagulls squabbling over garbage, like they do over at the Trucker-Tugger's, et al, in Da Dark.
Difference amidst Incommensurability is a problem.
We all have a sense of things we think are right and true AND most of us think and believe differently. So what are we to do about that? How do we live 'there'? Go to Love, or Go to War … or is there 'Other'.
The 'Other' might be some sorta middle way, where you at least dialogue (or attempt to create it), where attempting to understand the other position(s) is practiced however inadequately, to see if there is any way of living together. Any way other than 'playing' gawd and wiping the 'other' out … the Mono-partisan 'SOLUTION', of which the Nazi 'Solution' for Jews, Gypsies, the sick, etc., is just one example, as is all genocide.
If we are NOT Mono-Partisan AND yet still have convictions, then in that struggle, we are NOT being exclusionary and exclusion is simply a position for which genocide is just the logical extension.
I think that is the ultimate question, be it human, Christian, Islam, etc. ...
DO WE or DO WE NOT practice GENOCIDE in the face of DIFFERENCE?
Snerd
from "When Religion Looses Credibility" at, http://eruditeredneck.blogspot.com/
SG: I think you're on to something here, ER. However for me it is not the content of this issue (one's sexual orientation), which is the critical issue, it is the structure of the 'problem', of the 'mind' exposed by it, which is at the 'heart' of the 'crisis'.
It seems to me that those who profess to be Christians are essential one of two sorts. They are either focused on Love and it inclusiveness, or they are focused on Evil and its exclusion. The languaging of the former, of Love, is "We & Us". The language of the latter is "Them & Us".
Pointing the Love alternatives out to the "Them & Us" folks and suggesting the "We" alternative is not only more positive but more Christian, does not provide convincing evidence at all. Incommensurably, quite the contrary.
It seems to provide evidence that you are arguing for the inclusion of Evil … which 'they' claim to Hate, as an act of luvin' God … a God who either was insufficiently Omniscient to realize Evil was sneaking into His creation from just beyond Omnipresence OR a God who intentionally created Evil so that He could replace the Omnipotence of Unconditional Love with Conditional Love so that everyone could squabble about having special access to and knowledge of 'IT', like a buncha seagulls squabbling over garbage, like they do over at the Trucker-Tugger's, et al, in Da Dark.
Difference amidst Incommensurability is a problem.
We all have a sense of things we think are right and true AND most of us think and believe differently. So what are we to do about that? How do we live 'there'? Go to Love, or Go to War … or is there 'Other'.
The 'Other' might be some sorta middle way, where you at least dialogue (or attempt to create it), where attempting to understand the other position(s) is practiced however inadequately, to see if there is any way of living together. Any way other than 'playing' gawd and wiping the 'other' out … the Mono-partisan 'SOLUTION', of which the Nazi 'Solution' for Jews, Gypsies, the sick, etc., is just one example, as is all genocide.
If we are NOT Mono-Partisan AND yet still have convictions, then in that struggle, we are NOT being exclusionary and exclusion is simply a position for which genocide is just the logical extension.
I think that is the ultimate question, be it human, Christian, Islam, etc. ...
DO WE or DO WE NOT practice GENOCIDE in the face of DIFFERENCE?
Snerd
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Trucker-Tugger's FREE SPEAK ZONE
PART I: In the Cab - INT(R)A Trucker-Tugger
________________________________________
Trucker-Tugger: 'Dark Daddy, Snerd Gronk will never go away.
Interpretation: He engages in discussion
Trucker-Tugger: He will come back to your Blog as long as you argue with him,
Interpretation: Maybe you should start to think about banning him, like I did … so I don't look so bad
Trucker-Tugger: post a Doctoral thesis every time he logs on to your site.
Interpretation: You might have to read 'til your lips get tired and worser …T-H-I-N-K
Trucker-Tugger: and NEVER grasp a logical point, no matter what. He will twist your words, .
Interpretation: and makes me loose the argument and look stoopid
Trucker-Tugger: purposely misunderstand your position,
Interpretation: and makes me loose the argument and look stoopid
Trucker-Tugger: and ask you irrelevant questions,
Interpretation: and makes me look stoopid and weak 'cause I won't answer it
Trucker-Tugger: and redirect the arguement if you start to back him into a corner.
Interpretation: See! See the 'new-ants' ... I can make claims and don't have to be accountable for anything ... F-R-E-E SPEECH!!!
Trucker-Tugger: He, and those like him are the reason that I switched to Haloscan Commenting.
Interpretation: Yup! No more evidence ... 'Reality Based' discussion is for wimps! ... I can prove it!
PART II: On the big '10-4' CB - INTE(R) Trucker-Tugger
________________________________________
Trucker-Tugger: For an example of the Left's Idea of Bi-Partisanship, go to Snerd Gronk's Blog, and read the post with which he has chosen to honor me.
SG: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
One of the intentions of the Post, other than describe you ... accurately I think, and enjoy myself while doing so ... was to engage your Chickhawk, Chickeshit, 'discussion-dodging', ass.
SOOooooo .... 'Ah layed out a little bait, fir yah' ... for you cheesy tactics ... and to exposure the cou(R)age of f(R)ee speech zone, practitioners, such as yourself ... who limit freedom, while shamelessly claiming to be its guardians.
Oh! … And thanks for the Advert, there Tru-Tug. I hope people did come by …particularly as a result of your invitation.
Trucker-Tugger: And don't forget to read the comments.
SG: Geez there Tug, do you think anyone noticed that means I include them while you (R)edact or Ban comments!? … Oh the i(R)ony deficiency
Trucker-Tugger: He is co-opting your blog in order to spew his confusion,
INT(R)A Trucker-Tugger: So BAN him .... P-L-E-A-S-E !
Trucker-Tugger: because nobody reads his.
SG: ... YOU DID!
Snerd
________________________________________
Trucker-Tugger: 'Dark Daddy, Snerd Gronk will never go away.
Interpretation: He engages in discussion
Trucker-Tugger: He will come back to your Blog as long as you argue with him,
Interpretation: Maybe you should start to think about banning him, like I did … so I don't look so bad
Trucker-Tugger: post a Doctoral thesis every time he logs on to your site.
Interpretation: You might have to read 'til your lips get tired and worser …T-H-I-N-K
Trucker-Tugger: and NEVER grasp a logical point, no matter what. He will twist your words, .
Interpretation: and makes me loose the argument and look stoopid
Trucker-Tugger: purposely misunderstand your position,
Interpretation: and makes me loose the argument and look stoopid
Trucker-Tugger: and ask you irrelevant questions,
Interpretation: and makes me look stoopid and weak 'cause I won't answer it
Trucker-Tugger: and redirect the arguement if you start to back him into a corner.
Interpretation: See! See the 'new-ants' ... I can make claims and don't have to be accountable for anything ... F-R-E-E SPEECH!!!
Trucker-Tugger: He, and those like him are the reason that I switched to Haloscan Commenting.
Interpretation: Yup! No more evidence ... 'Reality Based' discussion is for wimps! ... I can prove it!
PART II: On the big '10-4' CB - INTE(R) Trucker-Tugger
________________________________________
Trucker-Tugger: For an example of the Left's Idea of Bi-Partisanship, go to Snerd Gronk's Blog, and read the post with which he has chosen to honor me.
SG: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
One of the intentions of the Post, other than describe you ... accurately I think, and enjoy myself while doing so ... was to engage your Chickhawk, Chickeshit, 'discussion-dodging', ass.
SOOooooo .... 'Ah layed out a little bait, fir yah' ... for you cheesy tactics ... and to exposure the cou(R)age of f(R)ee speech zone, practitioners, such as yourself ... who limit freedom, while shamelessly claiming to be its guardians.
Oh! … And thanks for the Advert, there Tru-Tug. I hope people did come by …particularly as a result of your invitation.
Trucker-Tugger: And don't forget to read the comments.
SG: Geez there Tug, do you think anyone noticed that means I include them while you (R)edact or Ban comments!? … Oh the i(R)ony deficiency
Trucker-Tugger: He is co-opting your blog in order to spew his confusion,
INT(R)A Trucker-Tugger: So BAN him .... P-L-E-A-S-E !
Trucker-Tugger: because nobody reads his.
SG: ... YOU DID!
Snerd
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Bi-pa(R)tisan-shit by Trucker-Tugger
Trucker-Tugger has run off the road … He's run aground … He's havin one of them patriarchal, chickenhawk, 'I'm-suppose-to-get-my-own-way', 2 year old, tantrums fits … (By the way he thinks 'patriarch' is a good thing, cause it sounds like 'patriot') …
Well, you be the judge, and see IF, Trucker-Tugger's "free-speech-is-okay-as-long-as-it-doesn't-say-what-I-don't-wanta-hear-and-especially-don't-make-me-look-stupid", 'Patriotic missive defense', on 'Mono-pa(R)tisan-ship' democracy, misses its target … again … and is sorta like a phantom hit.
I know, I almost got diverted with the 'Mono-pa(R)tisan, 'Homo-pa(R)tisan', conceptual possibilities - Mono (only one way) = Homo (of one kind) - but then I couldn't 'Stay the Coarse' with critiquing Trucker-Tugger's article, http://snipurl.com/12m5g, about why (R)z-cannot-be-bi-partisan-because-the-(D)z-have-demonstrated-they-are-not-because-they-won-the-election-and-are-going-to-oppose-the-president-with-oversight-SOooo-they-are-to-B-L-A-M-E-for-(R)z-not-bein'-bi-partisan … because-we-can't-be-because-of the-(D)z.
Granted, I was tempted … But IF I did fall prey to temptation, 'Herez how I woulda dun it'.
I'd have gone into one of them 'Pull-Off' lanes, like Trucker-Tugger shoulda', so I wouldn'ta got stuck in an emotive swamp somewhere, spinnin' my tires without an even keel, talkin' about all them Anti-Gay, Gay Republican Homo Phobes fallin' outta any ol' closet any y'all seem to walk 'bi' … Hell they're cummin' out walls where y'all didn't even think a closet waz, these dayz, makin' us all pretty 'hagga(R)d' lookin' … But I didn't say that. I made a life style choice, instead.
Anywayz if y'all are like Trucker-Tugger and you don't use a 'Pull Off' Lane, or Heave Two or drop anchor or whatever and C-H-I-L-L before getting' all jizzed up about the fall of … wait for it … Homo-pa(R)tisanship demo(R)acy … then y'all might end up w(R)ittin' sumthin' like he did …
Tru-Tug: B-I-P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N-S-H-I-P! That' Sleepin' with the Enemy!
SG: See, already he's spinning his wheels in gator crap or his keel's awash in gumbo or he's jibin' with all 18 wheels as he's jivin' ...
Tru-Tug: P-e-l-o-s-i!
R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-r
SG: Now he's gone and dun it …
See, No back an' forth stuff. Just 'full speed ahead' …
R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-r … "P-E-L-O-S-I".
See! He's all worked up ... She's like a 'liberal', and 'liberal' is 'Evil' … so that's 'Evil' personified idn it!? An' that thar is worser … an' thars proof … She a 'West Coast S-A-N F-R-A-N-S-I-C-I' liberal! How Un-Ame(R)ican American can you git!!!?
R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-r
Tru-Tug: Murtha is not the only crook that Pelosi has openly embraced ... [He's] the second most famous Un-Indicted Co-Conspiritor (sic-sic-sic) in History (The MOST famous was Richard Nixon) because of his entanglement in the ABSCAM Corruption and Bribery investigation … [Now there's] Alcee Hastings who was Impeached from the Federal Bench for accepting Bribes in 1992.
SG: See what Trucker-Tugger does NOT get is … by choosing the dirtiest liberals she can find, Pelosi IS trying to be bi-pa(R)tisan
Tru-Tug: There is no place for Moderates on either side. Not now. … [A] compromise with Wrong means accepting a degree of Wrong.
SG: Yes … And y'all know how brave, aging ChickenHawks 'is' when it cums to facing their enemy … their own fuck ups, I mean.
But to return to Trucker-Tugger's 'a(R)gument' about no place for Moderates on either side …
Tru-Tug: Murtha has been one of the most divisive figures in the History of American Politics. He is the poster boy for "Victory through Retreat" War strategy ... He has done everything he could think of to undermine the War effort, and continues to do so … Had he not turned State's Evidence, he would be in Prison … He [Hoyer] is far and away more desirable in that position than Murtha.
SG: As for Murtha being 'divisive' … y'all realize don't cha, he is a conservative (D), and wouldn't that make him a 'Ah am a uniter-not-a divider, divider', by definition?
But anywayz … weren't you just a-g-a-i-n-s-t moderation and desirability there Trucker-Tugger … Like y'all waz 'fir it before you waz agin it'?
Oooops!
Note to self: 'D-o , N-o-t , S-e-e-k , t-h-e , T-(R)-e-a-s-u-r-e'
… D-o N-o-t point out these 'lill' golden nuggets to 'brother' Trucker-Tugger, 'causin' y'all find 'thou art' banned …You know … the admit no w(R)ong thing … deny the evidence … (R)edact due to 'natu(R)al insecu(R)ity' …
Oh! And the Murtha'd be in prison 'ifn' he didn't get immunity for tellin' the truth … du you mean like A-B-R-A-H-A-M-O-F-F!?
Oooops! there I go again.
It's hard work havin' to play the 3-Monkey-Game-of-hide-the-t(R)uth so as y'all can talk to Trucker-Tugger
Anywayz … drop in and pay Trucker-Tugger a visit ifn y'all like coral-gumbo-swampwater-Gawd-gave-'US'-gunz-'n-shit-to-protect-'US'-from-our-enemies-other-wize-we-wouldn't-have-them-Soooo-that's-why-we-have-ta-kill-our-enemies ... err ... southern diss-cum-fort … Oh and he's got Kling-Ons 'two', so its even better
Be-four I go … Anti-Gay, Gay, Republican Homo Phobics …
Isn't that just the best oxym(R)on-mo(R)onicism ever!
Snerd
Well, you be the judge, and see IF, Trucker-Tugger's "free-speech-is-okay-as-long-as-it-doesn't-say-what-I-don't-wanta-hear-and-especially-don't-make-me-look-stupid", 'Patriotic missive defense', on 'Mono-pa(R)tisan-ship' democracy, misses its target … again … and is sorta like a phantom hit.
I know, I almost got diverted with the 'Mono-pa(R)tisan, 'Homo-pa(R)tisan', conceptual possibilities - Mono (only one way) = Homo (of one kind) - but then I couldn't 'Stay the Coarse' with critiquing Trucker-Tugger's article, http://snipurl.com/12m5g, about why (R)z-cannot-be-bi-partisan-because-the-(D)z-have-demonstrated-they-are-not-because-they-won-the-election-and-are-going-to-oppose-the-president-with-oversight-SOooo-they-are-to-B-L-A-M-E-for-(R)z-not-bein'-bi-partisan … because-we-can't-be-because-of the-(D)z.
Granted, I was tempted … But IF I did fall prey to temptation, 'Herez how I woulda dun it'.
I'd have gone into one of them 'Pull-Off' lanes, like Trucker-Tugger shoulda', so I wouldn'ta got stuck in an emotive swamp somewhere, spinnin' my tires without an even keel, talkin' about all them Anti-Gay, Gay Republican Homo Phobes fallin' outta any ol' closet any y'all seem to walk 'bi' … Hell they're cummin' out walls where y'all didn't even think a closet waz, these dayz, makin' us all pretty 'hagga(R)d' lookin' … But I didn't say that. I made a life style choice, instead.
Anywayz if y'all are like Trucker-Tugger and you don't use a 'Pull Off' Lane, or Heave Two or drop anchor or whatever and C-H-I-L-L before getting' all jizzed up about the fall of … wait for it … Homo-pa(R)tisanship demo(R)acy … then y'all might end up w(R)ittin' sumthin' like he did …
Tru-Tug: B-I-P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N-S-H-I-P! That' Sleepin' with the Enemy!
SG: See, already he's spinning his wheels in gator crap or his keel's awash in gumbo or he's jibin' with all 18 wheels as he's jivin' ...
Tru-Tug: P-e-l-o-s-i!
R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-r
SG: Now he's gone and dun it …
See, No back an' forth stuff. Just 'full speed ahead' …
R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-r … "P-E-L-O-S-I".
See! He's all worked up ... She's like a 'liberal', and 'liberal' is 'Evil' … so that's 'Evil' personified idn it!? An' that thar is worser … an' thars proof … She a 'West Coast S-A-N F-R-A-N-S-I-C-I' liberal! How Un-Ame(R)ican American can you git!!!?
R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-R-R-R-R-r-r-r-r
Tru-Tug: Murtha is not the only crook that Pelosi has openly embraced ... [He's] the second most famous Un-Indicted Co-Conspiritor (sic-sic-sic) in History (The MOST famous was Richard Nixon) because of his entanglement in the ABSCAM Corruption and Bribery investigation … [Now there's] Alcee Hastings who was Impeached from the Federal Bench for accepting Bribes in 1992.
SG: See what Trucker-Tugger does NOT get is … by choosing the dirtiest liberals she can find, Pelosi IS trying to be bi-pa(R)tisan
Tru-Tug: There is no place for Moderates on either side. Not now. … [A] compromise with Wrong means accepting a degree of Wrong.
SG: Yes … And y'all know how brave, aging ChickenHawks 'is' when it cums to facing their enemy … their own fuck ups, I mean.
But to return to Trucker-Tugger's 'a(R)gument' about no place for Moderates on either side …
Tru-Tug: Murtha has been one of the most divisive figures in the History of American Politics. He is the poster boy for "Victory through Retreat" War strategy ... He has done everything he could think of to undermine the War effort, and continues to do so … Had he not turned State's Evidence, he would be in Prison … He [Hoyer] is far and away more desirable in that position than Murtha.
SG: As for Murtha being 'divisive' … y'all realize don't cha, he is a conservative (D), and wouldn't that make him a 'Ah am a uniter-not-a divider, divider', by definition?
But anywayz … weren't you just a-g-a-i-n-s-t moderation and desirability there Trucker-Tugger … Like y'all waz 'fir it before you waz agin it'?
Oooops!
Note to self: 'D-o , N-o-t , S-e-e-k , t-h-e , T-(R)-e-a-s-u-r-e'
… D-o N-o-t point out these 'lill' golden nuggets to 'brother' Trucker-Tugger, 'causin' y'all find 'thou art' banned …You know … the admit no w(R)ong thing … deny the evidence … (R)edact due to 'natu(R)al insecu(R)ity' …
Oh! And the Murtha'd be in prison 'ifn' he didn't get immunity for tellin' the truth … du you mean like A-B-R-A-H-A-M-O-F-F!?
Oooops! there I go again.
It's hard work havin' to play the 3-Monkey-Game-of-hide-the-t(R)uth so as y'all can talk to Trucker-Tugger
Anywayz … drop in and pay Trucker-Tugger a visit ifn y'all like coral-gumbo-swampwater-Gawd-gave-'US'-gunz-'n-shit-to-protect-'US'-from-our-enemies-other-wize-we-wouldn't-have-them-Soooo-that's-why-we-have-ta-kill-our-enemies ... err ... southern diss-cum-fort … Oh and he's got Kling-Ons 'two', so its even better
Be-four I go … Anti-Gay, Gay, Republican Homo Phobics …
Isn't that just the best oxym(R)on-mo(R)onicism ever!
Snerd
Friday, November 17, 2006
Philosophy vs Ideology, excerpts from Bill Clinton ... and No Lie
Clinton: We believe in a politics as 'Common Good,' folks, dominated by evidence and argument. There is a big difference between a philosophy and an ideology, on the right or the left.
If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in a certain direction or another; but, like all philosophers, you want to engage in discussion, and argument. You are open to evidence, to new learning. And, you are certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy. Therefore, you might wind up making a principled agreement with someone with a different philosophy.
[…]
The problem with ideology is, if you got an ideology, you already got your mind made up; you know all the answers. And, that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time. So, you [use] assertion and attack.
The problem with that is that discourages thinking and gives you bad results.
[…]
[I]t's important to point out that if you are an ideologue, denial is an essential part of your political being. Whichever side … [I]f you are an ideologue, you got your mind made up. So when an inconvenient fact crops up, you have to be in denial.
[…]
[T]he ideologues, within the current government refer to people, not just like me, although I am included, but even moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Admiral Scowcroft, as somehow lesser political mortals, because we are trapped in, ‘The Reality-Based World.'
[…]
"And, and, what they mean by that, in fairness to them, what they mean by that is that we are an empire; we're the world's only military superpower, and that you can use power to change reality. And if you don't see that, then you'll always be condemning your country to a lesser status.
I, uh, when I was a kid, I grew up in an alcoholic home, I spent half my childhood trying to get into the ‘reality-based world' and I like it here."
SG: I find Clinton uplifting. I found Clinton's depictions of the (R)adical (R)epublican 'mind' accute, a disposition that is distinct from the conservative 'mind(s)'.
The (R) 'mind', which gave evidence of its shape when it engaged Radical Islamism with indifference, viewing it as something between a convenient excuse to enact a Neocon agenda, to a convenient target for Evil, again to use for their own political purposes, without ever engaing the 'actual' Radical Islamic 'mind' for anything of its intentions or designs - commonly referred to by the (R)z as 'an intelligence failure', but not in that order and not with themselves in mind.
Conversely, Clinton when talking of his Neocon opponents measures and gauges the heft of his quarry. His weapon, his mind, is well sited in. He understands the construct of the (R) mind as requiring a firm grasp of the known and hostile to discovery or even alternate possibilities. The plebian (R) mind when offered Rumsfeld's >known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, seem content to park themselves with the first option. As Alchemists, they prefer lead.
Clinton describes the elite (R) mind as one drawn by Power and a machismo fixated on its ability to over-write 'Reality'. Rove's ability to 'render' the Democrats rhetorically bound and mute for years, was an example of this power to trump the rules of Reason and Evidence. For Karl, 'nothing was written, until he wrote it himself'.
The (R) mind's ability to 'Wag the Dog' was a remarkable historical event, but only made remarkable by the Democratic Party's impotence in the face of MSM willingness to leave Rovian fiction not only unchallenged, but to treated it as de rigueur - the required attire. Clinton though, does not see this triumph of propaganda in anything more than something to be played out in traditional political contest terms, it seems.
Moreover, Clinton does not mention the influence of Leo Strauss on the neocon mind. Strauss asserted that modern liberalism contains a structure flaw, a structurally induced disintegration, relativism and nihilism. In its place Strauss offered 'noble lies' (as opposed to 'deadly truths') as a way to create social unity, meaning and stability. The combination of 'noble lies' and the 'Power to alter Reality', created I think, America's early 21st century flirtation with Fascism. Again, Clinton seems willing to simply treat this as just one of the political options, democratically offered for electoral selection.
Furthermore, I have always felt it necessary to 'deconstruct' (i.e. dismantle) the (R) mind, to show the empo(R)e(R) has no clothes, by demonstrating the reality of their fascism - demonstrate the actual threat they pose. Clinton seems to believe in a more traditional approach - the contest of ideas. He believes in the triumph of the Enlightenment, a belief for him that may be grounded in the bredth and scope of his own brilliant political abilities, but it is not a capacity possessed by others on the left.
This is a glaring omission on the left, with the potential for ominous consequences in the future. Liberalism has yet to come to grips with extremist, and with extremism's ability to destroy the center in any debate. This I fear is THE THREAT facing western democracy in the 21st century.
By contrast to this fear though, in the '06 elections, by simply abandoning the political stage to the (R)z, (D)z provided them the 'freedom' to implode. However, in spite of this recent (D) success, their lack of political ability to confront the forces of the 'noble lie', still stands as a worrying weakness. Were it not for a random and lucky "Macacca" and a timely 'Foley', I am not certain that we would have had sufficient ground swell, sufficient political pressure, for a tectonic shift to create the tsunami that finally brought Katrina Goverance to the shores of the RNC.
I may be quite wrong here though, for pollsters have said that the result of '06 pretty much reflected polls that had remaind consistent for some time before the election. I hope they are correct, because the Democratic Party did not confront and did not defeat Fascism in the arena of political debate, as Clinton would have us do it. In fact, if the (D)z had mounted an opposition to the 'noble lie(s)', it would have impaired their electoral outcome.
Cronism's inherent incompetence may be Fascism's intrinsic structural weakness. The (R)z colapsed because of the 'fruits' of this internal rot. Inspite of being propped up by MSM, the public was having nothing of it. In the final analysis, maybe it was the public that took the leadership role here.
Even though victorious here, they are still saddled with representation that clearly abandon them, on whichever side and for whatever reason. We know the Fascists are wounded, but we don't no know if there is sufficient force in the democratic institutions of early 21st century USA capable of repelling them, if circumstances change ... And circumstances change.
Snerd
If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in a certain direction or another; but, like all philosophers, you want to engage in discussion, and argument. You are open to evidence, to new learning. And, you are certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy. Therefore, you might wind up making a principled agreement with someone with a different philosophy.
[…]
The problem with ideology is, if you got an ideology, you already got your mind made up; you know all the answers. And, that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time. So, you [use] assertion and attack.
The problem with that is that discourages thinking and gives you bad results.
[…]
[I]t's important to point out that if you are an ideologue, denial is an essential part of your political being. Whichever side … [I]f you are an ideologue, you got your mind made up. So when an inconvenient fact crops up, you have to be in denial.
[…]
[T]he ideologues, within the current government refer to people, not just like me, although I am included, but even moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Admiral Scowcroft, as somehow lesser political mortals, because we are trapped in, ‘The Reality-Based World.'
[…]
"And, and, what they mean by that, in fairness to them, what they mean by that is that we are an empire; we're the world's only military superpower, and that you can use power to change reality. And if you don't see that, then you'll always be condemning your country to a lesser status.
I, uh, when I was a kid, I grew up in an alcoholic home, I spent half my childhood trying to get into the ‘reality-based world' and I like it here."
SG: I find Clinton uplifting. I found Clinton's depictions of the (R)adical (R)epublican 'mind' accute, a disposition that is distinct from the conservative 'mind(s)'.
The (R) 'mind', which gave evidence of its shape when it engaged Radical Islamism with indifference, viewing it as something between a convenient excuse to enact a Neocon agenda, to a convenient target for Evil, again to use for their own political purposes, without ever engaing the 'actual' Radical Islamic 'mind' for anything of its intentions or designs - commonly referred to by the (R)z as 'an intelligence failure', but not in that order and not with themselves in mind.
Conversely, Clinton when talking of his Neocon opponents measures and gauges the heft of his quarry. His weapon, his mind, is well sited in. He understands the construct of the (R) mind as requiring a firm grasp of the known and hostile to discovery or even alternate possibilities. The plebian (R) mind when offered Rumsfeld's >known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, seem content to park themselves with the first option. As Alchemists, they prefer lead.
Clinton describes the elite (R) mind as one drawn by Power and a machismo fixated on its ability to over-write 'Reality'. Rove's ability to 'render' the Democrats rhetorically bound and mute for years, was an example of this power to trump the rules of Reason and Evidence. For Karl, 'nothing was written, until he wrote it himself'.
The (R) mind's ability to 'Wag the Dog' was a remarkable historical event, but only made remarkable by the Democratic Party's impotence in the face of MSM willingness to leave Rovian fiction not only unchallenged, but to treated it as de rigueur - the required attire. Clinton though, does not see this triumph of propaganda in anything more than something to be played out in traditional political contest terms, it seems.
Moreover, Clinton does not mention the influence of Leo Strauss on the neocon mind. Strauss asserted that modern liberalism contains a structure flaw, a structurally induced disintegration, relativism and nihilism. In its place Strauss offered 'noble lies' (as opposed to 'deadly truths') as a way to create social unity, meaning and stability. The combination of 'noble lies' and the 'Power to alter Reality', created I think, America's early 21st century flirtation with Fascism. Again, Clinton seems willing to simply treat this as just one of the political options, democratically offered for electoral selection.
Furthermore, I have always felt it necessary to 'deconstruct' (i.e. dismantle) the (R) mind, to show the empo(R)e(R) has no clothes, by demonstrating the reality of their fascism - demonstrate the actual threat they pose. Clinton seems to believe in a more traditional approach - the contest of ideas. He believes in the triumph of the Enlightenment, a belief for him that may be grounded in the bredth and scope of his own brilliant political abilities, but it is not a capacity possessed by others on the left.
This is a glaring omission on the left, with the potential for ominous consequences in the future. Liberalism has yet to come to grips with extremist, and with extremism's ability to destroy the center in any debate. This I fear is THE THREAT facing western democracy in the 21st century.
By contrast to this fear though, in the '06 elections, by simply abandoning the political stage to the (R)z, (D)z provided them the 'freedom' to implode. However, in spite of this recent (D) success, their lack of political ability to confront the forces of the 'noble lie', still stands as a worrying weakness. Were it not for a random and lucky "Macacca" and a timely 'Foley', I am not certain that we would have had sufficient ground swell, sufficient political pressure, for a tectonic shift to create the tsunami that finally brought Katrina Goverance to the shores of the RNC.
I may be quite wrong here though, for pollsters have said that the result of '06 pretty much reflected polls that had remaind consistent for some time before the election. I hope they are correct, because the Democratic Party did not confront and did not defeat Fascism in the arena of political debate, as Clinton would have us do it. In fact, if the (D)z had mounted an opposition to the 'noble lie(s)', it would have impaired their electoral outcome.
Cronism's inherent incompetence may be Fascism's intrinsic structural weakness. The (R)z colapsed because of the 'fruits' of this internal rot. Inspite of being propped up by MSM, the public was having nothing of it. In the final analysis, maybe it was the public that took the leadership role here.
Even though victorious here, they are still saddled with representation that clearly abandon them, on whichever side and for whatever reason. We know the Fascists are wounded, but we don't no know if there is sufficient force in the democratic institutions of early 21st century USA capable of repelling them, if circumstances change ... And circumstances change.
Snerd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)